This one might have a bit of weight behind it though. Mac Mini supplies are drying up and a school that placed a bulk order of Mac Minis had them pushed back from the 1st of June to the 14th of June. The 14th is a Monday though so we'll see in a couple of days if it pans out.
It doesn't suggest Pro updates though. The odd thing about the Pro update is that Intel's chips have been released. Apple wouldn't use the 8-core models as they cost too much. So the only possibilities are that Intel has a supply shortage, Apple is focusing too much on things beginning with the letter 'i' (maybe it should be called iPro to get updated quicker) or there is the switch to AMD going on.
I don't think the AMD switch is going to happen as it doesn't offer anything performance-wise but it allows some good options like having 4 processors in a machine. 12-cores per chip x 4 = 48 physical cores. It will cost in excess of $5000 but for people who need the ultimate personal workstation, it's a good option to have and costs the same as Intel's offering.
The 12-core 1.9GHz Opteron 6168 would be 20% slower than the highest end 12-core Opteron but costs nearly half the price. So 4 x AMD 6168 would be $2976 where as just 2 x Intel E7530 7500-series Xeon 1.86GHz would be $2782.
So the price doesn't go down but you can get more processing power for around the same price and it beats waiting on Larrabee. The power usage does go up a bit though at the high-end. The low-end could use the 8-core 2GHz 6128 Opteron. Again no price drop but 8-cores vs 4-cores.
Intel's 7500-series CPUs are fast processors but they don't have anything price-wise to match what is used now in the entry model. Apple use the 5500-series chips and they use the E5520 ($373), the X550 ($958) and the X5570 ($1386) - that's why jumping to the 2.93GHz costs $2600.
Likelihood is they'd use 32nm Westmere 5600-series but it would be:
E5620 2.4GHz - $387, 4-core 8-thread
X5650 2.66GHz - $996, 6-core 12-thread
X5670 2.93GHz - $1440, 6-core 12-thread
Entry model wouldn't be much faster than what we have now and all prices stay around the same. I feel that a 48 physical core 1.9GHz machine would be more interesting than a 12-core, 24-thread 2.93GHz machine. It depends on the actual performance of course and Intel could easily win in most real-world tests but physical cores are better than virtual cores and parallel is the way forward. They might get some discounts on good GPUs at least.
"Our Customers include BBC, ITV, GMTV, Tesco, Sony, Toshiba, 3D Labs, Creative Labs, Toyota, Walt Disney, Lockhead Martin, US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, British Ministry of Defence, plus many more."
Disney wants quad processor machines Steve, get on it.
It doesn't suggest Pro updates though. The odd thing about the Pro update is that Intel's chips have been released. Apple wouldn't use the 8-core models as they cost too much. So the only possibilities are that Intel has a supply shortage, Apple is focusing too much on things beginning with the letter 'i' (maybe it should be called iPro to get updated quicker) or there is the switch to AMD going on.
They delay could be explained by a significant redesign of the line, as opposed to an issue getting the processors they need. I think Apple will stick with Intel, and will ship machines using the hexacore chips at the high end. Being able to configure MacPros with 4 - 12 physical cores would give quite a range. The current tower's outward form has remained pretty much unchanged since 2003, even though the internals have been revved repeatedly.
Apple's design department is large enough that I don't think the 'i' products are really a distraction.
Its also possible that they are waiting on something else... GPUs perhaps?
They delay could be explained by a significant redesign of the line.
Maybe but they'd have been designing it for a while so a new design should be ready by now.
They could be running out of aluminum supplies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer
Apple's design department is large enough that I don't think the 'i' products are really a distraction.
The focus shifting affects more than it should and has caused delays to products in the past. Jobs said quite openly in the D8 interview that 'Apple is a company that doesn't have the most resources of everybody'.
Trying to meet the demand for the iPhone 4 shipments worldwide will use up a lot of resources and this is two weeks away. Imagine the resources required to successfully deliver over 1 million phones in one weekend - when I say deliver, I mean make sure they get to all the retail outlets as well as to individuals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer
Its also possible that they are waiting on something else... GPUs perhaps?
I would doubt it. Apple is content to use 2-3 year old GPUs in brand new products, they would never hold back a major product line for a component they appear to assume that no one uses.
It doesn't suggest Pro updates though. The odd thing about the Pro update is that Intel's chips have been released. Apple wouldn't use the 8-core models as they cost too much. So the only possibilities are that Intel has a supply shortage, Apple is focusing too much on things beginning with the letter 'i' (maybe it should be called iPro to get updated quicker) or there is the switch to AMD going on.
