New Mac Pro - Page 8

Well that's an engineering and manufacturing problem. If they're making something with that kind of rock solid stability, it will be expensive as hell, limiting who will be willing to buy it, driving the price up further. It may look like a simple feat but to support the weight of a tablet display with someone pressing on it without any play, takes a well engineered design due to the need for some freedom in positioning. I'm sure there are other ways to go about solving the issue of ergonomics there.

With a device like the ipad I imagine we'll see an increase in wireless options there both for display and networking. The tablet market could go in any number of directions currently. It's just a matter of time. I could definitely see them greatly displacing laptop sales in the near future. They're not quite there today. Soon they probably will be.

Yes, that is the issue in a nutshell. One idea did occur to me, and that was that it might be more effective if it were attached to a chair rather than a desk- a sort of modified armrest. in other words, with the user sitting back in the chair rather than leaning forward, not so much weight would be placed on the support. I've noticed that we tend to hold tablets close to our bodies, so why not follow that natural inclination? Just a thought.


Yes, I think soon they will be. What I would also like to see is some camera manufacturers integrating high-speed wireless transfer: combine that with a speed increase, and I'll make the transition.

You know, I wonder if something similar wouldn't apply to video and laptops?

Micron at: http://www.micron.com/products/hybrid_memory_cube.html has some interesting tech coming. It would be nice to see this tech in a Mac Pro. It looks like something that could get play in an AIR too. Mainly due to low power and shrunken physical size.

It might be a bit early to expect such tech in a Mac Pro but the space and power advantages will allow workstations in ever smaller boxes. This 3d technology will enable things that have only been dreamt about up until now. 😃

It seems the new launch date for sandy bridge xeons is Q1 2012 with 6 core processors shipping even later. This is getting ridiculous especially seeing as the lower models shipped months ago. I'm wondering what this means for the release schedule of Ivy Bridge and on for those models.

Ugh, not the news I want to hear! But then, how certain are we that sandy bridge et al are the next step for the Mac Pro?

Well what's weird is that ivy bridge chipsets are supposed to start appearing by Q2 2012. With Apple and the mac pro who knows? The thing is if it was still a big sales item for them, you might see mid cycle spec bumps to make use of pricing shifts in available processors, gpu bumps, etc. It's quite a niche item though. Toward the lower end it's practically the same machine we had in 2009. What I hope we don't see is a refresh that leaves out a lot of newer features. seeing as we have an abysmally long refresh cycle. I'm guessing the other oems are annoyed with intel at the moment as well.

Yes, this is what I was thinking as well- and the 2010 models already seem to be a refresh of the 2009 models. A few years ago (okay, maybe a decade ago- but I'm old, so that doesn't seem very long), we would have expected such a bump, but you're right: if the next Pros merely update the existing machine, it will be a great disappointment.

It really comes down to Apples use of and the desire for work station class Xeons. If they continue to use such hardware then they are at the mercy of Intel. That is there is no way to build a New Mac Pro without the Xeon hardware to do it.

I'm not so sure how reliable the rumors are of a delay to these Xeons. If the rumors are true they must be more of a delta than in the past. In other words maybe a Sandy Bridge ++. Or we could be completely off and the issue could be in the support chips. Whatever, in the end the delay has to be bothersome for Apple.

Actually I'm hoping this causes Apple to start to feel a great deal of frustration. If so maybe they will grasp why so many of us want an XMac. That is a mainstream machine built out of run of the mill hardware.

Well, it looks like Ivy Bridge has started shipping:

http://www.electronista.com/articles...hips.en.masse/

So, do we get bumped Sandy Bridge Mac Pros this fall, or will Apple wait until they can deliver an Ivy Bridge machine?

Those Ivy Bridge chips probably do not include any appropriate to a mac pro like machine. There's a high likelihood I'll be looking into an ivy bridge imac even though I hate all in one configurations. Even processor aside the mini is an awkward option for me due to ram constraints. Having to use 8GB sticks kills its cost effectiveness. Maybe that'll change if they keep dropping in price but then I'd be tempted to go with 32 . I know it sounds funny but quite a lot of what I use will make use of massive amounts of ram. The impact of SSD drives in testing is often really skewed due to lack of ram. Once applications are loaded a system with 32GB of ram will see far less of a gain from an SSD than one with 2-8 because it cuts down on pagefile usage.

Safari crashed on my iPad. 😱😱😱😡😡😡👿👿👿

So you get the short version. I wouldn't commit to an iMac before seeing what Apple does to the Mac line up. The product line is ripe for an update.

