Then IBM had delays with the G5 and Apple switched to Intel. Now I wonder what they will do? AMD will at best be a lateral move. IMO Apple is in a spot now where they don't care so much about the computers so they are willing to wait. The iDevices are making so much money that that is where their focus is at.
They didn't switch to x86 because IBM "had delays". IBM wasn't building what Apple needed, and Apple didn't want to (and couldn't afford to) pay them to do so. Intel builds for the whole range of the PC market already, so Apple just has to buy their product and suddenly they're on a level playing field with all other PC vendors. A field where Apple has demonstrated they can succeed by differentiation.
And why do you think they need to switch again?! Is Intel doing something wrong by having the best processors on the market? Now would not be a good time to go AMD... maybe when AMD shows a competitive product, but until then Apple is doing just fine. Apple no doubt keeps an eye on what AMD is up to, and evaluates each product they come out with, weighing the tradeoffs.
And it doesn't look to me like the Mac is getting less internal Apple attention than it has in the past -- SnowLeopard, i7 iMac, new MacBooks are all roughly on the same kind of schedule Apple has maintained for a long time.
someone really needs to finish up these 12core mac pros... stat!
this rumour was a huge flop, wasn't it??
Totally. From early February (when they were needed), to late May and still nothing! I expect we'll see something either at or more likely shortly after WWDC, but by then will 6 and 12-core options and a modestly better graphics card be enough to see the behemoth through for another 12 months (it's now 15 since the last update!)?
Garbage! Absolute Garbage! The last revision to the iMac was one of the best in recent memory, they continue to keep the laptops leading edge while innovating and a new Mac Pro will come when it is time. Anybody in touch with Apples development cycles will realize that these long delays are often associated with meaningful updates that often break new ground.
Besides this dismisses another very important element, the entire Mac Line is showing very strong sales in the middle of a severe economic downturn. The Mac line up is doing far better than even Apple expected to do the last two years.
Dave
Blah, blah, really. 'Delays'. Shrugs.* They don't necessarily mean 'meaningful' updates. Sometimes, every two years or so we get a meaningful update inbetween Apple 'coasting' on their 'i-success.'
The caveat to the iMac being one of the best in recent history is the that the updates before it sucked. Especially the 'side grade' price jack iMac recent history updates.
The screen was a great addition. Granted. But the lack of quad cpu across the board was cheap-ass especially when you're offering an out of date cpu and inte' crappics for £1k. *Blows raspberry... Not like the i5 costs a shed load of money? Or the i7? 'specially when we're talking about 'consumer' machines at upto nearly 2k..in the pound.
Hmm. Ok. I"ll give it a go. 'New Mac Pros will come when it's time.' 'The sky is blue.' 'Apple's are green.' 'Mac Pro's come with crap out of date p*ss poor gpus.'
Totally. From early February (when they were needed), to late May and still nothing! I expect we'll see something either at or more likely shortly after WWDC, but by then will 6 and 12-core options and a modestly better graphics card be enough to see the behemoth through for another 12 months (it's now 15 since the last update!)?
The chips coming available since the last MacPro update haven't exactly been revolutionary, and the economy is still rocky. Taking their time since the last update means a bigger apparently (and actual) win. WWDC is looking like a good time to deploy the update, despite the apparent emphasis of the conference on iPhoneOS. Developers like big iron.
Has it really been 15 months since the last Pro update?
*sniffs the smell from the decomposing body.
Yep. Looking at the name on the deceased GPU...I guess your right.
Hmmm. I still covert my neighbours Mac Pro. But the iMac does want I want for now.
And with quad, hyper threaded cpus starting to filter into the iMacs...I'm sure many 3D hobbyists and the odd pro will give it the 'look.' I know I'm going to weight up a Mac Pro vs iMac in year's time.
12 cores x24 multi-threaded would be nice.
Can't wait to see the benches on those beauties.
Hopefully they'll do decent gpus this time. Instead of cheap ass consumer cards in a 'supposed' 'Workstation' machine...
Let's face it, any new Mac hardware around about now would be nice. When was the last time we had a desktop update?
It's not as if you couldn't put better gpus in the lower iMac end. eg 4850. Great card. But it's old and cheap. They could easily 'bump' the gpu. And the cpu to i5 on the entry models considering the price of them..!
As for the Pro. Time to take the price back down to £1450 for the entry 6-core model. £2k for a entry tower? Joking Sir? No Sir, just taking the p*ss. (I'd love to know the actual sales for the Pro...100K tops I'm guessing...)
Let's face it, any new Mac hardware around about now would be nice. When was the last time we had a desktop update?