[snip]
I think Marvin wins the prize here!
Why not have an iPro Mac with "whatever" chip.
This would be the X-Mac with some expandability and performance level slotted between
Maybe but they'd have been designing it for a while so a new design should be ready by now.
They could be running out of aluminum supplies.
The focus shifting affects more than it should and has caused delays to products in the past. Jobs said quite openly in the D8 interview that 'Apple is a company that doesn't have the most resources of everybody'.
Trying to meet the demand for the iPhone 4 shipments worldwide will use up a lot of resources and this is two weeks away. Imagine the resources required to successfully deliver over 1 million phones in one weekend - when I say deliver, I mean make sure they get to all the retail outlets as well as to individuals.
I would doubt it. Apple is content to use 2-3 year old GPUs in brand new products, they would never hold back a major product line for a component they appear to assume that no one uses.
Rolls about on the floor...*whizzing himself...oh. New trousers needed. Programmer fell into door on that one. Apple.
I mean, seriously...heh...Apple?
Apple...wait...*wipes tears from eyes...for a new gpu?
Marv's aserbic summation of Apple's gpu policy nail gunned any thought that the delay could be gpu related. Heh. Heh. Heh.
LOL.
Probably marketing can't decide whether to yank the entry model of the 'pro' leaving us with a £2300 model as the 'new' price entry point...because 'whooo' we have 6-xore in them. (Note: AMD systems with 6 cores under a grand right now. Right over at overclockers.co.uk...)
Apple...wait...*wipes tears from eyes...for a new gpu?
Actually, I mentioned it because there is precedent. The nVidia 6800 was launched on the Mac side-by-side with its PC debut (at least I think that was the product number... there have been so many they all blur together).
They've also done surprising things with pricing in the past. This usually happens when they realize they've gotten out of touch with the market, and they're reading Lemon's comments on some thread here....
Probably marketing can't decide whether to yank the entry model of the 'pro' leaving us with a £2300 model as the 'new' price entry point...because 'whooo' we have 6-xore in them. (Note: AMD systems with 6 cores under a grand right now. Right over at overclockers.co.uk...)
Yeah, that would be horrendous if it started at £2300. The Xeon 5600-series chips seem to be pretty much the same price though:
E5620 2.4GHz - $387, 4-core 8-thread
X5650 2.66GHz - $996, 6-core 12-thread
X5670 2.93GHz - $1440, 6-core 12-thread
The Mac Pro models are likely to become:
Single 6-core X5650 2.66GHz £1940
dual quad-core E5620 2.4GHz £2553
dual 6-core X5650 2.66GHz £3697
dual 6-core X5670 2.93GHz £4678
One odd thing is that the X5550 in the current single processor machine actually costs more than 2 x E5520 in the more expensive Xeon. They couldn't sell an 8-core cheaper than a quad but it seems like artificial pricing going on as they are all 2P capable CPUs so no tax involved with the CPUs.
It seems nonsensical that 2 x quad 2.26GHz = $746 and 1 x quad 2.66GHz = $958 and yet the former costs $650 more than the latter from Apple. Surely adding an extra socket to the motherboard doesn't cost $862.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer
They've also done surprising things with pricing in the past. This usually happens when they realize they've gotten out of touch with the market
Let's just hope the price goes down this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer
Actually, I mentioned it because there is precedent. The nVidia 6800 was launched on the Mac side-by-side with its PC debut
Yeah, they do put some modern GPUs in the machines and of late, they are making better decisions in the GPU department but the only products they'd hold for a GPU would be the low-end ones for an IGP like the 320M. With the Mac Pro, there are so many options already that they can pretty much choose what they want. I think it's most likely the CPUs are what's holding up with the Mac Pro.
The GT120 card in the entry model just seems like the cheapest card they can get hold of to keep the price down for people buying them for CPU performance. The higher up cards will be chosen for their double-precision compute performance. ATI cards seem to perform better in this regard. I'd expect something like the Radeon 5850 as BTO in the next one. The current one they use has something like 240GFLOPS double-precision and the 5850 has 418GFLOPs.
When it comes to GPUs, cost isn't an issue at all, it's $300-400 for a high end card so they should give the option when you are paying $2000-3000 for the machine.