As to the Mini imagine the Mini stuffed with cube memory. That is the 3D tech Intel is working on. If they (Intel & Apple) can move such tech to the desktop relatively soon we would have the potential for a very high memory capacity.

If they are selling chips it would seem that product would not be far behind. Yet in the article they say no shipping product until spring. Doesn't make any sense to me.

Last I heard Ivy Bridge will max out at 77 watts. That doesn't seem to be very workstation class. On the other hand I'm not sure what sort of performance they are talking about at 77 watts. Stepping back a bit one of those chips in the 55 to 65 watt range would make for one excellent XMac.


I don't know. The whole Ivy Bridge things is an enigma. This article actually somes up some of that conflict by saying the stuff is being shipped by Intel yet we have a six month wait (spring). Marketing speak at its best. Many what they mean is that Engineering samples are shipping. Considering all the other bits of info floating about I still think a bump will come in November.

These are for desktop class chips. Xeons aren't included here. Given the extremely late Sandy Bridge E I imagine we'll see a really weak Ivy Bridge release there. What the article means is that the i3s would go from 35W and 65W to 35W and 55W. The i5s and i7s would then go from 65W and 95W to 65W and 77W. This is assuming the article in that link is supplying accurate information. I'm just comparing to what is currently available in the Sandy Bridge generation.

Sandy Bridge-E is using a 130W tdp on both 4 and 6 core models. It remains to be seen what they decide to do. Your options in quad chips would be 65W and 77W. This year they were 65W and 95W. Unless the rest of the system goes on a power diet too I don't think this will change much at all.

I checked a few sites. On the mobile end different sites are reporting 35W or 45W for the majority of the quad core chips.

Never happen. Cube is a four letter word at Apple.

Some more information to add to the mix:

http://www.electronista.com/articles...k.one.quarter/

Now, these are specifically described as "mid-range" chips, but according to Intel's "roadmap," the "extreme" and "premium" end of the performance spectrum will use Sandy Bridge E (replacing the i7), while Ivy Bridge is slated to serve as both the "mainstream" (replacing the i5) and lower-end of "premium" performance. So where does that put us?

No mention of whether these will use Ivy Bridge's 22nm process, so who knows what it means for the Mini.

It doesn't change anything I've already stated at all. The Ivy Bridge ones you noted don't use the same socket. These chips were supposed to be out a long time ago. Ivy Bridge probably won't be a massive performance boost. If it is I still don't care because I doubt they're going to release many Ivy Bridge chips in this set right on top of the Sandy Bridge E's. I've read rumors as late as March or so on Sandy Bridge E at this point. I guess it'll happen when it happens. It doesn't change what I've already stated, which is that the mac pro is in need of an update and the current pricing of a hexacore machine is ridiculous.

I didn't see that coming. However it is very funny.

So how does Apple avoid the four letter word? Simple call it the Mini 3D.

Ivy Bridge seems to be focused on the die shrink and a improvement to the Video hardware. Even indications about real GPU improvements is highly mixed. In the end it looks like much lower power will be Ivy Bridges big selling point. Possibly this could mean more cores at a given power point. Even here it looks like Intel might go for clock rate instead.


Intel never did learn to play the market like Apple does.

This is the single biggest issue with Apple and it's Mac Pro. It is way to expensive if you simply want a powerful desktop. I have some hope that Ivy Bridge might make for a Mini that is appealing for a primary machine but I've been disappointed too many times there. The only solution is to wait it out and see if the line up changes significantly.

Ehhh according to the latest rumors/articles don't get your hopes up. From what I've read it may shave off 10W. While that's something, I don't think we're going to see anything too insane here. Even getting close details on what we'll see from it are still quite spotty. You know my opinion on the current form of the mac pro. It started off as a high cost of entry but you were buying a top notch machine. Now the price has drifted upward while what you get for it has trended the other direction. The machine has received very few design or spec upgrades in its time. Back to Ivy Bridge, I haven't found anything related to an Ivy Bridge version of Sandy Bridge - E.

In an AIR ten watts of power savings will be huge. Especially if they can deliver enhanced performance. Even if that enhanced performance only comes to the GPU it is still exactly what the AIR needs.

On the other machines likely to get this processor I would tend to agree there will be little power savings as that is likely to go to more performance. I know that if I go the MBP route I'd want performance to be much stronger than it currently is. If I go the Mini route the machine would only be acceptable if they paid attention to performance.