This is a side effect of Apple's strategy of infrequent updates... near the end of their cycle the specs look stale compared to companies like Dell which change their line up from minute-to-minute. Corporate environments actually seem to prefer the stability because it lets them update their standard configurations less often, and have more consistency across their inventories. Many consumers don't care about small deltas in the specs, so the simplicity of choosing between a couple of stable configs is preferable to the hideous maze of options. And there is even a set of very smart and savvy users who realize that the marginal difference between configs available from other vendors is irrelevant in practice and the choices provided by Apple are just fine... as long as you order within the first two thirds or so of their product cycle. Yes, that leaves a set of fairly vocal users who want fast updates, the bleeding edge tech, the niche GPUs, etc... but that set isn't as numerous as their vocalizing would indicate, and a fair number of them will never be happy anyhow. Apple doesn't need to sell everyone a machine (nor could they build them all), and they seem to be growing their market at a fairly respectable rate even through a serious economic downturn.
I hear what you're saying about the 'cycle'. It doesn't have to be change every 3 months. But 15?They're a 40+ billion dollar company. Offer 'bumps' with what are 'cheap' parts (let's face it...they'd have to be...or Apple wouldn't be using them to milk our cash...) eg more ram, bigger HD, better gpu. A third of 15 months is 5 months. We could have had some sort of update in Jan' to boost some of the specs.
Y'know, for a company that once got up on stage and boasted about millions of different configurations and 'beat down and beat out the myth of price...' (Most of those configurations being spanish keyboard options...)
The recent couple of years on the Mac Pro have hardly set the world alight. Rising prices, inversely correlating to the quality you're getting in specs.
The monitors have languished.
A succession of poor 'consumer' gpus offered...as 'standard' on the 'flagship' Mac model.
..whilst the price has gone up from a stiff £1495 to an eye-watering £1895.
Skimpy Ram and HD.
I could take that they use an expensive Xeon (they've been on the market how long now? How much do they cost?) Or that the case is a little more expensive than average (really? How much?)
But the ram? Dirt cheap. HD? Dirt cheap. The gpu? Dirt cheap.
In short, that's one hell of a dirty (I need to take a shower everytime I go to the stats page...), filthy mark-up they've got going. All in the name of prestige? Their '2grand' entry is a £995 tower. And they're making plenty on it at that.
...and it wasn't a good update when it hit, Programmer. The gpu was pants and you had to suddenly pay £400 more for a quad cpu! EH? What's that all about..?
Remember when they 'yanked' the dual as standard?
Which proves they only did the 'dual strategy' when the perception was they were 'behind' in the cpu race.
The 'pro' stopped being a good deal a good few years back.
No doubt we'll get the 27 inch display from the iMac (get hosed on price) and Apple will make some fanfare about it and the 6 core Pro at the WWDC. All for a grand more than an 'equivalent' iMac.
Do they really sell that many MPs? Seems like that's Apple's lowest volume selling product.
Yeah but it'll be low volume for everyone. These are workstation parts and I'd bet that Apple sells a decent amount of them in this space relative to other manufacturers. You'd only go with Xeons if you wanted the absolute highest end performance but most PC desktop manufacturers go the i7 route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
The longer this drags on makes me wonder if they really are going to switch to AMD cpus for the MP. It doesn't seem like AMD's cpu is as good for this machine, but the delay is quite unusual.
Nah, I think we have to move away from this idea for at least the next 6 months because AMD really don't have anything to compete with Intel. Their server boards are not as fast as Intel and equally expensive. AMD's prices only come good when you build a server with more than 2 CPUs.
If Apple is thinking of building a Mac Pro that can have 4 x 12-core CPUs then that might be quite nice but it'll cost a lot of money. If the move is a side-step with no cost benefit for most people then there's really little point.
The high end iMac is a more powerful machine from a CPU standpoint than the MP (entry level) and has been now for has been for about 6 months. That's pretty unusual and I'm not sure that it's intentional.
I think it is intentional. Apple try to persuade everyone to get iMacs. If you check out the Mini or Mac Pro compare pages, they have iMacs on them but the iMac one has neither Mac Pro nor Mini. It's about profile because you can hook up a Mac Pro to any screen and at a glance you don't know they are using a Mac, same with a Mini.
One day, I think Apple will discontinue the Mac Pro line and it could easily be in the next 5 years. The next 27" iMac update could have a 6-core i7, next year 8-core, then 12. When you get 24 cores in an iMac, what's the point in getting even the top spec Mac Pro if it has 100 cores? There are some applications like high-end rendering where there is never enough but when we get GPUs that do real-time photoreal output, like we are almost seeing already then that aspect is covered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon
...and it wasn't a good update when it hit, Programmer. The gpu was pants and you had to suddenly pay £400 more for a quad cpu! EH? What's that all about..?
