# 8-Core Mac Pro coming?



## bbloke (Mar 12, 2007)

MacRumors.com carries a story that searching the UK Apple Store threw up a hint that Mac Pros will be available in quad-core and 8-core configurations.  They have a screenshot within the article (or: direct link to image).

The UK Apple Store seems to be down at the moment.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Mar 12, 2007)

anyone care to drop me a few grand?


----------



## bbloke (Mar 12, 2007)

Lt Major Burns said:


> anyone care to drop me a few grand?


Err, if anyone does... mind if I borrow a little?  The supermarket voucher scheme, "Computers for Bblokes," takes aaaaages...


----------



## Damrod (Mar 13, 2007)

Would feed the roumors that some products are to be overhauled during March. The price should be interesting...


----------



## MacFreak (Mar 17, 2007)

I believe so will happen by that time MacBook Pro will get Quad. (evil sounds) hehehe


----------



## Qion (Mar 17, 2007)

MacFreak said:


> I believe so will happen by that time MacBook Pro will get Quad. (evil sounds) hehehe



...now with up to _50 minutes_ of battery life!


----------



## nixgeek (Mar 17, 2007)

The Core 2 Quad as it stands now is not very power-efficient compared to the Core 2 Duo.  This is mainly because the Core 2 Quad is designed in the same way the Pentium D was: 2 processors sandwiched together.  In the Core 2 Quad's case, it's basically two Core 2 Duos sandwiched together, effectively giving you two dual core CPUs, aka "quad core".  Because of this, it's not very efficient when it comes to power savings.

However, I'm sure this will change once Intel comes out with their true quad-core CPU, in which that the die will have 4 cores....not 2 dies with 2 cores each.  When this true quad core comes out probably later this year, we might see some mobile versions that would be more power-efficient, thereby possibly making their way to the MacBooks and MacBook Pros.


----------



## Qion (Mar 17, 2007)

nixgeek said:


> The Core 2 Quad as it stands now is not very power-efficient compared to the Core 2 Duo.  This is mainly because the Core 2 Quad is designed in the same way the Pentium D was: 2 processors sandwiched together.  In the Core 2 Quad's case, it's basically two Core 2 Duos sandwiched together, effectively giving you two dual core CPUs, aka "quad core".  Because of this, it's not very efficient when it comes to power savings.
> 
> However, I'm sure this will change once Intel comes out with their true quad-core CPU, in which that the die will have 4 cores....not 2 dies with 2 cores each.  When this true quad core comes out probably later this year, we might see some mobile versions that would be more power-efficient, thereby possibly making their way to the MacBooks and MacBook Pros.



Although I was too lazy to express it, these were my thoughts precisely.


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 18, 2007)

Well my new Mac buy (Mac Pro) comes some time this year it will be the hopeful new Mac Pro that is suppose to come out sometime this year. The only thing I am hesitant about a new Mac Pro is that darn expense RAM.


----------



## bobw (Mar 18, 2007)

OWC has lowered their ram prices a couple of times.


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 18, 2007)

Yea I guy from them all my Ram. I am saying the general Mac Pro Ram prices are way more then Ram for older Mac machines.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Mar 18, 2007)

can you not stick the slower ram from your G5 in there?  jumping from 7gb down to 1 or 2 is going to hit you...


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Mar 19, 2007)

I really would like a Mac Pro, but I'm holding on just a little while longer until I can get it with Leopard. RAM is pricey, but I'm going to start out with 4GB(2x2GB). Cheapest I've seen was about $613US after rebate. 
I wish they'd release it alongside Apple TV this Tuesday, but it's becoming more likely that new Mac Pros may be announced just before or at the NAB.


----------



## Captain Code (Mar 25, 2007)

Lt Major Burns said:


> can you not stick the slower ram from your G5 in there?  jumping from 7gb down to 1 or 2 is going to hit you...



The ram for the PowerMac G5 and Mac Pro are different, not compatible.


