or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple quietly updates Mac Pro with Intel Xeon CPU [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple quietly updates Mac Pro with Intel Xeon CPU [u] - Page 2

post #41 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by plokoonpma View Post

no thunderbolt, usb3.. I rarely complaint about updates cause they pack almost always enough features that will make it good enough... at least prices remain the same and its not that expensive to go 6 cores.. but..

I have to agree. They care very little for this machine if they didn't even add TB or USB 3.0.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #42 of 153
How sad, I've been wanting a Pro with thunderbolt, now it is dead, how sad.
On another note, technical difficulties with the Canada apple site seems to be leaving it down (had the old page and went back down)
post #43 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by gfeier View Post

This is not an update, it's an insult! Looks like Apple wants it to fail so they have an excuse to kill the line. Very disappointing to me personally, but it probably makes sense from a business point of view.
 

 

Not trying is never good form the business point of view.   It sends the wrong message to your customers.

 

As to this "update" i'm a bit in shock, Apple had got tot realize that this sends the wrong message to its customers pro and not so pro.   The lack of a real GPU update though is totally shocking.    A new chip soldered to the motherboard would have ben better than this.

 

I have to believe something is up at Apple and this is some sort of stop gap measure.

post #44 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHagan4755 View Post

Wow.  That's really quite pathetic!

Pathetic is way to kind but an honest appraisal would likely get censored here.

post #45 of 153

Terrible update and terrible reporting by AI.  The headline here is that it's barely an update (to a TWO YEAR OLD CPU).  And still no sata III, usb3, or thunderbolt.

 

In short, the only explanation for this is that they think they can sell a few last machines to suckers before killing the model.

post #46 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
Pathetic is way to kind but an honest appraisal would likely get censored here.

 

Why? Have at it.

 

Unless the appraisal includes links to 9to5Mac, that is. lol.gif

 

And there's no working shake head emoticon, so imagine one until we either uncensor those links or the emoticons start working, whichever comes first.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #47 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBrickley View Post
  I just remote connect to the private cloud and kick off my rendering jobs there.  It's faster that way anyway!

You hear this all the time - render, render, render is all a Mac Pro is good for. If you do a lot of multimedia, desktop publishing, Photoshop etc, the Mac Pro is a workhorse. iMac can't compare to the Mac Pro when it comes to having half of Adobe CS open at the same time and copy huge Photoshop layers or Illustrator drawings with thousands of bezier nodes from one app to the next. Sure some people are rendering long clips in FinalCut but most of our video work is less than two minute long so I'm not going to send it out to the cloud to render. I'm going to export four different versions right in FCP, Fmpeg or QT7, H264, Flash, Ogg, V8 and upload them to the website. That is where the Mac Pro shines, is in multitasking. I couldn't care less about your cloud based render server, I need workstations.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #48 of 153

Yeah I'm gonna chime in and vote for mistaken icon update, or incomplete information update, or something.

Reading the specs it's just old bluetooth 2.1, old low resolution gfx card, old cpu, old old old etc.

Can't be the real deal, can it? If it is.. then Apple has given us a clear message... at least for now.

post #49 of 153

Somebody with a vested interest in the current Mac Pros should write Tim Cook asking for a public comment.   I honestly would not buy the current Mac Pro as it doesn't fit my needs so there is little sense in my asking.   However a professional user might have some leverage.

 

I'm wondering if Apple gave up on Sandy Bridge E.   As far as I know it is still not shipping in volume.

 

My biggest concern here with the Mac Pro is that I want Apple to demonstrate that it has a plan for the desktop lineup.    The lack of even modest updates is depressing their sales significantly.    If they can't wrap their heads around what users want it is about time they start asking, because frankly they are chasing customers away.   I need a desktop machine but there is no way I'm going Apple with this sort of disinterest in the product line.

post #50 of 153

For years we had some pretty awesome hardware and a weak OS that couldn't harness the power.  Now we have the best OS in the World and hardware made for Facebooking and Tweating. 

post #51 of 153

the apple page shows the NEW icon next to the mac pros.

post #52 of 153

I am very disappoinoted. However....

 

I think the problem is intel, not apple, go to check intel website.

 

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/motherboards/server-motherboards/server-board.html

 

The MB which support xeon E5 right now didn't support USB 3.0 and thunderbolt natively.

