Intel 6-core i7-powered Mac Pro rumored to launch this month - Page 3

Dual 6 core.

Quite the monster.

Along with a beefy Ati Card? Sounds juicy.

But will Apple deliver a monitor to compliment the set up?

You never know with Apple.

Price. Adopts monotone voice: 'Well, Mac Pro, due a price cut.'

If it doesn't? *Shrugs.

Buy an 'April' (?) refresh iMac quad core with 27 inch monitor and forget about the fact you ever wanted a 'Pro.'

I used to wish Apple would produce an affordable mid-tower like Apple produced an affordable Mac Book Pro. A single six core midtower for £1200 would be an ok price with a decent Ati Card. As opposed to paying £1899 for an entry tower (chokes, coughs...)

I like what the iMac's monitor has done (on the 27 inch) for value to the desktop. But seriously, the Mac Mini is a joke at £500 and the Mac Pro at £1899 is laughable. Both machines are out of touch. It's hardly surprising that the iMac is leading the desktop sales charge.

Still, it's Steve's company. Ironic considering Apple want to get the iPad 'into as many hands as possible' with its ground breaking price of £387 (UK?) ((When I was expecting £600-800!))

It seems like Apple have given up the price battle on their computers. But it's intriguing how their focus on the '3rd Great Age' has given us competitively priced products like the iPod, iPhone and the iPad. It's in sharp contrast to their computers.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Still, they're selling more Macs than ever. But tellingly laptops and the iMacs make up most of those sales ie the ones that offer more value.

*thinks about the Mac Pro. (How he'd like to have one.) Thinks about the cost of a £2000 tower with a new 27 inch LED Apple monitor costing £895 probably...plus £300 for the GPU which is always extra. £3000+. Vs £1600ish for 27 inch iMac with quad.

Hmmm.

I feel dirty just thinking about it. *(Lust...)

Lemon Bon Bon.

WHEN?!??!!... I have money burning a hole in my pocket!... but, PLEASE, match it up with a graphics card that won't be a let down.

A-ha...

http://www.nybreakingnews.com/news/I...or-1268225057/

If anything they are getting bigger!

we just got a 2009 pro tower and and i di a drive swap with a 2008 to copy the files. the HDD cage in the 2009 is larger so the 2008 HDD cage couldn't touch the connectors but the 2009 slid into the 2008 fine though it hung out a couple inches

Also

OMFG, I could just not stand to read that mess of grammatical errors... hope no-one takes that site seriously.

am i the only one who would rather wait for the nehalem-ex

TOMORROW??

Hmmm. If the 8 core is imminent...why use the 6 core?

Other than as a lower end model.

I thought 8-core was where Intel were heading originally anyhow? How is this chip different aside from the cores?

Dual 8 x2 threads. That's alot of processing.

Now if Apple will give the Mac Pro a price cut so mortals can afford it.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Ok, had my 2008 dual quad core Mac Pro stolen out of my office a month ago with one of my 30" ACD's. I've got to do some replacing. I'm waiting to get a new Mac Pro - possibly with 32 mg ram, 3 hard drives (6TB) and a NVIDIA Quadro FX 4700. also need to get a new 30" to match my other one. I've got work to do, should I wait? suggestions? Has anyone ever put a GPS chip inside one?

Whoever stole all that knew it was there... an 'inside job' so to speak. So my recommendation would be to splurge on some serious CCTV cameras and silent alarms.

Also, 32 mg ram won't cut it these days... figure several gigabytes at least

mg? Milligrams?

Well. The Nvidia 480 has hit. And it's a thermal monster. But runs 'silent' apparently. For me, the single card was disappointing in some of the benches I saw. I don't see Apple doing SLi. Doubt it.

Though the Ati cards perform just as well in most benches and running cooler perhaps?

Which card goes for with the Mac Pro revision is anyone's guess.

But a dual hex Mac Pro running any of the recent ati/nv cards is substantial content creation machine.

No doubt though, these cards are about 4 times more powerful than the gpu in my iMac. Though the 8800 GT is a fine card and fits in a 2 inch enclosure.

Lemon Bon Bon.

