AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel 6-core i7-powered Mac Pro rumored to launch this month
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel 6-core i7-powered Mac Pro rumored to launch this month - Page 4

post #121 of 207
5/27/10 at 9:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by psingh01 View Post

Then IBM had delays with the G5 and Apple switched to Intel. Now I wonder what they will do? AMD will at best be a lateral move. IMO Apple is in a spot now where they don't care so much about the computers so they are willing to wait. The iDevices are making so much money that that is where their focus is at.

They didn't switch to x86 because IBM "had delays". IBM wasn't building what Apple needed, and Apple didn't want to (and couldn't afford to) pay them to do so. Intel builds for the whole range of the PC market already, so Apple just has to buy their product and suddenly they're on a level playing field with all other PC vendors. A field where Apple has demonstrated they can succeed by differentiation.

And why do you think they need to switch again?! Is Intel doing something wrong by having the best processors on the market? Now would not be a good time to go AMD... maybe when AMD shows a competitive product, but until then Apple is doing just fine. Apple no doubt keeps an eye on what AMD is up to, and evaluates each product they come out with, weighing the tradeoffs.

And it doesn't look to me like the Mac is getting less internal Apple attention than it has in the past -- SnowLeopard, i7 iMac, new MacBooks are all roughly on the same kind of schedule Apple has maintained for a long time.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #122 of 207
5/28/10 at 2:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by edub View Post

someone really needs to finish up these 12core mac pros... stat!

this rumour was a huge flop, wasn't it??

Totally. From early February (when they were needed), to late May and still nothing! I expect we'll see something either at or more likely shortly after WWDC, but by then will 6 and 12-core options and a modestly better graphics card be enough to see the behemoth through for another 12 months (it's now 15 since the last update!)?
Reply
Reply
post #123 of 207
5/28/10 at 3:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by geneking7320 View Post

OK, I'll ask:
If Apple were to make an X-Mac with desktop parts (but not junk) and it performed
at a level between the top iMac and the bottom Mac Pro what would they charge for it?


Gene King

Too much, but I'd actually buy it, as too expensive but meets my needs is better than simply too expensive. $1300-$1500?
stimuli.ca | freshtunes.ca
Reply
stimuli.ca | freshtunes.ca
Reply
post #124 of 207
5/28/10 at 1:46pm
Quote:
Garbage! Absolute Garbage! The last revision to the iMac was one of the best in recent memory, they continue to keep the laptops leading edge while innovating and a new Mac Pro will come when it is time. Anybody in touch with Apples development cycles will realize that these long delays are often associated with meaningful updates that often break new ground.

Besides this dismisses another very important element, the entire Mac Line is showing very strong sales in the middle of a severe economic downturn. The Mac line up is doing far better than even Apple expected to do the last two years.


Dave

Blah, blah, really. 'Delays'. Shrugs.* They don't necessarily mean 'meaningful' updates. Sometimes, every two years or so we get a meaningful update inbetween Apple 'coasting' on their 'i-success.'

The caveat to the iMac being one of the best in recent history is the that the updates before it sucked. Especially the 'side grade' price jack iMac recent history updates.

The screen was a great addition. Granted. But the lack of quad cpu across the board was cheap-ass especially when you're offering an out of date cpu and inte' crappics for £1k. *Blows raspberry... Not like the i5 costs a shed load of money? Or the i7? 'specially when we're talking about 'consumer' machines at upto nearly 2k..in the pound.

Hmm. Ok. I"ll give it a go. 'New Mac Pros will come when it's time.' 'The sky is blue.' 'Apple's are green.' 'Mac Pro's come with crap out of date p*ss poor gpus.'

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #125 of 207
5/28/10 at 4:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post

Totally. From early February (when they were needed), to late May and still nothing! I expect we'll see something either at or more likely shortly after WWDC, but by then will 6 and 12-core options and a modestly better graphics card be enough to see the behemoth through for another 12 months (it's now 15 since the last update!)?

The chips coming available since the last MacPro update haven't exactly been revolutionary, and the economy is still rocky. Taking their time since the last update means a bigger apparently (and actual) win. WWDC is looking like a good time to deploy the update, despite the apparent emphasis of the conference on iPhoneOS. Developers like big iron.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #126 of 207
5/30/10 at 6:03am
Has it really been 15 months since the last Pro update?

*sniffs the smell from the decomposing body.

Yep. Looking at the name on the deceased GPU...I guess your right.

Hmmm. I still covert my neighbours Mac Pro. But the iMac does want I want for now.

And with quad, hyper threaded cpus starting to filter into the iMacs...I'm sure many 3D hobbyists and the odd pro will give it the 'look.' I know I'm going to weight up a Mac Pro vs iMac in year's time.

12 cores x24 multi-threaded would be nice.

Can't wait to see the benches on those beauties.

Hopefully they'll do decent gpus this time. Instead of cheap ass consumer cards in a 'supposed' 'Workstation' machine...

Let's face it, any new Mac hardware around about now would be nice. When was the last time we had a desktop update?