 

Maybe this is why apple can't update mac pro.

post #53 of 153

I find the Apple Mac Pro Performance Specs to be highly misleading.

Instead of comparing the old 12 core performance against the new 12 core performance, they are now actually comparing:

** the old 8 core performance  against the new 12 core performance ... and reporting a 30% gain ....

 

I suspect that a large chunk of that 30% is just the 8 to 12 core difference on their rather biased parallel-rich gravy tests ...

 

But since you could buy a 12 core before, this seems totally contrived. They are reporting nothingness.

 

Come on Apple ... Show us:  12 core before vs 12 core now .... What's the speed difference? Eh?

post #54 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I have to agree. They care very little for this machine if they didn't even add TB or USB 3.0.

Is USB 3  or TB even compatible with Nehalem and Westmere?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #55 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

The only good news I can take from this debacle is that the Mac Pro line is not dead and hope this is just to clear stock for the actual new Mac Pro update in a few months. Apple never likes to update too many models at once and today it was all about the new retina Macbook. After the limelight fades, maybe a new Mac Pro and iMac. 

 

I have to agree on the Pro wasn't outright killed at this point (although with the same boards and basic prices as 2 years ago one could argue its being killed), but disagree with you on an update likely coming.  If there was a new Mac Pro coming in a few months Apple would never have bothered to updated the processors just a couple of months in advance.

 

iMac will get a real update for sure, but it seems very unlikely another update is coming for the Pro.  Time will tell and I hope you're right, but doesn't seem remotely likely to me.

post #56 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Why? Have at it.

 

Unless the appraisal includes links to 9to5Mac, that is. lol.gif

 

And there's no working shake head emoticon, so imagine one until we either uncensor those links or the emoticons start working, whichever comes first.

 

I will defer until I get a grip on what transpired today.   Talk about ☔on the party.   Right now words can not express what i'm feeling👿😱😡😪

post #57 of 153
Here are the specs from intel's web site for the fastest 2010 Macpro (2.93GHz) and todays fastest 'new' Macpro (3.06GHz).
There is not much of a difference.
 
Links:
 
To compare both side by side:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2010 Macpro:
 
Specifications
Status Launched
Launch Date Q1'10
Processor Number X5670
# of Cores 6
# of Threads 12
Clock Speed 2.93 GHz
Max Turbo Frequency 3.33 GHz
Intel® Smart Cache 12 MB
Bus/Core Ratio 22
Intel® QPI Speed 6.4 GT/s
# of QPI Links 2
Instruction Set 64-bit
Instruction Set Extensions SSE4.2
Embedded Options Available No
Lithography 32 nm
Max TDP 95 W
VID Voltage Range 0.750V-1.350V
Recommended Customer Price TRAY: $1440
BOX : $1443
Datasheet Url Link
Memory Specifications
Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) 288 GB
Memory Types DDR3-800/1066/1333
# of Memory Channels 3
Max Memory Bandwidth 32 GB/s
Physical Address Extensions 40-bit
ECC Memory Supported Yes
Graphics Specifications
Integrated Graphics No
Package Specifications
Max CPU Configuration 2
TCASE 81.3°C
Package Size 42.5mm X 45mm
Sockets Supported FCLGA1366
Low Halogen Options Available See MDDS
Advanced Technologies
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology Yes
Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology Yes
Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) Yes
Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) Yes
Intel® Trusted Execution Technology Yes
AES New Instructions Yes
Intel® 64 Yes
Idle States Yes
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology Yes
Intel® Demand Based Switching Yes
Thermal Monitoring Technologies No
Execute Disable Bit Yes
Intel® VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT) Yes
 