I was pretty shocked when I saw the price bump. Maybe it was because we complained about it when it was £1450 too and they thought screw it, we'll price gouge people who are actually going to buy them.
I made a mockup of what I'd like to see in the Mac Pro update:
It would be the Intel 6-core at the entry level. I'd probably remove the handles from the bottom too and integrate the top ones more into the shell. You really don't need handles on the bottom and they get buckled if you drop the machine. If it helps cooling that's fine but they could design it to have some space underneath without handles.
It doesn't look as nice without handles on the bottom but it's more practical and drops the height considerably and the handles don't need to be as big as they are on the current model, just enough to get chubby IT fingers in:
Yeah, I'm not arguing with you, Lemon. I know better than that.
Historically Apple has (almost) always had high RAM prices. They buy contracts to ensure their supply, or something like that. I remember one time (long ago) when RAM prices spiked and Apple had the best prices in town... but only once. Otherwise, take "safe" pricing and add their margins.
The last update brought the i7 which, in my experience, is a heck of an upgrade from the Core 2 Duo. But Intel is charging a stiff price for them... particularly the Xeon line that Apple puts into their Mac Pros. No argument from me on why they don't offer a high-end workstation-class GPU option, particularly considering they are leading the OpenCL charge.
As for why 15 months? I don't have any hard info, but I'd expect that Apple is waiting for something... a new part, a new design to be finished/ratified, sufficient supply, etc. Perhaps even just an opportune moment where it looks like the market is primed for an update cycle. Just because Intel has "shipped" their 6-core part doesn't mean that they can necessarily get enough of the one Apple wants into Mr Jobs' factories. And prior to that new chip, there hasn't been much else new since the i7 showed up in the Mac Pro last year. As for GPUs, the in-practice performance differences between parts in the past year hasn't changed as much as is typically made out by the media... within the same class of part. Again, Apple may be waiting for something that shows an impressive "2x" on their comparison to last year's model. Or sufficient supply/pricing on an existing part. Just because some other company lists an option on a particular part, doesn't mean that Apple could get enough to put in each and every MacPro.
No argument from me on why they don't offer a high-end workstation-class GPU option, particularly considering they are leading the OpenCL charge.
Ironic, isn't it? Not a single graphics card available in the entire Mac line that isn't pathetic. 512MV Vram maximum, across the line (256MB standard on Imacs and MBPs). Minimum 2 year old designs. Underclocked. Is 1GB DDR5 really that expensive, Apple?
As an artist, I really can't accept this. Not for those prices. Not for the vendor lock-in and the un-removability in all but the Mac Pro.
Ironic, isn't it? Not a single graphics card available in the entire Mac line that isn't pathetic. 512MV Vram maximum, across the line (256MB standard on Imacs and MBPs). Minimum 2 year old designs. Underclocked. Is 1GB DDR5 really that expensive, Apple?
As an artist, I really can't accept this. Not for those prices. Not for the vendor lock-in and the un-removability in all but the Mac Pro.
This is one area that just makes me bitter.
</rant>
They talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk on the Pro.
Yeah but it'll be low volume for everyone. These are workstation parts and I'd bet that Apple sells a decent amount of them in this space relative to other manufacturers. You'd only go with Xeons if you wanted the absolute highest end performance but most PC desktop manufacturers go the i7 route.
Nah, I think we have to move away from this idea for at least the next 6 months because AMD really don't have anything to compete with Intel. Their server boards are not as fast as Intel and equally expensive. AMD's prices only come good when you build a server with more than 2 CPUs.
If Apple is thinking of building a Mac Pro that can have 4 x 12-core CPUs then that might be quite nice but it'll cost a lot of money. If the move is a side-step with no cost benefit for most people then there's really little point.
I think it is intentional. Apple try to persuade everyone to get iMacs. If you check out the Mini or Mac Pro compare pages, they have iMacs on them but the iMac one has neither Mac Pro nor Mini. It's about profile because you can hook up a Mac Pro to any screen and at a glance you don't know they are using a Mac, same with a Mini.
One day, I think Apple will discontinue the Mac Pro line and it could easily be in the next 5 years. The next 27" iMac update could have a 6-core i7, next year 8-core, then 12. When you get 24 cores in an iMac, what's the point in getting even the top spec Mac Pro if it has 100 cores? There are some applications like high-end rendering where there is never enough but when we get GPUs that do real-time photoreal output, like we are almost seeing already then that aspect is covered.
I was pretty shocked when I saw the price bump. Maybe it was because we complained about it when it was £1450 too and they thought screw it, we'll price gouge people who are actually going to buy them.