It's not as if you couldn't put better gpus in the lower iMac end. eg 4850. Great card. But it's old and cheap. They could easily 'bump' the gpu. And the cpu to i5 on the entry models considering the price of them..!

As for the Pro. Time to take the price back down to £1450 for the entry 6-core model. £2k for a entry tower? Joking Sir? No Sir, just taking the p*ss. (I'd love to know the actual sales for the Pro...100K tops I'm guessing...)

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #127 of 207
5/30/10 at 8:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Let's face it, any new Mac hardware around about now would be nice. When was the last time we had a desktop update?

This is a side effect of Apple's strategy of infrequent updates... near the end of their cycle the specs look stale compared to companies like Dell which change their line up from minute-to-minute. Corporate environments actually seem to prefer the stability because it lets them update their standard configurations less often, and have more consistency across their inventories. Many consumers don't care about small deltas in the specs, so the simplicity of choosing between a couple of stable configs is preferable to the hideous maze of options. And there is even a set of very smart and savvy users who realize that the marginal difference between configs available from other vendors is irrelevant in practice and the choices provided by Apple are just fine... as long as you order within the first two thirds or so of their product cycle. Yes, that leaves a set of fairly vocal users who want fast updates, the bleeding edge tech, the niche GPUs, etc... but that set isn't as numerous as their vocalizing would indicate, and a fair number of them will never be happy anyhow. Apple doesn't need to sell everyone a machine (nor could they build them all), and they seem to be growing their market at a fairly respectable rate even through a serious economic downturn.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #128 of 207
5/30/10 at 8:48am
I hear what you're saying about the 'cycle'. It doesn't have to be change every 3 months. But 15?They're a 40+ billion dollar company. Offer 'bumps' with what are 'cheap' parts (let's face it...they'd have to be...or Apple wouldn't be using them to milk our cash...) eg more ram, bigger HD, better gpu. A third of 15 months is 5 months. We could have had some sort of update in Jan' to boost some of the specs.

Y'know, for a company that once got up on stage and boasted about millions of different configurations and 'beat down and beat out the myth of price...' (Most of those configurations being spanish keyboard options...)

The recent couple of years on the Mac Pro have hardly set the world alight. Rising prices, inversely correlating to the quality you're getting in specs.

The monitors have languished.

A succession of poor 'consumer' gpus offered...as 'standard' on the 'flagship' Mac model.

..whilst the price has gone up from a stiff £1495 to an eye-watering £1895.

Skimpy Ram and HD.

I could take that they use an expensive Xeon (they've been on the market how long now? How much do they cost?) Or that the case is a little more expensive than average (really? How much?)

But the ram? Dirt cheap. HD? Dirt cheap. The gpu? Dirt cheap.

In short, that's one hell of a dirty (I need to take a shower everytime I go to the stats page...), filthy mark-up they've got going. All in the name of prestige? Their '2grand' entry is a £995 tower. And they're making plenty on it at that.

'It's a heap of junk.' Luke Skywalker.

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #129 of 207
5/30/10 at 8:51am
...and it wasn't a good update when it hit, Programmer. The gpu was pants and you had to suddenly pay £400 more for a quad cpu! EH? What's that all about..?

Remember when they 'yanked' the dual as standard?

Which proves they only did the 'dual strategy' when the perception was they were 'behind' in the cpu race.

The 'pro' stopped being a good deal a good few years back.

No doubt we'll get the 27 inch display from the iMac (get hosed on price) and Apple will make some fanfare about it and the 6 core Pro at the WWDC. All for a grand more than an 'equivalent' iMac.

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #130 of 207
5/30/10 at 3:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Do they really sell that many MPs? Seems like that's Apple's lowest volume selling product.

Yeah but it'll be low volume for everyone. These are workstation parts and I'd bet that Apple sells a decent amount of them in this space relative to other manufacturers. You'd only go with Xeons if you wanted the absolute highest end performance but most PC desktop manufacturers go the i7 route.

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

The longer this drags on makes me wonder if they really are going to switch to AMD cpus for the MP. It doesn't seem like AMD's cpu is as good for this machine, but the delay is quite unusual.

Nah, I think we have to move away from this idea for at least the next 6 months because AMD really don't have anything to compete with Intel. Their server boards are not as fast as Intel and equally expensive. AMD's prices only come good when you build a server with more than 2 CPUs.

If Apple is thinking of building a Mac Pro that can have 4 x 12-core CPUs then that might be quite nice but it'll cost a lot of money. If the move is a side-step with no cost benefit for most people then there's really little point.

Magny Cours vs Intel benchmarks are here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2978/a...-6-core-xeon/6

Intel's 6-core beats AMD's 12-core.

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

The high end iMac is a more powerful machine from a CPU standpoint than the MP (entry level) and has been now for has been for about 6 months. That's pretty unusual and I'm not sure that it's intentional.

