Apple Mac Pros: now with 8-cores
By Thomas Ricker 
posted April 4th 2007 8:41AM
posted April 4th 2007 8:41AM
So long Woodcrest, hello Covertown! Rumored since October, Apple finally got around to loosing an octo-core Mac Pro -- that's 8-cores of Intel processing power spread across 2 of Intel's latest Clovertown quad-core chips. Arriving just in time for Adobe's Intel optimized Creative Suite 3.0. Quad-core models are still available with processor speeds maxing out at 3GHz. Prices start at $2,499 for 2.66GHz quad-core action or tack on an additional $1,498 for a total of 8-cores running at 3GHz. Shipping now -- hoozah!
You should probably also know that OSX was nearly a pure rip off of BSD itself, so your argument pretty much goes right out the door.
But it's like you said, "copying is the sincerest form of flattery."
LOL... OS X is based on BSD and FreeBSD for its kernel, not for it's GUI. And, it has NEVER been denied. In point of fact, on the OS X product page it explicitly calls out the OSes "Unix foundations".
As for the GUI that is Mac OS X, that is a continuation of NeXT and BeOS. NeXT being the software that Steve Jobs was working on while he was not with Apple in the mid-90s.
Please don't speak from ignorance.
Because there aren't that much good software for a Mac.
On a pc there is a lot of free programs, on the mac you have to buy it all, and the programs are not as well done. And you can't play most games on a mac.
"Actually the OS can only send a full program over to each core. That means if you are using a program that doesn't take advantage of multithreading, you have 7 wasted cores."
Not true. The OS itself has many processes & threads running that are part of the core OS, distributed among the available processors. Also, most libraries provided by the OS are multithreaded so if an app uses them they'll benefit from extra cores.
Of course, you won't see a big difference if all you use is Word, but anything "heavy" is more than likely already multiprocessor aware, since a large number of Mac models have had multiprocessors/multicores for several years now.
"Also, most libraries provided by the OS are multithreaded so if an app uses them they'll benefit from extra cores."
Ok so they did specifically program the code to be multithreaded but they are taking advantage of some multithreading features. It still comes down to the program being properly written.
Oh, and stop bashing the PS3. It does qualify as a budget super computer.
See for yourself as it continues to PWN the Folding@Home TerraFlops.
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=osstats
How are those Macs doing? Yea thought so ;^)...
Here's just a few, now STFU
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2003/10/60821
http://news.com.com/2100-1008_3-5095026.html
http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/bowiestate/
I really have to disagree with you on your thought that there is a lack of software for OS X and I don't know which Apps you run on your PC that are designed better than OS X Apps, but On the whole I, and I think many others, would say the best in class Apps exist on OS X, not the most Apps, but design wise OS X has the upperhand. It has been said many times by many people befor and I will say it again 95% of the software that is avalible for the PC I wouldn't ever put on any computer, never mind Mac. In other words 95% of all the software that you claim is avalible for your PC I wouldn't want anyway either because it doesn't work, is designed poorly, or just plain blows. So take away that 95% and you are left with the 5% of great Apps that are avalible for both platforms. And as I said before if I realy want to play a game I will boot into Windows on my Mac to do so. I really don't understand you. You said I don't have many games avalible to me on OS X, that may be true, but, I can use Windows for that function on my Mac whenever I feel like it, and the best part about that is, when I'm done playing whatever game I choose to play on my limtied "OS X", "Windows whatever", or "any other OS I choose to put on it" Mac, I'm not stuck with that hellish OS called Windows the next time I boot up. So if I were you I wouldn't be calling anything I use limited.
there are alot of free apps for macs and there are plenty of ways to get apps to be free for macs.. just like windows.. If you dont like OSX or Mac then fine thats your choice.. but like dozx said.. a windows pc can run anything but osx... a mac can run all the same stuff... and then still be able to use mac only programs like Final Cut Pro HD/Shake/Motion/DVD Studio Pro.. sure there are competitors out there like After Effects/Premier/Combustion.. but Premier is crap compared to FCP.. maybe you could battle AVID vs. FCP but both can be run on a Mac. And since this is a PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTION quality machine and not a gaming machine i dont get the point of talking about gaming. Yes it can be used for gaming and it will work very well.. and sure you would wanna run Windows for that.