 
2012 Macpro:
 
Specifications
Status Launched
Launch Date Q1'11
Processor Number X5675
# of Cores 6
# of Threads 12
Clock Speed 3.06 GHz
Max Turbo Frequency 3.46 GHz
Intel® Smart Cache 12 MB
Bus/Core Ratio 23
Intel® QPI Speed 6.4 GT/s
# of QPI Links 2
Instruction Set 64-bit
Instruction Set Extensions SSE4.2
Embedded Options Available No
Lithography 32 nm
Max TDP 95 W
VID Voltage Range 0.750V-1.350V
Recommended Customer Price TRAY: $1440
BOX : $1443
Datasheet Url Link
Memory Specifications
Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) 288 GB
Memory Types DDR3-800/1066/1333
# of Memory Channels 3
Max Memory Bandwidth 32 GB/s
Physical Address Extensions 40-bit
ECC Memory Supported Yes
Graphics Specifications
Integrated Graphics No
Package Specifications
Max CPU Configuration 2
TCASE 81.3°C
Package Size 42.5mm X 45mm
Sockets Supported FCLGA1366
Low Halogen Options Available See MDDS
Advanced Technologies
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology Yes
Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology Yes
Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) Yes
Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) Yes
Intel® Trusted Execution Technology Yes
AES New Instructions Yes
Intel® 64 Yes
Idle States Yes
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology Yes
Intel® Demand Based Switching Yes
Thermal Monitoring Technologies No
Execute Disable Bit Yes
Intel® VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT) Yes
 
 
Both appear to be codenamed  "Westmere-EP" 
 
-Robert

Edited by redison - 6/11/12 at 1:32pm
post #58 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by redison View Post
2010 Macpro:
Processor Number X5670
 
 
2012 Macpro:
Processor Number X5675

 

Woo! It's five integers larger! That means it's better!

Oh, right, not the consumer side of things. lol.gif

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #59 of 153

Well, I think it's obvious Apple doesn't care about the Mac Pro anymore.  These updates don't bring Thunderbolt or USB 3 and the case is 10 years old.

post #60 of 153

Everyone, check intel website:

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/chipsets/server-chipsets/server-chipset-c600.html

 

Now all the chipsets which support xeon E5 doesn't support USB 3.0 and TB, even not support pcie 3.0

 

The cxx chipset although support pcie 3.0, but it is for entry level workstations.

 

Apple MAY want to make BIG UPDATE when REAL CHIPSET which support tb, usb 3, and pcie3.0.

post #61 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy View Post
…and the case is 10 years old.

 

And your argument falls apart there.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #62 of 153

While I realize this is a Mac Pro thread the issue with this embarrassing update goes beyond the mac Pro user segment.   What is truly bothersome is Apples thumbing its nose at desktop users of any sort.   As far as I know there are no Mini or iMac updates to speak of either.    It is like they have totally given up on the desktop, no matter what your performance needs are.    

 

Their excuse may be poor sales as the only machine close to holding even was the iMac, with the rest of the product line in decline.    Apparently nobody at Apple asks why the lineup is having such a terrible time sales wise.   Nothing done today will improve Apples desktop sales position, but rather will make it far more pathetic in the coming quarter.

 

I have to wonder how the poor engineers at Apple are feeling right now.   I'm convinced they want to produce bleeding edge desktop machines but apparently have had the rug pulled out from under them.   The fact that they couldn't manage a GPU update is so disgusting as to leave me with flames coming out of my ears.    Mind you I'm not likely to be a Mac Pro customer but I'd like to be a desktop customer but this has a a big FU written all over it.

post #63 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

The only good news I can take from this debacle is that the Mac Pro line is not dead and hope this is just to clear stock for the actual new Mac Pro update in a few months.

I don't think Apple has stock to clear any more. They apparently turn over their inventory in 5 days. Even with something as low volume as the Pro, they won't build enough to have unsold stock. Not after 2 years.

If a worthwhile update was coming, now was the time to do it. The chips are available. The new Xeon CPUs aren't much faster in raw performance but there's no excuse for not including the latest desktop GPUs.

At least the entry 12-core is not much more than the entry 8-core used to be.

I'm surprised at the lack of an iMac update, it's long overdue.
post #64 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntson View Post

Notice the lack of raid cards

The prior raid card was a piece of trash, and they didn't offer decent support on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JBrickley View Post

Good grief!  The MacPro is still, two years later, faster than most PC's.  In order to get any better you have to spend a heck of a lot of money on PC Workstation class hardware.  Only a couple of Ivy Bridge Xeons are even out yet.  Most people who use Mac Pro's can't even push them hard enough to max out their capabilities.  Quit the attitude!

