The new Mac Pro might get Intel's new 28-core 5 GHz Xeon processor

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 50
    docno42 said:

     The Xeon's one big feature is that you can run several of them on one motherboard.
    Actually the really big feature of the Xeons is ECC RAM.  Which Threadripper also has.  It's past time for an AMD Mac!  Or Intel to end the artificial segmentation with ECC RAM.  It should be criminal to offer non-ECC RAM in a modern computer - there's zero excuse.  
    Actually it's not such a big feature taking in consideration the workloads for which Macs are used.
  • Reply 22 of 50
    LOL it's funny to see how many noobs there are here and jump on the hole "Intel's new 28-core 5 GHz Xeon processor" which is a vaporware product.
  • Reply 23 of 50
    Actually the really big feature of the Xeons is ECC RAM.  Which Threadripper also has.  It's past time for an AMD Mac!  Or Intel to end the artificial segmentation with ECC RAM.  It should be criminal to offer non-ECC RAM in a modern computer - there's zero excuse.  
    An AMD Threadripper Mac Pro would be dope!
    BUT I never understood the need for ECC RAM. I am a 3D Artist and I do a lot of simulations and rendering but still.. why? for what reason would I pay so much more money just to have slightly slower RAM modules that can do error checking only really needed in a server environment. There is just no need for that on a Workstation in my opinion.
    Because it sounds cool and professional and because it can justify a higher price tag.
  • Reply 24 of 50
    Actually, i think Intel processors nowadays consume more power than AMD's offerings.

    Did appleinsider actually miss that the 28-core part of Intels was a fake announcement which ran on an 1 kW water chiller on 5 GHz with an unimaginably big amount of power supply components whereas the 32-core part AMD announced the next day was running air-cooled and already available for purchase. There was a big controversy around this, and a much much bigger one than what one would call an 'controversy' when talking about apple.

    Is actually quite funny how Intel succeeds lying about their processors power consumption recently, the MacBook i9 being the perfect example.

    I'll let you figure out how likely the headline is to happen.
    edited October 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 50
    ksec said:
    The iMac Pro is capable of 500W cooling, that means in theory with some cTDP it could be used inside iMac Pro. Not to mention the iMac Pro cooling could do some improvement / innovation. It is currently nothing more than a 1U Rack Design.
    LoL are you talking about the supposedly 5ghz, 28core Xeon which consumes over 800W only the CPU?
    Yeah good luck putting that in an iMac.
  • Reply 26 of 50
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 3,566member
    I have to wonder what percentage of users would ever be able to utilize this kind of power?   It sounds a bit like a niche product that Apple could also use to claim still being #1 in technical leadership.

    But regardless, I am sure there is a chunk of people who would buy something like this just to browse the web and FaceBook.  It's the same crowd who uses their Porsche 911 Carerra to pick up bread and milk at the supermarket.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 50
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,078administrator
    ksec said:
    The iMac Pro is capable of 500W cooling, that means in theory with some cTDP it could be used inside iMac Pro. Not to mention the iMac Pro cooling could do some improvement / innovation. It is currently nothing more than a 1U Rack Design.
    The problem with that, is that the entire iMP enclosure is capable of 500W cooling. The TDP that Intel lists are non-boosted, meaning when "turbo" kicks in, that number gets higher in a hurry.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 50
    zimmiezimmie Posts: 200member
    Actually the really big feature of the Xeons is ECC RAM.  Which Threadripper also has.  It's past time for an AMD Mac!  Or Intel to end the artificial segmentation with ECC RAM.  It should be criminal to offer non-ECC RAM in a modern computer - there's zero excuse.  
    An AMD Threadripper Mac Pro would be dope!
    BUT I never understood the need for ECC RAM. I am a 3D Artist and I do a lot of simulations and rendering but still.. why? for what reason would I pay so much more money just to have slightly slower RAM modules that can do error checking only really needed in a server environment. There is just no need for that on a Workstation in my opinion.
    Hardware is awful. Almost indescribably so. As RAM and flash chips become denser, the reject rate due to physical flaws goes way up. SSDs (and hard drives) have layers upon layers of error correction. RAM generally doesn't. ECC is the strongest defense against memory errors at this time. Anything above 512 MB per chip should use it.

