Intel 3Ghz Quad Core CPU only for Apple?

[V8VENOM]

I couldn't find a single article on TG about this -- seems pretty odd that no one wants to talk about this exclusive deal between Intel and Apple for their top performing 3Ghz quad core CPU.

The rest of the PC (Microsoft humpers) grunts get stuck with the 2.66Ghz version. But there again, nothing on the Microshaft platforms can effectively use 8 cores anyway. But still, for TG "skip" this little factoid is pretty funny especially considering some of their more lame articles on TG.

Yeah, I know, Intel will be releasing higher speeds to the masses later on in the year. But still, the current top performing CPU running on a MacPro exclusively and no real mention of it??

http://news.softpedia.com/news/8-core-Mac-Pro-Uses-Special-3GHz-quad-core-Intel-Xeon-51423.shtml

Oh, and before you ask -- yes Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, and soon to be Final Cut Pro 2, and Shake 4, can a do make good use of as many processors as you can toss at them. So yes, I do use them and the more CPUs and the faster those CPUs, the sooner my rendering is done. Seems like Apple is THE ONLY choice for video/audio processing -- and who knows MS FSX SP1 claims 8 core support with incremental performance gains...yes that's a game! On a MacPro!

Rob.

 

[apt403]

Yeah, I've noticed that too. Heh, 3ghz quad xeon Mac Pros can be had for cheaper then their 2.66ghz PC conterparts. Something that happens very rarley in the world of Mac.

 

[SockPuppet]

I couldn't find a single article on TG about this -- seems pretty odd that no one wants to talk about this exclusive deal between Intel and Apple for their top performing 3Ghz quad core CPU.

The rest of the PC (Microsoft humpers) grunts get stuck with the 2.66Ghz version. But there again, nothing on the Microshaft platforms can effectively use 8 cores anyway. But still, for TG "skip" this little factoid is pretty funny especially considering some of their more lame articles on TG.

Yeah, I know, Intel will be releasing higher speeds to the masses later on in the year. But still, the current top performing CPU running on a MacPro exclusively and no real mention of it??

http://news.softpedia.com/news/8-core-Mac-Pro-Uses-Special-3GHz-quad-core-Intel-Xeon-51423.shtml

Oh, and before you ask -- yes Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, and soon to be Final Cut Pro 2, and Shake 4, can a do make good use of as many processors as you can toss at them. So yes, I do use them and the more CPUs and the faster those CPUs, the sooner my rendering is done. Seems like Apple is THE ONLY choice for video/audio processing -- and who knows MS FSX SP1 claims 8 core support with incremental performance gains...yes that's a game! On a MacPro!

Rob.

For right now, yes. 3gig quads are apple exclusive.

 

[weskurtz81]

No big deal to me really. Mac does not have much market share, and I doubt many companies will switch to MAC hardware just because they can get a setup that is clocked a little higher than current high end PC's. The reason Intel is probably doing it is because it's a very small market, not many people will be buying them, and they will not have a hard time binning these chips at that low of a demand. At any rate, you can configure a HP server system, similar specs to the Mac, with exception to the CPU(2.66), and it costs about $600 less. I don't know if the little bit extra performance is worth the $600 or not. But, if I were a company using PC's, I wouldn't switch to Macs because of this deal that won't be so exclusive a quarter or two. I don't know why Toms didn't write an article on it, but, it really doesn't seem to earth shattering to me. At the same time, there really hasn't been much in the way of news going on the past couple weeks, so they probably had plenty of time to throw a little article together for you Mac fanboys amongst us. It doesn't seem like they have been to pressed for time, with overclocking bacon sandwiches and all . It is funny that the bacon sandwich story popped up, but nothing on Apple.

wes

 

[V8VENOM]

Not sure where your comments about switching came from??

TG covers every other "top of the line" product on the market from Intel/AMD -- same with nVidia/ATI, regardless of market share. In fact, TG usually covers the topic before the grunts can actually buy the products.

I guess just more of TG humping Microsoft's leg.