The problem with the 480 isn't that it's a bad card- it's actually a very powerful card. It matches the 5870 in many areas and in a few, it has some wins against it. And when it wins, it wins big (particularly with tessellation). The problem is that it's waaaay too power hungry for the performance benefit it offers over the 5870.

Trouble is if they bundle the top end cards:

- the power usage goes up
- the thermal output goes up
- the price goes up
- the buyers are unlikely to need it anyway

I think mid-range cards are the right way to go. I just wish they'd go that far. Hopefully by now, Apple should have seen the impact the 9400M has had on the lineup and keep the whole line above a certain point.

Right now they have the 512MB GT120 or 512MB Radeon 4870 in the Mac Pro.

We know the Geforce 210 and 310 are the same card and only have 16 cores vs 32 on the 120. With NVidia's rebranding and naming mess it's hard to tell what's good any more.

The GTS 240 looks quite good but draws 120W.
The 315 only draws 33W but not much better performance than the 120.
The GT 320 looks like it would be a good upgrade over the entry model with a 43W draw and over double the performance.

For the upgrade, the Radeon 5850 would be pretty good. It's the lowest card that supports double floating point precision for OpenCL yet still performs very well and also manages to keep the power usage down a bit and double performance over the 4870.

No more like just the latest technology. Think of it like riding a big horse that is on the wild side if you can tame the beast and become one with it you can go for a hell of a ride. Get thrown or to scared to climb on top and you never gain the perspective of all that energy harvested.

Likewise a 24 thread Mac Pro is nothing to be concerned about if you can ride it to productivity. If one can't make use of it then why buy in the first place?

Well yeah if ATI can do the drivers right. There is hope there so that isn't a big deal. Graphics card wise the news is good all around as performance is way up and power way down.

Who really cares? Seriosly I'd rather we had a wide choice of monitors. Besides it is not like we are woman out looking for the perfect set of pumps to go with the little black dress. As men we only care about what is under the hood, the processor and GPU if you are wondering.

I truly doubt that will happen, Apple would come out with a midrange machine before that happens. The price of the Pro is likely to either stay the same or increase a bit. This due in part to limited sales and in part due to it being Apples bleeding edge platform. Oh then we have intels price on the CPUs themselves which is significant. The reality is the Mac Pro won't get cheaper and it isn't a bad deal even now.

Actually the iMacs are rather impressive and most likely out perform a Mac Pro if only a couple of years ago. The current ones are the best deal Apple has had in years with respect to the iMacs.

This is certainly doable using desktop parts but then it wouldn't be a Mac Pro. In the end you might get a machine with room for one extra disk and that is about it. Don't get me wrong I think it would sell like hot cakes but not to the people looking at a Mac Pro. Further it would be hard for apple to exceed the performance of the iMac so there would be a what's the point question.

It isn't all Apples fault you know, consider the taxes you pay over there.

Even then I'm not sure where all the Mini complaints come from. Similar platforms from other manufactures and embedded suppliers are in the same price range. It is a machine that is made out of laptop parts which are expensive. Even worst assembly has to be a bear. It really isn't that bad of a machine, it isn't great either but certainly can't be considered grossly overpriced. Like all Apple hardware it represents the best value when new but it is still competitive.

The iMac is a good value no doubt. But that doesn't mean the Mini is totally out of touch. Sure it needs an update but even after such an update it won't be a powerhouse.

What I don't think people realize is just how cheap iPad is component wise. Depending upon how you look at it the device could still be considered overpriced. If you step back and look at the Mini I think you will see a different story. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the iPad assembles ten to twenty times faster than the Mini.

Sometimes I have to laugh because I hear these conversations about the price of iPad. Things like how can they do that, the must have given up margin & etc. The reality is far different and the fat margins are still there.

To be frank the above is garbage. Look at similar hardware and you will see similar pricing. You can't compare the Mac Pro to hardware that isn't comparable and then declare it to be to expensive. To the contrary when held up against similar hardware it is rational priced.

This does not dismiss the hole in Apples line up but that is another issue separate from the Mac Pro.

Hey Lemon how they hanging?

Your interest in a midrange tower is shared by many of us. Unfortunately not by Apple apparently. It is a shame too as the lack of product means there is lots of room to innovate. Many good design possibilities come to mind that break the normal PC mold yet provide for a better GPU card and a little bit of expansion capability. For whatever reason Apple doesn't want to address this market. The only thing we can do is make sure they know the demand is out there.