    In servers dealing with critical workloads (e.g., storage servers), you should use a RAM subsystem which supports Chipkill/Chipspare/Extended ECC/Advanced ECC (or similar) and bank mirroring. Together, these provide much better fault tolerance than ECC by itself can. Even then, you should use a filesystem with integrity checking, duplicate critical data in at least three places, and compare them regularly.
    dysamoriacgWerkswatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 50
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,868member
    I have to wonder what percentage of users would ever be able to utilize this kind of power?   It sounds a bit like a niche product that Apple could also use to claim still being #1 in technical leadership.

    But regardless, I am sure there is a chunk of people who would buy something like this just to browse the web and FaceBook.  It's the same crowd who uses their Porsche 911 Carerra to pick up bread and milk at the supermarket.
    Tried therapy? What a load of total drivel. There are many reasons for wanting a Mac Pro and making you jealous isn't one of them.  I'll buy one as I have every Mac Pro since they started (although not called that).  My Mac II FX cost $12,000 back in the 90's, the starting price was over $8,000.  The prices have fallen for high-end Macs.  The Trash Can is a wonderful Mac and mine is still running superbly and I loved the design.  Oh, and no, I don't want a Porsche.  Had one, didn't like it.
    dysamoriacgWerkswatto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 50
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,635member

    But regardless, I am sure there is a chunk of people who would buy something like this just to browse the web and FaceBook.  It's the same crowd who uses their Porsche 911 Carerra to pick up bread and milk at the supermarket.
    So what if there are?  A fool and his money are easily parted, let fools be fools if it enables Apple to push the boundaries at the high end.  That pushing of the boundaries inevitably ends up making its way into the lower end, and everyone else benefits.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 50
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 3,566member
    MacPro said:
    I have to wonder what percentage of users would ever be able to utilize this kind of power?   It sounds a bit like a niche product that Apple could also use to claim still being #1 in technical leadership.

    But regardless, I am sure there is a chunk of people who would buy something like this just to browse the web and FaceBook.  It's the same crowd who uses their Porsche 911 Carerra to pick up bread and milk at the supermarket.
    Tried therapy? What a load of total drivel. There are many reasons for wanting a Mac Pro and making you jealous isn't one of them.  I'll buy one as I have every Mac Pro since they started (although not called that).  My Mac II FX cost $12,000 back in the 90's, the starting price was over $8,000.  The prices have fallen for high-end Macs.  The Trash Can is a wonderful Mac and mine is still running superbly and I loved the design.  Oh, and no, I don't want a Porsche.  Had one, didn't like it.
    Hopefully that 28 core Xeon is strong enough to do your thinking for you and helps you make more sense.

    And, I am far from jealous.   20 years in the IT industry showed me that computers come and go.   To me, buying a desktop has the same thrill as buying a washing machine.   They're just commodities meant to do a job.

    But, if you have the cash, and you want the latest and greatest, then go for it.   Just be honest enough with yourself that it has nothing to do with functionality if you mostly use it to type insults on ai.
    edited October 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 50
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 3,566member
    crowley said:

    But regardless, I am sure there is a chunk of people who would buy something like this just to browse the web and FaceBook.  It's the same crowd who uses their Porsche 911 Carerra to pick up bread and milk at the supermarket.
    So what if there are?  A fool and his money are easily parted, let fools be fools if it enables Apple to push the boundaries at the high end.  That pushing of the boundaries inevitably ends up making its way into the lower end, and everyone else benefits.
    I don't disagree...
    But, for those, like the Porsche owner, it is an extravagant luxury with no real functional justification.
    But, if you ya got the cash and ya want it, go for it!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 50
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 1,911member
    cgWerks said:
    docno42 said:

     The Xeon's one big feature is that you can run several of them on one motherboard.
    Actually the really big feature of the Xeons is ECC RAM.  Which Threadripper also has.  It's past time for an AMD Mac!  Or Intel to end the artificial segmentation with ECC RAM.  It should be criminal to offer non-ECC RAM in a modern computer - there's zero excuse.  
    Ahh, thanks, yeah. I knew there was something more than multiple processors. That's one of the big things.

