or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple intros new Mac Pro with "Nehalem" Xeon processors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple intros new Mac Pro with "Nehalem" Xeon processors - Page 3

post #81 of 505
My understanding is they want memory in groups of 3 to work "best" with the controllers... so why only 8 slots? You can toss the OM RAM (3 1G sticks) and go with 3 2G sticks for a max of 6G. And THAT'S IT????
post #82 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Funbruk View Post

So which should I get? The base Mac Pro or the high-end iMac?
I'll use it mostly for games, Photoshop, some Final Cut and 3D...

(Which has the best price compared to it's features?)

Get the 3.06 GHz iMac. I'm assuming that you mean the single chip Mac Pro.

It will be as fast as the base Mac Pro for PS.
It could also be as fast, or faster for certain operations on FCS, but slower for 3D, as the video card limits you there as well.

While the Xeon has two threads per core, PS only uses two cores effectively. The much higher speed of the iMac would therefore limit any advantage the MP has with it's extra cores, but it will be close.

Depends on what you use most.
post #83 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarman View Post

- Two 2.26GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
- 6GB (6x1GB)
- 640GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
- 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
- ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
- One 18x SuperDrive
- Apple LED Cinema Display (24" flat panel)
- Apple Mighty Mouse
- Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (English) and User's Guide
- AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n
- AppleCare Protection Plan for Mac Pro (w/or w/o Display) - Auto-enroll

Is this really worth the five grands they are asking me? Give me a break.

Definitely not. You could build a faster, more RAM, more HD linux box for about 3K w/ better monitor.
post #84 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicGuy View Post

My understanding is they want memory in groups of 3 to work "best" with the controllers... so why only 8 slots? You can toss the OM RAM (3 1G sticks) and go with 3 2G sticks for a max of 6G. And THAT'S IT????

the new chips have 3 memory controllers, so they run fastest w/ the ram chips in sets of 3. It is weird that the ram slots aren't in sets of 3. On core i7 MBs, they mostly have 6 ram slots.. max 24 gigs. (if you can find the 4 gig ram chips).

These mac pros seem like huge bastards if you ask me. They don't know what they are!

And I know they're meant to be workstation class machines, but still, the prices are ridiculous. On the other hand, the new memory architecture is significantly superior to the previous mac pros.
post #85 of 505
These prices are not reasonable. 8x2.66GHz should have been $2999. Offering a $3K+ high end machine with 2.26GHz processors in this day and age is shameful. Looks like Intel is upset with Apple and is no longer providing "preferred" pricing on processors.

The sad thing is that introduction pricing sets the price of a new Apple model throughout its life cycle. Intel will drop the price of the Xeon 5500 processors several times over the next year, but Apple will not pass these savings on to Apple customers. This is probably one area where companies like HP/Dell do better than Apple, as soon as Intel drops their processor/chipset pricing, they also drop their retail prices...
post #86 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

I agree that the price is high, but the price of Mac pros is always pretty high anyway and mostly inconsequential to the purchase decision.

My biggest gripe about this machine is that if the picture is accurate, there seems to be a new motherboard, and new configuration of the entire lower half of the insides. So again, while masquerading as an "upgradeable" Mac, this machine is essentially completely different from the previous model.

I'm not really sure why they even bother to let us open the case since the odds of upgrading a Mac pro past the stuff that you generally get when you purchase it, are something like slim to none. Anyone know if the new processors would pop into the older MacPros? It sure looks like the answer is no yet again.

You are wrong here. The older Mac Pro's were upgradable with newer cpu's.

http://www.anandtech.com/Mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6

These will be as well.

As long as the newer cpu's use the same socket, you can exchange them when they come out. The first generation 32 nm cpus will use the same socket, so any newer chips, including any 6 and 8 core models that use that socket will work in these new machines.

This is no different from the way any high end, low end, or middle PC workstation functions.
post #87 of 505
Am I missing something, or are no "pro" graphics cards offered by apple with this update? That's a major downgrade from the last release. (cards still might be avalible through nvidia)

***
post #88 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

But according to the ratings on the apple store, the DisplayPort to DVI converters suck mightily.

It shouldn't matter. The signal isn't be ing converted. It's the same signal, just the support around it is different. I would be wary of those consumer reviews. Some people are just not happy about having to pay anything for an adapter, and take it out on Apple for that by putting it down publicly.

