Intel 6-core i7-powered Mac Pro rumored to launch this month

1356711

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 207
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Speaking of, the 30" ACDs are much more in need of a technological overhaul before a cosmetic change to the Mac Pro takes place.



    My guess...there's a 30" or larger Quad HD monitor coming.



    3840 x 2160
  • Reply 42 of 207
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mario View Post


    Why change perfect design? Housing is great and functional. The internal design has gotten better with the last iteration where you can pull out the CPU boards and clean the dust from giant heat sinks easily, reducing overall system noise.



    Changing a good thing for the sake of change usually leads to poorer design and functionality.



    The Mac Pro case design is classic, timeless. It does not need change.





    Apple defenders also said the same thing about the "perfection" of the Powerbook G4/original MacBook Pro design, it could not possibly be improved any further, and why would anyone want to. Now they are busy wiping egg off their faces, or just pretending that the past never existed.
  • Reply 43 of 207
    I expect to see the new 6-core (and 8-core?) server-class 5600-series Xeon processors instead of the upcoming desktop class 6-core Core i7 chips in the next-gen Mac Pro.
  • Reply 44 of 207
    mariomario Posts: 348member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Haggar View Post


    Apple defenders also said the same thing about the "perfection" of the Powerbook G4/original MacBook Pro design, it could not possibly be improved any further, and why would anyone want to. Now they are busy wiping egg off their faces, or just pretending that the past never existed.



    This is typical troll tactic. Move the conversation to something unrelated. Could please stick to what we are talking about here. Power PC based PowerMac had very similar case design as do current Mac Pros. Internal design has been improved however considerably.



    This only tells you one thing. The case design "works" in its current almost unchanged for 7 years form.
  • Reply 45 of 207
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macshark View Post


    I expect to see the new 6-core (and 8-core?) server-class 5600-series Xeon processors instead of the upcoming desktop class 6-core Core i7 chips in the next-gen Mac Pro.



    I know I'm just smoking crack here, but I wish Apple would make a desktop case with that desktop class Core i7 — separate from the Mac Pro line that uses the server class processors. Something to fit in-between the iMac and the Mac Pro categories.



    They could call it… get this: a Mac.



    sigh
  • Reply 46 of 207
    Apple seems to believe that having more models would complicate the lineup without adding enough new customers to be worth the effort. They also believe the future, for them at least, lies in portable devices not desktops.



    I think notebooks make sense for those who study in multiple locations and they can make sense for businesses to allow employees to work wherever they are. There's a higher data loss risk, of course, but it provides greater efficiency when users can take their entire work environment with them.



    Personally I see no reason to own a notebook. Most of my life is spent at home where I have a desktop Mac, work where I have a desktop Mac or somewhere in between like a crowded bus where there is no opportunity to use a computer. I certainly wouldn't take a notebook grocery shopping or to my daughter's dance class. The perfect combination for me is a desktop plus some sort of hand held (iPhone) or ultra portable (iPad).



    The lack of a mid-tower is mildly annoying, but the new iMac combined with external hard drives is sufficient for most people. I'll have to apply some dark paint and carefully modify my room lighting to cope with 27" of glare, but I see good value in the iMac now.
  • Reply 47 of 207
    krispiekrispie Posts: 260member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OzExige View Post


    My Dual 2.5 G5 is starting to show it's age in many ways but credit where it's due - it's never missed a beat. You gotta luv them Apple's





    Yours needs a new keyboard, it keeps inserting apostrophes where they don't belong.
  • Reply 48 of 207
    ozexigeozexige Posts: 215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by krispie View Post


    Yours needs a new keyboard, it keeps inserting apostrophes where they don't belong.



    You gotta luv them Apples



    Thank you, thank you, thank you.
  • Reply 49 of 207
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    I hear you but it's petty hard to imagine an improvement. I just popped in a new DVD drive in mine and I am always amazed at the brilliance of the design and quality of the beast. The job was done in two minutes without a single tool other than the small screw driver to change the DVD out of the holder. I just don't like carrying it too far!