 

[weskurtz81]

Gotcha, I perceived your post differently than you intended. I was looking at it in a PC v Mac way, not a TG think Microsoft>Mac way. I see now, and I would not be surprised. It doesn't seem like the report much that doesn't have to do with Microsoft(speaking strictly of topics in that realm). Sorry, understand what you are saying and agree with your point.

wes

 

[V8VENOM]

I personally would love to see some performance tests using products available for both WinXP/Vista and OSX -- like Adobe CS3 Extended. I would also like to see cross application/OS comparison tests:

Logic Pro 7.1 vs. Sonar 6 PE
Final Cut Studio (especially v2) vs. Adobe Studio suite
Shake vs. (whatever is available on the PC that has same capabilities)

time it takes upsample or downsample audio
Maximum number of virtual instruments
H.264 rendering
morph rendering
video file size limits (if any)
4GB vs 8GB vs 16GB
etc. etc.

I just don't see many benchmarks comparing the two -- sure the market share maybe small on both sides of the fence in this particular hardware arena but when has TG cared so much about that? This place has always been about Performance -- so why no meat articles to see who is da king for these types of tasks. There is life beyond just 3D twitching/gaming.

Some of us age with our hardware and 3D shooters just become one and the same and we move on to other things to explore beyond how good are my reflexes.

TG is happy to show gaming smack down, but when it comes to other apps nothing?! Void. Lets see which apps and OS can really put their top of the line hardware to good use -- lets see how well a 8 core 3Ghz Mac eats thru a render in FCP vs. an 8 core 2.66Ghz Vista Ultimate PC.

Is TG really doing it's job or just reporting all that is Microshaft? Market share be damn, hell only a very small fraction of people own an 8800GTX but it got premiere billing before it was released (and in SLI too).

 

[weskurtz81]

Now that you can run Windows and OSX on the same box, there are a whole slew of benchmarks you can do to really compare the two OS's. I would love to see them bench the hell out of them. And then put a hackintosh together and do it again. I have heard clowns try to say that OSX is faster because of the hardware(in this case it may be true). But, it's just OSX on PC hardware now, not really any difference. If it's faster, the OS will be what's making it faster. Am I off base here?

wes

 

[V8VENOM]

Couple of road blocks:

1. Boot Camp Beta 1.2 with WinXP will only support 2GB RAM - Vista 32bit will go upto 4GB, Vista 64 supports EFI so limited by whatever MS deem

2. EFI has to emulate a BIOS so you get a small layer there

To do fair comparisons you really should separate the best hardware you can get for the PC vs. the best hardware Apple offer.

In the case Apple will have a 0.33 Ghz advantage in CPU performance and a 1333Mhz FSB. You have to pick Vista Ultimate 64bit to get 8 core and more than 4GB RAM support.

Sonar 6 PE has a 64bit version -- however, finding good 64bit drivers for Vista will be a challenge espeically for higher end Audio equipment.

But since I've seen gaming comparisons made against the MacPro with an ATI X1900XT vs. an nVidia 8800GTX on the PC side (pretty obvious the winner there), it's clear many folks seem unconcerned with hardware differences. So lets put the best Apple have to offer vs. the best PC there is and see just how well the software and the OS's do on applications that aren't games (like those I listed). Also included overclocking on the PC side to see how it may or may not help the OS/apps.

And I'm not talking about ripping MP3s, I'm suggesting real audio processing at 96khz 24bit or higher.

The end of the day numbers would be interesting.

 

[Ranman68k]

I couldn't find a single article on TG about this -- seems pretty odd that no one wants to talk about this exclusive deal between Intel and Apple for their top performing 3Ghz quad core CPU.

Prepare to eat some crow...

just kidding

Here is a TG article dated 4 April 2007:
Apple Mac Pro gets a special Clovertown processor

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Couple of road blocks:

1. Boot Camp Beta 1.2 with WinXP will only support 2GB RAM - Vista 32bit will go upto 4GB, Vista 64 supports EFI so limited by whatever MS deem

2. EFI has to emulate a BIOS so you get a small layer there

To do fair comparisons you really should separate the best hardware you can get for the PC vs. the best hardware Apple offer.

