8 core Mac not really 8 core?

[darknessgp]

Ok, I was looking at this and I found something interesting. Although it's being marketed as "8 core" mac, it can be confusing. After looking at Apple's site I found this under tech specs - "Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5300 series processors"... That means that these are not true 8-cores, but just running dual quad-cores... in which case, it's great for people doing alot of multitasking, but hardly a revolutionary thing, in fact I would expect any computer maker with access to true quad-core cpus to be able to have a machine that runs two of them...

I was just wanting to somewhat clear the air, and ask you guys what you think about this? Is it going to be really useful when the majority of programs don't take advantage of multi threading even with only 2-core cpus?

[popltree2]

Originally Posted by darknessgp

Ok, I was looking at this and I found something interesting. Although it's being marketed as "8 core" mac, it can be confusing. After looking at Apple's site I found this under tech specs - "Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5300 series processors"... That means that these are not true 8-cores, but just running dual quad-cores... in which case, it's great for people doing alot of multitasking, but hardly a revolutionary thing, in fact I would expect any computer maker with access to true quad-core cpus to be able to have a machine that runs two of them...

I was just wanting to somewhat clear the air, and ask you guys what you think about this? Is it going to be really useful when the majority of programs don't take advantage of multi threading even with only 2-core cpus?

I agree. Dual cores? Great! Quad core? Cool! Octi-core? Ummm...sure. This seems like it would only be useful if a) the programs you are using are actually coded to utilize all 8 cores and b) you are doing some incredibly processor intensive tasks ie video encoding/transcoding. This seems like Apple just trying to throw something out into the market rather than actually coming up with a legitimate upgrade.

[godlesswanderer]

Yeah, it seems more of a "Look what we did! How cool are we?" kind of deal.

[scottyneox38]

8 individual cores setup as dual quad cores, simple?

[lindqvist]

Originally Posted by darknessgp

Ok, I was looking at this and I found something interesting. Although it's being marketed as "8 core" mac, it can be confusing. After looking at Apple's site I found this under tech specs - "Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5300 series processors"... That means that these are not true 8-cores, but just running dual quad-cores... in which case, it's great for people doing alot of multitasking, but hardly a revolutionary thing, in fact I would expect any computer maker with access to true quad-core cpus to be able to have a machine that runs two of them...

I was just wanting to somewhat clear the air, and ask you guys what you think about this? Is it going to be really useful when the majority of programs don't take advantage of multi threading even with only 2-core cpus?

Did anyone even claim that it's revolutionary? I've just seen it as a pretty maxed out system. And it does have 8 cores, there's no arguing that.

Also, the Mac Pro in general is supposed to be more of a workstation class machine, isn't it? I think that there might very well be situations where you can benefit from 8 cores in such an environment.

For general desktop use, it's most definitely useless at this point, though.

[devduggit]

This could be grounds for some good research.

Does current hardware delegate tasks to two sockets effectively?
I'm inclined to say it depends of operating system/programs. I know Windows 2000 and XP pro support up to two physical sockets, however, as far as I know usually only one processor is utilized effetively.In regards to OS X or Linux, I don't know.

If so, then can it delegate each set of tasks into four smaller tasks (to fully utilize four cores)?
Seeing as many operating systems and software developers are having a difficult time implementing dual cores, it's probably safe to say that it won't.

[darknessgp]

lindqvist, Apple is somewhat claiming it to maybe not be revolutionary, but definately like a "look what we did" From apple's page about the new machine - "The world’s first 3.0GHz, 8-core Intel Xeon-based Mac Pro." If that is all you read you'd think that it was 1 cpu with 8 cores. To me it seems like they are purposefully being somewhat vague so that it seems like they are claiming the first 8-core cpu.

on a side note, Kevin must want a monster of a machine for 8 grand as the price difference isn't that big...

An 8-core system (two 3.0GHz Quad-Core processors) with all default settings except processor (1gb ram, 250gb hdd, GeForce 7300 GT) costs $3,997.00.
A 4-core system (two 3.0GHz Dual-Core) with the same settings costs $3,298.00
A 4-core system (two 2.0GHz Dual-Core) with the same settings costs $2,200.00

[lindqvist]

Originally Posted by darknessgp

lindqvist, Apple is somewhat claiming it to maybe not be revolutionary, but definately like a "look what we did" From apple's page about the new machine - "The world’s first 3.0GHz, 8-core Intel Xeon-based Mac Pro." If that is all you read you'd think that it was 1 cpu with 8 cores. To me it seems like they are purposefully being somewhat vague so that it seems like they are claiming the first 8-core cpu.

on a side note, Kevin must want a monster of a machine for 8 grand as the price difference isn't that big...

An 8-core system (two 3.0GHz Quad-Core processors) with all default settings except processor (1gb ram, 250gb hdd, GeForce 7300 GT) costs $3,997.00.
A 4-core system (two 3.0GHz Dual-Core) with the same settings costs $3,298.00
A 4-core system (two 2.0GHz Dual-Core) with the same settings costs $2,200.00

I have to say that while not revolutionary, their 8-core (2x 4-core) 3GHz setup is pretty impressive...

Sure, they don't make it entirely clear in the headlines that it's 2x quad core, but they don't hide it in fine print on the backside of the webpage or anything either... On the main Mac Pro page the second paragraph starts with "Opt for the 8-core Mac Pro and you get the power of two Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Clovertown” processors running at 3.0GHz.", so I think that they're actually handling it pretty reasonably considering that the machine has 8 cores and thereby is an 8-core machine (even though those cores are spread over 2 separate chips).

I have a couple of the aforesaid Dell dual-quad-cores (I ditched some Mac Pro quad-cores recently) and for regular stuff, it's slightly depressing how little the cores to get used. I have some stuff which actually does use all 8 cores and that speeds things up by quite a lot - but as several articles have pointed out, the real sticking point is the memory and the subsystems and how they interact with the two processor sockets when those sockets are both running quad-core.

[tokenuser]

Originally Posted by darknessgp

Ok, I was looking at this and I found something interesting. Although it's being marketed as "8 core" mac, it can be confusing.

I think you need to learn the difference between a core and a cpu. Nothing confusing at all (except for Mac users ).

The only unique part about these boxes is that they use 3.0GHz chips - and have an exclusive arrangement with Intel on these (at least initially).

Having said that, Dell also sell an 8 Core Workstation class server (with a better graphics card - suited to CAD/CAM work), and for about $1500 less I could build you one with parts from NewEgg (except for those pesky "Apple Exclusive" 3.0GHz speed chips).

There are a lot of tricks and traps to writing apps that will take advantage of the multiple core architecture though. But, even if you are running an app that is not multithreaded, one core can run the OS (in reality, the OS is multithreaded - so it runs on all cores anyway), another your data base (ditto on multithreading), another your IDE, another your compiler, another your video editor, and another your rendering engine. That leave one to run your widgets, and another for IM.

Finally Mac users can get some useful work done