    Yeah Apple has the best cases in the industry. Why the hell doesn't any other PC have handles!? You'd think Apple patented them. That alone, head and shoulders above everyone. And the door. I mean it's almost perfect. I'm sure they'll think of some improvements though! Hey how about bringing back smurf bondi blue!
  • Reply 50 of 207
    justflybobjustflybob Posts: 1,337member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post


    When is Apple going to change the housing? It's been 7 years!



    Seriously? Does it need changing just because? Or do you want to make a bigger fashion statement?



    While beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, I say don't change it just for appearance sake. Now if there is some prominent design flaw? You bet.
  • Reply 51 of 207
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by svnipp View Post


    Actually, I've got the GeForce 8800 GT in my Mac Pro. I opted for the upgraded video knowing that I would be playing games on it. The video card runs everything pretty great in Windoze like Fallout 3, and Dragon Age. It really doesn't seem like a video lag issue, because at times the video is just smooth. Sometimes though it's real laggy, almost like what you see in MMOs, and god forbid I pause the game and have it running in the background. Pretty much brings everything else like Safari, Mail, iTunes, etc. (normally all running all the time) to a crawl. I've already disabled Time Machine when I play to eliminate disk contention. Anyone still think the video card is the source of the performance problems here, or are there other suggestions/ideas? Any help would really be greatly appreciated.



    Try reducing the resolution you play it at to something like 1280x800-ish and see if that makes any difference. The 8800GT should handle that fine. 1600x1200 and it may start to struggle if running on OS X.



    Other than that, check Activity Monitor to see if you've got some process chewing up CPU.



    Update to Snow Leopard and 10.6.2 if you haven't already?



    That's all I can think of at the moment.
  • Reply 52 of 207
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    the game might be optimized for DirectX and the OS X OpenGL port may have performance issues. Don't keep up with these things as much, but in the last 5 years MS has added a lot of nice features into DirectX where a graphics card has to be specially engineered to take advantage of them



    It could be a dodgy OpenGL port but Sims3 anecdotally seems fine on MacBook/Pros, iMacs...
  • Reply 53 of 207
    I am waiting to buy a mac pro for video editing (no games). However with all this hype about this new chip, how would a single hexacore compare to 2 quad core? What are the plus and minuses of getting a single hexacore over 2 quads or vice versa?
  • Reply 54 of 207
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Umibuta View Post


    How would a single hexacore compare to 2 quad core? What are the plus and minuses of getting a single hexacore over 2 quads or vice versa?



    A single hexacore would of course be cheaper than 2 quad cores and 2 hexacores would be like having 3 quad cores. In the i7 architecture, it doesn't matter (much), if the cores are on a separate chip or not.
  • Reply 55 of 207
    I bought the previous generation Mac Pro, so I don't need this one. However, what interests me is the GPU upgrade options that will be given. If they can get a 5870 driver on the Mac side I'll buy a 5870 right away. The only thing preventing me now is I don't want to swap graphics cards to get Mac to boot.
  • Reply 56 of 207
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mario View Post


    Why change perfect design? Housing is great and functional. The internal design has gotten better with the last iteration where you can pull out the CPU boards and clean the dust from giant heat sinks easily, reducing overall system noise.



    Changing a good thing for the sake of change usually leads to poorer design and functionality.



    The Mac Pro case design is classic, timeless. It does not need change.



    The current Mac Pro has 4 DIMMS per CPU and only one triple channel for RAM while the competition has 6 or 9 DIMMs per CPU and 2-3 triple channels. Of course the design has gotten better, the engineers have to create solutions to Ive's complete unwillingness to change anything, and even then had to make some sacrifices (like RAM). Not to mention, it no longer fits with Apple's design philosophy.
  • Reply 57 of 207
    svnippsvnipp Posts: 430member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    Try reducing the resolution you play it at to something like 1280x800-ish and see if that makes any difference. The 8800GT should handle that fine. 1600x1200 and it may start to struggle if running on OS X.