Personally, I've found that the free software available for the mac is better than for windows. You can get a lot of crappy programs free for windows, but you can get an excellent program for free for the mac. It's actually a selling point for me for the mac. Try to find a free windows program that can replicate what Handbrake does.
How sad.
For all you moaners complaining about the price, a) its not aimed at you. Its aimed at high-end graphics pros and video editors.
b) The faster Mac Pro is $1500 CHEAPER than the equivalent DELL:
3GHz 8-core Mac Pro with 2GB RAM, 250GB Hard Drive, 256MB Video Card, CD-RW/DVD etc etc
$4296
2.66GHz 8-core DELL Workstation, same spec as above (ie. no monitor, no floppy).
$5756
I wonder why they are releasing this now quietly and not at NAB? Surely this would make a good "Pro" announcement like they normally do. Must be going to be something else announced then.
32bit 1080 renders.... meet the computer that's gonna bitch slap you.
To The Engineering Student & @ph,
All Intel-processor-equipped Macs can run XP and now, Vista (Natively!)- Apple updated their Boot Camp software last week, adding Vista Support. Of course, those with Parallels software installed can run Win 98 Vista, and other x86 OS's...
Miles
They also dropped the 160 GB hard drive option for Bay 1.
@The Engineering Student
here, here, I agree with you a 100% but you must know that the last update to bootcamp does infact give you the ability to run Vista. Just wanted to keep you current, Vista is already running on Macs. I guess for "ph" ignorance is bliss.
@dozx
Thank you! Good to know. People like you are the reason I love reading Engadget; every time I come to this site, I learn something new.
Oh stop it PH. I doubt if the 360 could fold for 2 days without overheating. Have you seen the genius inside the PS3?
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2006/1111/ps3.htm
That Blower, heat sink and pipe cooling block design is,well, Brilliant!! You go now :^)...
What is one going to do with all those cores? Virtual Machines, of course. Serve a separate VM over VNC to a few lightweight machines around...
The problem is only 16GB of RAM...
Yeah, but will it run Doom? ;-p
(sorry - couldn't resist!)
"Yeah, but will it run Doom? ;-p"
What I'm wondering is if you can install Parallels with Win XP Pro and then run the free version of Virtual PC inside of XP, emulating a DOS 6.22 installation? Would the performance suck, or would it be playable (it's only emulating a 486, after all).
I actually have a VPC Win for Workgroups 3.11 image on my hard drive that has the Doom demo installed. I really need to upgrade my Powerbook at a MacBook and see if it works.
Oh, and those of you wondering what normal person needs octo-core goodness are kind of missing the point of the Mac Pro. It is a freakin' $3500 high end graphics workstation designed to power through Adobe CS3 Suite, Final Cut Pro, Motion and Shake. Like all graphics apps, these apps are very multithreaded (since graphics and video work is the the easiest to slipt up into parallel threads). If you aren't already trying to convince your boss (or yourself) of the ROI garnered from the time savings and productivity increases you can get by going octo-core, you simply don't need a Mac Pro.
"I'm forced to support Vista on campus, and - trust me - i have intimate knowledge of it. "
You've got intimate knowledge of your lack of honesty only.
Lying piece of dung.
Next time claim to support Vienna, you'll get as much credibility.
Not to be a Microsoft fanboy or anything... but I think this is ridiculous how you guys are arguing. Personally I hate apple more than anything due to the os and proprietary hardware. I build all of my pc's and for all of you apple fanboys who think gaming is just as good on a mac, then go build the same pc except with an 8800 in it and compare. There no shutup about gaming on mac. I will admit that the 8 cores of the mac is pretty cool but I will also say that the ps3 is not really anything to compare to a mac. It's a GAME CONSOLE not a COMPUTER. It may have hardware like a computer but the two simply cannot be compared. So for all of you peeps who think that this is a better value then go build your own pc with the same hardware and compare the price. ;-)
So...1 dual proc xeon server board & 2 clovertown procs @ 3ghz all in a sick aluminum case with huge airflow and awesome cooling.
I would love to see a wishlist from newegg.com for a 1-stop shopping excursion to beat the price.
Jake, your post boils down to:
1. PCs are soooo much better than Macs for playing games.
2. You can't bring the PS3 into this because it's for playing games.
Nicely done.
oh and btw, don't go screaming fanboy at me, i don't use windows or osx.