I made a mockup of what I'd like to see in the Mac Pro update:
It would be the Intel 6-core at the entry level. I'd probably remove the handles from the bottom too and integrate the top ones more into the shell. You really don't need handles on the bottom and they get buckled if you drop the machine. If it helps cooling that's fine but they could design it to have some space underneath without handles.
It doesn't look as nice without handles on the bottom but it's more practical and drops the height considerably and the handles don't need to be as big as they are on the current model, just enough to get chubby IT fingers in:
As usual, Marv' 'gets it.'
It's about time Apple redesigned the 'ageing queen' that is the Mac Pro. It's overblown. It's pretty poor we can't get a 'consumer' tower from Apple. And Marv' here suggests a 'mid-tower' type design to get us back to the level of £1495. Makes sense to me.
Problem is. Marv' makes the excellent point about progress. When the iMac has 6 core, 8 core etc cpus...how long does the 'Pro' have left? 5 years?
Guess you can argue you'll want 100 core cpus...etc.
He's right. The design needs a bit of an overhaul. It's due. But I wouldn't hold my breath, it seems Apple have designed themselves into a cul-de-sac with their marketing/sales grid. More of the same?
I'd lose the handles. And it give it a cosmetic 'lift' and saw a 1/3 off it's height. Apple should be able to design a more compact tower than that.
The problem Apple have is that the iMac is a much better deal with that screen than even a £1495 6 core 'Pro.'
It's not ten years ago. It's now. £1395 inc vat. 6 core. With a decent GPU.
Apple. Get with the times. You and your 'Pro' are old news.
This is true only on hand picked benchmarks. Anything multi-threaded, if the software is able to use all the available cores, intel trails behind.
Also, Linux performance seems to favor AMD 12 cores at 2/3 of the clock speed but MS window based OS favors higher (150%) Mhz intel chips at half the number of cores (+HT). Even some multi-threaded apps on window based OS does not use all the available cores at max load. Once again, this may be due to whether the software is able to utilize all the cores or not.
The overall performance really depends on the tasks being tested. It is like choosing between V6 Turbo vs. V12 engine. The V6-T with more horse power may win you a quarter-mile race, but if you need to haul stuff, V12 with more torque may be better for the job. Of course, V12 at V6-T speed will win quarter mile race and haul ass.
I have to admit I am definitely not on top of the latest chip technologies or even close to knowing. It still seems that software is the side of things that needs many improvements (and still doesn't get enough attention). 64 bit... About time it seems.
And I do truly hope the MacPro lineup will be nicely refreshed. Hopefully the increase in speed will match as I would love to upgrade my old duel 2.0 G5. Flying with the latest Aperture 3 sounds really appealing.
I'm not up on the graphic cards either, but it is a bit embarrassing if Apple isn't providing the power or options we seek. I have a feeling, however, that it isn't simply picking the fastest and putting it all together. I just hope they are well worth it over the iMac lineup...
With that said, we've sure come from (or gone?) a long way since the Voyager mission. I mean really. It's amazing what we have accomplished. I can't find it but I heard a simple calculator has more computing power then the interments on this spacecraft.
I hope, as the others have suggested, that we can make the new system more compact and also lower our carbon footprint as much as possible. I also hope that this device is produced in factories that provide fair wages and decent working conditions... even if it means paying a bit of a premium. Lets not forget to put pressure on all corporations to do so. We're all in this together right.
I made a mockup of what I'd like to see in the Mac Pro update:
It would be the Intel 6-core at the entry level. I'd probably remove the handles from the bottom too and integrate the top ones more into the shell. You really don't need handles on the bottom and they get buckled if you drop the machine. If it helps cooling that's fine but they could design it to have some space underneath without handles.
Great work on the mockups!!!
A mini-tower like that pictured would make me seriously consider ditching my MacBook Pro and going back to a desktop and screen for home power with iPad for portability. It's funny but the desktop market, which has been sliding into a niche thanks to laptops, could well be revitalised by the iPad. Apple should capitalise on this opportunity by offering a new Mini Pro!
I hope, as the others have suggested, that we can make the new system more compact and also lower our carbon footprint as much as possible. I also hope that this device is produced in factories that provide fair wages and decent working conditions... even if it means paying a bit of a premium.
Hey... anyone want to put some predictions for monday? I'm not sensing Mac Pro's day is going to be happening then ... unless it's going to be one of those... oh, one other thing moments? It seems like there is very, very little leaks or predictions on this one. JC, the mini is getting attention. It should be a good one though no matter what Steve pulls out'a his sleeve. I'm looking forward to it.
Comments
Then IBM had delays with the G5 and Apple switched to Intel. Now I wonder what they will do? AMD will at best be a lateral move. IMO Apple is in a spot now where they don't care so much about the computers so they are willing to wait. The iDevices are making so much money that that is where their focus is at.
