or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Next-gen Mac Pro processors could arrive March 29
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Next-gen Mac Pro processors could arrive March 29 - Page 2

post #41 of 254
I *just* bought a Dell Core i7 (6gb ram, Radeon 4850) from Microcenter for $899.

Looks like I won't be upgrading my Mac Pro 2.66 Quad Intel (Bought in 2006) unless/until Apple comes out with a machine near this pricepoint, or betters it with dual Core i7 (no motherbaords for Dual Core i7s have been introduced yet.)

That Core i7 iMac that never emerged (rumors were on this site) would have gotten my money (even at $1499), but I can't see a reason to update unless they use the Xeon verison of the Core i7, and finally add a Bluray burner on the $2299 low-end Mac Pro.
post #42 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomhayes View Post

I *just* bought a Dell Core i7 (6gb ram, Radeon 4850) from Microcenter for $899.

Looks like I won't be upgrading my Mac Pro 2.66 Quad Intel (Bought in 2006) unless/until Apple comes out with a machine near this pricepoint, or betters it with dual Core i7 (no motherbaords for Dual Core i7s have been introduced yet.)

That Core i7 iMac that never emerged (rumors were on this site) would have gotten my money (even at $1499), but I can't see a reason to update unless they use the Xeon verison of the Core i7, and finally add a Bluray burner on the $2299 low-end Mac Pro.

The faster Xeon processors alone will cost more than $899 so don't expect a sub $2k Mac Pro anytime soon.

There will not be a dual Core i7 branded system as you note. Core i7 (Bloomfield 130w TDP) and Core i5 (Lynnefield 95w TDP) are consumer desktops. They will have slower Quickpath links and support single socket motherboards. Gainesville is Intel's first Nehalem Xeon with the faster QPI and SMP support.

The iMac will probably skip Core i7 (which is somewhat of dubious design for a single processor system IMO) and most likely move to a more sensible Core i5 Lynnefield chip with the next refresh.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #43 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah View Post

Looks like a common-sense way of designing the memory controller.

Makes you wonder why they didn't design it that way the first time around?

I believe that Intel was the first to have an integrated memory controller some years ago on more specialized cpus.

But it wasn't always such a benefit. It's only become one once performance required such great memory bandwidths. Even then, Intel could keep up using large caches.

But at some point, when dual core came out, that was no longer possible, a faster method was required.

But otherwise, having a separate controller had benefits that on die models lacked.

That was being able to come out with a new cpu without having to have a new controller at the same time. The opposite thing was true as well. This kept development costs and times down, allowed Intel to produce chips more quickly than the competition.

What really caused Intel to fall behind AMD for a while wasn't so much AMD having the controller on die, it was the problems Intel had gotten themselves into with the concept behind Netburst. They thought their superior proces technology would carry them way beyond their competitors, but when 90 nm hit, that high speed hurt them the most.

Anyway, that battle has been won.
post #44 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomhayes View Post

I *just* bought a Dell Core i7 (6gb ram, Radeon 4850) from Microcenter for $899.

Looks like I won't be upgrading my Mac Pro 2.66 Quad Intel (Bought in 2006) unless/until Apple comes out with a machine near this pricepoint, or betters it with dual Core i7 (no motherbaords for Dual Core i7s have been introduced yet.)

That Core i7 iMac that never emerged (rumors were on this site) would have gotten my money (even at $1499), but I can't see a reason to update unless they use the Xeon verison of the Core i7, and finally add a Bluray burner on the $2299 low-end Mac Pro.