The GT120 card in the entry model just seems like the cheapest card they can get hold of to keep the price down for people buying them for CPU performance. The higher up cards will be chosen for their double-precision compute performance. ATI cards seem to perform better in this regard. I'd expect something like the Radeon 5850 as BTO in the next one. The current one they use has something like 240GFLOPS double-precision and the 5850 has 418GFLOPs.
You're probably right about the CPUs being the gating concern... but its not a sure thing. They are pushing OpenCL, so perhaps their Pro apps are jumping on that in a big way... and they want to have a new GPU that will support all the features and deliver better GPGPU performance. They might also be waiting for yields on a particular CPU to improve to a particular level.
Who knows what lies in the heart of the MacPro rollout schedule? Only the Apple knows.
Yeah, that would be horrendous if it started at £2300. The Xeon 5600-series chips seem to be pretty much the same price though:
E5620 2.4GHz - $387, 4-core 8-thread
X5650 2.66GHz - $996, 6-core 12-thread
X5670 2.93GHz - $1440, 6-core 12-thread
The Mac Pro models are likely to become:
Single 6-core X5650 2.66GHz £1940
dual quad-core E5620 2.4GHz £2553
dual 6-core X5650 2.66GHz £3697
dual 6-core X5670 2.93GHz £4678
One odd thing is that the X5550 in the current single processor machine actually costs more than 2 x E5520 in the more expensive Xeon. They couldn't sell an 8-core cheaper than a quad but it seems like artificial pricing going on as they are all 2P capable CPUs so no tax involved with the CPUs.
It seems nonsensical that 2 x quad 2.26GHz = $746 and 1 x quad 2.66GHz = $958 and yet the former costs $650 more than the latter from Apple. Surely adding an extra socket to the motherboard doesn't cost $862.
That would be pretty ridiculous.
The main mistake in your "logic" is that the uni-processor MP uses Xeons of the 55xx series. It is indeed not true as the uni-processor MP uses Xeons of the 35xx series. Those are way less expensive than 55xx as they cannot be used in pairs (only 1 QPI link). In fact they cost exactly the same as the desktop Core i7-9xx series at the same speed, the only difference being the ECC enabled memory controller. So for all those people who think that the MP would be less expensive if Apple uses desktop cpus: you're wrong. It is only true for Core i5 cpus as desktop Core i7 cpus start at $284 (2.80 Core i7-860 in the iMac) just like the 2.66 Xeon W3520. The price of the chipset is irrelevant: $52 for the X58 and $43 from the H57 (that doesn't even offer as many PCIe lanes as the X58). And the price of ECC RAM is not even $5 more per GB. That would make a grand total of $24 of savings using a Core i7-860 instead of a Xeon W3520.
So the $2499 MP uses a 2.66 Xeon W3520 cpu ($284)
The $2899 MP uses a 2.93 Xeon W3540 cpu ($562)
The $3699 MP uses a 3.33 Xeon W3580 cpu ($999)
What seems nonsensical to you comes from your completly wrong hypothesis.
FWIW, I believe that the current uni-processor MP is way overpriced (and already was at launch). I hope Apple will came to their senses and offer a good price cut along with newer/faster cpus (and gpus), eveything else could even stay the same, most pros won't mind.
$2199 QC 3.06GHz W3550 ($387) (+$100 on the cpu -$400 price cut)
$2499 QC 3.20GHz W3560 ($562) ($400 price cut)
or $2699 6C 3.20GHz W3670 ($xxx) available in Q3
$3299 6C 3.33GHz W3680 ($999) ($400 price cut)
$3499 dual QC 2.53 E5630 ($551 each) (+$200 due to the double speedbump)
$4699 dual 6C 2.66 X5650 ($996 each) same price, corebump
$5899 dual 6C 2.93 X5670 ($1,440 each) same price, corebump
This way the lines don't overlap in terms of pricing. And the base MP would be more powerful than the high-end BTO iMac.
As as gpus are concerned, Apple is so far behind, that anything "newer" would be a step in the right "direction".
Nvidia 3xx series, ATI 5xxx series... whatever, I don't expect much in that area.
It is indeed not true as the uni-processor MP uses Xeons of the 35xx series.
I never noticed that before, it's even written on the Mac Pro spec page. I always though the single processor model used the same chips as the 8-core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
FWIW, I believe that the current uni-processor MP is way overpriced (and already was at launch).
Yea, I agree entirely. I'd like to see it go back down to what it was before. I think they are pushing it away from the top-end iMac in terms of price.