In the case Apple will have a 0.33 Ghz advantage in CPU performance and a 1333Mhz FSB. You have to pick Vista Ultimate 64bit to get 8 core and more than 4GB RAM support.

Sonar 6 PE has a 64bit version -- however, finding good 64bit drivers for Vista will be a challenge espeically for higher end Audio equipment.

But since I've seen gaming comparisons made against the MacPro with an ATI X1900XT vs. an nVidia 8800GTX on the PC side (pretty obvious the winner there), it's clear many folks seem unconcerned with hardware differences. So lets put the best Apple have to offer vs. the best PC there is and see just how well the software and the OS's do on applications that aren't games (like those I listed). Also included overclocking on the PC side to see how it may or may not help the OS/apps.

And I'm not talking about ripping MP3s, I'm suggesting real audio processing at 96khz 24bit or higher.

The end of the day numbers would be interesting.

It's VERY temporary.

Intel is releasing a new Xeon 3GHz for the PC Server market soon. You see it's because Dell and HP haven't asked for one. Supply and Demand. Mac needs to try and on up PC's to remain alive. With soo little marketshare and soo little games and hardware built specifically for Macs , Mac users suffer from P3n!s envy and feel the need to go post on PC hardware sites anytime something goes their way.

Prepare to eat some crow...

just kidding

Here is a TG article dated 4 April 2007:
Apple Mac Pro gets a special Clovertown processor
_________________

Lol.. you sure showed him.

 

[SockPuppet]

Actually, the reason is because we have a very good working relationship with apple. They wanted a favor, and they got it.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Actually, the reason is because we have a very good working relationship with apple. They wanted a favor, and they got it.

And Dell would have gotten it had they not switched over to using AMD processors is my assumption.

 

[SockPuppet]

Well, you know what they say happens when you assume things. . .

This partnership with Apple is something that we've never done before. Dell has always wanted exclusive higher binnings and whatnot. Everyone does.

But now we share engineers between the two companies, interesting things are afoot.

 

[bydesign]

Why does it matter when you can buy a q6600 and overclock it well past 3Ghz for a 1/3 the cost. As stated before Mac's market share is so small it more of a marketing gimmick. While benchmarks would be interesting don't kid yourself into thinking that OS/App difference would be able to offset the power of overclocking.

So bring that V8 on my 1.3L needs a snack...

 

[SockPuppet]

Why does it matter when you can buy a q6600 and overclock it well past 3Ghz for a 1/3 the cost. As stated before Mac's market share is so small it more of a marketing gimmick. While benchmarks would be interesting don't kid yourself into thinking that OS/App difference would be able to offset the power of overclocking.

So bring that V8 on my 1.3L needs a snack...

There's always a bigger fish, grasshopper.

 

[MU_Engineer]

The rest of the PC (Microsoft humpers) grunts get stuck with the 2.66Ghz version. But there again, nothing on the Microshaft platforms can effectively use 8 cores anyway. But still, for TG "skip" this little factoid is pretty funny especially considering some of their more lame articles on TG.

If you are commenting on the not-so-hot ability of the average Windows XP/Vista installation to handle 8 cores, and few applications that can use them, then maybe you have a point. But if "Microsoft humpers" refers to ALL non-Apple x86 users, then you're full of **** as I've worked a tiny bit with a 512-CPU Dell x86 cluster running Linux and it worked beautifully.

