Well i think 8 core all the way might not be the best way to go YET.
1) Not all Applications can thread. (4D , Filemaker).
2) Apple neeeds a cheap entry point for desktop servers. 4 cores is more than enough to run mac os X server.
What we can expect on the coming months as far as the MacPro might be concerned.
1) Faster FSB.
2) Better Memory bandwith.
3) New chipsets from intel.
4) More PCie lanes than we currently have.
5) New Cinema Displays.
6) New graphics cards (though i am very happy with my Nvidia 4500)
7) New Xraids (4Gbit Connects here we come).
8) Boot Camp becoming mainstream with 10.5.
9) Multi threaded OpenGL.
Relatively wacky things list.
1) Blu-Ray // DVD-HD (though i am perfectly happy with DVD double layers nowadays) , and the DRM schemes on both new standards are UGLY.
2) New Xraids (4Gbit Connects here we come).
3) SSD inclusion capability for scratch disk users.
4) AppleRaid onboard integration.
5) Digital Audio on the portables.
6) Touchscreen ?
7) Isight update?
Unlikely things (NOT LIKELY):
1) Bios support for video cards (too many vendors , insecure and let us face it 99.999999 percent of mac users dont want EVER to see that BIOS screen again).
2) Windows becoming secure.
3) DirectX support on mac os X.
4) Steve Balmer wearing a turtleneck.
5) Zune becoming popular (i have to get generic to point how unlikely previous events are).
Add your own.
Some of these are not prioritized at all but if the MacPro is to evolve some of this might be worse considering.
What we can expect on the coming months as far as the MacPro might be concerned.
1) Faster FSB.
2) Better Memory bandwith.
3) New chipsets from intel.
4) More PCie lanes than we currently have.
5) New Cinema Displays.
6) New graphics cards (though i am very happy with my Nvidia 4500)
7) New Xraids (4Gbit Connects here we come).
8) Boot Camp becoming mainstream with 10.5.
9) Multi threaded OpenGL.
I would add eSATA to the likely list here. More and more external drives are supporting it and it offers much faster transfer speeds than any other option. Just the sort of thing that would make into a Mac Pro before it hits the other models.
And as far as wacky, never gonna happen, out-of-the-blue predictions: a $399 8 GB iPhone...
An 8 core Pro more likely to happen when the iMac goes/is ready to go quad core (Penryn?).
I think it's gonna be the other way around. When the Mac Pro will have 8 cores, there will be room for a quad-core midrange Mac (whatever form factor Apple chooses for it).
According to the leaked specs and prices of the 45nm quad-core Xeons, Apple can simply replace the current chips for quads and for the same price they would get the following models:
- dual-quad 2.50GHz replacing the dual-dual 2.00GHz at $2200
- dual-quad 2.83GHz replacing the dual-dual 2.66GHz at $2499
- dual-quad 3.00GHz replacing the dual-dual 3.00GHz at $3298
- dual-quad 3.16GHz replacing the dual-quad 3.00GHz at $3997
But it not only a question of price, because Intel will only release a couple of 45nm dual-core Xeons, not enough to replace the current line-up.
The next gen chipset (Seaburg) will handle 1333 and 1600 FSB, but few chips supporting the 1600 FSB will be available at launch and they will be expensive (at first).
My guess/wish is for Apple to release (this year late 2007) new Mac Pros with Seaburg at 1333 and the quads mentionned above and then when the price of cpus is right, move to the 1600 FSB (summer 2008) with another speed bump (2.6 to 3.2GHz or better) or just wait for Nehalem and CSI (late 2008).
Given Intel's current pace, Apple could release 'new' Macs every year and speedbump them every 6 months (in-between new releases). I'm not sure they can sustain that, but...
imo they will have their bottom line be a quad 2.66 (or they will have a lower clock speed one and use the 2.83), they will drop the 3 due to the new 3.16's (they are so close there would be no point in having both).
I want my dang 5600, or even 5700 if they get around to the g92's by that time
Please explain the visual computing stuff. A new Nvidea initiation?
Any noises about the N92's specs? I have whispers of 3 times the performance of the 8800? So I'm hoping Apple will bypass the 8800GTX and go with the N92!