Actually, I mentioned it because there is precedent. The nVidia 6800 was launched on the Mac side-by-side with its PC debut (at least I think that was the product number... there have been so many they all blur together).
They've also done surprising things with pricing in the past. This usually happens when they realize they've gotten out of touch with the market, and they're reading Lemon's comments on some thread here....
Well, Programmer, I hope they are going to SURPRISE me!
I won't promise to sell pleasure myself if they do.
Yeah, that would be horrendous if it started at £2300. The Xeon 5600-series chips seem to be pretty much the same price though:
E5620 2.4GHz - $387, 4-core 8-thread
X5650 2.66GHz - $996, 6-core 12-thread
X5670 2.93GHz - $1440, 6-core 12-thread
The Mac Pro models are likely to become:
Single 6-core X5650 2.66GHz £1940
dual quad-core E5620 2.4GHz £2553
dual 6-core X5650 2.66GHz £3697
dual 6-core X5670 2.93GHz £4678
One odd thing is that the X5550 in the current single processor machine actually costs more than 2 x E5520 in the more expensive Xeon. They couldn't sell an 8-core cheaper than a quad but it seems like artificial pricing going on as they are all 2P capable CPUs so no tax involved with the CPUs.
It seems nonsensical that 2 x quad 2.26GHz = $746 and 1 x quad 2.66GHz = $958 and yet the former costs $650 more than the latter from Apple. Surely adding an extra socket to the motherboard doesn't cost $862.
Let's just hope the price goes down this time.
Yeah, they do put some modern GPUs in the machines and of late, they are making better decisions in the GPU department but the only products they'd hold for a GPU would be the low-end ones for an IGP like the 320M. With the Mac Pro, there are so many options already that they can pretty much choose what they want. I think it's most likely the CPUs are what's holding up with the Mac Pro.
The GT120 card in the entry model just seems like the cheapest card they can get hold of to keep the price down for people buying them for CPU performance. The higher up cards will be chosen for their double-precision compute performance. ATI cards seem to perform better in this regard. I'd expect something like the Radeon 5850 as BTO in the next one. The current one they use has something like 240GFLOPS double-precision and the 5850 has 418GFLOPs.
When it comes to GPUs, cost isn't an issue at all, it's $300-400 for a high end card so they should give the option when you are paying $2000-3000 for the machine.
100% with you, Marv' again.
I was being somewhat facetious and tongue in cheek (me?) with the price example. But history tells us the 'cranked' (the only word I can use) the UK price up to nearly £2k from £1500. Expect anything. And they yanked the dual processor as standard sometime back.
Artificial pricing? Apple?
Brah-hahahhahahahahahahah. No kidding. What do you call the prices on iMac, Mac Mini and the Pro? All machines with between 50-100% mark ups.
We can hope for a move to cheaper AMD chips. But you know Apple. They'll just keep the prices and take the extra profit from using cheaper chips.
'Maximising their profits.' (I'd call it greed, but then, I'm in the UK and getting stiffed. Every other PC vendor can sell their PCs 'competitively' here.)
Historically, Apple are using better gpus. But that isn't saying much. In a competitive market context, there are 'bucket shop' outfits offering a much better gpu with 1 gig of vram as STANDARD on machines costing half the 'pro' with better cpu performance. And Apple have to cheek to charge extra for a two year old card. Or the cheek to expect you to get the 'high end' iMac to get a low end 4850. It's low end. Low end. Fact. Fact. Fact. (Stamps up and down on the fact.)
The last few years, Apple have really put up prices in the UK. My support of them feels grudging at the moment. There's no doubting the excellence of the 'total' package. But they're getting greedy. So when Steve starts talking about liberal arts and stuff. Yeah. I hear that. But he's no working class hero with the prices he charges.
But their specs for the desktops are lame in the main. Ram, HD and Gpus are cheap. CHEAP. And they're being cheap ass by not including them as standard or offering the option. No. You have to go to the next tier up to get something that should be accessible on the 'bottom' rung of the ladder.
I know it's been asked thousand times before, but dear Apple – please stop insist only using the Xeon processors from Intel!
Why don't give us a desktop Mac that use the same processors from Intel that can be put in more affordable PCs.
A little more hardware options doesn't mean your product range gets muddled, right?
I know – ain't gonna happen.
Sounds good with that ATI card though.
Yeah it will I bet Apple will switch from Intel to AMD processors!
Thanks this would be a good article for me to write on my blog below!