Welcome back to Windows. Looks like you'll be staying there a while.
post #45 of 254
Snow Leopard might be required for the new Mac Pros. Leopard and its ancestors multitask by scheduling processes to run anywhere at any time. The new memory architecture in Nehalem might severely penalize the performance of an OS that doesn't schedule processes to run consistently on the same processor as much as possible.
This would be consistent with Jordan Hubbard's presentation which suggested 1Q 2009 availability for Snow Leopard.
post #46 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

Snow Leopard might be required for the new Mac Pros. Leopard and its ancestors multitask by scheduling processes to run anywhere at any time. The new memory architecture in Nehalem might severely penalize the performance of an OS that doesn't schedule processes to run consistently on the same processor as much as possible.
This would be consistent with Jordan Hubbard's presentation which suggested 1Q 2009 availability for Snow Leopard.

Agreed.

I certainly wouldn't want to rely on the current threading tools in Leopard to handle a 16 thread system. They're not horrible but not necessarily the kind of visionary tool that Blocks is in Snow Leopard.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #47 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Welcome back to Windows. Looks like you'll be staying there a while.

No, I always have a Mac *and* a Windows machine.

I'm just not upgrading the Mac until they improve the performance to the level of the Dell (or beyond.) I used to upgrade the Mac every two years, now it looks like 3 years is a more sensible timeframe. (Honestly, if the Macbook aluminum had firewire I may have bought one. But to buy a laptop that can't import my current camcorder's footage didn't make sense to me.)
post #48 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomhayes View Post

No, I always have a Mac *and* a Windows machine.

I'm just not upgrading the Mac until they improve the performance to the level of the Dell (or beyond.) I used to upgrade the Mac every two years, now it looks like 3 years is a more sensible timeframe. (Honestly, if the Macbook aluminum had firewire I may have bought one. But to buy a laptop that can't import my current camcorder's footage didn't make sense to me.)

Tom are you looking to buy a Mac Pro class computer or is an iMac just fine?

As sexy as the Core i7 stuff is it's not really going to be Intel's volume Nehalem product. That's going to be lynnfield. Now it's fine to have QPI and all but ondie memory controllers really help in latency and latency doesn't really become a big hurdle until you have dual socket or quad socket computers.

Thus I can fully understand why Apple's is likely to skip Core i7 for iMacs (too hot) and wait for Lynnfield based product for the next refresh. The performance should be pretty close to Bloomfield (Ci7).
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #49 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Tom are you looking to buy a Mac Pro class computer or is an iMac just fine?

As sexy as the Core i7 stuff is it's not really going to be Intel's volume Nehalem product. That's going to be lynnfield. Now it's fine to have QPI and all but ondie memory controllers really help in latency and latency doesn't really become a big hurdle until you have dual socket or quad socket computers.

Thus I can fully understand why Apple's is likely to skip Core i7 for iMacs (too hot) and wait for Lynnfield based product for the next refresh. The performance should be pretty close to Bloomfield (Ci7).

And it's worth mentioning that Core i5 (lynnfield) will also have an on-die memory controller, however it will be dual channel DDR3, not triple channel like on the i7. I don't think this will affect bandwidth too much though*. Also, and more importantly, it will also have PCIe right on the die. This will help with graphics performance.

* I say this because of various preliminary benchmarks I have seen online.
post #50 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

And it's worth mentioning that Core i5 (lynnfield) will also have an on-die memory controller, however it will be dual channel DDR3, not triple channel like on the i7. I don't think this will affect bandwidth too much though*. Also, and more importantly, it will also have PCIe right on the die. This will help with graphics performance.

* I say this because of various preliminary benchmarks I have seen online.

And it'll eliminate the North Bridge and TDP requirements that it brings. A 73w TDP Lynnfield or Havendale setup should be competitive with today's 65W TDP product.

I'm not worried about the lack of triple channel memory. I'd rather put the money savings towards the laggard of computers which is the HDD. Replace a HDD with a capable SSD and you've eliminated a major slowdown in your computer.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #51 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Agreed.

I certainly wouldn't want to rely on the current threading tools in Leopard to handle a 16 thread system. They're not horrible but not necessarily the kind of visionary tool that Blocks is in Snow Leopard.

Vista has had the same problem. I don't know if it's been fixed.
post #52 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomhayes View Post

No, I always have a Mac *and* a Windows machine.