I'm beginning to wonder if the Ivy Bridge process is causing Intel more grief than expected. The rest of the industry is having issues with sub 30 nm technology so maybe Intel is too. As to Sandy Bridge - E who knows what is up there. You wouldn't think it would be that difficult.

You know I can't find the mobile specs today for some reason, but in everything listed it was the max tdp that came down. What I mean is that the lower wattage dual and quad core chips didn't really see a reduction. Nothing I've found suggests much improvement in power efficiency on the macbook air end or the potential for a quad processor to make it into one. Overall this may change as we see more information start to surface.

So refresh my memory. When was the last update to the Mac Pro line?

July 2010.

Okay now I'm getting nervous. This seems like an overly long delay. Plus with the death of the Xserve I have to wonder if Mac Pro is going to be discontinued.

Oh, come off it. The first two models had a 518 day wait in between releases. This is child's play.


Of course it will! I don't know anyone who doesn't believe that by now. I'd bet the next one will be the third to last model.

Apple makes these machines out of server hardware, Xeons that is. ThEy can't sell anything that Intel doesn't have chips for.

Frankly the Mac Pro is so old Apple had better wait for a new generation of chips from Intel. Delivering some sort of bump at this point wouldn't impress the primary audience.

They haven't had any new cpu options. Given the significant drops in processor pricing, hard drives, ram, etc. they could have done a mid generation refresh. Doing these things is incredibly simple for Apple but it would definitely make people feel like they still care. Right now things look bad for the line because it's a calendar year with 0 updates to the line. An update would help them pick up end of year spending. Is a socket change happening from Sandy Bridge E to the Ivy Bridget version of these chips?

I'm not sure about Ivy Bridge but supposedly Sandy Bridge E comes with a new chipset.

There is little incentive for Apple to do a midterm upgrade when almost 80% of sales goes to laptops and a good portion of the rest goes to iMac and Mini. I just think the stats reflect the reality that Mac Pro doesn't draw people the way it use to. Most people simply aren't looking for massive workstation type hardware.

Well it's not entirely a midterm upgrade. Sandy Bridge E was pushed back. I doubt that its successor will be out a couple months later. If intel has processors appropriate to the mac pro out early enough to make an announcement and get it on the store this year, they get year end purchasing dollars that they may not see otherwise. It's a small percentage of sales for them and yet in total dollars it could still be pretty good if you look at the math on it. Now if it's going to use the same chipset as any potential Ivy Bridge release, they may have minimal work to adjust it for that generation later.

Also I'm not entirely confident you'll see an Ivy Bridge release at all on the mac pro. At this point the machine needs to be updated. Ivy Bridge could be something as simple as tack on updated release at the top for them with no major revision afterward until Haswell. Assuming it somewhat lives up to intel's hype, that would be about the time we could start looking for real design changes within any line currently sold by Apple. They have little incentive for design changes at the moment if much greater changes are a couple release cycles away.

I have been wanting to participate in this discussion but haven't had the time. There is lots of talk about the Sandy Bridge-E processors in the next Mac Pros, but what about the video card options. I don't know of any Video cards that support Thunderbolt, and doesn't thunderbolt have to be on the motherboard? Right now the Mac Pro is incompatible with the Thunderbolt display. I have to believe that Apple will want to fix this as soon as humanly possible.

I don't follow graphics hardware as much as I used to. However the iMacs video chip is on a card of sorts. I don't know though if that is a standard card or not, but all you really need is the ability to get the video signals to the Thunderbolt chip. On a Pro they might use an extended card to do that.

The thing is a number of other factors come into play here that might cause Apple to think seriously about putting the GPU on the motherboard. One just has to look at the Mini to grasp what is going on. What is that you say, well it is the idea that base machines these days will be using integrated graphics. This will eventually happen on the Mac Pro. So as I see it Thunderbolt is just one factor here and yes I expect the GPU to be placed right on the motherboard.

I've mentioned before that it's highly unlikely that this is the only possible method of integration. The imac uses a laptop card. The top imac uses one which is considered a laptop card but is really more of an underclocked desktop card, and it is actually fairly high in wattage (around 100W). I'm not sure we'll see this kind of design just yet. What makes you think this is the way to go? I'm just wondering because Intel hasn't done well with integrated graphics thus far.