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Do we realise the Mac Pro hasn't had an update in over a year now? It's almost a year and a half! With that same crappy 7300. Nvidia and Ati have launched over 20 GPUS since then. Probably loads more. It's embarrassing to have a consumer card (an old one at that...) in a Xeon workstation. What is it with Apple and GPU of the most medicore standard?
It's the same with the iMac. Radeon 2600 Pro. Shudders.
I think it's gonna be the other way around. When the Mac Pro will have 8 cores, there will be room for a quad-core midrange Mac (whatever form factor Apple chooses for it).
According to the leaked specs and prices of the 45nm quad-core Xeons, Apple can simply replace the current chips for quads and for the same price they would get the following models:
- dual-quad 2.50GHz replacing the dual-dual 2.00GHz at $2200
- dual-quad 2.83GHz replacing the dual-dual 2.66GHz at $2499
- dual-quad 3.00GHz replacing the dual-dual 3.00GHz at $3298
- dual-quad 3.16GHz replacing the dual-quad 3.00GHz at $3997
But it not only a question of price, because Intel will only release a couple of 45nm dual-core Xeons, not enough to replace the current line-up.
The next gen chipset (Seaburg) will handle 1333 and 1600 FSB, but few chips supporting the 1600 FSB will be available at launch and they will be expensive (at first).
My guess/wish is for Apple to release (this year late 2007) new Mac Pros with Seaburg at 1333 and the quads mentionned above and then when the price of cpus is right, move to the 1600 FSB (summer 2008) with another speed bump (2.6 to 3.2GHz or better) or just wait for Nehalem and CSI (late 2008).
Given Intel's current pace, Apple could release 'new' Macs every year and speedbump them every 6 months (in-between new releases). I'm not sure they can sustain that, but...
Mjteix, I agree with the above table of 8-core 45-nm Penryn Xeon Mac Pro replacements. The Mac Pro will no longer be offered with ANY dual core Xeons, the all-quad core lineup will replace the previous generation dual and quad core Xeons and the price for the four levels of processor options for the Mac Pro will remain the same as the four levels of processor options in the current Mac Pro (Apple LOVES to keep the prices of the their high end products stable, while upgrading the specs of refreshed machines). The Mac Pro will also remain the only Mac capable of holding more than one processor chip, the only Mac capable of using FB-DIMMs, and the only one with more than four memory slots. Why? Because the Xeons are the only chips capable of utilizing more than one CPU chip and the only Intel chips that can address more than four memory slots, and the only ones that utilize FB-DIMMs (and, indeed require FB-DIMMs). The Mac Pro definitely NEEDS more up to date and better video card options, and e-sata ports would make sense in an refresh.
IF the iMacs would get a quad core processor, it will have to wait until Intel releases a MOBILE quad core processor, because ALL current Macs, other than the Mac Pro and the XServe, are based on MOBILE (laptop) hardware. I expect to see Intel release a quad-core mobile chip about a year from now.
IF Apple EVER releases a mid-range desktop, and assuming it would be offered with a quad core option, it would probably be a 45 nm single DESKTOP quad core processor on the X38 chipset motherboard with four non-ECC (non-FB-DIMM) DDR3 1333 MHz ram slots. You are never going to see a NON-Xeon, or 2 CPU option or NON FB-DIMM Mid-range Mac, because all those specs are Xeon specs, and to get a mid-range desktop Mac that wasn?t nearly at the same price level of a Mac Pro, Apple would have to make that mid-range desktop with Intel Desktop parts. And with the 45 nm Penryn desktop dual and quad cores due out later this year, THAT might actually be the ideal opportunity for Apple to fill that gap between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro, IF they are EVER going to make a Desktop hardware-based mid-level entry Mac in the foreseeable future.
Mjteix, I agree with the above table of 8-core 45-nm Penryn Xeon Mac Pro replacements. The Mac Pro will no longer be offered with ANY dual core Xeons, the all-quad core lineup will replace the previous generation dual and quad core Xeons and the price for the four levels of processor options for the Mac Pro will remain the same as the four levels of processor options in the current Mac Pro (Apple LOVES to keep the prices of the their high end products stable, while upgrading the specs of refreshed machines). The Mac Pro will also remain the only Mac capable of holding more than one processor chip, the only Mac capable of using FB-DIMMs, and the only one with more than four memory slots. Why? Because the Xeons are the only chips capable of utilizing more than one CPU chip and the only Intel chips that can address more than four memory slots, and the only ones that utilize FB-DIMMs (and, indeed require FB-DIMMs). The Mac Pro definitely NEEDS more up to date and better video card options, and e-sata ports would make sense in an refresh.