    docno42 said:
    Apple just needs to let others make the Mac Pro.  Their heart obviously isn't in it.  Charge enough of a licensing fee that there won't be a repeat of the PowerPC clones eating into their lower end or cannabilizing their higher end. 
    How can you say that when you have no idea what they're actually working on right now?  Also, clones aren't ever happening again — why would they? — so you can just stop.
    Probably just going by the last decade, which seems reasonable. I'm hoping Apple has learned and is course-correcting. But, I actually think maybe the Mac's days are numbered. I'm guessing it is a stop-gap in their ultimate plans to transition everything to iOS, but they just tried to move a bit too quickly.
    Sigh.

    Yes, we all know they fucked up with the 2013, and they admitted as such. Prior to that, there was no problem. We know they’re actively dedicated to starting over from scratch and getting it right, which is also well documented. The Mac isn’t going to iOS. It’s also been clearly stated and well documented. Also they wouldn’t be re-engineering the Pro, developing the iMac Pro, new displays or anything else significant if they were actively transitioning away. Are you even paying attention? Got any more FUD you’d like to peddle?
    Come on, we all know the iMac Pro was Apple’s replacement for the Mac Pro, until they finally realized their mistake, and then promoted it as an example of their upcoming pro product lineup... ;-) :-D
    williamlondon
  • Reply 34 of 50
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,893member
    fastasleep said:
    Sigh.

    Yes, we all know they fucked up with the 2013, and they admitted as such. Prior to that, there was no problem. We know they’re actively dedicated to starting over from scratch and getting it right, which is also well documented. The Mac isn’t going to iOS. It’s also been clearly stated and well documented. Also they wouldn’t be re-engineering the Pro, developing the iMac Pro, new displays or anything else significant if they were actively transitioning away. Are you even paying attention? Got any more FUD you’d like to peddle?
    Poor you. We'll see, I guess. BTW, I hope you're right, and I'm wrong.

    ChrisCarneval said:
    BUT I never understood the need for ECC RAM. I am a 3D Artist and I do a lot of simulations and rendering but still.. why? for what reason would I pay so much more money just to have slightly slower RAM modules that can do error checking only really needed in a server environment. There is just no need for that on a Workstation in my opinion.
    Maybe you do, maybe you don't. The error rate is around 4 errors per 1GB of RAM per month. If you have 32 GB of RAM, that's ~128 errors each month of operation. Most of the time, I suppose a bit gets flipped that doesn't matter... but how many times might it change something that does matter, or cause that unexpected crash?

    I have to wonder what percentage of users would ever be able to utilize this kind of power?   It sounds a bit like a niche product that Apple could also use to claim still being #1 in technical leadership.

    But regardless, I am sure there is a chunk of people who would buy something like this just to browse the web and FaceBook.  It's the same crowd who uses their Porsche 911 Carerra to pick up bread and milk at the supermarket.
    If you're doing a big rendering project, for example... any even semi-realistic amount of cores and RAM will decrease the job time. But, yeah, the number of people to which this applies is a super-small pie-slice on the computer sales chart.

    re: Porsche - but, if you only have 1 car, the Porsche can win on the track AND pick up the groceries. :)

    GeorgeBMac said:
    I don't disagree...
    But, for those, like the Porsche owner, it is an extravagant luxury with no real functional justification.
    But, if you ya got the cash and ya want it, go for it!
    I suppose, but I hate those kind of people. They are usually the ones who give the real users/drivers a bad image, and ultimately ruin the product line for everyone... as most of these companies chase after dollars rather than excellence, and the product goes in the direction of bozos with bucks. That is, until the product line is sufficiently ruined, such that it isn't the 'cool' thing any longer, and then everyone stops buying it.
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 35 of 50
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 3,566member
    cgWerks said:
    fastasleep said:
    Sigh.