They didn't switch to x86 because IBM "had delays". IBM wasn't building what Apple needed, and Apple didn't want to (and couldn't afford to) pay them to do so. Intel builds for the whole range of the PC market already, so Apple just has to buy their product and suddenly they're on a level playing field with all other PC vendors. A field where Apple has demonstrated they can succeed by differentiation.
And why do you think they need to switch again?! Is Intel doing something wrong by having the best processors on the market? Now would not be a good time to go AMD... maybe when AMD shows a competitive product, but until then Apple is doing just fine. Apple no doubt keeps an eye on what AMD is up to, and evaluates each product they come out with, weighing the tradeoffs.
And it doesn't look to me like the Mac is getting less internal Apple attention than it has in the past -- SnowLeopard, i7 iMac, new MacBooks are all roughly on the same kind of schedule Apple has maintained for a long time.
someone really needs to finish up these 12core mac pros... stat!
this rumour was a huge flop, wasn't it??
Totally. From early February (when they were needed), to late May and still nothing! I expect we'll see something either at or more likely shortly after WWDC, but by then will 6 and 12-core options and a modestly better graphics card be enough to see the behemoth through for another 12 months (it's now 15 since the last update!)?
OK, I'll ask:
If Apple were to make an X-Mac with desktop parts (but not junk) and it performed
at a level between the top iMac and the bottom Mac Pro what would they charge for it?
Gene King
Too much, but I'd actually buy it, as too expensive but meets my needs is better than simply too expensive. $1300-$1500?
Garbage! Absolute Garbage! The last revision to the iMac was one of the best in recent memory, they continue to keep the laptops leading edge while innovating and a new Mac Pro will come when it is time. Anybody in touch with Apples development cycles will realize that these long delays are often associated with meaningful updates that often break new ground.
Besides this dismisses another very important element, the entire Mac Line is showing very strong sales in the middle of a severe economic downturn. The Mac line up is doing far better than even Apple expected to do the last two years.
Dave
Blah, blah, really. 'Delays'. Shrugs.* They don't necessarily mean 'meaningful' updates. Sometimes, every two years or so we get a meaningful update inbetween Apple 'coasting' on their 'i-success.'
The caveat to the iMac being one of the best in recent history is the that the updates before it sucked. Especially the 'side grade' price jack iMac recent history updates.
The screen was a great addition. Granted. But the lack of quad cpu across the board was cheap-ass especially when you're offering an out of date cpu and inte' crappics for £1k. *Blows raspberry... Not like the i5 costs a shed load of money? Or the i7? 'specially when we're talking about 'consumer' machines at upto nearly 2k..in the pound.
Hmm. Ok. I"ll give it a go. 'New Mac Pros will come when it's time.' 'The sky is blue.' 'Apple's are green.' 'Mac Pro's come with crap out of date p*ss poor gpus.'
Lemon Bon Bon.
Totally. From early February (when they were needed), to late May and still nothing! I expect we'll see something either at or more likely shortly after WWDC, but by then will 6 and 12-core options and a modestly better graphics card be enough to see the behemoth through for another 12 months (it's now 15 since the last update!)?
The chips coming available since the last MacPro update haven't exactly been revolutionary, and the economy is still rocky. Taking their time since the last update means a bigger apparently (and actual) win. WWDC is looking like a good time to deploy the update, despite the apparent emphasis of the conference on iPhoneOS. Developers like big iron.
*sniffs the smell from the decomposing body.
Yep. Looking at the name on the deceased GPU...I guess your right.
Hmmm. I still covert my neighbours Mac Pro. But the iMac does want I want for now.
And with quad, hyper threaded cpus starting to filter into the iMacs...I'm sure many 3D hobbyists and the odd pro will give it the 'look.' I know I'm going to weight up a Mac Pro vs iMac in year's time.
12 cores x24 multi-threaded would be nice.
Can't wait to see the benches on those beauties.
Hopefully they'll do decent gpus this time. Instead of cheap ass consumer cards in a 'supposed' 'Workstation' machine...
Let's face it, any new Mac hardware around about now would be nice. When was the last time we had a desktop update?
It's not as if you couldn't put better gpus in the lower iMac end. eg 4850. Great card. But it's old and cheap. They could easily 'bump' the gpu. And the cpu to i5 on the entry models considering the price of them..!
As for the Pro. Time to take the price back down to £1450 for the entry 6-core model. £2k for a entry tower? Joking Sir? No Sir, just taking the p*ss. (I'd love to know the actual sales for the Pro...100K tops I'm guessing...)
Lemon Bon Bon.
