[Macworld]

Post your comments for Intel to detail eight-core Xeon processor here

[wbrock0011]

You say early 2009...does that mean this is what Apple is waiting for for the Mac Pro updates? So 16 cores may be in the running?

[heisetax]

Sounds like a possible choice for mid to upper level or upper level choicce.. Or as we have now, a single at the low end & dual at different speeds for the rest. There just can be so many models. The current 4 is 2 or 3 more than Apple likes to have.

[kinless]

I can already feel my current 8-core machine withering away into obscurity.

:)

[leicaman]

I will not even consider upgrading my 8-core monster. I will not even consider upgrading my 8-core monster. I will not even consider upgrading my 8-core monster... :p

[backtomacintosh]

For video encoding these machines will probably embarrass the current MPs.
Can't wait to see these get benchmarked.

[Ob_1]

But when will I see more programs that can use the 8-cores that I already have. Would 16-cores not just be a waste until then?

[OriginalMacRat]

Ob_1
Just about everything written for media is multi thread aware, especially if it uses the QuickTime API.
Also, how many apps do you run? Even if they are not threaded, that still leaves you a core for each app. :-)

[bladerunner009]

Of course you realize that if Apple were to go with dual 8-core machines, these chips are using Intel's hyperthreading technology which can handle two separate threads per core...so potentially you could be looking at a machine with 32 logical cores. (Of course whether they operate like 32 individual cores is another thing altogether) But being able to handle that many threads means that either thread-aware apps are gonna fly, or you'll be able to run multiple apps (providing you had sufficient memory) pretty darn fast.
Add to all of this the use of OpenCL in Snow Leopard which can offload some of the processing to the (mostly) dual-core video cards and you're looking at more backend number-crunching for intensive tasks as well (i.e. video encoding). No matter how you look at it, top-to-bottom, the new MPs are gonna fly...I just hope the price doesn't give me a reflex gag. (>$3000?)

[Ob_1]

Generally I find myself using the Adobe CS-4 products and they have been disappointing on 8-cores. Lightroom-2 seems OK but I really would like to see Photoshop take advantage of my 8-cores.

[k2director]

Though I would love to be wrong, something tells me we won't see two 8 core chips in a Mac Pro this time around. Intel also has yet to ship the new 4 core Xeon chips based on Nehalem, which the Mac Pro requires. I bet those chips will in the next Mac Pro, but not an 8 core chip. Just seems like going to 16 cores is too big a jump for Apple to make, especially since I think Intel's 8 core chip will be VERY VERY expensive.

Even with the new 4 core Xeons expected Q1 09, Mac Pro prices are likely to go up (the new Xeons coming this quarter, in 4 cores, are supposed to be more expensive than the current 4 core Xeons in the current Mac Pro) so expect to pay more than $3000. Possibly way more....

[XMattingly]

OOoooooWEEE! Sounds like we'll probably have some real buhweemoth's in the pipe line. Though, the real strength of the multiple cores won't really shine until sometime after 10.6 hits the market, and even then I'm hoping to see a quad core laptop hit the market.

[melgross]

Ok, here we go.

I would imagine that everyone has already heard of 10.6, aka Snow leopard?

Well, for those who haven't, as you seem not to have, there is this little thing that Apple developed called "Grand Central".

This software part of the OS does multi-core scheduling. In other words, it parallelizes the software. This isn't a be all, but it will make a big difference. We should see big speed advantages from this. This isn't to say that third party software companies won't have to do some work here, mostly, they will. But this makes much of it automatic, and therefor much easier.