Amen brothers.
You know. The same people who argue that Apple is right to charge these insane prices by using premium parts in the pro circumnavigate the argument for coming over to Intel in the first place. Performance. Yes. Choice. Yes. Competitive prices. Yes.
So, how many of these have Apple addressed?
AMD have six core computers over on overclockers.co.uk NOW!
Where is Apple? Behind. Fact.
What is Apple doing? Charging 2K for last years tech'. Fact.
Apple are using lame, out of date GPUs (CONSUMER GPUS!) on their 'workstation' 'pro' computer. Fact.
Marv' is right. They could use cheaper, just as powerful parts and give us consumers a better deal. Other vendors are doing that. Fact.
But that wouldn't fit in with their 'Ladder of Greed' they've constructed. (And they say money isn't the reason they do what they do. Yeah. ok.)
I hate to say it, but I think the AMD processors are for the Mini. The integrated radeon in the CPU would replace the NVidia 320M. Apple are constrained to Core 2 in the low end because of this. They clearly have no room for a sheet of paper, let alone a real discrete GPU, in the Mini. Thank god Apple have a Hate-on for the Intel integrated graphics.
I hate to say it, but I think the AMD processors are for the Mini.
If the Mini goes to AMD Fusion in 2011 it will be one heck of an update if you ask me. Especially with a SSD option. I actually like the Mini and the current update impresses me even more a move to Fusion should turn the little box into a powerhouse of performance.
Quote:
The integrated radeon in the CPU would replace the NVidia 320M. Apple are constrained to Core 2 in the low end because of this.
Yep. Fusion would give them a good GPU and quad core CPUs in the little box. It seems like a no brainer upgrade if Fusion lives up to it's billing.
Quote:
They clearly have no room for a sheet of paper, let alone a real discrete GPU, in the Mini. Thank god Apple have a Hate-on for the Intel integrated graphics.
Yes and I do hope that they continue to hate Intel at least until Intel gets it's head out of its a$$. Frankly I'd support Apple and the use of AMD hardware just to make sure Intel doesn't benefit from their stupidity.
I'm not a gamer either but do consider some of the features in NVidias GPUs to be critical for modern computers. One is the support of OpenCL. Another is solid video playback acceleration. I'm not even sure if Apple uses Intels Video acceleration hardware in the latest MBPs. Even if they somehow got that to work, Intels iGPUs just come up to short in ever other measure.
Maybe it isn't good "business" for Apple to go to AMDs Fusion but they need to do something about Intel screwing up their product line. It isn't that Arrandale is a bad idea but rather they didn't offer an alternative free of the IGPU.
Just a dumbass question from a creative type. I have cash set aside for new dual hexacore Mac Pro and hopefully forthcoming 27" cinema display.
Is the overall consensus here that the hold up is Intel not being able to produce the CPUs in quantity yet? I've seen no new Xeons in anything put out by crapware like Dell, HP, the windows world either, so it's not like Apple is lagging for the sake of not caring since iPad and iPhone rule the cashflow anyway and there are like 30 people waiting to buy a new Mac Pro (me being one of them).
My best understanding of a reasonable ETA for the new Mac Pro, is any minute now (since at least March).
Am I basically correct in all these assumptions, or do I have to wait, sober up and actually read like 900 pages of ranting?
Is the overall consensus here that the hold up is Intel not being able to produce the CPUs in quantity yet? I've seen no new Xeons in anything put out by crapware like Dell, HP, the windows world either, so it's not like Apple is lagging
It's the most likely scenario but Dell started selling the expected Apple upgrades back in March:
Apple use the 3500/5500 series right now. The next generation up is the 3600/5600 series. Dell are actually shipping these but dates only show up on the confirmation slip. Their free delivery offer ends June 28th but I doubt that's significant.
One of Dell's options is the T7500 Precision workstation:
Don't you just love how they even put a picture of the internals on the site like they have no shame:
Look at the state of that.
It's not all that cheap either.
E5620(2.4GHz,5.86GT/s,12MB,4C)-Memory runs at 1066MHz
3GB DDR3 1066MHz ECC-UDIMM (3x1GB)
320GB (7,200 rpm)
single DVD burner
512MB Ati FirePro V5700
£1720
Apple's last generation option is:
W3520 2.66GHz 4.8GT/s 1066MHz
3GB DDR3 1066MHz
640GB 7200RPM
dual DVD burner
512MB NVidia GT 120
£1940
Obviously the Dell has a better video card and adding a better card brings the Mac Pro to £2103. Dell also has a much cheaper model with 800MHz RAM but Apple probably want to keep common stock of RAM and just decided not to build a cheap desktop model.