 

I have a Mac Pro (last produced model), it cost me $8k and I didn't even max it out on options.  They are not selling a lot of these machines.  Instead of fretting over this machine, I am building a rackmount cloud server instead.  Future computers will be laptops and anything that needs real power will be on the cloud server.  I just remote connect to the private cloud and kick off my rendering jobs there.  It's faster that way anyway

Where are you getting your information? The hardware is the same. OSX is faster in some things, slower in others, and this is a workstation. If you're capable of building servers, you already knew all of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

 

Not trying is never good form the business point of view.   It sends the wrong message to your customers.

 

As to this "update" i'm a bit in shock, Apple had got tot realize that this sends the wrong message to its customers pro and not so pro.   The lack of a real GPU update though is totally shocking.    A new chip soldered to the motherboard would have ben better than this.

 

I have to believe something is up at Apple and this is some sort of stop gap measure.

A stop gap measure would have made more sense last year. Intel's price adjustments came about last year. The W3565 dropped to around $300. The w3680 dropped to roughly $600 from 1000-1100. Prices from Apple stayed the same. I can't imagine that they're introducing a couple different cpu models if they are planning on a Sandy Bridge E release in the coming months. Apple doesn't do short refresh cycles like that. Further they could use the same board design for Sandy + Ivy. I wouldn't personally invest in updates on a line that get so little attention given that it doesn't say much for future support.

post #65 of 153

After Apple's huge comeback (I remember the dark days), I never thought I'd ever again need to think about switching platforms.  Sadly, here we are.  Is the Mac dead?  That the real question.  Apple is stronger than ever, but is the Mac dead?

post #66 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

 It is like they have totally given up on the desktop, no matter what your performance needs are.    

I don' t think it's like that at all.

post #67 of 153

Wait, so this 2012 MacPro has the same video card (5770) I put into my 2006 MacPro 2.0GHz (1,1) back in 2009, which I paid $299 for at Fry's? 

 

Am I missing something? Is there a 'Super Turbo Extreme' after the '5770' that I'm not seeing? 

post #68 of 153

https://www.facebook.com/MacProsPlease/posts/454670807879356?comment_id=5766996&offset=0&total_comments=183

 

Facebook user on mac pro group claims tim cook replied with pretty much 'later next year"

 

Translation, maybe they are going to wait for ivy server chip? who knows.

 

At the very least they need to bring the 2010 rehash into a price that's actually reasonable. Charging what the parts were worth, in 2010, is unacceptable. Not a single peice of hardware in the "new" mac pro is current or relevant by todays standards.

 

Also, those saying you can't build a tower off the sandy bridge Es?

that doesn't stop it from being a beast

 

http://www.promax.com/s-154-promax-one-tech-specs.aspx

 

how is releasing an old model with USB 2.0 better then releasing a beast with 2.0. They BOTh still have USB 2.0. At least one of them is current generation hardware.

post #69 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


I don't think Apple has stock to clear any more. They apparently turn over their inventory in 5 days. Even with something as low volume as the Pro, they won't build enough to have unsold stock. Not after 2 years.
If a worthwhile update was coming, now was the time to do it. The chips are available. The new Xeon CPUs aren't much faster in raw performance but there's no excuse for not including the latest desktop GPUs.
At least the entry 12-core is not much more than the entry 8-core used to be.
I'm surprised at the lack of an iMac update, it's long overdue.

Marvin the whole thing stinks!   I mean this honestly; it is the hostility towards the desktop user that i'm feeling here and an unwillingness to innovate with respect to desktop machines.    I mean really if your sales are in decline and people regularly point out why the desktop lineup stinks you would think Apple would spend a dollar or two too freshen things up.

 

I'd be the first to admit that there may be issues with Intel and their chip sets.   Sandy Bridge E has a terrible history of delays, bugs and setbacks.   So maybe SB-E wasn't in the cards.    Even so that doesn't mean we should have to put up with a 2 year old video card.

 

As to the iMac well that does need a major overhaul and this would have been the ideal time to do so.   Apparently Apple has a certain disdain for the desktop user and has decided to make them wait a few more months.   Effectively nothing was touched with respect to the desktop lineup.   