IF the iMacs would get a quad core processor, it will have to wait until Intel releases a MOBILE quad core processor, because ALL current Macs, other than the Mac Pro and the XServe, are based on MOBILE (laptop) hardware. I expect to see Intel release a quad-core mobile chip about a year from now.
IF Apple EVER releases a mid-range desktop, and assuming it would be offered with a quad core option, it would probably be a 45 nm single DESKTOP quad core processor on the X38 chipset motherboard with four non-ECC (non-FB-DIMM) DDR3 1333 MHz ram slots. You are never going to see a NON-Xeon, or 2 CPU option or NON FB-DIMM Mid-range Mac, because all those specs are Xeon specs, and to get a mid-range desktop Mac that wasn?t nearly at the same price level of a Mac Pro, Apple would have to make that mid-range desktop with Intel Desktop parts. And with the 45 nm Penryn desktop dual and quad cores due out later this year, THAT might actually be the ideal opportunity for Apple to fill that gap between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro, IF they are EVER going to make a Desktop hardware-based mid-level entry Mac in the foreseeable future.
Jim
Hear, hear! I agree that this would be the right moment to do it (Mac Pro late November or December) and a quad desktop Mac in January. I don't think they need to go X38 to make it attractive. In fact, I hope they don't and offer a line-up that encompasses the midrange (IMO, $999-1299 or 1349-1999, to use the free price slots left by the new iMacs). Any chipset in the 30 family would do even G33, G35 or P35 or even Q35 depending on the specs wanted - all those are available in microATX format that would allow for a small desktop enclosure with up to 4 PCIe slots, and can handle quad penryn chips. But let's not make this another xMac thread.
Anyway, I'm glad to see that some people agree with the Mac Pro going 8 cores on all models with penryn sooner than later. I also would like to see more/better/newer GPU options and new Apple displays (at least change the 23" for a 24" and work on the pricing). Apple wasn't afraid to reduce the price of the new iMacs and the iPhone by $200, they could do the same for the displays.
All 8 core is possible, but I'm not sure it makes sense yet. A very heavy multi-tasker might use eight, but I have four and I just don't have enough circumstances that make me think that I need to double it any time soon. I can see Apple offering 1 & 2 socket towers like they used to with the PBG5 line. I don't see them offering a $1500 single socket unit, which I think is unfortunate, but it's their prerogative.
Please explain the visual computing stuff. A new Nvidea initiation?
Any noises about the N92's specs? I have whispers of 3 times the performance of the 8800? So I'm hoping Apple will bypass the 8800GTX and go with the N92!
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Do we realise the Mac Pro hasn't had an update in over a year now? It's almost a year and a half! With that same crappy 7300. Nvidia and Ati have launched over 20 GPUS since then. Probably loads more. It's embarrassing to have a consumer card (an old one at that...) in a Xeon workstation. What is it with Apple and GPU of the most medicore standard?
It's the same with the iMac. Radeon 2600 Pro. Shudders.
Didn't they update it at WWDC?
You would think the Mac Pro would be coming shortly. As for Pro Apps they just updated Logic 8 today.
Mac graphics options are looking silly at this point as you pointed out. I'm still inclined to think that MWSF is where we will see the update but with Leopard is always slim possibility IMO. I'm wondering if Apple is going to use an Apple centric SkullTrail board or what do they have in store for us? Will real SLI finally be a possibility? How are they going to get the Workstation crowd interested in the Mac Pro again. Personally I've lost interest in it. The updates always fall short of even my Apple expectations which are fairly modest. With the switch to intel I would have expected graphics parity with PC's. It could be easily done. It hasn't been done. What are they up to in cupertino to win me back? TIck.. Tock.. .. ... ... ..
I want my dang 5600, or even 5700 if they get around to the g92's by that time
The much cheaper FireGL V7600 offers better or the same performance as the Quadro G80 cards.