We'll just have to wait and see what they do and then complain when it inevitably costs too much, despite probably being quite good value for the parts you get and design.
Looking at the price list, there doesn't seem to be any cheap models in the 3600 series:
The only chip close to the current low-end chip is the E5620 but is still $100 more. AMD has a lot more options and Apple could use the 8-core 2GHz Opteron 6128 in the low-end model and still be slightly cheaper than the current Mac Pro. It's not much faster than the Intel one though, which is 5 steps down:
The Phenom II X6 1090T on the other hand is very impressive. That costs the same as the current Mac Pro low-end chip but is 30% faster. Despite being faster than the 5500 Xeons too, you can only use one in a machine so Xeons or Opterons for the high end (the Xeons more likely).
Yep. Fusion would give them a good GPU and quad core CPUs in the little box. It seems like a no brainer upgrade if Fusion lives up to it's billing.
Quad core CPU and DX11 support in a single package? Yes please. The trick will be the power consumption. If that combination can be had at close to the same consumption as we have in the Mini right now, Apple would be foolish not to. I think that if the 2011 AMD chips in the mobile line will still allow Apple to have current battery life claims, we could see all the small and portable Mac systems change over. I don't think the iMac or Mac Pro would be changing over anytime soon, if at all. Maybe next fall if the AMD experiment worked for the Mini and laptop lines.
Comments
please, enough with the rumours!!...
There will always be rumors
This one might have a bit of weight behind it though. Mac Mini supplies are drying up and a school that placed a bulk order of Mac Minis had them pushed back from the 1st of June to the 14th of June. The 14th is a Monday though so we'll see in a couple of days if it pans out.
It doesn't suggest Pro updates though. The odd thing about the Pro update is that Intel's chips have been released. Apple wouldn't use the 8-core models as they cost too much. So the only possibilities are that Intel has a supply shortage, Apple is focusing too much on things beginning with the letter 'i' (maybe it should be called iPro to get updated quicker) or there is the switch to AMD going on.
I don't think the AMD switch is going to happen as it doesn't offer anything performance-wise but it allows some good options like having 4 processors in a machine. 12-cores per chip x 4 = 48 physical cores. It will cost in excess of $5000 but for people who need the ultimate personal workstation, it's a good option to have and costs the same as Intel's offering.
The 12-core 1.9GHz Opteron 6168 would be 20% slower than the highest end 12-core Opteron but costs nearly half the price. So 4 x AMD 6168 would be $2976 where as just 2 x Intel E7530 7500-series Xeon 1.86GHz would be $2782.
So the price doesn't go down but you can get more processing power for around the same price and it beats waiting on Larrabee. The power usage does go up a bit though at the high-end. The low-end could use the 8-core 2GHz 6128 Opteron. Again no price drop but 8-cores vs 4-cores.
Intel's 7500-series CPUs are fast processors but they don't have anything price-wise to match what is used now in the entry model. Apple use the 5500-series chips and they use the E5520 ($373), the X550 ($958) and the X5570 ($1386) - that's why jumping to the 2.93GHz costs $2600.
Likelihood is they'd use 32nm Westmere 5600-series but it would be:
E5620 2.4GHz - $387, 4-core 8-thread
X5650 2.66GHz - $996, 6-core 12-thread
X5670 2.93GHz - $1440, 6-core 12-thread
Entry model wouldn't be much faster than what we have now and all prices stay around the same. I feel that a 48 physical core 1.9GHz machine would be more interesting than a 12-core, 24-thread 2.93GHz machine. It depends on the actual performance of course and Intel could easily win in most real-world tests but physical cores are better than virtual cores and parallel is the way forward. They might get some discounts on good GPUs at least.
http://www.broadberry.co.uk/amdquado...rkstations.php
"Our Customers include BBC, ITV, GMTV, Tesco, Sony, Toshiba, 3D Labs, Creative Labs, Toyota, Walt Disney, Lockhead Martin, US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, British Ministry of Defence, plus many more."
Disney wants quad processor machines Steve, get on it.
It doesn't suggest Pro updates though. The odd thing about the Pro update is that Intel's chips have been released. Apple wouldn't use the 8-core models as they cost too much. So the only possibilities are that Intel has a supply shortage, Apple is focusing too much on things beginning with the letter 'i' (maybe it should be called iPro to get updated quicker) or there is the switch to AMD going on.