 

Now we can speculate that maybe, just maybe, that they will release new hardware with Mountain Lion.   That is supposedly a month off.   As to the Mac Pro, I think users here are screwed because you won't see an update for some time, possibly a year.   The only real hope Pro users now have is that Apple has a something in the wings to debut sometime this year that will bring modern technology to the Pro user.   In any event Apple has killed sales for the entire desktop lineup as far as i'm concerned.   There is no way I'd recommend any desktop from Apple at the moment.

post #70 of 153

I don't think they've given up on the Pro. They need Pro users. They're just not announcing a major refresh of the Pro on the same day as all the updates to these more mobile-oriented unveilings. There will be a dedicated event to announce the major Pro updates. Probably along side with the other desktops. 

post #71 of 153

Life support....little time left...eh...perhaps another shot...EOL it is...Mac Pro No More

 

The era started with the PowerMac..

 

post #72 of 153

Maybe you should just drop a couple of extra video cards in your Mac Pro as Photoshop can offload to the multiple GPU's.  That is parallel processing using super fast numerics built into video cards.  Welcome to the future.  You could even drop in two old 5770 graphics cards in addition to what you have now and cut your processing time tremendously.  Even if Apple did upgrade to Ivy Bridge Xeon's and SATA III 6g you wouldn't notice much difference as it's all about the video cards with Photoshop.  Do yourself a favor and get a fast SSD from OWC (don't buy the 6G model as the Mac Pro can only do 3G.  Put your apps and OS on the SSD, that will speed things up.  Partition the SSD and leave enough working space for your current project files and loading those multiple GB files will go many times faster.  

 

The reason you hear "render, render, render" all the time is because that's what most Mac Pro's are used for.  If Adobe would develop a Photoshop render farm command line tool that ran in Linux/Solaris/FreeBSD it would be possible to just drop all those files into a folder where the render farm servers grab it and process it, splitting the work across hundreds of CPUs and GPUs.  So instead of sitting at your desk staring at a Mac Pro crunching multiple steps it goes and gets processed in a data center and gives you the results.  This is the way real work is done, it's automated.  It's pretty expensive to pay a talented artist to stare at a screen and blaming Apple for it is lame.  Unlike Adobe, Apple implemented the ability to compile large projects using surrounding networked Mac's.  So big projects like Mathematica which literally takes all day to compile can do so hundreds of times faster.  

 

Seriously, you are not pushing your Mac Pro hard if the fans don't roar, your disk starts thrashing and it looks like it's going to melt down.  Photoshop does not push a Mac Pro to it's limits because Photoshop has yet to push enough threads/processes/polygons at it.  Sure it will run Photoshop faster, but if Adobe would get off their lazy butts and write some real code, it would go so much faster still!

post #73 of 153

If AI were capable of being embarrassed, it should be embarrassed by this know-nothing article.

 

What Apple has actually done is:

- Kept the same Nehalem and Westmere processors.

- Pruned the standard and BTO options, making the previously premium 3.2 GHz quad the base model.

- Upped the base RAM from 3GB to 6GB (useless either way).

- Kept the rest of the specs the same, as far as one can tell so far.

- Lowered the prices. 

 

As a pricing illustration, I bought a quad 3.2/1TB/3GB Mac Pro two months ago for $2928. Today (with 6GB) that costs $2499. Oh, and before 27 geniuses on AI post about how  stupid I must be feeling—wrong. I bought a new Mac Pro workstation for a new employee exactly when we needed it.

 

Bottom line is it's a slight speed bump and moderate price reduction, but tells us nothing about the future of the Mac Pro line.

post #74 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

I don' t think it's like that at all.

 

I'm open to other ideas here!!!   What this is telling me though is that Apple couldn't take the time to put any desktop machine on equal footing at WWDC.

post #75 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by friedmud View Post

Story is WRONG.

 

This is NOT Xeon E5.... E5645 is still the old Nehalem architecture!

 

E5's are like this: E5-4650

 

All that happened here was a minor speed bump....

 

So disappointed!

 

You're right, this is an old chip.  According to Intel's Website this chip was launched in Q1 of 2010.  People seem to still like and buy this chip, but it's by no means cutting edge.  I'm also surprised that they didn't update the graphics card.  Particularly since Mountain Lion offers out-of-the-box support for cutting edge graphics cards.


Edited by NormM - 6/11/12 at 3:10pm
post #76 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBrickley View Post

Seriously, you are not pushing your Mac Pro hard if the fans don't roar, your disk starts thrashing and it looks like it's going to melt down.  Photoshop does not push a Mac Pro to it's limits because Photoshop has yet to push enough threads/processes/polygons at it.  Sure it will run Photoshop faster, but if Adobe would get off their lazy butts and write some real code, it would go so much faster still!