It's especially strong in Maya, if that is your thing. I wonder what its bigger brothers can achieve (V8600 with 1GB and V8650 with 2GB of onboard memory).
I would have expected graphics parity with PC's. It could be easily done. It hasn't been done. What are they up to in cupertino to win me back? TIck.. Tock.. .. ... ... ..
Eh. I wish I knew.
I'm hoping for a line of displays to rival the sexy grey/black look of the iMac. And a similiary styled Pro or 'Mac' Tower. One based on Consumer quads. And the resulting price cuts to go with it.
You can get a sexy 'iphone' styled 22inch Samsung monitor £200! Add that to a consumer Mac Tower range of £795-£1295? Game over. I@m happy.
The problem is, Onlooker...(I've witnessed your 'plight' over the years, much the same as my own...)...Apple needs to fix a few things.
Price. Consumer desktop parts. New style. Drop the 'Mac' Tower into the PC switcher/gamer uber range. Bundle or make cheaper display range. It's out of date. It's bundle gpus? Out of date. Price? Ok for the Xeons it's offering. But ram is cheap. HDs are cheap. Everything but the cpus and gpus are cheap these days. There's no need to keep stalling. They can make and sell them cheaper and clean up.
Desktop sales for Apple aren't as good because, unlike the Laptop range? It's out of whack. And anybody with a brain knows it. Apple fan or not.
Also, Open GL performance on the mac or on the drivers is poor. Average to poor. Yet Apple has done great work on Core Image, Video, Animation. It's about time we had a Core API for Gaming/GL. Something isn't right with GL. ANd it needs a fix. Hopefully, Leopard will see Apple bring Open GL 3.0 to the board. Top to bottom competition for Direct X. And multithreaded performance to match.
And the link to the Ati Fire GL card? We now need that as an option. It's much cheaper than the Quadro card. Clobbers it on performance for many parts and cheaper too?
Yeesh. Conroe Quad chips are 2.4 and 2.6 gigs. With dirt cheap prices.
It's about time Apple woke up on it's tower strategy. T he future mayyy...be laptops. But that day is not now.
Also, Open GL performance on the mac or on the drivers is poor. Average to poor. Yet Apple has done great work on Core Image, Video, Animation. It's about time we had a Core API for Gaming/GL. Something isn't right with GL. ANd it needs a fix. Hopefully, Leopard will see Apple bring Open GL 3.0 to the board. Top to bottom competition for Direct X. And multithreaded performance to match.
Actually Leopard brings OpenGL 2.1. Open GL 3.0 (codenamed Mount Evans) will likely not come until 10.6 or unless Apple feels quite randy and adds it in a point release of Leopard (my fav choice)
OpenGL 2.x is going to be a good DX competitor now that it has high level shader support and other features. After some stagnation OpenGL, led now by Kronos Group, seems to be ready to push forward.
The much cheaper FireGL V7600 offers better or the same performance as the Quadro G80 cards.
It's especially strong in Maya, if that is your thing. I wonder what its bigger brothers can achieve (V8600 with 1GB and V8650 with 2GB of onboard memory).
I don't see anything great here? The Quadro FX 4600 is not only a last generation card, but it still outperforms this card, is only $895.00 vs a $1000.00 card that doesn't exist yet that is slightly more expensive. You started talking about it's big brothers, but this card isn't even available yet? I just dont get it.
The writer even says
Quote:
"The current advantage seen of the Quadro FX 4600 over the FireGL V7600 is the chance to enable FSAA settings all the way up to X32 in certain settings of applications and the added extra bandwidth."
Yep, that is a slight advantage isn't it?
Sure hurray for ATI, but what are you cheering about here I just don't see it? Cost? Performance? It lacks both?
Comments
Do you think that when Apple eventually updates the Mac Pro, it will make the entire family eight-core?
Is this possible?
No. Too expensive. And no real need for 4 cores on all Mac Pros.
1) Not all Applications can thread. (4D , Filemaker).
2) Apple neeeds a cheap entry point for desktop servers. 4 cores is more than enough to run mac os X server.
What we can expect on the coming months as far as the MacPro might be concerned.
1) Faster FSB.