I'm just not upgrading the Mac until they improve the performance to the level of the Dell (or beyond.) I used to upgrade the Mac every two years, now it looks like 3 years is a more sensible timeframe. (Honestly, if the Macbook aluminum had firewire I may have bought one. But to buy a laptop that can't import my current camcorder's footage didn't make sense to me.)

Ok, then have a good time on both platforms.

I really don't see us getting what you want.

The closest may be if the rumors of both two and four core chips for the iMac are true, but that's not likely what you are looking for.
post #53 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

And it'll eliminate the North Bridge and TDP requirements that it brings. A 73w TDP Lynnfield or Havendale setup should be competitive with today's 65W TDP product.

I'm not worried about the lack of triple channel memory. I'd rather put the money savings towards the laggard of computers which is the HDD. Replace a HDD with a capable SSD and you've eliminated a major slowdown in your computer.

Testing I've seen on i7 has shown that three channel memory for those chips doesn't seem to be an advantage. even two channel didn't seen to give a large advantage over one.

With the Xeons, that's likely to be untrue, so three channel would be required.
post #54 of 254
I have been waiting (Like so many others) to get an updated IMAC. I just switched from PC when I got my MBP but don't know much about processors and IMAC's. I love the operating system so an Apple desktop is a must. I also want to use it for gaming. The question..... Should I wait for an updated IMAC or purchase a used Mac Pro? I don't want to spend more than 2700.00. Is the used Mac Pro good for games? Is the processor / graphics quality?

Any comments are welcome.

Thanks.
post #55 of 254
I saw this on Craigslist:

GRAPHICS CARD - Nvidia 8800GT for a 2008 Mac Pro! - $180 (Lawrence, KS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: see below
Date: 2009-01-08, 11:30PM CST
This thing flies and you'll save $100 if you'd like to buy it from me. The condition is perfect, mint, only used once to test it out! I run a 2008 Mac Pro with 16GB RAM, 4 internal hard drives and 2 externals. I have three graphics cards so I am deciding to let this one go since it is kinda superfluous. Hope one of you wants some speed and power! The latest updates to the Mac OS have stepped up the drivers for this card so it's definitely worth it- if you have a 2008 Mac Pro this will help make it shine & if you just wanna future proof your machine by adding another card this is a goooood deal. When the new Mac OS, Snow Leopard, comes out this summer it will take advantage of the GPU of the graphics card and use it as a processor SO your Mac Pro will be beefed up by 1-2 processors depending on how many graphics cards you have.
Ring me if you'd like this card.
Louis Anajjar
785.727.1167 OR just shoot me an e-mail: louisanajjar@yahoo.com -fyi, i only sell in person.


Question // How many graphics cards can you hook up and do you need to on the Mac Pro?????
post #56 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwood View Post

I have been waiting (Like so many others) to get an updated IMAC. I just switched from PC when I got my MBP but don't know much about processors and IMAC's. I love the operating system so an Apple desktop is a must. I also want to use it for gaming. The question..... Should I wait for an updated IMAC or purchase a used Mac Pro? I don't want to spend more than 2700.00. Is the used Mac Pro good for games? Is the processor / graphics quality?

Any comments are welcome.

Thanks.

The next iMac will be good for games IMO. That's if they use the Nvidia 9600m which they should
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #57 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwood View Post

Question // How many graphics cards can you hook up and do you need to on the Mac Pro?????

The Mac Pro has two six-pin power connectors, so only two cards that need the extra power cable (like the 8800GT). Or four cards that don't need extra power.
post #58 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

The Mac Pro has two six-pin power connectors, so only two cards that need the extra power cable (like the 8800GT). Or four cards that don't need extra power.

That's when you get a drive bay power supply
post #59 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

That's when you get a drive bay power supply

Or you could just use a 4-pin to 6-pin adapter using the drive bay's power connectors. Very easy to do.
post #60 of 254
Quote:
Welcome back to Windows. Looks like you'll be staying there a while.