Well, we now know what flavors the E5 will come in:

http://www.cpu-world.com//news_2011/2011102701_Prices_of_Xeon_E5-2600-series_CPUs.html


All of these are scheduled to appear in Q1 2012.

If I had to guess, the spread would look much like the current line, with the lower-end models being 6-cores, and the higher-end sporting dual 8-cores. Judging from the prices, I think we can rest well in the knowledge that the new machines will come at a premium (as if we thought otherwise ).

And, according to this article, Ivy Bridge based models will start to appear around April or March.

So, I guess the next question is, will we see an early spring bump, or will Apple wait a few months more for Ivy Bridge?

I suspect the discussion here involves details none of us have at the moment. I'm assuming that card in the iMac is a custom design. One that routes some of the Display Port lines to the motherboard and then on to the Thunderbolt chip. The big question is how do they get that signal to the Thunderbolt chip.

In the end I see the GPU becoming tightly coupled to the CPU. Things like Sandy Bridge and AMDs Fusion are just a start. However at the performance end of things discreet GPUs will be around for a long while. However the desire to tightly couple those two types of processors is still going to be there, so I could see a system where a two socket board has one socket filled with a GPU. That is a bit of dreaming on my part but a GPU on the motherboard is a rational alternative. It means being able to route many Display Port lines to an enhanced Thunderbolt chip to support multiple monitors. This would be a key factor, if Apple puts ultiple TB ports on a Mac Pro they need to make them symmetrical, that is all of them need to be able to drive a display. Other than a card with custom I/O I don't know of an easy way to otherwise support TB properly.

No they haven't but this isn't integrated graphics. At least not in the top of the line model. What I see or maybe better wish for is a platform where the low end uses desktop SB type processors with integrated graphics. The high end machines take a different motherboard with Xeon processors and have implemented on board a discreet GPU.

This would allow Apple to push out a more reasonably priced base model and a high end model with enhanced computational performance. Sort of like what we see now with the Mini but on a grander scale. Think about it the base model would come with a four core Sandy Bridge at maybe $1250, the high end could start with a six core processor and a high performance GPU. With a little custom ordering that high end model could easily support 12 cores.

It would be a good deal for the customer too. He would be able to choose single thread performance or massive numbers of real threads. One could fit the Mac to their needs.

Let's hope the Pro follows soon after.

Yes that premium is likely to stick. My problem is that it doesn't have too. There is no reason why they can't have a base model at a reasonable price point. A model for people simply looking for an expandable Mac who really don't need Xeon level hardware.

To do this they need to have one machine with a Sandy Bridge type processor with the integrated GPU. That sort of machine would allow for a much cheaper motherboard.

Could you imagine the whining if Apple skips out on a Pro update to wait for Ivy Bridge. Not that it is a bad idea just that some have no patients. In any event an Ivy Bridge based pro would make for a very nice low end machine.

The E3 chips are quad-core single socket so only suitable for the entry Mac Pro but it would be an unusual setup because they usually put the older chips in the entry model. I suppose it doesn't matter though as it will still be lower performance than dual processor Sandy Bridge chips.

I wonder what the reason was for the delay to the E5 chips. They were supposed to arrive at the end of this year. That is one hell of a wait for a new model - it will be nearly 600 days since the last one when it arrives and presumably still a quad-core at $2500. There better be a redesign this time round.

In a way this is rubbish, for many quad cores will give them a significant boost over dual cores. It really depends upon the software you make use of. More so very few people these days run their machines in the way that benchmarkers do to ""prove"" one system is faster than another. Most people will have multiple apps running which makes use of those extra cores.

I'd like to know myself, so many rumors are floating around that you just don't know. I lean towards last minute bugs but have no inside info.

Not really if you think about other industries. As users of computer hardware we have gotten use to updates to hardware on a fairly fast basis. In a sense we where conditioned to expect frequent hardware debuts. The problem is today's chips are far more complex than in the past and even the best laid plans will suffer set backs.

You misinterpreted him there. He meant that E3 Ivy Bridge would still be slower than dual socket Sandy Bridge E workstations. He simply stated it as "dual processor" as it would have been commonly written before the rise of multiple processor cores in mainstream machines.

That's right, I was saying dual processor (not dual-core) quad-core Sandy Bridge is still faster than single processor quad-core Ivy Bridge so it wouldn't matter using a newer architecture on the low-end model compared to the higher-end models.

My excuse is that I was on break at the time. As to Ivy Bridge I'm not at all certain that there will be a huge performance increase clock for clock in the CPU anyways.