Quote:
I don't really follow graphic card revisions and what not - but I found this:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/P...D_4830/26.html

Am I right in assuming that the new 4870 graphics card is a 15% faster card than the 8800gt I have in my 6 month old mac pro? When they update the 30" monitor to displayPort, I may upgrade - but it seems like kind of a blah upgrade, for what will probably cost $600.

The 4870 is about the fastest gaming card out there. The updated Nvidia 295, a very slightly faster version of their top 285 card, which is slower than the 4870, is about the same speed give or take a bit.

The 8800GT is two generations older right now. ATI's cards are also faster with pro 3D apps, and do a better job with video conversions.
post #89 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I was wondering why they removed the 15,000 RPM drive option when they have benchmarks on Apple's MacPro site for read/write speed tests using both 15,000 and 7,200 RPM drives for those tests.

Don't they realize that people need the 15K drives for video apps?

You don't really need the 15,000 drives for video, unless you're doing uncompressed 1080p or above.

Besides, you can buy those drives anywhere, and pay less. You CAN buy Apple's SAS card for them though.
post #90 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

I didn't say it was Apple's fault, but has there *ever* been a time when the processors could be upgraded? I'm just saying there is a disconnect between the perceived upgradeability of this machine and the reality. It's a tower, but it's simply not upgradeable in the same sense as any other tower. You can add a new video card and a bit of memory. You can add speciality cards too but few exist and most users don't have much of a need for that last survey I read on the subject. It's almost the case that an iMac with easy access to hard drives and memory, could fill this same spot on Apple's line-up.

Exactly, so my "old" machine (hardly a year old) is using incompatible memory and processors from this "new" one. And every time this happens, someone posts to the effect of how happy they are that the new machine is so fantastically "upgradeable" when in fact we might be in the same spot talking about the same thing next year.

I understand all the reasons behind it and the technology choices, but I still have a problem with creating the impression that this is the same upgradeable "tower" type computer we are all used to when in fact it's barely upgradeable at all.

With WiFi, eSATA, and the advent of ZFS, they would be better off offering a much smaller sealed box with just the processors and memory that manages remote or connected storage and put the graphics in the monitor on a small replaceable board IMO. That way, since the processors and memory are hardly ever upgradeable separate from the motherboard, they can be bought (and tossed) as one unit.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

The ladt Apple machines to be upgraded past the current cpu that came in the shipping machine were the G4's. The G5's weren't upgradable because it was too complex to do, esp once water cooling came out.

But the Mac Pro's are just as upgradable as any Windows PC is.

I'm sure you understand socket issues. Within a socket family, these machines are upgradable.
post #91 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

The apple webpage says that you can have two monitors on one card, one with dvi and one with displayport. Eight monitors max with four cards.

The 24" doesn't have DVI and the cards don't have a second Mini display port. There isn't adisplay in port on the display either for daisy chaining. You can have a dvi display, a Mini-DP, two DVI displays (assuming the adapters actually work right) or a Mini-DP display and a DVI display. What you cannot have without a second card is two Mini-DP displays. You also cannot have any displayport displays because there is no Mini-DP to DP adapter.
post #92 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

Okay, I should have edited that before I sent it out but calling folks "fools" is not necessary. My point was about the (again) lack of any upgradeability options on what is supposed to be a "tower" type machine.

The MacPro being what it is, could easily be designed so that a new motherboard (along with the new memory and processor architecture), could be dropped in, but yet again they haven't done that either. I'm just saying that with the almost complete lack of upgradeability from the flagship model introduced just last year, this thing might as well be a sealed box.

How many PC manufacturers allow upgrading the Mobo? Does Dell or Hp have that possibility? No, they do not, yet they are upgradable machines.

Very few people consider replacing a mobo as "upgrading".
post #93 of 505
How can anyone not see this as another price increase? Last year, the price went from 2500 to 2800 and this year, it's going to 3300, for the same type of machine. YES, it's faster, but systems always get faster and cheaper too. The Mac Pros are just getting more expensive. The iMac's got faster, with more features, but are getting cheaper. I'm very happy with my purchase last year. SL and a new hard drive and I'm set.
post #94 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Beautiful Systems as always.

NO SLI: No Tesla, No massive OpenCL.

What the hell?

Give me this beautiful system with 3 Full-size PCI-Express 2.0 slots.

No SLI, yes, but the rest?

How do you come to that conclusion?

Though I don't seem to know what Tesla is suppose to be.
post #95 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

The apple webpage says that you can have two monitors on one card, one with dvi and one with displayport. Eight monitors max with four cards.