Yeah, sure does. Apple's behind on updates to it's desktops. A year plus for the Mac Pro. Over half a year for the iMac. And a sucktacular how long(?!) has it been for the mini?

For a company that cares about leadership in the OS and Design dept, you'd think they'd care about parity with the specs on Windows based systems.

I thought the move to Intel would make Apple competitive on desktops. If anything, they've gotten worse! Slow to update, out-dated specs, laughable prices.

Sucky gpus in every desktop. No quad core in ANY consumer desktop whilst still charging prices that add to their 25 billion stash pile.

We can throw stones at Windows OS, but the machines are more than competive on price. Any i7 desktop for half the price of the Mac Pro will smack its head in or serverly humble it at the least.

Huh, I mean, paying "£1700" just to get a quad core with a GT with a stingy amount of ram and ridiculously small hd. PATHETIC.

Question: If Apple's dekstops ran only Windows...would you buy one? (I wouldn't. Lucky Apple has the 'X'.)

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #61 of 254
Quote:
If the iMac had been up to the task, I'd be singing its praises. I don't care if the CPU is mobile, desktop, or whatever, I care about bang for my buck. The iMac has not lived to what I have come to expect from an Apple product. My PowerMacs gave it to me in speed. Even the iBook performed better than my expectations. 3D performance has been lackluster, the RAM ceiling is too low with only 2 slots, and I've seen far too many slowdowns and appearances of the beach ball for a $1500 machine.

I'm not looking for anything special, but I'm not looking to spend that kind of money for what performs like an $800 desktop in premium aesthetically pleasing case. For the average family user, this is an excellent machine with a lot of power with added clutter reducing benefits. For a power user (who isn't making hollywood blockbluster and doesn't need a xeon workstation) it just isn't the right tool for the job.

A poster from Macrumors.

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #62 of 254
As entangled as Apple is in laptops and phones and looking at the update rate of the desktops I believe that the Apple desktops in 2009 are the floppy disk of 1998. Apple (Steve?) decided that we do not need desktops anymore and we should hurry up and buy any mobile device Apple is offering us to keep our hardware up to date.
The mobile devices (laptops, iPhone, iPod) are the only ones that have a reasonable price/value(performance) ratio. The MacPro is also priced ok (spec-wise) but it is just for a few people and will sell in accordingly low numbers (compared to the mobile devices).
So say by-by to our beloved desktops. Steve'd in 2009.
post #63 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

Or you could just use a 4-pin to 6-pin adapter using the drive bay's power connectors. Very easy to do.

Depends how power hungry the GPUs and their custom cooling systems are.
post #64 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Depends how power hungry the GPUs and their custom cooling systems are.

Are you saying that the current could be too much for that cable? A decent fan shouldn't take much power, but I don't know about the rest of the card.

As far as I know, the main PSU is plenty more than enough. It's rated for about 1kW, and as I recall, a stock Mac Pro doesn't draw 300W from the wall at max load.
post #65 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

We can throw stones at Windows OS, but the machines are more than competive on price. Any i7 desktop for half the price of the Mac Pro will smack its head in or serverly humble it at the least.

That's a bit disingenous. The benchmarks showing a Corei7 beating a SMP Penryn Xeon system are faulty from the standpoint that most applications shipping today or benchmarked don't see much beyond dual core. So you get some yokel that benchmarks his new Core i7 and it beats a Mac Pro yet show me an app that can leverage 8 cores and then test it on a quad Core i7 vs Penryn 8-core system. Nehalem is fast but it's not THAT fast people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by copeland View Post

As entangled as Apple is in laptops and phones and looking at the update rate of the desktops I believe that the Apple desktops in 2009 are the floppy disk of 1998. Apple (Steve?) decided that we do not need desktops anymore and we should hurry up and buy any mobile device Apple is offering us to keep our hardware up to date.
The mobile devices (laptops, iPhone, iPod) are the only ones that have a reasonable price/value(performance) ratio. The MacPro is also priced ok (spec-wise) but it is just for a few people and will sell in accordingly low numbers (compared to the mobile devices).
So say by-by to our beloved desktops. Steve'd in 2009.