Let's face it, any new Mac hardware around about now would be nice. When was the last time we had a desktop update?
This is a side effect of Apple's strategy of infrequent updates... near the end of their cycle the specs look stale compared to companies like Dell which change their line up from minute-to-minute. Corporate environments actually seem to prefer the stability because it lets them update their standard configurations less often, and have more consistency across their inventories. Many consumers don't care about small deltas in the specs, so the simplicity of choosing between a couple of stable configs is preferable to the hideous maze of options. And there is even a set of very smart and savvy users who realize that the marginal difference between configs available from other vendors is irrelevant in practice and the choices provided by Apple are just fine... as long as you order within the first two thirds or so of their product cycle. Yes, that leaves a set of fairly vocal users who want fast updates, the bleeding edge tech, the niche GPUs, etc... but that set isn't as numerous as their vocalizing would indicate, and a fair number of them will never be happy anyhow. Apple doesn't need to sell everyone a machine (nor could they build them all), and they seem to be growing their market at a fairly respectable rate even through a serious economic downturn.
Y'know, for a company that once got up on stage and boasted about millions of different configurations and 'beat down and beat out the myth of price...' (Most of those configurations being spanish keyboard options...)
The recent couple of years on the Mac Pro have hardly set the world alight. Rising prices, inversely correlating to the quality you're getting in specs.
The monitors have languished.
A succession of poor 'consumer' gpus offered...as 'standard' on the 'flagship' Mac model.
..whilst the price has gone up from a stiff £1495 to an eye-watering £1895.
Skimpy Ram and HD.
I could take that they use an expensive Xeon (they've been on the market how long now? How much do they cost?) Or that the case is a little more expensive than average (really? How much?)
But the ram? Dirt cheap. HD? Dirt cheap. The gpu? Dirt cheap.
In short, that's one hell of a dirty (I need to take a shower everytime I go to the stats page...), filthy mark-up they've got going. All in the name of prestige? Their '2grand' entry is a £995 tower. And they're making plenty on it at that.
'It's a heap of junk.' Luke Skywalker.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Remember when they 'yanked' the dual as standard?
Which proves they only did the 'dual strategy' when the perception was they were 'behind' in the cpu race.
The 'pro' stopped being a good deal a good few years back.
No doubt we'll get the 27 inch display from the iMac (get hosed on price) and Apple will make some fanfare about it and the 6 core Pro at the WWDC. All for a grand more than an 'equivalent' iMac.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Do they really sell that many MPs? Seems like that's Apple's lowest volume selling product.
Yeah but it'll be low volume for everyone. These are workstation parts and I'd bet that Apple sells a decent amount of them in this space relative to other manufacturers. You'd only go with Xeons if you wanted the absolute highest end performance but most PC desktop manufacturers go the i7 route.
The longer this drags on makes me wonder if they really are going to switch to AMD cpus for the MP. It doesn't seem like AMD's cpu is as good for this machine, but the delay is quite unusual.
Nah, I think we have to move away from this idea for at least the next 6 months because AMD really don't have anything to compete with Intel. Their server boards are not as fast as Intel and equally expensive. AMD's prices only come good when you build a server with more than 2 CPUs.
If Apple is thinking of building a Mac Pro that can have 4 x 12-core CPUs then that might be quite nice but it'll cost a lot of money. If the move is a side-step with no cost benefit for most people then there's really little point.
Magny Cours vs Intel benchmarks are here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2978/a...-6-core-xeon/6
Intel's 6-core beats AMD's 12-core.
The high end iMac is a more powerful machine from a CPU standpoint than the MP (entry level) and has been now for has been for about 6 months. That's pretty unusual and I'm not sure that it's intentional.
I think it is intentional. Apple try to persuade everyone to get iMacs. If you check out the Mini or Mac Pro compare pages, they have iMacs on them but the iMac one has neither Mac Pro nor Mini. It's about profile because you can hook up a Mac Pro to any screen and at a glance you don't know they are using a Mac, same with a Mini.
One day, I think Apple will discontinue the Mac Pro line and it could easily be in the next 5 years. The next 27" iMac update could have a 6-core i7, next year 8-core, then 12. When you get 24 cores in an iMac, what's the point in getting even the top spec Mac Pro if it has 100 cores? There are some applications like high-end rendering where there is never enough but when we get GPUs that do real-time photoreal output, like we are almost seeing already then that aspect is covered.
...and it wasn't a good update when it hit, Programmer. The gpu was pants and you had to suddenly pay £400 more for a quad cpu! EH? What's that all about..?
I was pretty shocked when I saw the price bump. Maybe it was because we complained about it when it was £1450 too and they thought screw it, we'll price gouge people who are actually going to buy them.