I think it is intentional. Apple try to persuade everyone to get iMacs. If you check out the Mini or Mac Pro compare pages, they have iMacs on them but the iMac one has neither Mac Pro nor Mini. It's about profile because you can hook up a Mac Pro to any screen and at a glance you don't know they are using a Mac, same with a Mini.

One day, I think Apple will discontinue the Mac Pro line and it could easily be in the next 5 years. The next 27" iMac update could have a 6-core i7, next year 8-core, then 12. When you get 24 cores in an iMac, what's the point in getting even the top spec Mac Pro if it has 100 cores? There are some applications like high-end rendering where there is never enough but when we get GPUs that do real-time photoreal output, like we are almost seeing already then that aspect is covered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon

...and it wasn't a good update when it hit, Programmer. The gpu was pants and you had to suddenly pay £400 more for a quad cpu! EH? What's that all about..?

I was pretty shocked when I saw the price bump. Maybe it was because we complained about it when it was £1450 too and they thought screw it, we'll price gouge people who are actually going to buy them.

I made a mockup of what I'd like to see in the Mac Pro update:



It would be the Intel 6-core at the entry level. I'd probably remove the handles from the bottom too and integrate the top ones more into the shell. You really don't need handles on the bottom and they get buckled if you drop the machine. If it helps cooling that's fine but they could design it to have some space underneath without handles.

It doesn't look as nice without handles on the bottom but it's more practical and drops the height considerably and the handles don't need to be as big as they are on the current model, just enough to get chubby IT fingers in:

Reply
Reply
post #131 of 207
5/30/10 at 3:59pm
Yeah, I'm not arguing with you, Lemon. I know better than that.

Historically Apple has (almost) always had high RAM prices. They buy contracts to ensure their supply, or something like that. I remember one time (long ago) when RAM prices spiked and Apple had the best prices in town... but only once. Otherwise, take "safe" pricing and add their margins.

The last update brought the i7 which, in my experience, is a heck of an upgrade from the Core 2 Duo. But Intel is charging a stiff price for them... particularly the Xeon line that Apple puts into their Mac Pros. No argument from me on why they don't offer a high-end workstation-class GPU option, particularly considering they are leading the OpenCL charge.

As for why 15 months? I don't have any hard info, but I'd expect that Apple is waiting for something... a new part, a new design to be finished/ratified, sufficient supply, etc. Perhaps even just an opportune moment where it looks like the market is primed for an update cycle. Just because Intel has "shipped" their 6-core part doesn't mean that they can necessarily get enough of the one Apple wants into Mr Jobs' factories. And prior to that new chip, there hasn't been much else new since the i7 showed up in the Mac Pro last year. As for GPUs, the in-practice performance differences between parts in the past year hasn't changed as much as is typically made out by the media... within the same class of part. Again, Apple may be waiting for something that shows an impressive "2x" on their comparison to last year's model. Or sufficient supply/pricing on an existing part. Just because some other company lists an option on a particular part, doesn't mean that Apple could get enough to put in each and every MacPro.

I'm optimistic we'll see a new MacPro RSN(tm).
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #132 of 207
5/30/10 at 11:42pm
Quote:
No argument from me on why they don't offer a high-end workstation-class GPU option, particularly considering they are leading the OpenCL charge.

Ironic, isn't it? Not a single graphics card available in the entire Mac line that isn't pathetic. 512MV Vram maximum, across the line (256MB standard on Imacs and MBPs). Minimum 2 year old designs. Underclocked. Is 1GB DDR5 really that expensive, Apple?

As an artist, I really can't accept this. Not for those prices. Not for the vendor lock-in and the un-removability in all but the Mac Pro.

This is one area that just makes me bitter.

</rant>
stimuli.ca | freshtunes.ca
Reply
stimuli.ca | freshtunes.ca
Reply
post #133 of 207
5/31/10 at 5:29am
Quote:
Ironic, isn't it? Not a single graphics card available in the entire Mac line that isn't pathetic. 512MV Vram maximum, across the line (256MB standard on Imacs and MBPs). Minimum 2 year old designs. Underclocked. Is 1GB DDR5 really that expensive, Apple?

As an artist, I really can't accept this. Not for those prices. Not for the vendor lock-in and the un-removability in all but the Mac Pro.

This is one area that just makes me bitter.

</rant>

They talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk on the Pro.

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #134 of 207
5/31/10 at 5:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer View Post

Yeah, I'm not arguing with you, Lemon. I know better than that.

Heh.

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #135 of 207
5/31/10 at 5:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Yeah but it'll be low volume for everyone. These are workstation parts and I'd bet that Apple sells a decent amount of them in this space relative to other manufacturers. You'd only go with Xeons if you wanted the absolute highest end performance but most PC desktop manufacturers go the i7 route.



Nah, I think we have to move away from this idea for at least the next 6 months because AMD really don't have anything to compete with Intel. Their server boards are not as fast as Intel and equally expensive. AMD's prices only come good when you build a server with more than 2 CPUs.

If Apple is thinking of building a Mac Pro that can have 4 x 12-core CPUs then that might be quite nice but it'll cost a lot of money. If the move is a side-step with no cost benefit for most people then there's really little point.