He meant two of Apple's new 24" Mini Displayport models.

While you can go from Displayport to the other configurations, right now, without some esoteric third party adapter, which may not even be available yet (it will be expensive), no card for the Mac Pro has more than one Displayport output.
post #96 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicGuy View Post

My understanding is they want memory in groups of 3 to work "best" with the controllers... so why only 8 slots? You can toss the OM RAM (3 1G sticks) and go with 3 2G sticks for a max of 6G. And THAT'S IT????

Yeah, this is odd. There are up to three memory channels available. Memory should come in threes. I expected 9 memory slots.

Unless Apple is only going with two memory channels.

What's interesting is that according to testing at Anandtech and other places, three channels of memory didn't give a real performance boost.

We'll have to see when reports come out.
post #97 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

According to Intel pricing at Xbitlabs.com, a 4-core 2.26 Nehalem Xeon (E5520) chip is $373 (in quantities of 1000). The 4-core 2.66 Nehalem Xeon (E5550) chip is $958. The Intel price difference for two chips is $1170. But Apple could be getting a much better price (like $300 or less) on the Mac Pro standard 2.26 chips since they're buying those in much larger quantities than the Mac Pro optional 2.66 chip, moving the price differential over $1300.

So yes Apple is taking a piece, but almost all of the cost difference is attributable to the Intel pricing.

-Exactly.

But:
Quote:
Originally Posted by macshark View Post

These prices are not reasonable. 8x2.66GHz should have been $2999. Offering a $3K+ high end machine with 2.26GHz processors in this day and age is shameful. Looks like Intel is upset with Apple and is no longer providing "preferred" pricing on processors.

The sad thing is that introduction pricing sets the price of a new Apple model throughout its life cycle. Intel will drop the price of the Xeon 5500 processors several times over the next year, but Apple will not pass these savings on to Apple customers. This is probably one area where companies like HP/Dell do better than Apple, as soon as Intel drops their processor/chipset pricing, they also drop their retail prices...

-Yup, the prices are set and they aren't coming down. Perhaps the specs might go up, once i7 gets into heavy rotation and C2D starts phasing out, but MPs won't get cheaper.

=>Buzzkill of an upgrade.

+AND:
Quote:
Originally Posted by freakboy View Post

the new chips have 3 memory controllers, so they run fastest w/ the ram chips in sets of 3. It is weird that the ram slots aren't in sets of 3. On core i7 MBs, they mostly have 6 ram slots.. max 24 gigs. (if you can find the 4 gig ram chips).

These mac pros seem like huge bastards if you ask me. They don't know what they are!

And I know they're meant to be workstation class machines, but still, the prices are ridiculous. On the other hand, the new memory architecture is significantly superior to the previous mac pros.

Definitely Agreed.
+You know that BareFeats is going to run a benchmark set that shows the machines are faster when you pull that 4th chip out and leave it as 3.
I don't get how an i7 Xeon would be different in mem channels than the consumer i7 cpu.


Time to wait for the Rev. B of this machine too, I guess.
"-but Jimmy has fear? A thousand times no. I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey strong bowels were girded with strength like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the...
Reply
"-but Jimmy has fear? A thousand times no. I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey strong bowels were girded with strength like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the...
Reply
post #98 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by superkaratemonkeydeathcar View Post

I don't get how an i7 Xeon would be different in mem channels than the consumer i7 cpu.

I know it's seems like a minor point, but a lot of people are making the error, and it leads to confusion.

The i7 is Intel's brand for desktop chips.

The Xeon is intel's brand for workstation and server chips.

There is no i7 Xeon.
post #99 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yeah, this is odd. There are up to three memory channels available. Memory should come in threes. I expected 9 memory slots.

Unless Apple is only going with two memory channels.

What's interesting is that according to testing at Anandtech and other places, three channels of memory didn't give a real performance boost.

We'll have to see when reports come out.

If there are 3 or 6 DIMMs (per socket), the memory controller operates in triple channel, if there are 2 or 4 DIMMs, it operates in dual channel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theBigD23 View Post

How can anyone not see this as another price increase? Last year, the price went from 2500 to 2800 and this year, it's going to 3300, for the same type of machine. YES, it's faster, but systems always get faster and cheaper too. The Mac Pros are just getting more expensive. The iMac's got faster, with more features, but are getting cheaper. I'm very happy with my purchase last year. SL and a new hard drive and I'm set.