2) Better Memory bandwith.
3) New chipsets from intel.
4) More PCie lanes than we currently have.
5) New Cinema Displays.
6) New graphics cards (though i am very happy with my Nvidia 4500)
7) New Xraids (4Gbit Connects here we come).
8) Boot Camp becoming mainstream with 10.5.
9) Multi threaded OpenGL.
Relatively wacky things list.
1) Blu-Ray // DVD-HD (though i am perfectly happy with DVD double layers nowadays) , and the DRM schemes on both new standards are UGLY.
2) New Xraids (4Gbit Connects here we come).
3) SSD inclusion capability for scratch disk users.
4) AppleRaid onboard integration.
5) Digital Audio on the portables.
6) Touchscreen ?
7) Isight update?
Unlikely things (NOT LIKELY):
1) Bios support for video cards (too many vendors , insecure and let us face it 99.999999 percent of mac users dont want EVER to see that BIOS screen again).
2) Windows becoming secure.
3) DirectX support on mac os X.
4) Steve Balmer wearing a turtleneck.
5) Zune becoming popular (i have to get generic to point how unlikely previous events are).
Add your own.
Some of these are not prioritized at all but if the MacPro is to evolve some of this might be worse considering.
What we can expect on the coming months as far as the MacPro might be concerned.
1) Faster FSB.
2) Better Memory bandwith.
3) New chipsets from intel.
4) More PCie lanes than we currently have.
5) New Cinema Displays.
6) New graphics cards (though i am very happy with my Nvidia 4500)
7) New Xraids (4Gbit Connects here we come).
8) Boot Camp becoming mainstream with 10.5.
9) Multi threaded OpenGL.
I would add eSATA to the likely list here. More and more external drives are supporting it and it offers much faster transfer speeds than any other option. Just the sort of thing that would make into a Mac Pro before it hits the other models.
And as far as wacky, never gonna happen, out-of-the-blue predictions: a $399 8 GB iPhone...
An 8 core Pro more likely to happen when the iMac goes/is ready to go quad core (Penryn?).
I think it's gonna be the other way around. When the Mac Pro will have 8 cores, there will be room for a quad-core midrange Mac (whatever form factor Apple chooses for it).
According to the leaked specs and prices of the 45nm quad-core Xeons, Apple can simply replace the current chips for quads and for the same price they would get the following models:
- dual-quad 2.50GHz replacing the dual-dual 2.00GHz at $2200
- dual-quad 2.83GHz replacing the dual-dual 2.66GHz at $2499
- dual-quad 3.00GHz replacing the dual-dual 3.00GHz at $3298
- dual-quad 3.16GHz replacing the dual-quad 3.00GHz at $3997
But it not only a question of price, because Intel will only release a couple of 45nm dual-core Xeons, not enough to replace the current line-up.
The next gen chipset (Seaburg) will handle 1333 and 1600 FSB, but few chips supporting the 1600 FSB will be available at launch and they will be expensive (at first).
My guess/wish is for Apple to release (this year late 2007) new Mac Pros with Seaburg at 1333 and the quads mentionned above and then when the price of cpus is right, move to the 1600 FSB (summer 2008) with another speed bump (2.6 to 3.2GHz or better) or just wait for Nehalem and CSI (late 2008).
Given Intel's current pace, Apple could release 'new' Macs every year and speedbump them every 6 months (in-between new releases). I'm not sure they can sustain that, but...
Quad-core 2.66GHz
Quad-core 3.16GHz
Octo-core 3.16GHz
imo they will have their bottom line be a quad 2.66 (or they will have a lower clock speed one and use the 2.83), they will drop the 3 due to the new 3.16's (they are so close there would be no point in having both).
I want my dang 5600, or even 5700 if they get around to the g92's by that time
2) Better Memory bandwith.
3) New chipsets from intel.
4) More PCie lanes than we currently have.
5) New Cinema Displays.
6) New graphics cards (though i am very happy with my Nvidia 4500)
7) New Xraids (4Gbit Connects here we come).
8) Boot Camp becoming mainstream with 10.5.
9) Multi threaded OpenGL.
That is my wish list.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I want my dang 5600, or even 5700 if they get around to the g92's by that time
Please explain the visual computing stuff. A new Nvidea initiation?
