Originally Posted by wizard69
Exactly!!!!! All this immature whining about Apple and the lack of new Mac Pros is BS because suitable hardware for a worthwhile revision simply isn't available from Apples suppliers. Apple can't build a new Mac Pro out of Air. Speaking of which much the same can be said about AIR the MacBook, to really upgrade Apple needs new chips which aren't available yet
Weren't they supposed to be using the 6-core 5600-series Gulftown/Westmere-EP Xeons that came out 7 weeks ago?http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03...n_5600_launch/
I don't think there's another chip they have to wait for. Engadget asked Intel what was up and they replied that 'Apple call their own shots'. We just have to wait and see I guess. EDIT: seems Intel might just have shortages of the chips.
They could consider a switch to Magny Cours:http://www.anandtech.com/show/2978/a...-6-core-xeon/1
"The 4000 series will be aggressively priced, but the price for the 6000 price will be the same for a 2P or a 4P processor. AMD’s price is $1,386 while Intel’s 2P costs $1,633 and $3,600 for 4P systems. Said Fruehe."http://www.techeye.net/chips/amd-cla...intel-on-price
Intel have some aggressive pricing on their 8-core 7550 but it draws a lot of power. Plus, although benchmarks show the Intel coming out on top, it's often in benchmarks where Windows isn't optimizing the processing. Apple's developments should max out all the cores much better and it will draw less power.
AMD said their 12-core could get away with between 80-115W.http://blogs.amd.com/work/tag/magny-cours/
"In each case, AMD is saving you about $2,000 in what we consider unnecessary “taxes.” You shouldn’t have to pay a premium when buying 4P capable processors, so we’re changing that."
But that price difference only really matters in a server, not a workstation. Apple were also supposed to be going with the 6-core Xeon, which costs $1440 and compared to the AMD equivalent - the Opteron 6174 12-core at $1165, you save about $275 per processor by going with AMD.
So a 24-core AMD Mac Pro with the 6174 would be $550 cheaper than the 12-core X5670 Xeon. Problem is, it might be significantly slower in real world testing and draw the same power as even the 5650 beats it and only costs $996:http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...5650-review/11
The Cinebench time for the Intel came out 50% faster than AMD.
So Intel is actually faster and cheaper here.
Originally Posted by wizard69
GPUs sigh! Maybe Apple can do better this time in it's "Pro" machine.
If they go AMD, it will be interesting if they stick with NVidia for the GPU or go all AMD/ATI. I think they make the right decision with the GPUs, all that would happen with better ones is they jack up the entry price again. The cost in the machine comes from the high-end server chips.
EDIT: The other point made earlier about price and the Mac Pro being $1400 cheaper, that was confusing the desktop/server issue *smacks forehead*. The cheaper AMD chips are desktop chips, not server ones so you can't have a dual processor model. That Phenom chip really affects the iMac, which has the quad i7 just now and could go to a 6-core Phenom II. The Mac Pro won't benefit from going AMD unless Apple decide to stop making it the highest end workstation they can build and instead a better value desktop that people can actually afford. But they won't.
Phenom II scores 18000 on Cinebench vs 12-core Xeon 5650 scoring 32000. If they made a more compact Mac Pro and not have the option for dual CPU. I'll buy two or more of 'em if I need a render farm and that way each process gets more RAM.
Right now, the 8-core Nehalem 2.93 gets just over 25000 in Cinebench and the 8-core 2.26GHz 18000, same as the 6-core Phenom. The 2.26GHz Xeon is priced at $276 though and you buy two vs a single Phenom at $295 so you'd save some money making a desktop version of the Mac Pro but nowhere near $1400. It's about $250 less and then you lose the upgrade path.
To cut a long story short:
- Intel chips are still the fastest and they aren't actually all that expensive vs AMD for Apple's purposes
- Intel have shortages in their supplies so Apple will have to wait a few months just like with the MBPs
- AMD offer attractive options but none compelling enough for Apple to switch, it would basically be a side-step, maybe lower a few prices here and there and get round the Intel/NVidia issues
- anything AMD-related will probably be for 2011, so nothing to bother about now