Looks like apple Effed up their religious holidays because they are celebrating Christmas during easter.
oh yeah! giggity giggity...
The PS3 can run Linux and any number of real applications as well of course!
Covertown?
Wow. Dude. You are dumb... The PS3's cell processor has two cores TOTAL. That adds up to a total of 3.2GHz. The PS3 has 1 physical processor with divided into 8 cells. The main "cell" is PPE while 6 of the other "cells" are SPE. There is a 7th "cell that basically sits there dormant. I hate Macs, but you can't even compare the processor of the PS3 to that of a PC. Believe it or not, the PS3 processor is about the equivalent to a Pentium 2 or 3 processor. The reason this is so, is because the PS3 (along with all other gaming console processors) is an in-order execution processor. This means that the PS3 processes incoming functions in order in which it is received, dramatically reducing power, but increasing cost efficiency. PCs on the other hand have out-of-order execution processors allowing them to do many, MANY more things than any console processor out there. This new 8 core Mac is about the equivalent of 15-16 PS3 cell processors.
So how about you research before you take a dump out of your mouth.
About this whole Linux thing. Ugh. That could not be any more useless. Your PS3 already has a hard enough time trying to use the standard Cross Menu, why fudge it up even more?
I'm not Mac fanboy (as a matter of fact, I despise them), but this thing totally kills everything out there as far as brute power goes.
@ Zeus the God
I'm with you on everything you stated. Really there is no comparison here. The fact is that even if the PS3 is all they say it is, it would never ever hold a candle to this Mac and wouldn't even be considered for Pros in fields such as Animation, Graphic design, rendering, and Music. No matter how you present it, it will always be considered a gaming device, not a computer for high end pros which is exactly the user this Mac is targeted at. My statements also apply to all the people out there asking what would you need 8 cores for, well..... Pro Apps need that kind of hours power. In there world time is money. This Mac is not for your average consumer. I am not here saying Macs are the best, although I do prefer them, in this case Zeus the God is absolutely correct, this Mac is very impressive. I also hear comments about the price, once again, yeah it is high for consumers but not for big companies and development teams that need this kind of power. I use Macs, but don't hate PCs. They both have their positive and negative points.
very nice! I thank you for doing your research! =) but some read links would be nice... not saying I dont believe you, I just would like to read your sources, scott
Don't even mention the PS3's tiny 512Kb L2 cache compared to this Mac's 1-2Mb L2 cache.
NOW if only I wasn't a high school sutdent and actually made some money. Now way my parents would get me this baby with the intel imac I already have. Hm, but by the time i;m in college or something, this may be cheaper.
For everyone that says Macs use proprietary hardware, that couldn't be further from the truth. They use the EFI Firmware from Intel, which Microsoft was originally going to use in Vista, but decided to scrap it due to PC manufacturers staying with the legacy BIOS technolgoy. Their processors are the same architecture as PC's as is their RAM, video cards and upgrade cards. Even their hard drives and optical drives use SATA and PATA.
As far as applications go, Macs have some of the best freeware out there due to its ease of development with xCode and the Cocoa API. Plus, Apple has very strict UI guidelines (depending on which one you choose: Aqua, Brushed Steel or the new iTunes), which Windows doesn't have. Every app for Windows has its own set of user interface guidelines, which translates to an experience that is never the same from application to application.
Besides the amazing developer support for Macs, they can also run Linux apps natively through X11 and Windows XP and Vista through Parallels and Boot Camp.
I think 90% of these comments are completely uneducated, unresearched and just plain ignorant.
does any one know how the Cell Engine Works? it is clocked at 3.2 ghz, which means it runs 3,200,000,000 cycles per second. the Octo-mac is at a comparable 3ghz. but the CBE has a Power Processor and 7 Secondary Procs. on the the PPE can run 2 threads at once, while the other seven are only one set of calcs at a time. Also the PPE is used to control the others, so they cannot all run at once. you get either 2 threads on one or one thread on seven. also one of the processors on the ps3 is dedicated to run the os, so it cant be used for physics or ai. the macs 8 cores compared to 7 is almost cancelled out byt the fact that is runs at a slightly slower speed. but hey isnt that why overclocking was invented?
that was a little bit of a delayed response...
and anyway, wtf are you talking about? who are you?
I support faculty and staff at my university, and constantly have to support Vista. if you want to pretend that it's not the case, be my guest. ...just don't call me a liar.