Unfortunately there is a segment of this community who sees what Apple want them to see. As for the iMacs, the two higher ends models got better (not still not quite up to what they should be still using dual cores), but the 20 and base 24 got more consumer oriented. Mini upgrades were great besides the unbearably small 120GB hard drive in the $599 model.
post #100 of 505
HOLY ****! Just going to dual-2.66Ghz Xeons ends up with a base price of $5000 without everything left at default... What are they thinking? Thats an outrageous price...

For those making excuses, the new Nehalem Xeons aren't supposed to cost much more than the existing Xeons..
post #101 of 505
And whats up with removing the sole Quadro card?? Apparently professional 3D modeling/animation/CAD/ users don't use the Mac Pro anymore...
post #102 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by DimMok View Post

Its hard to perfect...."perfection".

Still a sexy looking cabinet.

I marvel at the Pro's design esthetics every time I need to open the case for maintenance. It is a piece of art. I'd rather they continue focusing on improving speed than developing a new look.
iMac G4, TiBook, Bodoni Blue iMac, 128K
Mac, Ti-Book, Dual G5 2.0 ghz,
23" HD Cinema Monitor,MacBook,iPhone
and nearly every generation of iPods
---------------------------
www.BeyondtheShoebox.com
Reply
iMac G4, TiBook, Bodoni Blue iMac, 128K
Mac, Ti-Book, Dual G5 2.0 ghz,
23" HD Cinema Monitor,MacBook,iPhone
and nearly every generation of iPods
---------------------------
www.BeyondtheShoebox.com
Reply
post #103 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

No SLI, yes, but the rest?

How do you come to that conclusion?

Though I don't seem to know what Tesla is suppose to be.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product..._c1060_us.html

OpenCL deals strictly with the following:

IEEE 754 single & double operations.

Quote:
OpenCL consists of an API for coordinating parallel computation across
heterogeneous processors; and a cross-platform programming language with a well-specified computation environment. The OpenCL standard:
  • Supports both data- and task-based parallel programming models
  • Utilizes a subset of ISO C99 with extensions for parallelism
  • Defines consistent numerical requirements based on IEEE 754
  • Defines a configuration profile for handheld and embedded devices
  • Efficiently interoperates with OpenGL, OpenGL ES and other graphics APIs

Tesla uses CUDA: Nvidia's solution for Parallel computations. They of course are adopting OpenCL with CUDA extensions. AMD/ATi 4870 HD uses their Streams solution and offers:

ATi Firestream [Tesla competitor]

http://ati.amd.com/technology/stream...ream_9270.html

Both systems are OpenCL compliant.

Both ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO APPLE [The Inventor of OpenCL] because we don't have a f'n system with a second dedicated GPU full size PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot.

These cards are support cards for Gaming and Multimedia in the consumer space and Scientific/Engineering in those spaces.

These aren't the GPUs for your system to run your operating system on.
post #104 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownreese View Post

I marvel at the Pro's design esthetics every time I need to open the case for maintenance. It is a piece of art. I'd rather they continue focusing on improving speed than developing a new look.

Nothing in the entire industry comes close for Consumers. Perhaps their are custom casings for scientific clusters and what not, but not in this space for a workstation tower.
post #105 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

If there are 3 or 6 DIMMs (per socket), the memory controller operates in triple channel, if there are 2 or 4 DIMMs, it operates in dual channel.

I realize that. But there is an odd number of sockets. It should be 9.
post #106 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

And whats up with removing the sole Quadro card?? Apparently professional 3D modeling/animation/CAD/ users don't use the Mac Pro anymore...

To be honest, It has crossed my mind that the price increases and the lack of a Quadro/FirePro option may be Apple giving reason to the pros to jump ship. They don't quite fit the Jobs/Ive plan.
post #107 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

According to Intel pricing at Xbitlabs.com, a 4-core 2.26 Nehalem Xeon (E5520) chip is $373 (in quantities of 1000). The 4-core 2.66 Nehalem Xeon (E5550) chip is $958. The Intel price difference for two chips is $1170. But Apple could be getting a much better price (like $300 or less) on the Mac Pro standard 2.26 chips since they're buying those in much larger quantities than the Mac Pro optional 2.66 chip, moving the price differential over $1300.

So yes Apple is taking a piece, but almost all of the cost difference is attributable to the Intel pricing.