    Other than that, check Activity Monitor to see if you've got some process chewing up CPU.



    Update to Snow Leopard and 10.6.2 if you haven't already?



    That's all I can think of at the moment.



    It doesn't seem to make much sense that the video resolution would be a factor when the system is so sluggish with the game running in the background. Looking at the Activity Monitor with the game running in the background shows The Sims 3 chewing up about 180% CPU utilization.



    I have updated to the current release of Snow Leopard, so I'm good there. Safari is horrendously slow with Sims running in the background. I mean there is like 1 to 2 minute beachballs when trying to simply hit webpages. It's really ugly. Pointless to tab out of the game to try and look up something on a website. If you are going to do that you may as well save and quit just to avoid the insane frustration. The odd part here is that Firefox is MUCH more responsive with Sims in the background, still slow but WAY better than Safari.
  • Reply 58 of 207
    jukesjukes Posts: 213member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Umibuta View Post


    I am waiting to buy a mac pro for video editing (no games). However with all this hype about this new chip, how would a single hexacore compare to 2 quad core? What are the plus and minuses of getting a single hexacore over 2 quads or vice versa?



    This is a really complicated question.



    The answer is going to be "it depends on the application." For video editing, the 2x4 setup is likely to be faster, if it's been well engineered, but probably not 30% faster. It could be as little as 5-15% faster. In some situations it's likely to be a bit slower.



    Other applications that do more complicated inter-thread communication will run faster on the 6-core because the application data won't suffer from cross-chip communication latencies. There will also be process differences because the 6-core is so much newer, so single-thread applications may run faster in the 6-core system as well.



    The other benefit is that the 6-core system will use substantially less energy than the 2x4 will.
  • Reply 59 of 207
    seek3rseek3r Posts: 179member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by svnipp View Post


    It doesn't seem to make much sense that the video resolution would be a factor when the system is so sluggish with the game running in the background. Looking at the Activity Monitor with the game running in the background shows The Sims 3 chewing up about 180% CPU utilization.



    I have updated to the current release of Snow Leopard, so I'm good there. Safari is horrendously slow with Sims running in the background. I mean there is like 1 to 2 minute beachballs when trying to simply hit webpages. It's really ugly. Pointless to tab out of the game to try and look up something on a website. If you are going to do that you may as well save and quit just to avoid the insane frustration. The odd part here is that Firefox is MUCH more responsive with Sims in the background, still slow but WAY better than Safari.



    180% cpu means you have plenty of unused CPU power there, and afaik the sims should be decently threadable to use a lot more... How hard is Sims3 on the disk? (and what disks do you have in there?). How much memory do you have, and how much is the sims using (if you're swapping to disk because you're out of ram the machine's going to turn to comparative molasses).



    Your MP should be able to shrug off that game, if it isnt either there's another hardware issue or it's a really poor coding job.
  • Reply 60 of 207
    svnippsvnipp Posts: 430member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by seek3r View Post


    180% cpu means you have plenty of unused CPU power there, and afaik the sims should be decently threadable to use a lot more... How hard is Sims3 on the disk? (and what disks do you have in there?). How much memory do you have, and how much is the sims using (if you're swapping to disk because you're out of ram the machine's going to turn to comparative molasses).



    Your MP should be able to shrug off that game, if it isnt either there's another hardware issue or it's a really poor coding job.



    I have 6GB of RAM in the system, and Sims is using I believe about 2.5GB. There is somewhere around 1 GB or so free when it's running in the background. I believe the disk is a 320GB, 7200RPM drive that came in the system. If I remember correctly the Activity Monitor indicated like 32 to 36 threads in the game.



    This is why I keep scratching my head on the performance issues. Seems like the system still has plenty of resources available both in terms of memory and CPU. I keep wondering if there is something else going on here or if the game simply has issues under Mac OS X? In all fairness, the game really does run pretty smooth 90% of the time. My biggest complaint is the absolutely horrid performance of the system if I background the game to do something else. That really kills my system.
Sign In or Register to comment.