Magny Cours vs Intel benchmarks are here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2978/a...-6-core-xeon/6

Intel's 6-core beats AMD's 12-core.



I think it is intentional. Apple try to persuade everyone to get iMacs. If you check out the Mini or Mac Pro compare pages, they have iMacs on them but the iMac one has neither Mac Pro nor Mini. It's about profile because you can hook up a Mac Pro to any screen and at a glance you don't know they are using a Mac, same with a Mini.

One day, I think Apple will discontinue the Mac Pro line and it could easily be in the next 5 years. The next 27" iMac update could have a 6-core i7, next year 8-core, then 12. When you get 24 cores in an iMac, what's the point in getting even the top spec Mac Pro if it has 100 cores? There are some applications like high-end rendering where there is never enough but when we get GPUs that do real-time photoreal output, like we are almost seeing already then that aspect is covered.



I was pretty shocked when I saw the price bump. Maybe it was because we complained about it when it was £1450 too and they thought screw it, we'll price gouge people who are actually going to buy them.

I made a mockup of what I'd like to see in the Mac Pro update:



It would be the Intel 6-core at the entry level. I'd probably remove the handles from the bottom too and integrate the top ones more into the shell. You really don't need handles on the bottom and they get buckled if you drop the machine. If it helps cooling that's fine but they could design it to have some space underneath without handles.

It doesn't look as nice without handles on the bottom but it's more practical and drops the height considerably and the handles don't need to be as big as they are on the current model, just enough to get chubby IT fingers in:


As usual, Marv' 'gets it.'

It's about time Apple redesigned the 'ageing queen' that is the Mac Pro. It's overblown. It's pretty poor we can't get a 'consumer' tower from Apple. And Marv' here suggests a 'mid-tower' type design to get us back to the level of £1495. Makes sense to me.

Problem is. Marv' makes the excellent point about progress. When the iMac has 6 core, 8 core etc cpus...how long does the 'Pro' have left? 5 years?

Guess you can argue you'll want 100 core cpus...etc.

He's right. The design needs a bit of an overhaul. It's due. But I wouldn't hold my breath, it seems Apple have designed themselves into a cul-de-sac with their marketing/sales grid. More of the same?

I'd lose the handles. And it give it a cosmetic 'lift' and saw a 1/3 off it's height. Apple should be able to design a more compact tower than that.

The problem Apple have is that the iMac is a much better deal with that screen than even a £1495 6 core 'Pro.'

It's not ten years ago. It's now. £1395 inc vat. 6 core. With a decent GPU.

Apple. Get with the times. You and your 'Pro' are old news.

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #136 of 207
5/31/10 at 4:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Magny Cours vs Intel benchmarks are here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2978/a...-6-core-xeon/6

Intel's 6-core beats AMD's 12-core.

This is true only on hand picked benchmarks. Anything multi-threaded, if the software is able to use all the available cores, intel trails behind.

Also, Linux performance seems to favor AMD 12 cores at 2/3 of the clock speed but MS window based OS favors higher (150%) Mhz intel chips at half the number of cores (+HT). Even some multi-threaded apps on window based OS does not use all the available cores at max load. Once again, this may be due to whether the software is able to utilize all the cores or not.

The overall performance really depends on the tasks being tested. It is like choosing between V6 Turbo vs. V12 engine. The V6-T with more horse power may win you a quarter-mile race, but if you need to haul stuff, V12 with more torque may be better for the job. Of course, V12 at V6-T speed will win quarter mile race and haul ass.
always a newbie
Reply
always a newbie
Reply
post #137 of 207
5/31/10 at 9:14pm
I have to admit I am definitely not on top of the latest chip technologies or even close to knowing. It still seems that software is the side of things that needs many improvements (and still doesn't get enough attention). 64 bit... About time it seems.

And I do truly hope the MacPro lineup will be nicely refreshed. Hopefully the increase in speed will match as I would love to upgrade my old duel 2.0 G5. Flying with the latest Aperture 3 sounds really appealing.

I'm not up on the graphic cards either, but it is a bit embarrassing if Apple isn't providing the power or options we seek. I have a feeling, however, that it isn't simply picking the fastest and putting it all together. I just hope they are well worth it over the iMac lineup...

With that said, we've sure come from (or gone?) a long way since the Voyager mission. I mean really. It's amazing what we have accomplished. I can't find it but I heard a simple calculator has more computing power then the interments on this spacecraft.

I hope, as the others have suggested, that we can make the new system more compact and also lower our carbon footprint as much as possible. I also hope that this device is produced in factories that provide fair wages and decent working conditions... even if it means paying a bit of a premium. Lets not forget to put pressure on all corporations to do so. We're all in this together right.

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/didyouknow.html

7 sleeps... just 7 more sleeps... this is killing me.
Reply
Reply
post #138 of 207
6/1/10 at 3:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I made a mockup of what I'd like to see in the Mac Pro update:



It would be the Intel 6-core at the entry level. I'd probably remove the handles from the bottom too and integrate the top ones more into the shell. You really don't need handles on the bottom and they get buckled if you drop the machine. If it helps cooling that's fine but they could design it to have some space underneath without handles.