The point is that doing equivalent work on an iMac you get beach balls and crashes. As long as it is measurably faster and less problematic to work on a Mac Pro than a iMac, I'll opt for Mac Pro. 

 

I love the 'real work' jab. I thought I was elitist but you have even me beat in that department. We make money in the graphics business because we don't hire specialized artists, programmers and video editors. We do everything ourselves and and do it well enough to get steady repeat business. So although your claim that most work performed on a Mac Pro is rendering, it does not apply to me, even if it were true, which I highly doubt. The most important thing for me is multitasking. We have iMacs here as well but they can't handle the load and you aren't going to put any extra video cards or SSDs in those machines. My comments weren't intended to complain that our Mac Pros aren't fast enough, it was that we want to buy more but not two year old components even if they could be souped up by third party add ons. I, like everyone else but you wanted the latest new hardware because we plan to use them for 5 years or more.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #77 of 153

Well you must feel pretty stupid Neil.  26 to go

post #78 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilM View Post

If AI were capable of being embarrassed, it should be embarrassed by this know-nothing article.

 

What Apple has actually done is:

- Kept the same Nehalem and Westmere processors.

- Pruned the standard and BTO options, making the previously premium 3.2 GHz quad the base model.

- Upped the base RAM from 3GB to 6GB (useless either way).

- Kept the rest of the specs the same, as far as one can tell so far.

- Lowered the prices. 

 

As a pricing illustration, I bought a quad 3.2/1TB/3GB Mac Pro two months ago for $2928. Today (with 6GB) that costs $2499. Oh, and before 27 geniuses on AI post about how  stupid I must be feeling—wrong. I bought a new Mac Pro workstation for a new employee exactly when we needed it.

 

Bottom line is it's a slight speed bump and moderate price reduction, but tells us nothing about the future of the Mac Pro line.

 

I have to agree it tells us little about the Mac Pros future.   On the other hand this tells us volumes about how Apple feels about the desktop user.    I mean really a three year old GPU card.    It isn't just the Mac Pro though as the whole desktop line up was ignored.   

post #79 of 153

Oh.. regarding graphic cards @ NAB i was a little stunned by this news by Cubix, regular Quadro 6000 supported in Mac OS.

 

 

 

Quote:
Yes, Cubix ran DaVinci Resolve 8.2 under OSX and used two Quadro 6000 cards, with readily available stock drivers (nothing "grey market" used at all). Seemed to create a buzz with alot of people interested in beefing up higher resolution Resolve, Adobe CS6, Assimilate Scratch, Autodesk Maya / Smoke, and several other industry applications.
 

 

Also in the same post, from the land of Woz

Quote:
Fusion-io's ioFX - PCIe-based caching drive which has OSX drivers, in addition to Windows 7 and Linux. I have to imagine there's alot of Adobe, Autodesk, DaVinci and Assimilate users who would immediately benefit from caching files on the 80Gbps PCIe bus instead of through the SATA controller.

the full blog at Cubix

 

 

 

post #80 of 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticalOS View Post

Facebook user on mac pro group claims tim cook replied with pretty much 'later next year"

Translation, maybe they are going to wait for ivy server chip? who knows.

Seems unlikely that the CEO who just spoke about doubling down on secrecy would reply via his iPad assuring someone about an upcoming product release next year after just putting new CPUs in the current Pro.

This is all we're going to get for the next year now.

By 2013, they will have Haswell CPUs in the MBP and until then, the MBP would replace any 8-core 2008 MP and under.

$2,199 Retina MBP (6.1 Cinebench) + $3,799 12-core Mac Pro (12.7 Cinebench) = $5998 (18.8 Cinebench) = $320/unit

Sandy Bridge Xeon MP:

$6,200 12-core E5 (21 Cinebench) = $295/unit

Performance per dollar is better with the Sandy Bridge Xeon but not by much, especially if you only go for the Mac Pro. Buy a Retina MBP along with the 12-core Pro, stick the MP on a network in a closet and control it from anywhere in the world.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple quietly updates Mac Pro with Intel Xeon CPU [u]