    Yes, we all know they fucked up with the 2013, and they admitted as such. Prior to that, there was no problem. We know they’re actively dedicated to starting over from scratch and getting it right, which is also well documented. The Mac isn’t going to iOS. It’s also been clearly stated and well documented. Also they wouldn’t be re-engineering the Pro, developing the iMac Pro, new displays or anything else significant if they were actively transitioning away. Are you even paying attention? Got any more FUD you’d like to peddle?
    Poor you. We'll see, I guess. BTW, I hope you're right, and I'm wrong.

    ChrisCarneval said:
    BUT I never understood the need for ECC RAM. I am a 3D Artist and I do a lot of simulations and rendering but still.. why? for what reason would I pay so much more money just to have slightly slower RAM modules that can do error checking only really needed in a server environment. There is just no need for that on a Workstation in my opinion.
    Maybe you do, maybe you don't. The error rate is around 4 errors per 1GB of RAM per month. If you have 32 GB of RAM, that's ~128 errors each month of operation. Most of the time, I suppose a bit gets flipped that doesn't matter... but how many times might it change something that does matter, or cause that unexpected crash?

    I have to wonder what percentage of users would ever be able to utilize this kind of power?   It sounds a bit like a niche product that Apple could also use to claim still being #1 in technical leadership.

    But regardless, I am sure there is a chunk of people who would buy something like this just to browse the web and FaceBook.  It's the same crowd who uses their Porsche 911 Carerra to pick up bread and milk at the supermarket.
    If you're doing a big rendering project, for example... any even semi-realistic amount of cores and RAM will decrease the job time. But, yeah, the number of people to which this applies is a super-small pie-slice on the computer sales chart.

    re: Porsche - but, if you only have 1 car, the Porsche can win on the track AND pick up the groceries. :)

    GeorgeBMac said:
    I don't disagree...
    But, for those, like the Porsche owner, it is an extravagant luxury with no real functional justification.
    But, if you ya got the cash and ya want it, go for it!
    I suppose, but I hate those kind of people. They are usually the ones who give the real users/drivers a bad image, and ultimately ruin the product line for everyone... as most of these companies chase after dollars rather than excellence, and the product goes in the direction of bozos with bucks. That is, until the product line is sufficiently ruined, such that it isn't the 'cool' thing any longer, and then everyone stops buying it.
    Good points!

    I have no problem with Apple going after the high end -- American car manufacturers did it for decades:   producting a high end car just to show they had the best.   But I look forward to Apple producing more computers aimed at the common guy.   They're doing that with their mobile devices where they cover the gamut.   I think they need to open that up to the Mac line as well.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 36 of 50
    DuhSesame said:
    melgross said:
    rinosaur said:
    Forget this, let’s get AMD Threadripper in there.
    I would prefer not. For most purposes, the Intel line is better. AMD’s designs have more cores, and where that is true, higher multi core performance. But Intel still beats them in per core performance. That matter’s for most people.
    Probably not considering Intel still offers higher IPC per core, which can leads to better multi-core performance as well.
    Yes they have a small IPC advantage but that is more important in consumer devices as opposed to prosumer devices, as heavy applications usually are great at multithreading.

    Also don’t forget 32-core Threadripper undercuts this thing by ~$800-1000 (estimating $26-2800 for this chip).  24-core TR is an additional $500 less.
  • Reply 37 of 50
    So — the LGA3647 socket for the Mac Pro then? That has always seemed likely, and this may confirm it.

    And a liquid-cooled Mac Pro? At least for the highest-end module? This isn’t likely to be the only LGA3647 Xeon-W — but might be the top end?
    edited October 2018
  • Reply 38 of 50
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,893member
    GeorgeBMac said:
    I have no problem with Apple going after the high end -- American car manufacturers did it for decades:   producting a high end car just to show they had the best.   But I look forward to Apple producing more computers aimed at the common guy.   They're doing that with their mobile devices where they cover the gamut.   I think they need to open that up to the Mac line as well.
    I think they did for a time, and that is what people got used to and are now missing. Apple, meanwhile, seems to be going back to the '80s with Mac positioning/pricing while iDevices are now meant 'for the rest of us.' But, iDevices aren't such a great fit as I think Apple imagines or wishes them to be. Maybe they will be one day, but they need to change significantly yet for that to be the case.
  • Reply 39 of 50
    thttht Posts: 3,036member
    All this performance also means it generates a lot of heat, with Intel stating it has a Thermal Design Point (TDP)[...]