Great work on the mockups!!!

A mini-tower like that pictured would make me seriously consider ditching my MacBook Pro and going back to a desktop and screen for home power with iPad for portability. It's funny but the desktop market, which has been sliding into a niche thanks to laptops, could well be revitalised by the iPad. Apple should capitalise on this opportunity by offering a new Mini Pro!
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 207
6/1/10 at 6:10am
Quote:
I hope, as the others have suggested, that we can make the new system more compact and also lower our carbon footprint as much as possible. I also hope that this device is produced in factories that provide fair wages and decent working conditions... even if it means paying a bit of a premium.

We're paying about 80-100% premium.
stimuli.ca | freshtunes.ca
Reply
stimuli.ca | freshtunes.ca
Reply
post #140 of 207
6/5/10 at 8:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R View Post

We're paying about 80-100% premium.

True...


Hey... anyone want to put some predictions for monday? I'm not sensing Mac Pro's day is going to be happening then ... unless it's going to be one of those... oh, one other thing moments? It seems like there is very, very little leaks or predictions on this one. JC, the mini is getting attention. It should be a good one though no matter what Steve pulls out'a his sleeve. I'm looking forward to it.
Reply
Reply
post #141 of 207
6/6/10 at 8:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

As usual, Marv' 'gets it.'

It's about time Apple redesigned the 'ageing queen' that is the Mac Pro. It's overblown. It's pretty poor we can't get a 'consumer' tower from Apple. And Marv' here suggests a 'mid-tower' type design to get us back to the level of £1495. Makes sense to me.

He's right. The design needs a bit of an overhaul. It's due. But I wouldn't hold my breath, it seems Apple have designed themselves into a cul-de-sac with their marketing/sales grid. More of the same?

I'd lose the handles. And it give it a cosmetic 'lift' and saw a 1/3 off it's height. Apple should be able to design a more compact tower than that..

Nice mockups! I think it needs pronounced feet for ventilation and as a nod to past PowerMac designs.

I could actually see a smaller version. An "urban" MacPro, for those of us who want top-flight performance, but DO NOT need a zillion drive bays, etc., and do NOT have the space for a full-size MacPro.

Give it comparable MacPro performance in a MUCH smaller form factor: same CPU, same RAM slots, 2 HD bays, 1 optical bay, 2 PCI slots (1 for video). Maybe add an ExpressCard slot in front. Add 4 or 5 separate FireWire 800 circuits (plus LightPeak?) for external expansion. The rest they can keep.

This would be for those of us who opt for a 15" MacBook Pro and external monitor rather than a MacPro or iMac. EVERY designer I know has a similar setup. iMacs are for "the staff". I carry my 15" MBP between my office and different clients', connecting to external monitors, keyboards, trackballs, etc.. No one I know that has a 17" MBP ever carries it, except between their office and the conference room. (BTW, my new 15" i7 MBP is stunning!)

No matter what anyone says, they iMac is NOT pro level. I won't bring up the anti-glare screen debate, but that's a big part of it. Try doing extensive 3D modeling on a glossy screen and I'll give you an ice pack and bottle of Advil.


Macintosh: It just WORKS!
Reply


Macintosh: It just WORKS!
Reply
post #142 of 207
6/7/10 at 1:58pm
For the love of humanity... please don't let this WWDC pass by without an update to the MacPro...

I'm dyin' ovah here!
Reply
Reply
post #143 of 207
6/7/10 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by edub View Post

For the love of humanity... please don't let this WWDC pass by without an update to the MacPro...

I'm dyin' ovah here!

Tomorrow's Tuesday.... maybe then?
New MacPro along with the new Apple trackpad?


Macintosh: It just WORKS!
Reply


Macintosh: It just WORKS!
Reply
post #144 of 207
6/7/10 at 3:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post

Nice mockups! I think it needs pronounced feet for ventilation and as a nod to past PowerMac designs.

Yeah, I like the design with the feet much better. If it was lighter, there's less chance they'd get damaged. Plus, heavy impacts get absorbed more by the feet than the machine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post

This would be for those of us who opt for a 15" MacBook Pro and external monitor rather than a MacPro or iMac. EVERY designer I know has a similar setup.

Being able to replace the drive fairly easily in the MBP and buy whatever external screen you want and upgrade it is a big plus. Although you can hook another screen to the iMac, you're still pretty much tied to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post

No matter what anyone says, they iMac is NOT pro level. I won't bring up the anti-glare screen debate, but that's a big part of it. Try doing extensive 3D modeling on a glossy screen and I'll give you an ice pack and bottle of Advil.

I've compared a matte IPS and glossy iMac and I'm still of the opinion that the iMac is unusable for me. I feel that the iMac doesn't diffuse the backlight in black areas so you get sharper blacks but you get very intense reflections and they are far more distracting.