Yeah, I know, Intel will be releasing higher speeds to the masses later on in the year. But still, the current top performing CPU running on a MacPro exclusively and no real mention of it??

http://news.softpedia.com/news/8-core-Mac-Pro-Uses-Special-3GHz-quad-core-Intel-Xeon-51423.shtml

The masses...heh. You really are in the RDF, aren't you? The CPU isn't seeing wide adoption because of a few reasons:

1. It runs hotter than the average blast furnace.
2. Yields suck and it's expensive because it's an absolute top-bin part.
3. The Xeon 5000 DP chips are much less of a joke than the previous Xeon DPs, but the Opterons still are the choice. Especially once you move on up to the Opteron 8200 series- 8 Opteron cores at the same clock speeds as 8 Xeon cores murder the Xeons. There is no replacement for bandwidth.
4. There is a new stepping coming that WILL be popular, as well as having a lower TDP and probably better yields.

Oh, and before you ask -- yes Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, and soon to be Final Cut Pro 2, and Shake 4, can a do make good use of as many processors as you can toss at them.

Mac guy: OMG, now I have cores! And Cool Sounding Pro iApps to use them! LOLZ!!!!
UNIX guy: [yawn] We've had them since Apples still had the rainbow-colored logo, green screens, and 5 1/4" floppies. [shakes head slowly] Kids...

So yes, I do use them and the more CPUs and the faster those CPUs, the sooner my rendering is done.

Wow, you can do math. Congratulations. Did you have to use iCalculator Pro to help you? :lol:

Seems like Apple is THE ONLY choice for video/audio processing

Mmm hmm. Not. First, you can work with audio and video on about any kind of computer. Secondly, an 8-core MacPro would get kicked around like an empty can in a schoolyard in massively multithreaded rendering by an 8-socket Opteron server and obliterated by real big-iron hardware from Sun, IBM, HP, SGI, or even Dell. None of which run Apple OSes.

...and who knows MS FSX SP1 claims 8 core support with incremental performance gains...yes that's a game! On a MacPro!

Wow, one game on a MacPro! Wow! You might just catch Linux in a decade at your current rate! And I'll bet it doesn't run on Windows...oh, wait, it runs better on Windows because Macintoshes don't support the fastest video cards due to the special ROM needed for them to work on a Mac.

 

[SockPuppet]

Tell me you didn't just boast about gaming on Linux. . .

 

[dasickninja]

Still better than gaming on a Mac...

 

[MU_Engineer]

It's called making fun of yourself to make a point. Gaming on Linux is pretty sparse, except if you like SNES emulators or 1980s-style arcade games. Those are a dime a dozen. But sophisticated games? There are pretty few, with half of them being Windows games that run under WINE. That's why the quip about Mac gaming was supposed to be funny.

 

[clue69less]

I personally would love to see some performance tests using products available for both WinXP/Vista and OSX -- like Adobe CS3 Extended.

I've been searching forums and have not been able to find even anecdotal info about a reasonable comparison. I've stopped in two Apple stores in hopes of finding an employee posessing a clue but no such luck. I get comments such as: "Like, well, a Mac is better for digital audio cuz, like Macs are optimized for audio and stuff." That discussion failed to provide adequate illumination.

 

[V8VENOM]

Well that's like going to CompUSA or Fry's electronics and asking for advice -- the guy/gal makes min wage maybe a little more, if they have "knowledge" they wouldn't be doing retail.

Ranman68k -- dang, and the search didn't find this on TG, so much for the search function. "8 core MacPro" -- still no performance comparisons -- ashamed to seeVista and/or XP crash an burn a death? Odd considering TG will post anything remotely better when applied to Microsoft humpers.

ElMoIsEvil - Temporary or not, why no performance tests by TG? Too busy with ads for Vista?

MU_Engineer - pearls of useless wisedom, great, now where is your 512 CPU Dell X86 cluster in the retail world, can I walk into Fry's and buy one for less than $4000? Yeah, runs hotter, tell me another one -- so where did you pull this from? Odd, they don't seem to generate any more noise than a 4 core at 3Ghz -- buy one or shut up or at least go use one. Yields suck, yeah ok, so you now work on Intel's production line (you get around). AMD humper. Yeah cool sounding apps used by cool sounding professionals that gave up on command line a long time ago because it's a waste of time and space -- but they probably make a lot more money than you do -- hollywood and all. More AMD humping, get over it, AMD are dieing a rapid death. Do you even know what a sub-pixel is? Google it.