Apple's just being lazy. They've focused so much on the iPhone that frankly their other business has languished and they've made some poor design choices that are likely costing them now (making the iMac too thin and I expect the redesigned Macbooks will suffer as well when Nehalem mobile comes).

The desktops will return!!
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #66 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Are you saying that the current could be too much for that cable? A decent fan shouldn't take much power, but I don't know about the rest of the card.

As far as I know, the main PSU is plenty more than enough. It's rated for about 1kW, and as I recall, a stock Mac Pro doesn't draw 300W from the wall at max load.

It's not a real issue, IMO, I'm just discussing for the sake of discussing. The PSU on the Mac Pro is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1kw more than enough for a fully decked out Mac Pro.
post #67 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

The desktops will return!!

Chant with me:
Modular Modular Modular Modular Modular Modular .....
post #68 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Yeah, sure does. Apple's behind on updates to it's desktops. A year plus for the Mac Pro. Over half a year for the iMac. And a sucktacular how long(?!) has it been for the mini?

For a company that cares about leadership in the OS and Design dept, you'd think they'd care about parity with the specs on Windows based systems.

I thought the move to Intel would make Apple competitive on desktops. If anything, they've gotten worse! Slow to update, out-dated specs, laughable prices.

Sucky gpus in every desktop. No quad core in ANY consumer desktop whilst still charging prices that add to their 25 billion stash pile.

We can throw stones at Windows OS, but the machines are more than competive on price. Any i7 desktop for half the price of the Mac Pro will smack its head in or serverly humble it at the least.

Huh, I mean, paying "£1700" just to get a quad core with a GT with a stingy amount of ram and ridiculously small hd. PATHETIC.

Question: If Apple's dekstops ran only Windows...would you buy one? (I wouldn't. Lucky Apple has the 'X'.)

Lemon Bon Bon.

What people forget is that Apple is still Apple. While they will sometimes get new chips from Intel before the PC makers, while the general chip updates come out, they're less likely to bother with them.

Truthfully, we don't really need these incremental updates. There is rarely more than a few percent improvement in performance.

But, there is the marketing factor. People often want to see these small improvements throughout the year.

When I had my company, I had a schedule of computer upgrades. But since I retired, I'm being very patient, as I no longer need it, though I do want it.

So I'm waiting for the new Nehelam Xeons to appear. It's been years since I got myself a new machine.
post #69 of 254
[QUOTE=hmurchison;1372416]That's a bit disingenous. The benchmarks showing a Corei7 beating a SMP Penryn Xeon system are faulty from the standpoint that most applications shipping today or benchmarked don't see much beyond dual core. So you get some yokel that benchmarks his new Core i7 and it beats a Mac Pro yet show me an app that can leverage 8 cores and then test it on a quad Core i7 vs Penryn 8-core system. Nehalem is fast but it's not THAT fast people. [/quote

I don't know about that.

I'm seeing between 20 and 40% increases in speed between the i7's and older chips from independent testing.

Also Nehelem is more effective as the number of cores, and separate cpus go up. The new point to point scheme, with new on-die controller, and cache scheme puts much less penalty on parallel processing apps, unlike current chips.

Also the return of hyperthreading, for apps that can use it, shows between 5 and 25% additional speedup. The penalty for using it with apps that can't use it is trivial now, though it was a major problem before (which is why it was discontinued).

Quote:
Apple's just being lazy. They've focused so much on the iPhone that frankly their other business has languished and they've made some poor design choices that are likely costing them now (making the iMac too thin and I expect the redesigned Macbooks will suffer as well when Nehalem mobile comes).

The desktops will return!!