On a bright day, it's painful when you catch something bright and the surrounding illumination makes the content almost invisible and this isn't the case on the matte screen so long as the brightness is up.

Even the quad i5 iMac CPUs don't seem to be any improvement over the old Mac Pros so it's not great value for money as you are shelling out almost the same amount as a new Mac Pro. The 27" IPS is great to have bundled but being forced to take one removes the competition so you can't shop around for the most cost-effective solution.

You get people who say how the iMac is fine and pro-level but it's always photographers or even some designers where there's really not much heavy lifting going on. Once you try editing/encoding 1080p or doing raw rendering, the iMac gets so hot you can't even touch it and you feel it's going to break and worry about how much it would cost to repair because it's really been turned into an appliance.

I love the aesthetic improvements in the new iMacs but they still don't quite cut it and Apple needs to give the Mac Pro some attention. It's as if they only ever put the care and attention into their iMac and laptop designs these days. The Mini is about using the weakest parts so it copes in the small box and the Mac Pro, it's about just making the biggest case that can handle anything anyone would want to throw at a machine. I'd rather they push the boundary of what they can get away with fitting in a small box and try to cover 90% of what people need with the Mac Pro and force the rest to do without.

Who cares if one random person can't fit 4 GPUs in one machine or turn their Mac Pro into a 12TB server with 32GB RAM? These are fringe cases. The desktop will die eventually when parts get small enough so even the Pro model needs to start catering for the transition. You get 3TB drives now and pretty much nobody needs more than 9TB of active space. Optical drives are dying out, especially DVD drives so no need to ship every machine with two of them.

The biggest disappointment will be for them to simply leave everything as is and switch the CPU to the 6-core Xeon for the same price because it would show they haven't spent one ounce of effort thinking about it.
Reply
Reply
post #145 of 207
6/8/10 at 10:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

I could take that they use an expensive Xeon (they've been on the market how long now? How much do they cost?)

Looking at Newegg for 2.26GHz Nehalem Xeons with 8MB L3 cache, this is what I find:

GHz Model Cost/CPU
2.26 E5520 $380
2.26 L5520 $560
2.66 X5550 $1000
2.93 X5570 $1441.51
Reply
Reply
post #146 of 207
6/8/10 at 1:17pm
I'm losing my faith in a new Mac Pro coming anytime soon \

All I can say is that I really hope the Apple pulls a winner out of the hat if/when they decide to update it... I just can't see any justification for putting this off for so long for no good reason.
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 207
6/8/10 at 2:29pm
They have a few possible rotes they can go:

1) Once they feel there are enough of the 6 core Xeons available, update to those, 6 and 12 core systems plus hyperthreading
2) Shrink the box down a bit and make it more Pro-sumer with i7 chips and a bit lower price, 4 and 8 core plus hyperthreading
3) Eliminate the line

I think option 2 would be the best route honestly, at least if they want to sell Mac Pros to anyone besides colleges and scientific research facilities. Musicians can certainly find uses for the extra PCI slots, but server processors are not needed by them really.

A few possible i7 chips, 875K as the low end Quad w/a BTO fo a 960, a dual 875K 8 Core with BTO option of dual 960 and a top end dual 980X 12 Core.

i7 875K 2.933GHz Quad $330
i7 960 3.2GHz Quad $570
i7 980X 3.333GHz 6-Core $1000

Lots of great graphics cards available from both companies, there's no reason we couldn't see the return of a $1500 Mac Pro with a solid CPU and graphics card. 4GB RAM base, 16GB max on the single cpu, 32GB max on the dual cpu systems. They could even look at having a SSD for the system drive with 1 or 2TB options for all other drives. A dual 980X with SSD, another drive or 2 and a good graphics card would still be more expensive than the current top end, but the entry price for a Mac Pro would be back where it would be more accessible. Heck, they could probably still do $1500 or $1600 on a dual 875K system. That would help the new Mac Pro's performance stay ahead of whatever upgrade is coming toward the iMac next.
Reply
Reply
post #148 of 207
6/8/10 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

A few possible i7 chips, 875K as the low end Quad w/a BTO fo a 960, a dual 875K 8 Core with BTO option of dual 960 and a top end dual 980X 12 Core.

Core i7 cpus can't be used in pairs. Only Xeons from the 5xxx series.
Core i7-8xx and Core i7-9xx don't use the same chipset nor have the same memory control, that would mean two really different motherboards.

FWIW, the Xeon 35xx series used in the single cpu MP are very similar to Core i7-9xx series, same speed, same price, they "only" have ECC enabled. They even share the same X58 chipset.

Instead of checking on newegg for Intel's pricing, they have a pdf for all their retail processors, that gives a good idea of what is what and how much. I'll let you google it.

Your "possibilities" are impossible.
Reply
Reply
post #149 of 207
6/8/10 at 10:57pm
I've got a question: How many people have ever used the PCI-X (or whatever) slots in their Mac Pros?