I made a mockup of what I'd like to see in the Mac Pro update:
It would be the Intel 6-core at the entry level. I'd probably remove the handles from the bottom too and integrate the top ones more into the shell. You really don't need handles on the bottom and they get buckled if you drop the machine. If it helps cooling that's fine but they could design it to have some space underneath without handles.
It doesn't look as nice without handles on the bottom but it's more practical and drops the height considerably and the handles don't need to be as big as they are on the current model, just enough to get chubby IT fingers in:
Historically Apple has (almost) always had high RAM prices. They buy contracts to ensure their supply, or something like that. I remember one time (long ago) when RAM prices spiked and Apple had the best prices in town... but only once. Otherwise, take "safe" pricing and add their margins.
The last update brought the i7 which, in my experience, is a heck of an upgrade from the Core 2 Duo. But Intel is charging a stiff price for them... particularly the Xeon line that Apple puts into their Mac Pros. No argument from me on why they don't offer a high-end workstation-class GPU option, particularly considering they are leading the OpenCL charge.
As for why 15 months? I don't have any hard info, but I'd expect that Apple is waiting for something... a new part, a new design to be finished/ratified, sufficient supply, etc. Perhaps even just an opportune moment where it looks like the market is primed for an update cycle. Just because Intel has "shipped" their 6-core part doesn't mean that they can necessarily get enough of the one Apple wants into Mr Jobs' factories. And prior to that new chip, there hasn't been much else new since the i7 showed up in the Mac Pro last year. As for GPUs, the in-practice performance differences between parts in the past year hasn't changed as much as is typically made out by the media... within the same class of part. Again, Apple may be waiting for something that shows an impressive "2x" on their comparison to last year's model. Or sufficient supply/pricing on an existing part. Just because some other company lists an option on a particular part, doesn't mean that Apple could get enough to put in each and every MacPro.
I'm optimistic we'll see a new MacPro RSN(tm).
No argument from me on why they don't offer a high-end workstation-class GPU option, particularly considering they are leading the OpenCL charge.
Ironic, isn't it? Not a single graphics card available in the entire Mac line that isn't pathetic. 512MV Vram maximum, across the line (256MB standard on Imacs and MBPs). Minimum 2 year old designs. Underclocked. Is 1GB DDR5 really that expensive, Apple?
As an artist, I really can't accept this. Not for those prices. Not for the vendor lock-in and the un-removability in all but the Mac Pro.
This is one area that just makes me bitter.
</rant>
Ironic, isn't it? Not a single graphics card available in the entire Mac line that isn't pathetic. 512MV Vram maximum, across the line (256MB standard on Imacs and MBPs). Minimum 2 year old designs. Underclocked. Is 1GB DDR5 really that expensive, Apple?
As an artist, I really can't accept this. Not for those prices. Not for the vendor lock-in and the un-removability in all but the Mac Pro.
This is one area that just makes me bitter.
</rant>
Lemon Bon Bon.
Yeah, I'm not arguing with you, Lemon. I know better than that.
Heh.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Yeah but it'll be low volume for everyone. These are workstation parts and I'd bet that Apple sells a decent amount of them in this space relative to other manufacturers. You'd only go with Xeons if you wanted the absolute highest end performance but most PC desktop manufacturers go the i7 route.
Nah, I think we have to move away from this idea for at least the next 6 months because AMD really don't have anything to compete with Intel. Their server boards are not as fast as Intel and equally expensive. AMD's prices only come good when you build a server with more than 2 CPUs.
If Apple is thinking of building a Mac Pro that can have 4 x 12-core CPUs then that might be quite nice but it'll cost a lot of money. If the move is a side-step with no cost benefit for most people then there's really little point.
Magny Cours vs Intel benchmarks are here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2978/a...-6-core-xeon/6
Intel's 6-core beats AMD's 12-core.
I think it is intentional. Apple try to persuade everyone to get iMacs. If you check out the Mini or Mac Pro compare pages, they have iMacs on them but the iMac one has neither Mac Pro nor Mini. It's about profile because you can hook up a Mac Pro to any screen and at a glance you don't know they are using a Mac, same with a Mini.
One day, I think Apple will discontinue the Mac Pro line and it could easily be in the next 5 years. The next 27" iMac update could have a 6-core i7, next year 8-core, then 12. When you get 24 cores in an iMac, what's the point in getting even the top spec Mac Pro if it has 100 cores? There are some applications like high-end rendering where there is never enough but when we get GPUs that do real-time photoreal output, like we are almost seeing already then that aspect is covered.
I was pretty shocked when I saw the price bump. Maybe it was because we complained about it when it was £1450 too and they thought screw it, we'll price gouge people who are actually going to buy them.