Dave

Hanging fine, thankyou Dave.

The 'hole' is well trodden. I've given up wanting one. I still thing it's valid. But it's like brushing leaves in the wind with Apple. Same with the Mac Pro being a fair price. Well. People on these boards seem to think it's ok to pay £2k for a quad tower with a p*ss poor gpu as standard in an oversized, over expensive case... But in the real world outside of the Appleinsider Asylum?

'Garbage'. Heh. Well, that's your opinion. I don't share it. Although I could say that anybody who defends Apple's Mac Pro pricing is talking 'Garbage'. Why bother? It's there for everyone to see. A quad tower for £2000. So, yes, I would apply that word to Apple's pricing on the Mac Pro. Mac Pros have been reality warping in price for years. Out of date GPUs and you can get quad set ups that out perform it for half the price and less. Give it a cheap plastic PC case and sit it in PC world and it would be laughable. Any stumble over to overclockers.co.uk sets one right on that. 'Worksation'. I kind of view that word with amusement these days. To me, it's outmoded. Most PC towers have workstation class cpus compared to the machines we had a few years ago. *Shrugs. It's just a reason for Apple to milk their professional cliental and and justify outrageous premiums on an out of date machine.

Or walk in to said PC world.

The iMac is a good deal because of the monitor. But the Core 2 Duo is an outrageous inclusion in anything costing over £1k. Apple, no quad machine under a £1k. Yup. Nothing to say on that, is there?

As for UK prices. *Shrugs. PC companies are still making money on Towers. Apple doesn't want to make one approaching 'reality' for their own reasons.

The Mac Mini is a joke. I haven't got the energy to expand on why £500 is an outrageous for a machine that offers little hardware wise...(the things us 'guys' are interested in?)

iPad. Well. I'd be surprised if Apple don't have margins on it.

The arguments are well rehearsed, Dave.

The iMac is selling well.
The Mac Pro seems like a shadow of it's former self...(wonder if they're touching 100k in sales per quarter? But Apple don't break down the sales of individual lines any longer?)

But despite how I feel about the pricing on the Mac Pro...I'm looking forward to seeing what Apple release. More in terms of curiosity, and hope rather than expectation.

Best wishes,

Lemon Bon Bon.

The only thing I'm getting at is that you can't compare a Mac Pro to a run of the mill desktop or even most towers. You have to at the very least compare it to a server grade box running similar processors and RAM.

A quad tower with a workstation/server grade CPU, the RAM required to work with the chipset and other goodies to make the Mac Pro suitable for demanding usages. It isn't a run of the mill quad core, which is repeating myself bu the fact remains it doesn't even try to compete with desktop machines.

Not in the least. There are significant differences between desktop PC and machines running intels server chips.

Not at all the Mac Pro is built for people that need the features it has, it was never a desktop PC.

Either it is or isn't a good deal. Considering MONITORS with the same LCD go for close to a $1000 bucks the iMac is indeed a good deal. As to the Core 2 processor it will likely be gone in the next refresh. That Core 2 wasn't a bad idea when the iMac was released though.

Well believe that if you want, but do look at the cost of similar hardware. Could the Minis pricing be better? Certainly but to color it bad or outrageous is going a bit overboard.

It would be interesting to find out what iMac sales are like. I suspect they have been tracking the rest of the lineup. The fact of the matter is that if you have a need for the machine the price won't make much difference.

I really doubt the Mac Pro will change much. Rather I'm hoping Apple fills the gap in it's line up with a machine we all would love to buy. The fabled X-Mac if you will. Apple does need a more competitively priced high performance machine but I'm not sure Apple has figure it out yet. It doesn't need to be a tower either and could have a future as an enlarged Mini.

there are lots of possible reasons for the current release delays. It doesn't pay to speculate but let's hope Apple has a lot of new tech coming. Frankly I see the delays as a good thing because in my mind it means Apple isn't doing a me too product but rather is taking it's time to debut something better.

Dave

New mac pro when?

every Tuesday I wake up, and... nothing.

WHEN?!!!!