Any noises about the N92's specs? I have whispers of 3 times the performance of the 8800? So I'm hoping Apple will bypass the 8800GTX and go with the N92!
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Do we realise the Mac Pro hasn't had an update in over a year now? It's almost a year and a half! With that same crappy 7300. Nvidia and Ati have launched over 20 GPUS since then. Probably loads more. It's embarrassing to have a consumer card (an old one at that...) in a Xeon workstation. What is it with Apple and GPU of the most medicore standard?
It's the same with the iMac. Radeon 2600 Pro. Shudders.
Multi threaded OpenGL.
I'm surprised at how average to poor GL tech is on the Mac. And it's 'our' leading API for Graphics. :I
Benches at Barefeats have Open GL benches way behind Windows GL by 2-6 times slower. Maybe AMD's Mac drivers are really good..?
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS> So I'm hoping that Leopard will really change things re: Open GL performance lagging D10 so much.
I think it's gonna be the other way around. When the Mac Pro will have 8 cores, there will be room for a quad-core midrange Mac (whatever form factor Apple chooses for it).
According to the leaked specs and prices of the 45nm quad-core Xeons, Apple can simply replace the current chips for quads and for the same price they would get the following models:
- dual-quad 2.50GHz replacing the dual-dual 2.00GHz at $2200
- dual-quad 2.83GHz replacing the dual-dual 2.66GHz at $2499
- dual-quad 3.00GHz replacing the dual-dual 3.00GHz at $3298
- dual-quad 3.16GHz replacing the dual-quad 3.00GHz at $3997
But it not only a question of price, because Intel will only release a couple of 45nm dual-core Xeons, not enough to replace the current line-up.
The next gen chipset (Seaburg) will handle 1333 and 1600 FSB, but few chips supporting the 1600 FSB will be available at launch and they will be expensive (at first).
My guess/wish is for Apple to release (this year late 2007) new Mac Pros with Seaburg at 1333 and the quads mentionned above and then when the price of cpus is right, move to the 1600 FSB (summer 2008) with another speed bump (2.6 to 3.2GHz or better) or just wait for Nehalem and CSI (late 2008).
Given Intel's current pace, Apple could release 'new' Macs every year and speedbump them every 6 months (in-between new releases). I'm not sure they can sustain that, but...
Mjteix, I agree with the above table of 8-core 45-nm Penryn Xeon Mac Pro replacements. The Mac Pro will no longer be offered with ANY dual core Xeons, the all-quad core lineup will replace the previous generation dual and quad core Xeons and the price for the four levels of processor options for the Mac Pro will remain the same as the four levels of processor options in the current Mac Pro (Apple LOVES to keep the prices of the their high end products stable, while upgrading the specs of refreshed machines). The Mac Pro will also remain the only Mac capable of holding more than one processor chip, the only Mac capable of using FB-DIMMs, and the only one with more than four memory slots. Why? Because the Xeons are the only chips capable of utilizing more than one CPU chip and the only Intel chips that can address more than four memory slots, and the only ones that utilize FB-DIMMs (and, indeed require FB-DIMMs). The Mac Pro definitely NEEDS more up to date and better video card options, and e-sata ports would make sense in an refresh.
IF the iMacs would get a quad core processor, it will have to wait until Intel releases a MOBILE quad core processor, because ALL current Macs, other than the Mac Pro and the XServe, are based on MOBILE (laptop) hardware. I expect to see Intel release a quad-core mobile chip about a year from now.
IF Apple EVER releases a mid-range desktop, and assuming it would be offered with a quad core option, it would probably be a 45 nm single DESKTOP quad core processor on the X38 chipset motherboard with four non-ECC (non-FB-DIMM) DDR3 1333 MHz ram slots. You are never going to see a NON-Xeon, or 2 CPU option or NON FB-DIMM Mid-range Mac, because all those specs are Xeon specs, and to get a mid-range desktop Mac that wasn?t nearly at the same price level of a Mac Pro, Apple would have to make that mid-range desktop with Intel Desktop parts. And with the 45 nm Penryn desktop dual and quad cores due out later this year, THAT might actually be the ideal opportunity for Apple to fill that gap between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro, IF they are EVER going to make a Desktop hardware-based mid-level entry Mac in the foreseeable future.