To a certain extent, that's correct. Companies, and Apple's not an exception, can get extended too far. We saw that before the release of the first iPhone, and subsequent delay of 10.5
post #70 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

The desktops will return!!

May your words find their way into god's (Steve's?) ear canal!!
post #71 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by copeland View Post

May your words find their way into god's (Steve's?) ear canal!!

Hope it is the ear, not the rear one. \
post #72 of 254
For memory intensive, multithreaded apps, the core i7 destroys all previous processors you can buy from a store.

A dual processor machine with 8 cores will beat a 4 core core i7 machine as long as it's not memory limited. If your job is memory limited (big photos, video, scientific computing) then the core i7 will destroy it. The memory bus is literally 3x faster.

These processors are a REALLY big deal for some of us. For email and web surfing, it's not going to make much difference.
post #73 of 254
I wouldn't despair over the Mac Pro. Apple needs to have it in the lineup. They'll update it.

I believe the current lack of an update reflects to some extent a shifting of engineering priority (the iPhone got the all-hands-on-deck treatment) but also the work involved in designing a whole new motherboard, which the new Intel chips will require, which is as powerful as they can make it under the circumstance (even now, hardly anyone offers anything in the Mac Pro's league except for CPU speed) and make its housing as quiet as possible.

Speaking of the housing, maybe it's due for a refresh. The current case is very well laid out, if huge, but it's also turning 4.

It wouldn't surprise me if the release is somewhere near Snow Leopard's release, since that OS has significantly revamped support for multiprocessing and multithreading.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #74 of 254
Quote:
Truthfully, we don't really need these incremental updates. There is rarely more than a few percent improvement in performance.

'You're not getting away with that.'

Few percent? Try a 4870x2 vs the GT in teh Mac Pro. That's more than a few percent.

Try the Mini's cpu and gpu vs current Windows entry desktops. Waaay more than a few percent.

And try the iMac's gpu or even duo cpu vs quad core chips...

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than a few percent.

Really, if they're that good at design then those very same designs should be able to accomodate a 'revision' update on specs?

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #75 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

'You're not getting away with that.'

Few percent? Try a 4870x2 vs the GT in teh Mac Pro. That's more than a few percent.

Try the Mini's cpu and gpu vs current Windows entry desktops. Waaay more than a few percent.

And try the iMac's gpu or even duo cpu vs quad core chips...

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than a few percent.

Really, if they're that good at design then those very same designs should be able to accomodate a 'revision' update on specs?

Lemon Bon Bon.

I'm talking about small incremental cpu upgrades, which is something Apple has done more than a few times, without making any other real change to the rest of the machine.

I'm not talking about the changes you show.
post #76 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

These look like great chips, but what will the new mac pros cost?

No offense but anyone
that said jobs wasn't feelnig well knew there would be new macs before June. They were ready before macworld. Second, there will be a new iphone, duh, as you have millions of users going on two years ownership
post #77 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiimamac View Post

No offense but anyone
that said jobs wasn't feelnig well knew there would be new macs before June. They were ready before macworld. Second, there will be a new iphone, duh, as you have millions of users going on two years ownership

You KNOW these machines were ready before Macworld? How do you know that?

I would imagine that the machines are about ready, but that they are waiting for the chips.
post #78 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB View Post

Hope it is the ear, not the rear one. \

Which ever is necessary to bring some new life to the desktop line!
post #79 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by copeland View Post

Which ever is necessary to bring some new life to the desktop line!

OK, well, if you follow the other discussions here you will realize that the real problem is not the Mac Pro but the "grand public"-level machines (iMac and Mac mini). I am very curious to see what Apple will do while Intel progresses in CPU technology, as it has locked itself in the closet with its latest desktop designs (smaller and thinner).
post #80 of 254
Woz is working for Fusion-IO now. I would love to see their drives as options at the Apple Store for the new Mac Pros.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Next-gen Mac Pro processors could arrive March 29