They delay could be explained by a significant redesign of the line, as opposed to an issue getting the processors they need. I think Apple will stick with Intel, and will ship machines using the hexacore chips at the high end. Being able to configure MacPros with 4 - 12 physical cores would give quite a range. The current tower's outward form has remained pretty much unchanged since 2003, even though the internals have been revved repeatedly.
Apple's design department is large enough that I don't think the 'i' products are really a distraction.
Its also possible that they are waiting on something else... GPUs perhaps?
I know it's been asked thousand times before, but dear Apple ? please stop insist only using the Xeon processors from Intel!
Why don't give us a desktop Mac that use the same processors from Intel that can be put in more affordable PCs.
A little more hardware options doesn't mean your product range gets muddled, right?
I know ? ain't gonna happen.
Sounds good with that ATI card though.
Yeah it will I bet Apple will switch from Intel to AMD processors!
Thanks this would be a good article for me to write on my blog below!
They delay could be explained by a significant redesign of the line.
Maybe but they'd have been designing it for a while so a new design should be ready by now.
They could be running out of aluminum supplies.
Apple's design department is large enough that I don't think the 'i' products are really a distraction.
The focus shifting affects more than it should and has caused delays to products in the past. Jobs said quite openly in the D8 interview that 'Apple is a company that doesn't have the most resources of everybody'.
Trying to meet the demand for the iPhone 4 shipments worldwide will use up a lot of resources and this is two weeks away. Imagine the resources required to successfully deliver over 1 million phones in one weekend - when I say deliver, I mean make sure they get to all the retail outlets as well as to individuals.
Its also possible that they are waiting on something else... GPUs perhaps?
I would doubt it. Apple is content to use 2-3 year old GPUs in brand new products, they would never hold back a major product line for a component they appear to assume that no one uses.
[snip]
It doesn't suggest Pro updates though. The odd thing about the Pro update is that Intel's chips have been released. Apple wouldn't use the 8-core models as they cost too much. So the only possibilities are that Intel has a supply shortage, Apple is focusing too much on things beginning with the letter 'i' (maybe it should be called iPro to get updated quicker) or there is the switch to AMD going on.
[snip]
I think Marvin wins the prize here!
Why not have an iPro Mac with "whatever" chip.
This would be the X-Mac with some expandability and performance level slotted between
the top iMac and the bottom Mac Pro.
Maybe but they'd have been designing it for a while so a new design should be ready by now.
They could be running out of aluminum supplies.
The focus shifting affects more than it should and has caused delays to products in the past. Jobs said quite openly in the D8 interview that 'Apple is a company that doesn't have the most resources of everybody'.
Trying to meet the demand for the iPhone 4 shipments worldwide will use up a lot of resources and this is two weeks away. Imagine the resources required to successfully deliver over 1 million phones in one weekend - when I say deliver, I mean make sure they get to all the retail outlets as well as to individuals.
I would doubt it. Apple is content to use 2-3 year old GPUs in brand new products, they would never hold back a major product line for a component they appear to assume that no one uses.
Rolls about on the floor...*whizzing himself...oh. New trousers needed. Programmer fell into door on that one. Apple.
I mean, seriously...heh...Apple?
Apple...wait...*wipes tears from eyes...for a new gpu?
Marv's aserbic summation of Apple's gpu policy nail gunned any thought that the delay could be gpu related. Heh. Heh. Heh.
LOL.
Probably marketing can't decide whether to yank the entry model of the 'pro' leaving us with a £2300 model as the 'new' price entry point...because 'whooo' we have 6-xore in them. (Note: AMD systems with 6 cores under a grand right now. Right over at overclockers.co.uk...)
Arrogant Apple. Arrogant prices.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Apple...wait...*wipes tears from eyes...for a new gpu?
Actually, I mentioned it because there is precedent. The nVidia 6800 was launched on the Mac side-by-side with its PC debut (at least I think that was the product number... there have been so many they all blur together).
They've also done surprising things with pricing in the past. This usually happens when they realize they've gotten out of touch with the market, and they're reading Lemon's comments on some thread here....
Probably marketing can't decide whether to yank the entry model of the 'pro' leaving us with a £2300 model as the 'new' price entry point...because 'whooo' we have 6-xore in them. (Note: AMD systems with 6 cores under a grand right now. Right over at overclockers.co.uk...)