Jim
Mjteix, I agree with the above table of 8-core 45-nm Penryn Xeon Mac Pro replacements. The Mac Pro will no longer be offered with ANY dual core Xeons, the all-quad core lineup will replace the previous generation dual and quad core Xeons and the price for the four levels of processor options for the Mac Pro will remain the same as the four levels of processor options in the current Mac Pro (Apple LOVES to keep the prices of the their high end products stable, while upgrading the specs of refreshed machines). The Mac Pro will also remain the only Mac capable of holding more than one processor chip, the only Mac capable of using FB-DIMMs, and the only one with more than four memory slots. Why? Because the Xeons are the only chips capable of utilizing more than one CPU chip and the only Intel chips that can address more than four memory slots, and the only ones that utilize FB-DIMMs (and, indeed require FB-DIMMs). The Mac Pro definitely NEEDS more up to date and better video card options, and e-sata ports would make sense in an refresh.
IF the iMacs would get a quad core processor, it will have to wait until Intel releases a MOBILE quad core processor, because ALL current Macs, other than the Mac Pro and the XServe, are based on MOBILE (laptop) hardware. I expect to see Intel release a quad-core mobile chip about a year from now.
IF Apple EVER releases a mid-range desktop, and assuming it would be offered with a quad core option, it would probably be a 45 nm single DESKTOP quad core processor on the X38 chipset motherboard with four non-ECC (non-FB-DIMM) DDR3 1333 MHz ram slots. You are never going to see a NON-Xeon, or 2 CPU option or NON FB-DIMM Mid-range Mac, because all those specs are Xeon specs, and to get a mid-range desktop Mac that wasn?t nearly at the same price level of a Mac Pro, Apple would have to make that mid-range desktop with Intel Desktop parts. And with the 45 nm Penryn desktop dual and quad cores due out later this year, THAT might actually be the ideal opportunity for Apple to fill that gap between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro, IF they are EVER going to make a Desktop hardware-based mid-level entry Mac in the foreseeable future.
Jim
Hear, hear! I agree that this would be the right moment to do it (Mac Pro late November or December) and a quad desktop Mac in January. I don't think they need to go X38 to make it attractive. In fact, I hope they don't and offer a line-up that encompasses the midrange (IMO, $999-1299 or 1349-1999, to use the free price slots left by the new iMacs). Any chipset in the 30 family would do even G33, G35 or P35 or even Q35 depending on the specs wanted - all those are available in microATX format that would allow for a small desktop enclosure with up to 4 PCIe slots, and can handle quad penryn chips. But let's not make this another xMac thread.
Anyway, I'm glad to see that some people agree with the Mac Pro going 8 cores on all models with penryn sooner than later. I also would like to see more/better/newer GPU options and new Apple displays (at least change the 23" for a 24" and work on the pricing). Apple wasn't afraid to reduce the price of the new iMacs and the iPhone by $200, they could do the same for the displays.
Please explain the visual computing stuff. A new Nvidea initiation?
Any noises about the N92's specs? I have whispers of 3 times the performance of the 8800? So I'm hoping Apple will bypass the 8800GTX and go with the N92!
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Do we realise the Mac Pro hasn't had an update in over a year now? It's almost a year and a half! With that same crappy 7300. Nvidia and Ati have launched over 20 GPUS since then. Probably loads more. It's embarrassing to have a consumer card (an old one at that...) in a Xeon workstation. What is it with Apple and GPU of the most medicore standard?
It's the same with the iMac. Radeon 2600 Pro. Shudders.
Didn't they update it at WWDC?
You would think the Mac Pro would be coming shortly. As for Pro Apps they just updated Logic 8 today.
Mac graphics options are looking silly at this point as you pointed out. I'm still inclined to think that MWSF is where we will see the update but with Leopard is always slim possibility IMO. I'm wondering if Apple is going to use an Apple centric SkullTrail board or what do they have in store for us? Will real SLI finally be a possibility? How are they going to get the Workstation crowd interested in the Mac Pro again. Personally I've lost interest in it. The updates always fall short of even my Apple expectations which are fairly modest. With the switch to intel I would have expected graphics parity with PC's. It could be easily done. It hasn't been done. What are they up to in cupertino to win me back? TIck.. Tock.. .. ... ... ..