    Intel also introduced three processors under the 9th-generation masthead[...] It is unlikely that Apple will be interested in these three processors, due to the trio all having a TDP of 95W, making it too hot for the iMac range[...]

    Per Intel ARK, the i7-7700K in the current iMac has a Thermal Design Power (arguably the more common usage of TDP) of 91W. This is not that far off from the 95W chips. On that basis, I think they actually may be prime candidates for the next generation of iMac. They could easily make up those 4 extra watts with a more thermally efficient GPU. 
    I was thinking along the same lines as you until I saw this:

    Intel simply lies about their TDP ratings now. Maybe we can continue to believe that Intel TDP is the minimum clock rate at which all cores will run sustained for hours, but I can’t see how we can use Intel’s advertised TDP as a gage for anything now. All these Coffee Lake models need cooling designs that need to be 1.5x more (mobile parts included) than the Intel’s advertised TDP to actually see significant performance gains. Well, no fucking shit, more power equates to more performance.

    The odds of the i9-9900K being in the next iMac is approaching zero if the CPU needs 170 W. Users mind as well get the iMac Pro. Either that, or Apple’s Fall iMac is essentially going to be the iMac Pro, but with a Core type logic board and parts. I don’t know about that. If Apple uses the 9900K, they will have to limit max turbo to 1 core, and severely restrict how many cores can turbo if they are going to use a 95 W envelope. Same thing with the i7-8700K, 150 W? Come on.

    Personally, my 2013 iMac 27 is aging, I would like to have a bigger display, maybe 32”, 8 TB storage, better sound system, better port access (don’t like reaching around), and a quiet and cool system. I would like more performance of my Core i5 Haswell, but it should come at the cost of a noisier and hotter system. So, I would like take the base 6-core model if Apple lets me load up the storage with that model. Unfortunately, 4 TB storage is the likely max.
  • Reply 40 of 50
    thttht Posts: 3,036member
    So — the LGA3647 socket for the Mac Pro then? That has always seemed likely, and this may confirm it.

    And a liquid-cooled Mac Pro? At least for the highest-end module? This isn’t likely to be the only LGA3647 Xeon-W — but might be the top end?
    I don’t think so. Maybe in the Mac Pro, but I’m doubting it for the iMac Pro.

    I think we’d be lucky if Apple just waterfalls the current iMac Pro SKUs. Ie, eliminate the 8 core option, the 10 core becomes the base model at $5k, the 14 core becomes the top SKU and the 18 core stays the top tier option. And more importantly, there needs to be a next model up for the GPU. I don’t know if there is any 2018 AMD Vega option for that, unless Apple and Nvidia settle on a good pricing arrangement for GPUs. But the issue is that Intel isn’t exactly making the processors cheaper. They really don’t need too, yet.

    It’s going to be the same with the Mac Pro. If they use say 2 socket Xeon-SP processors, it will be a 10k machine. Are their enough people who will buy a ~50 core system on a desktop? Even with Xeon-W, the Mac Pro is going to be a $4k minimum system.

    And the liquid cooling isn’t some magical thing that transfers heat into an alternate dimension. These are desktop systems. A 500 W system, when running maxed out, is transferring 500 W of heat from the computer to the area around your desk. It’s like running a hairdryer, a countertop microwave, or 5 100W incandescent light bulbs for an hour right on top of your desk. That has consequences in terms of making your room hot, and noisy if the fans aren’t designed right. Apple typically chooses to have systems that uses as little power as possible and generate as little noise as possible.

    For the iMac Pro, Apple isn’t budging from 500 W imo. For the Mac Pro, I think it would be a miracle if they design it for 1000 W. Somewhere around 1500 W is the upper limit. Higher than that, you’ll need to use 220V or 30 amp circuits that electric dryers, electric ovens use. They are not going to design a system that requires you to install a new circuit in your home. (A 4 GPU card crypto miner rig with 250 W GPUs are pretty close to maxxing out 110V, 15 amp circuits typically used in power outlets in the USA.)
    fastasleep
Sign In or Register to comment.