See the Apple website. 3-5 days lead time for the eight-core 3GHz version.

On 04.04.2007, at 19:50, Dave Katz wrote: > See the Apple website. 3-5 days lead time for the eight-core 3GHz > version. I like the drive bays but for the cores I'll wait until they are at 128 ;-) ___ Peter Ostry

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Peter Ostry <po@...> wrote: > > On 04.04.2007, at 19:50, Dave Katz wrote: > > > See the Apple website. 3-5 days lead time for the eight-core 3GHz > > version. > > I like the drive bays but for the cores I'll wait until they are at > 128 ;-) > > ___ > Peter Ostry > Holy smokes. MONSTERS! 3 terrabytes storage, 16 GB memory... Drool... If only my accountant wouldn't be such a dragg.... O.

On 05/04/2007, at 7:03 AM, darealbasoski wrote: > Holy smokes. MONSTERS! 3 terrabytes storage, 16 GB memory... > Drool... > If only my accountant wouldn't be such a dragg.... We have the same accountant... :(

Something unusual is that an Apple salesperson told me three weeks ago that the 8-core would be released soon (it's unusual because Apple reps never know what's going on until it happens). But he also told me 16 core will be out within 12 months. Regards, ds

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, amgshaffer wrote: > >Something unusual is that an Apple salesperson told me three weeks >ago that the 8-core would be released soon (it's unusual because >Apple reps never know what's going on until it happens). > >But he also told me 16 core will be out within 12 months. As far as I know the current Quad-Core processors aren't true quad core in the sense that all four cores are independent. The quads are actually two core duo chips in a single processor. Yes, there are four cores but they aren't optimized to their fullest yet. The next generation quad core chips will have four independent cores. HW The next

On Apr 5, 2007, at 2:35 AM, pancenter wrote: > > As far as I know the current Quad-Core processors aren't true quad > core in the sense that all four cores are independent. > The quads are actually two core duo chips in a single processor. > Yes, there are four cores but they aren't optimized to their > fullest yet. The next generation quad core chips will have four > independent cores. But of course they're never truly independent, as they all compete for bus bandwidth and other low-level resources (and you *want* them to be interdependent enough to coordinate this stuff efficiently.) Bottom line is the same as it always is--if you need something now, buy it; if not, the next generation will always be faster/more/ better for a myriad of reasons. Anyone considering buying one now ought not to get caught up in the arcanity of processor architecture.

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Dave Katz wrote: > > >On Apr 5, 2007, at 2:35 AM, pancenter wrote: > >> >>As far as I know the current Quad-Core processors aren't true quad >>core in the sense that all four cores are independent. >>The quads are actually two core duo chips in a single processor. >>Yes, there are four cores but they aren't optimized to their >>fullest yet. The next generation quad core chips will have four >>independent cores. > >But of course they're never truly independent, as they all compete >for bus bandwidth and other low-level resources (and you *want* >them to be interdependent enough to coordinate this stuff >efficiently.) I'm sure the people at Intel *know* this. :-) >Bottom line is the same as it always is--if you need something now, >buy it; if not, the next generation will always be faster/more/ >better for a myriad of reasons. Anyone considering buying one now >ought not to get caught up in the arcanity of processor architecture. But of course... My comment was not meant to dissude or encourage anyone from buying what they -need- now. If were about to drop 4000.00+ on a computer purchase, I'd want to know as much as possible beforehand. Howard