I want my dang 5600, or even 5700 if they get around to the g92's by that time
The much cheaper FireGL V7600 offers better or the same performance as the Quadro G80 cards.
It's especially strong in Maya, if that is your thing. I wonder what its bigger brothers can achieve (V8600 with 1GB and V8650 with 2GB of onboard memory).
Source: EXCLUSIVE - AMD FIREGL V7600 Professional Graphic's Card Review
I would have expected graphics parity with PC's. It could be easily done. It hasn't been done. What are they up to in cupertino to win me back? TIck.. Tock.. .. ... ... ..
Eh. I wish I knew.
I'm hoping for a line of displays to rival the sexy grey/black look of the iMac. And a similiary styled Pro or 'Mac' Tower. One based on Consumer quads. And the resulting price cuts to go with it.
You can get a sexy 'iphone' styled 22inch Samsung monitor £200! Add that to a consumer Mac Tower range of £795-£1295? Game over. I@m happy.
The problem is, Onlooker...(I've witnessed your 'plight' over the years, much the same as my own...)...Apple needs to fix a few things.
Price. Consumer desktop parts. New style. Drop the 'Mac' Tower into the PC switcher/gamer uber range. Bundle or make cheaper display range. It's out of date. It's bundle gpus? Out of date. Price? Ok for the Xeons it's offering. But ram is cheap. HDs are cheap. Everything but the cpus and gpus are cheap these days. There's no need to keep stalling. They can make and sell them cheaper and clean up.
Desktop sales for Apple aren't as good because, unlike the Laptop range? It's out of whack. And anybody with a brain knows it. Apple fan or not.
Also, Open GL performance on the mac or on the drivers is poor. Average to poor. Yet Apple has done great work on Core Image, Video, Animation. It's about time we had a Core API for Gaming/GL. Something isn't right with GL. ANd it needs a fix. Hopefully, Leopard will see Apple bring Open GL 3.0 to the board. Top to bottom competition for Direct X. And multithreaded performance to match.
And the link to the Ati Fire GL card? We now need that as an option. It's much cheaper than the Quadro card. Clobbers it on performance for many parts and cheaper too?
Yeesh. Conroe Quad chips are 2.4 and 2.6 gigs. With dirt cheap prices.
It's about time Apple woke up on it's tower strategy. T he future mayyy...be laptops. But that day is not now.
Lemon Bon Bon
Also, Open GL performance on the mac or on the drivers is poor. Average to poor. Yet Apple has done great work on Core Image, Video, Animation. It's about time we had a Core API for Gaming/GL. Something isn't right with GL. ANd it needs a fix. Hopefully, Leopard will see Apple bring Open GL 3.0 to the board. Top to bottom competition for Direct X. And multithreaded performance to match.
Actually Leopard brings OpenGL 2.1. Open GL 3.0 (codenamed Mount Evans) will likely not come until 10.6 or unless Apple feels quite randy and adds it in a point release of Leopard (my fav choice)
OpenGL 2.x is going to be a good DX competitor now that it has high level shader support and other features. After some stagnation OpenGL, led now by Kronos Group, seems to be ready to push forward.
The much cheaper FireGL V7600 offers better or the same performance as the Quadro G80 cards.
It's especially strong in Maya, if that is your thing. I wonder what its bigger brothers can achieve (V8600 with 1GB and V8650 with 2GB of onboard memory).
Source: EXCLUSIVE - AMD FIREGL V7600 Professional Graphic's Card Review
I don't see anything great here? The Quadro FX 4600 is not only a last generation card, but it still outperforms this card, is only $895.00 vs a $1000.00 card that doesn't exist yet that is slightly more expensive. You started talking about it's big brothers, but this card isn't even available yet? I just dont get it.
The writer even says
"The current advantage seen of the Quadro FX 4600 over the FireGL V7600 is the chance to enable FSAA settings all the way up to X32 in certain settings of applications and the added extra bandwidth."
Yep, that is a slight advantage isn't it?
Sure hurray for ATI, but what are you cheering about here I just don't see it? Cost? Performance? It lacks both?