----------



## bobw (Mar 25, 2007)

4.0GB OWC Matched Set (2GB x 2) $549.99


4.0GB OWC Matched Set (1GB x 4) $499.00


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 25, 2007)

bobw said:


> 4.0GB OWC Matched Set (2GB x 2) $549.99
> 
> 
> 4.0GB OWC Matched Set (1GB x 4) $499.00



Bob you just proved my earlier point about RAM prices. Take this OWC RAM for G5 PowerMacs. Sure it is only 2G but for 2 to make 4G the price is so much cheaper. It all boils down to Apple decision to use server style RAM in Mac Pros.


----------



## Captain Code (Mar 25, 2007)

Yeah, the MacPro is fully buffered and ECC meaning it's a little slower than usual desktop RAM.  But, did they have to use that RAM since it's a Xeon or are Xeons compatible with non ECC non buffered RAM?


----------



## MacFreak (Mar 26, 2007)

ECC effect speed very very little. Its unnoticeable..  I rather ECC than Non ECC.


----------



## Captain Code (Mar 26, 2007)

They must have improved it then because I'm sure it used to be noticeabley slower.  However it's really good they do have it when you think about it because you are pretty much guaranteed any scientific simulations you do for example are correct.


----------



## MacFreak (Mar 27, 2007)

I just wondering if MacPro 8 cores with 64 bits. Are we able to install Vista or XP with 64 bits on MacPro? Also, will it work with any program since it have 8 cores?


----------



## nixgeek (Mar 27, 2007)

MacFreak said:


> I just wondering if MacPro 8 cores with 64 bits. Are we able to install Vista or XP with 64 bits on MacPro? Also, will it work with any program since it have 8 cores?



Well, the Xeons that are in the current Mac Pro are derivatives of the Core 2 Duo, and those are 64-bit so I imagine that it would be the case.


----------



## hawki18 (Mar 27, 2007)

See below


----------



## hawki18 (Mar 27, 2007)

I  wish they would not use misleading names, putting  4 dual core in one machine does not make a 8 core computer. Yes you have 8 cores to work with but it not a true 8 core.  It will be late this summer or maybe early fall before we even see true quad cores on the same chip.


----------



## nixgeek (Mar 27, 2007)

hawki18 said:


> I  wish they would not use misleading names, putting  4 dual core in one machine does not make a 8 core computer. Yes you have 8 cores to work with but it not a true 8 core.  It will be late this summer or maybe early fall before we even see true quad cores on the same chip.



That's exactly how I feel about the whole thing.  It's pure marketing when they call it an 8-core Mac when in fact it's 4 cores x 2.  That's like calling the Pentium D a true dual core CPU when it was actually two Pentium 4 chips sandwiched together.


----------



## hawki18 (Mar 28, 2007)

MacFreak said:


> I just wondering if MacPro 8 cores with 64 bits. Are we able to install Vista or XP with 64 bits on MacPro? Also, will it work with any program since it have 8 cores?



The xeon and Core2Duo are 64 bit capable chips


----------



## MacFreak (Mar 30, 2007)

MacOS X 10.4.9 is not native 64 bits yet. Anyway, I am surpised to see that Apple update bootcamp 1.2 only allow us to run Vista with 32bits not 64bits. Sucks!~


----------



## hawki18 (Mar 30, 2007)

MacFreak said:


> MacOS X 10.4.9 is not native 64 bits yet. Anyway, I am surpised to see that Apple update bootcamp 1.2 only allow us to run Vista with 32bits not 64bits. Sucks!~



I agree with you all the new Intel chips are 64 bit chips.  OS 10.5 will be 64 bit so why not let us run Vista 64, does not make much since.


----------



## Mikuro (Mar 30, 2007)

hawki18 said:


> I agree with you all the new Intel chips are 64 bit chips.  OS 10.5 will be 64 bit so why not let us run Vista 64, does not make much since.


I think 64-bit Vista requires different BIOS, so maybe Apple has simply not finished creating/testing their workaround for that. It's not too surprising that they got 32-bit Vista working first, since it's more similar to XP, and I see nothing wrong with releasing an update with only 32-bit Vista support if the alternative is withholding even _that_ for another month or two while they finish up 64-bit support.


----------