Of those, how many used more than one?
stimuli.ca | freshtunes.ca
Reply
stimuli.ca | freshtunes.ca
Reply
post #150 of 207
6/9/10 at 4:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R View Post

I've got a question: How many people have ever used the PCI-X (or whatever) slots in their Mac Pros?

Of those, how many used more than one?

Just to install a Kona 3 card. Other than that, no, not recently.
Reply
Reply
post #151 of 207
6/9/10 at 8:40am
So, maybe there are a bunch of Nehalem-based Mac Pros in Apple's inventory and they want to clear those out before releasing the 6 and 12-core Mac Pros? Plus, where is that 27" LCD monitor? Come on Apple, your iPhone is nice, but we need you to refocus on the power users, on your original customers. I've been using your products since 4MB of RAM was considered outrageously huge! Let's go, get that new stuff out the door already!
Reply
Reply
post #152 of 207
6/9/10 at 9:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruceedits View Post

So, maybe there are a bunch of Nehalem-based Mac Pros in Apple's inventory and they want to clear those out before releasing the 6 and 12-core Mac Pros? Plus, where is that 27" LCD monitor? Come on Apple, your iPhone is nice, but we need you to refocus on the power users, on your original customers. I've been using your products since 4MB of RAM was considered outrageously huge! Let's go, get that new stuff out the door already!

Unfortunately, those like that (myself incuded) are simply of no real concern any more. There was a reason why they wanted to get "computer" OUT of their corporate name.
Reply
Reply
post #153 of 207
6/10/10 at 7:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicGuy View Post

Unfortunately, those like that (myself incuded) are simply of no real concern any more. There was a reason why they wanted to get "computer" OUT of their corporate name.

I was a professional photographer at one time. I used Nikon equipment. Nikon was considered to be the pro choice in the late 70s and 80s. Then, Nikon went consumer-happy. Their pro cameras are still good, but they diluted their image to the point that Nikon lost its caché as a company dedicated to the pro photographer. Yeah, I can take a great picture with a Kodak Instamatic, but when a company loses its focus (no pun intended) one starts to wonder if they are still serious about the guys who made them the go-to name in the industry. I don't see consumer level Hasselblad. They have kept their attention on the professional. Apple has become just another consumer electronics company. Good for shareholders, bad for end users, in my opinion.
Reply
Reply
post #154 of 207
6/10/10 at 9:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruceedits View Post

I was a professional photographer at one time. I used Nikon equipment. Nikon was considered to be the pro choice in the late 70s and 80s. Then, Nikon went consumer-happy. Their pro cameras are still good, but they diluted their image to the point that Nikon lost its caché as a company dedicated to the pro photographer. Yeah, I can take a great picture with a Kodak Instamatic, but when a company loses its focus (no pun intended) one starts to wonder if they are still serious about the guys who made them the go-to name in the industry. I don't see consumer level Hasselblad. They have kept their attention on the professional. Apple has become just another consumer electronics company. Good for shareholders, bad for end users, in my opinion.

Not so sure Nikon's foray into the consumer space is the same as Apples. Among pro shooters (especially photojournalists) the hi ISOs with little noise very much set Nikon pro cameras apart from Canon. At least at this point, there is nary a real hint FROM Nikon tey'd be moving away from pros.

Apple, OTOH, heralded this years back with the dropping of "computer" from their name. I got vilified for suggesting that made me queasy, that to me it signaled a shift in focus to yuppie toys.

Besides, it's two days away from keynote and I see ZERO ink about why no MacPro announcement, or even speculation there will be an update. Looks like even the rumor sites are discarding much coverage of actual general purpose Mac computers.
Reply
Reply
post #155 of 207
6/10/10 at 10:15am
cachet.

Wizard69: seriously.

</grammar nazi>
stimuli.ca | freshtunes.ca
Reply
stimuli.ca | freshtunes.ca
Reply
post #156 of 207
6/10/10 at 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R View Post

cachet.

Wizard69: seriously.

</grammar nazi>

Thank you, grammar nazi.
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 207
6/10/10 at 11:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruceedits View Post

I don't see consumer level Hasselblad. They have kept their attention on the professional. Apple has become just another consumer electronics company. Good for shareholders, bad for end users, in my opinion.

In some ways but 'end users' is a broad brush that encompasses consumers who benefit from Apple's consumer-focused approach. I dislike the lack of updates on pro-level hardware and software but I greatly appreciate the fact that the consumer approach has brought smartphones into the consumer space. Those things used to be ridiculously expensive and not terribly functional and Apple has shaken that industry up from top to bottom.

They need to keep propping the company up with extra legs so that they can then focus on improving their other products. I reckon there will be a Mac Pro refresh before June is done - they need to get those 6-core chips in use.

They won't be using any 8-core chips just yet as they are too expensive:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/neh...ore,10033.html

The Mini update is rumored for next Tuesday so maybe the Mac Pro will tag along and the entry iMac can get a bump to the 320M.
Reply
Reply
post #158 of 207
6/11/10 at 4:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


The Mini update is rumored for next Tuesday so maybe the Mac Pro will tag along and the entry iMac can get a bump to the 320M.

please, enough with the rumours!!...
Reply
Reply
post #159 of 207
6/11/10 at 11:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Yeah, I like the design with the feet much better. If it was lighter, there's less chance they'd get damaged. Plus, heavy impacts get absorbed more by the feet than the machine.