No the FSX SP1 (due in May) that runs on WinXP or Vista that will support multiple cores -- but again I'm sure you knew that MacPro's run Vista and WinXP via boot camp right?? Go back to your command line, it's where you seem to work best.

Rob.

 

[weskurtz81]

V8Venom,

I would imagine they can pump out all the 3.0ghz quads they want, but, I bet they have a hard time getting them in the power envelope box makers want them in. It's basically 2 Conroes on one die, and they don't even sell a 3ghz Conroe atm. Yeah, the 6800 is close, but no cigar. I am sure they can make them all day long, but they probably can't get them all to run in the envelope they need to be in for heat and power usage purposes. Keep in mind, these are just my opinions, and I have no evidence to back them up other than what I see being sold currently and the power usage they list them with. And also, I wouldn't think selling these parts to Apple would be stressful on the fabs, since they probably aren't selling many of these in comparison to the windows/linux based server(Dell, HP, Sun etc).

But, as you stated, it is interesting the THG mentioned nothing of this, while, like I said, they post an article about OC'ing a bacon sandwich.

I don't really care for buying MAC's, mostly because of price, and lack of options. But, I do like the OS. I am also glad I can run OSX on my AMD based desktop. Kinda cool, I don't need to buy the Mac hardware, I will just build my own and drop OSX on my PC.

wes

 

[dragonsprayer]

I couldn't find a single article on TG about this -- seems pretty odd that no one wants to talk about this exclusive deal between Intel and Apple for their top performing 3Ghz quad core CPU.

The rest of the PC (Microsoft humpers) grunts get stuck with the 2.66Ghz version. But there again, nothing on the Microshaft platforms can effectively use 8 cores anyway. But still, for TG "skip" this little factoid is pretty funny especially considering some of their more lame articles on TG.

Yeah, I know, Intel will be releasing higher speeds to the masses later on in the year. But still, the current top performing CPU running on a MacPro exclusively and no real mention of it??

http://news.softpedia.com/news/8-core-Mac-Pro-Uses-Special-3GHz-quad-core-Intel-Xeon-51423.shtml

Oh, and before you ask -- yes Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, and soon to be Final Cut Pro 2, and Shake 4, can a do make good use of as many processors as you can toss at them. So yes, I do use them and the more CPUs and the faster those CPUs, the sooner my rendering is done. Seems like Apple is THE ONLY choice for video/audio processing -- and who knows MS FSX SP1 claims 8 core support with incremental performance gains...yes that's a game! On a MacPro!

Rob.

top performing is a 3.6ghz quad not a 3ghz - stuck with the 2.66> dude we run the the 2.4 at 3.4ghz!
apple rips people off (we know that) closed os- - so what else is new - apple suxs we all know that. sure a few hard core media and graphics peeps are stuck on the apple but we all new who rules! warpedsystems blow all apples out of the dunking barrel!

as far as the snake game your talking about - wow they finally made a game for an apple computer? i thought u guys had wait 3-4 years for steve jobs to code them in his black turtle nec.


"THE ONLY choice for video/audio processing " for a hard core is a 3.8ghz quad core water cooled - does steve make those>?

 

[SockPuppet]

It's called making fun of yourself to make a point. Gaming on Linux is pretty sparse, except if you like SNES emulators or 1980s-style arcade games. Those are a dime a dozen. But sophisticated games? There are pretty few, with half of them being Windows games that run under WINE. That's why the quip about Mac gaming was supposed to be funny.

I had it. Was a joke.

UT2k3 runs native just fine on my Ubuntu distro. Too bad more games aren't put out on Linux - or put out for Linux. . . as the capt would say.

It's honestly about the perfect OS for gamers. You have COMPLETE control over your systems, with a little work - its always fully optimised and no unneeded code left over. No bloatware, no hax0rs, no real headaches once you've learned what's up.

. . . And it's FREE!

now, we just need the games. . .