Interesting. Also a thing to consider is that perhaps with the the Nehalem's, the margin between "well performing" and "average/meh performing" chips is much wider. In other words, when Intel makes chips, to my understanding they don't make fundamentally different chips for 2.26 and 2.66 clock speeds. They make one chip. Depending on how each manufactured chip performs, it either gets thrown in the 2.26 bin or the 2.66 bin. Perhaps the chips that are stable/well performing at 2.66 are less prevalent in this architecture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

It's a little odd that Apple has been removing pro options...however, any self-respecting person would buy the absolute base (and just play around with the processor options) and buy memory and storage from some place that isn't hell-bent on ripping its customers off.

It pains me to see what Apple is charging its customers for HD and RAM upgrades.

Agreed. Any experienced G5/Mac Pro use should be well versed in buying hard drives, ram, opticals, and PCI cards from 3rd party vendors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotherBrain View Post

I am really getting a bit tired of hearing that the next model is up to 2X faster. It's getting old and not relative to anything you really do with your computer. I also think it makes Apple look bad. Every model since, who knows when, has been up to 2X faster. If that were REALLY true we would be discussing quantum physics with our HALpro 9000.

I agree with this, I'd like to see a little more retrospective benchmarking, kind of how barefeats will usually throw in a setup thats 2 generations old at the bottom of their comparos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

And whats up with removing the sole Quadro card?? Apparently professional 3D modeling/animation/CAD/ users don't use the Mac Pro anymore...

They don't, and many probably never have been. I work in a shop that has all Mac Pro 3.2 Octas doing motion graphics/video production. The guys in our 3d department work on them, although they are always booted into Windows. Lately, for this huge job they've been working on, they brought in rental PCs for themselves and the additional help they brought in, because they're faster. And while I love Macs, and have always used them. I can't help but wonder why the PC I jumped on one day performed better in after effects.

Never the less, my personal machine ( Quad G5, Dec 05) will finally be replaced now. I've been waiting for quite some time.
post #108 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black107 View Post

Interesting. Also a thing to consider is that perhaps with the the Nehalem's, the margin between "well performing" and "average/meh performing" chips is much wider. In other words, when Intel makes chips, to my understanding they don't make fundamentally different chips for 2.26 and 2.66 clock speeds. They make one chip. Depending on how each manufactured chip performs, it either gets thrown in the 2.26 bin or the 2.66 bin. Perhaps the chips that are stable/well performing at 2.66 are less prevalent in this architecture.



Agreed. Any experienced G5/Mac Pro use should be well versed in buying hard drives, ram, opticals, and PCI cards from 3rd party vendors.



I agree with this, I'd like to see a little more retrospective benchmarking, kind of how barefeats will usually throw in a setup thats 2 generations old at the bottom of their comparos.



They don't, and many probably never have been. I work in a shop that has all Mac Pro 3.2 Octas doing motion graphics/video production. The guys in our 3d department work on them, although they are always booted into Windows. Lately, for this huge job they've been working on, they brought in rental PCs for themselves and the additional help they brought in, because they're faster. And while I love Macs, and have always used them. I can't help but wonder why the PC I jumped on one day performed better in after effects.

Never the less, my personal machine ( Quad G5, Dec 05) will finally be replaced now. I've been waiting for quite some time.

The point of OpenGL 3.x and OpenCL is for third parties to leverage OS X and it's advanced toolkits to have those solutions available to the system.

As I've stated, they better either offer a dedicated Fiber connected Tesla/Firestream clone of their own or add another PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot for the Tesla and Firestream.
post #109 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I realize that. But there is an odd number of sockets. It should be 9.

Each CPU has an independent memory controller on die, so you can't combine them. It isn't 8 DIMM slots as much as 2x 4 DIMM slots. Each controller support up to 9 DIMMs for 18 max.
post #110 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Each CPU has an independent memory controller and you can't combine them. It isn't 8 DIMM slots as much as 2x 4 DIMM slots. Each controller support up to 9 DIMMs for 18 max.

Fine, then it should have been 6 or 12.
post #111 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Each CPU has an independent memory controller and you can't combine them. It isn't 8 DIMM slots as much as 2x 4 DIMM slots. Each controller support up to 9 DIMMs for 18 max.

So does that mean the 8 core machine actually has six memory channels? Who is really going to want to use those last two slots if it is going to hamper performance a bit?
post #112 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Fine, then it should have been 6 or 12.