Being able to replace the drive fairly easily in the MBP and buy whatever external screen you want and upgrade it is a big plus. Although you can hook another screen to the iMac, you're still pretty much tied to it.



I've compared a matte IPS and glossy iMac and I'm still of the opinion that the iMac is unusable for me. I feel that the iMac doesn't diffuse the backlight in black areas so you get sharper blacks but you get very intense reflections and they are far more distracting.

On a bright day, it's painful when you catch something bright and the surrounding illumination makes the content almost invisible and this isn't the case on the matte screen so long as the brightness is up.

Even the quad i5 iMac CPUs don't seem to be any improvement over the old Mac Pros so it's not great value for money as you are shelling out almost the same amount as a new Mac Pro. The 27" IPS is great to have bundled but being forced to take one removes the competition so you can't shop around for the most cost-effective solution.

You get people who say how the iMac is fine and pro-level but it's always photographers or even some designers where there's really not much heavy lifting going on. Once you try editing/encoding 1080p or doing raw rendering, the iMac gets so hot you can't even touch it and you feel it's going to break and worry about how much it would cost to repair because it's really been turned into an appliance.

I love the aesthetic improvements in the new iMacs but they still don't quite cut it and Apple needs to give the Mac Pro some attention. It's as if they only ever put the care and attention into their iMac and laptop designs these days. The Mini is about using the weakest parts so it copes in the small box and the Mac Pro, it's about just making the biggest case that can handle anything anyone would want to throw at a machine. I'd rather they push the boundary of what they can get away with fitting in a small box and try to cover 90% of what people need with the Mac Pro and force the rest to do without.

Who cares if one random person can't fit 4 GPUs in one machine or turn their Mac Pro into a 12TB server with 32GB RAM? These are fringe cases. The desktop will die eventually when parts get small enough so even the Pro model needs to start catering for the transition. You get 3TB drives now and pretty much nobody needs more than 9TB of active space. Optical drives are dying out, especially DVD drives so no need to ship every machine with two of them.

The biggest disappointment will be for them to simply leave everything as is and switch the CPU to the 6-core Xeon for the same price because it would show they haven't spent one ounce of effort thinking about it.

Your post is littered with some excellent points.

In particular, the fact that the 'Pro' could be trimmed down. We don't need 4 hard drive bays with HDs approaching 3 T(!) DVDs are...well, uhm, on the decline? Do we need 2 drive spaces?

When you look at the mini and the 'Pro'...they are two ridiculous desktop extremes...and for me, 'follys' of design. ie one too little, one too much. Can we have a 'goldilocks' desktop in the middle, please? WITH DESKTOP PARTS!

One of your ideas, was pushing the 'boundaries' of what Apple can fit in a box giving people 90% of what they need. So we could end up having either a mid-tower(!) after all or a 'Super-Cube'..? Price it £995-£1495. (...and leave the 'Pro' for people who like paying 2k for a quad core cpus with a lame ass consumer gpu.)

It was the last line of your post that resonated with me.

Lemon Bon Bon.

PS. You are right about the iMac getting 'hot' to the touch when it does anything remotely taxing. eg playing a game. It's uncomfortable to the touch.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #160 of 207
6/11/10 at 11:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

They have a few possible rotes they can go:

1) Once they feel there are enough of the 6 core Xeons available, update to those, 6 and 12 core systems plus hyperthreading
2) Shrink the box down a bit and make it more Pro-sumer with i7 chips and a bit lower price, 4 and 8 core plus hyperthreading
3) Eliminate the line

I think option 2 would be the best route honestly, at least if they want to sell Mac Pros to anyone besides colleges and scientific research facilities. Musicians can certainly find uses for the extra PCI slots, but server processors are not needed by them really.

A few possible i7 chips, 875K as the low end Quad w/a BTO fo a 960, a dual 875K 8 Core with BTO option of dual 960 and a top end dual 980X 12 Core.

i7 875K 2.933GHz Quad $330
i7 960 3.2GHz Quad $570
i7 980X 3.333GHz 6-Core $1000

Lots of great graphics cards available from both companies, there's no reason we couldn't see the return of a $1500 Mac Pro with a solid CPU and graphics card. 4GB RAM base, 16GB max on the single cpu, 32GB max on the dual cpu systems. They could even look at having a SSD for the system drive with 1 or 2TB options for all other drives. A dual 980X with SSD, another drive or 2 and a good graphics card would still be more expensive than the current top end, but the entry price for a Mac Pro would be back where it would be more accessible. Heck, they could probably still do $1500 or $1600 on a dual 875K system. That would help the new Mac Pro's performance stay ahead of whatever upgrade is coming toward the iMac next.

Good post.

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel 6-core i7-powered Mac Pro rumored to launch this month