AMD announced 12-core cpu's a while ago, maybe apple will switch to those to get 24 cores per machine?

ok, new MacBook Pros came out today - when are the Mac Pros coming?!!!?!!?!!?!?!

next tuesday?

Maybe tomorrow, I remember seeing something about a NAB announcement being taken down by Apple real fast.

...nope.

The recently released 8-core CPU is for the 4-8P market which is not for the Mac Pro. Those CPUs cost a lot too.

8 cores are coming with Sandy Bridge in Q3 2011. Until then it's 6 cores for high-end desktop and 1-2P server/workstation.

AARARGGHHH! ok, I'll take a 6-core... but WHEN!?!?!?!

27" LED display along with it?

Maybe we will get our X-Mac when Apple starts using AMD processors. Apple can price it low enough that people should be happy about it being "way less" than a Mac Pro while still being high enough for Apple to make a killing. Give it CrossFire/SLI support so gamers will be happy.

Well... i7 980X is the only X6 so far shown from Intel and it costs $1k/chip, if you can find one. If Apple manages to build dual x6 using Intel, it will be the most expensive Mac Pro ever built. I guess $5k Mac pro is something everyone is waiting for.

Yeah. And we'll all be queuing up to buy one at that price. No thanks. As well as a humungous premium on a 27 inch monitor. No doubt...

A hyperthetical X-Mac using AMD chips. Sounds good to me. Will Apple pass on the savings? Maybe the pricing of the iPad offers a glimmer of hope. But I won't hold my breath for that or the X-Mac.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Apple monitors are quite good, except for the lack of an anti-glare screen.

As for the X-Mac, or Half-MacPro, I doubt Apple will ever produce such a beast, though I would personally love one!

I doubt Apple will go with AMD any time soon. Part of the reason so many people have switched to Macs is the (rightly or wrongly) perceived legitimacy of Intel processors.

I bought a Mac mini a few weeks ago, after the video card in my MacBook Pro crapped out, thinking it would make a reasonable replacement. The mini was so WOEFULLY underpowered that when I got the MBP back, I immediately returned the mini.

When asked why at the Apple Store, I told them that the mini was a joke performance-wise, without a real video card. AND I mentioned the huge GAP between the MacPro and mini and the dearth of APPLE anti-glare monitors. (okay, it was a bit of a rant)

Sometimes you really don't need a top end monitor.

So would many of us. We want a desktop made out of desktop components.

It is Intel but rather the i86 instruction set and the ability to run Windows.

Exactly! The Mini is a limited interest machine. For the most part it is always out of date. Plus the lack of a GPU rules it out for many things.

Hopefully some of that feedback will get back to HQ. However Apples lack of Anti-Glare monitors means nothing, the whole point of an XMac is to fit the stuff that suits you to the box. Thus it is a product any monitor from any company can attach to.

From the Xeon DP lineup there are a number of 6-core CPUs, but none below ~$950.

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

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

I think the consensus was that Intel are having supply problems on the chips Apple need and won't be able to deliver them until late June. The chips are available but not in quantities Apple need. This happened with the MBP and delayed the release.

It's quite possible that an announcement would be made at WWDC as it would interest developers.

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

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.

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.

The first time there were delays (with the then PowerMac), Apple switched form Motorola supplied cpu's to IBM supplied cpu's. 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.

I'd really like to see Apple knee Intel in the balls and come up with a sub-$1400 6-core AMD machine, with desktop (not server) CPUs, desktop (not FBDIMM or similar BS) RAM, desktop (not server grade) hard disks, and a slotted (not built in) GPU with 1GB+ ram.

Then we can let the market decide whether there's a niche for the current Mac Pro or not.

Where's my crack pipe?

Oh, here it is.

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

Apple left the G5 because it was a piece of junk. Its only advantage was good floating point performance.

Do about what? They now have leading edge performance in commercial processors with Intel as a source. As to AMD it is the same damn Industry Standard Architecture from the standpoint of the execution environment. The fact is AMD was directly responsible for the development of x86_64 which Intel eventually adopted under a lot of pressure from MicroSoft.

Sure AMD's hardware is different but no more so than going from Core 2 to i7. Ultimately AMD is just another chip supplier.

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