I made a mockup of what I'd like to see in the Mac Pro update:
It would be the Intel 6-core at the entry level. I'd probably remove the handles from the bottom too and integrate the top ones more into the shell. You really don't need handles on the bottom and they get buckled if you drop the machine. If it helps cooling that's fine but they could design it to have some space underneath without handles.
It doesn't look as nice without handles on the bottom but it's more practical and drops the height considerably and the handles don't need to be as big as they are on the current model, just enough to get chubby IT fingers in:
As usual, Marv' 'gets it.'
It's about time Apple redesigned the 'ageing queen' that is the Mac Pro. It's overblown. It's pretty poor we can't get a 'consumer' tower from Apple. And Marv' here suggests a 'mid-tower' type design to get us back to the level of £1495. Makes sense to me.
Problem is. Marv' makes the excellent point about progress. When the iMac has 6 core, 8 core etc cpus...how long does the 'Pro' have left? 5 years?
Guess you can argue you'll want 100 core cpus...etc.
He's right. The design needs a bit of an overhaul. It's due. But I wouldn't hold my breath, it seems Apple have designed themselves into a cul-de-sac with their marketing/sales grid. More of the same?
I'd lose the handles. And it give it a cosmetic 'lift' and saw a 1/3 off it's height. Apple should be able to design a more compact tower than that.
The problem Apple have is that the iMac is a much better deal with that screen than even a £1495 6 core 'Pro.'
It's not ten years ago. It's now. £1395 inc vat. 6 core. With a decent GPU.
Apple. Get with the times. You and your 'Pro' are old news.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Magny Cours vs Intel benchmarks are here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2978/a...-6-core-xeon/6
Intel's 6-core beats AMD's 12-core.
This is true only on hand picked benchmarks. Anything multi-threaded, if the software is able to use all the available cores, intel trails behind.
Also, Linux performance seems to favor AMD 12 cores at 2/3 of the clock speed but MS window based OS favors higher (150%) Mhz intel chips at half the number of cores (+HT). Even some multi-threaded apps on window based OS does not use all the available cores at max load. Once again, this may be due to whether the software is able to utilize all the cores or not.
The overall performance really depends on the tasks being tested. It is like choosing between V6 Turbo vs. V12 engine. The V6-T with more horse power may win you a quarter-mile race, but if you need to haul stuff, V12 with more torque may be better for the job. Of course, V12 at V6-T speed will win quarter mile race and haul ass.
And I do truly hope the MacPro lineup will be nicely refreshed. Hopefully the increase in speed will match as I would love to upgrade my old duel 2.0 G5. Flying with the latest Aperture 3 sounds really appealing.
I'm not up on the graphic cards either, but it is a bit embarrassing if Apple isn't providing the power or options we seek. I have a feeling, however, that it isn't simply picking the fastest and putting it all together. I just hope they are well worth it over the iMac lineup...
With that said, we've sure come from (or gone?) a long way since the Voyager mission. I mean really. It's amazing what we have accomplished. I can't find it but I heard a simple calculator has more computing power then the interments on this spacecraft.
I hope, as the others have suggested, that we can make the new system more compact and also lower our carbon footprint as much as possible. I also hope that this device is produced in factories that provide fair wages and decent working conditions... even if it means paying a bit of a premium. Lets not forget to put pressure on all corporations to do so. We're all in this together right.
http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/didyouknow.html
7 sleeps... just 7 more sleeps... this is killing me.
I made a mockup of what I'd like to see in the Mac Pro update:
It would be the Intel 6-core at the entry level. I'd probably remove the handles from the bottom too and integrate the top ones more into the shell. You really don't need handles on the bottom and they get buckled if you drop the machine. If it helps cooling that's fine but they could design it to have some space underneath without handles.
Great work on the mockups!!!
A mini-tower like that pictured would make me seriously consider ditching my MacBook Pro and going back to a desktop and screen for home power with iPad for portability. It's funny but the desktop market, which has been sliding into a niche thanks to laptops, could well be revitalised by the iPad. Apple should capitalise on this opportunity by offering a new Mini Pro!
I hope, as the others have suggested, that we can make the new system more compact and also lower our carbon footprint as much as possible. I also hope that this device is produced in factories that provide fair wages and decent working conditions... even if it means paying a bit of a premium.
We're paying about 80-100% premium.
We're paying about 80-100% premium.
True...
Hey... anyone want to put some predictions for monday? I'm not sensing Mac Pro's day is going to be happening then ... unless it's going to be one of those... oh, one other thing moments? It seems like there is very, very little leaks or predictions on this one. JC, the mini is getting attention. It should be a good one though no matter what Steve pulls out'a his sleeve. I'm looking forward to it.