It should have been, but only 3 DIMMs per CPU would leave the pros less than happy and Ive's design team apparently didn't want bothered with any design changes to the case. The engineers did the best they could using the current case. If they would have widened it slightly from 8.1" to the same 8.9" as the el-Capitan cases, there would have been enough room for the extra slots as well as another USB port on the back and perhaps another pair up front.
post #113 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

So does that mean the 8 core machine actually has six memory channels? Who is really going to want to use those last two slots if it is going to hamper performance a bit?

2x triple-channel or 4x dual channel.
post #114 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I know it's seems like a minor point, but a lot of people are making the error, and it leads to confusion.

The i7 is Intel's brand for desktop chips.

The Xeon is intel's brand for workstation and server chips.

There is no i7 Xeon.

In terms of silicon, the i7 and these Xeons are exactly the same- in fact, all of the i7 processors Intel sells have a second, disabled, QPI link. A Xeon and an i7 could be cut off the same wafer. They even use the same package, LGA1366. The Xeon 3500-series *is* an i7, renamed, so it's not dual-socket capable but is otherwise the same as the rest.
post #115 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

It should have been, but only 3 DIMMs per CPU would leave the pros less than happy and Ive's design team apparently didn't want bothered with any design changes to the case. The engineers did the best they could using the current case. If they would have widened it slightly from 8.1" to the same 8.9" as the el-Capitan cases, there would have been enough room for the extra slots as well as another USB port on the back and perhaps another pair up front.

Well, I meant 6 for the single cpu model, and 12 for the dual.

I'm sure they could have managed it if they wanted to.
post #116 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

In terms of silicon, the i7 and these Xeons are exactly the same- in fact, all of the i7 processors Intel sells have a second, disabled, QPI link. A Xeon and an i7 could be cut off the same wafer. They even use the same package, LGA1366. The Xeon 3500-series *is* an i7, renamed, so it's not dual-socket capable but is otherwise the same as the rest.

Makes no difference. Branding is branding. The extra link does matter though. The second socket ability does matter too.

Look, Intel has the right to brand their products they way they want to, and we should stick to that when discussing those products.

We have to use the correct names for products for us to make sense of what we read. I'm reading too many times someone simply calling a Xeon an i7.
post #117 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

I agree that the price is high, but the price of Mac pros is always pretty high anyway and mostly inconsequential to the purchase decision.

My biggest gripe about this machine is that if the picture is accurate, there seems to be a new motherboard, and new configuration of the entire lower half of the insides. So again, while masquerading as an "upgradeable" Mac, this machine is essentially completely different from the previous model.

I'm not really sure why they even bother to let us open the case since the odds of upgrading a Mac pro past the stuff that you generally get when you purchase it, are something like slim to none. Anyone know if the new processors would pop into the older MacPros? It sure looks like the answer is no yet again.

Nehalem is a completely new architecture that is incompatible with older architectures. This is why you cannot simply "upgrade the processor." If you spent your time researching why this was such a radical change instead of making ill-informed forum posts, you might begin to know what you are talking about.

For example, the Penryn (Early 2008) Mac Pros use dual channel DDR2 memory. These Mac Pros use triple channel DDR3 RAM. These two technologies are completely incompatible with each other. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Apple to make it "easy to upgrade."

Nehalem moves the memory controller onto the CPU. This has never been done before. It is not possible to make this compatible with previous generations of hardware.
post #118 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

Couldn't they have done something, anything to distinguish it from it's 6 year old design?

Like re-design the inner case?

Oh wait..
post #119 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, I meant 6 for the single cpu model, and 12 for the dual.

I'm sure they could have managed it if they wanted to.

They could have, but unfortunately this is just another example of the components having to conform to the case instead of the case conforming to the components.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uni View Post

Like re-design the inner case?

Oh wait..

No, more like use a case that is designed for dual Nehalem cpus and 12 DIMM slots instead of trying to cram it all into a case designed six years ago for the G5 and modified for socket 771 core-based xeons.
post #120 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by uni View Post

Nehalem is a completely new architecture that is incompatible with older architectures. This is why you cannot simply "upgrade the processor." If you spent your time researching why this was such a radical change instead of making ill-informed forum posts, you might begin to know what you are talking about.

For example, the Penryn (Early 2008) Mac Pros use dual channel DDR2 memory. These Mac Pros use triple channel DDR3 RAM. These two technologies are completely incompatible with each other. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Apple to make it "easy to upgrade."

Nehalem moves the memory controller onto the CPU. This has never been done before. It is not possible to make this compatible with previous generations of hardware.

For Intel. AMD did this 5 years ago. Next.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple intros new Mac Pro with "Nehalem" Xeon processors