Yeah, that would be horrendous if it started at £2300. The Xeon 5600-series chips seem to be pretty much the same price though:
E5620 2.4GHz - $387, 4-core 8-thread
X5650 2.66GHz - $996, 6-core 12-thread
X5670 2.93GHz - $1440, 6-core 12-thread
The Mac Pro models are likely to become:
Single 6-core X5650 2.66GHz £1940
dual quad-core E5620 2.4GHz £2553
dual 6-core X5650 2.66GHz £3697
dual 6-core X5670 2.93GHz £4678
One odd thing is that the X5550 in the current single processor machine actually costs more than 2 x E5520 in the more expensive Xeon. They couldn't sell an 8-core cheaper than a quad but it seems like artificial pricing going on as they are all 2P capable CPUs so no tax involved with the CPUs.
It seems nonsensical that 2 x quad 2.26GHz = $746 and 1 x quad 2.66GHz = $958 and yet the former costs $650 more than the latter from Apple. Surely adding an extra socket to the motherboard doesn't cost $862.
They've also done surprising things with pricing in the past. This usually happens when they realize they've gotten out of touch with the market
Let's just hope the price goes down this time.
Actually, I mentioned it because there is precedent. The nVidia 6800 was launched on the Mac side-by-side with its PC debut
Yeah, they do put some modern GPUs in the machines and of late, they are making better decisions in the GPU department but the only products they'd hold for a GPU would be the low-end ones for an IGP like the 320M. With the Mac Pro, there are so many options already that they can pretty much choose what they want. I think it's most likely the CPUs are what's holding up with the Mac Pro.
The GT120 card in the entry model just seems like the cheapest card they can get hold of to keep the price down for people buying them for CPU performance. The higher up cards will be chosen for their double-precision compute performance. ATI cards seem to perform better in this regard. I'd expect something like the Radeon 5850 as BTO in the next one. The current one they use has something like 240GFLOPS double-precision and the 5850 has 418GFLOPs.
When it comes to GPUs, cost isn't an issue at all, it's $300-400 for a high end card so they should give the option when you are paying $2000-3000 for the machine.
The GT120 card in the entry model just seems like the cheapest card they can get hold of to keep the price down for people buying them for CPU performance. The higher up cards will be chosen for their double-precision compute performance. ATI cards seem to perform better in this regard. I'd expect something like the Radeon 5850 as BTO in the next one. The current one they use has something like 240GFLOPS double-precision and the 5850 has 418GFLOPs.
You're probably right about the CPUs being the gating concern... but its not a sure thing. They are pushing OpenCL, so perhaps their Pro apps are jumping on that in a big way... and they want to have a new GPU that will support all the features and deliver better GPGPU performance. They might also be waiting for yields on a particular CPU to improve to a particular level.
Who knows what lies in the heart of the MacPro rollout schedule? Only the Apple knows.
Yeah, that would be horrendous if it started at £2300. The Xeon 5600-series chips seem to be pretty much the same price though:
E5620 2.4GHz - $387, 4-core 8-thread
X5650 2.66GHz - $996, 6-core 12-thread
X5670 2.93GHz - $1440, 6-core 12-thread
The Mac Pro models are likely to become:
Single 6-core X5650 2.66GHz £1940
dual quad-core E5620 2.4GHz £2553
dual 6-core X5650 2.66GHz £3697
dual 6-core X5670 2.93GHz £4678
One odd thing is that the X5550 in the current single processor machine actually costs more than 2 x E5520 in the more expensive Xeon. They couldn't sell an 8-core cheaper than a quad but it seems like artificial pricing going on as they are all 2P capable CPUs so no tax involved with the CPUs.
It seems nonsensical that 2 x quad 2.26GHz = $746 and 1 x quad 2.66GHz = $958 and yet the former costs $650 more than the latter from Apple. Surely adding an extra socket to the motherboard doesn't cost $862.
That would be pretty ridiculous.
The main mistake in your "logic" is that the uni-processor MP uses Xeons of the 55xx series. It is indeed not true as the uni-processor MP uses Xeons of the 35xx series. Those are way less expensive than 55xx as they cannot be used in pairs (only 1 QPI link). In fact they cost exactly the same as the desktop Core i7-9xx series at the same speed, the only difference being the ECC enabled memory controller. So for all those people who think that the MP would be less expensive if Apple uses desktop cpus: you're wrong. It is only true for Core i5 cpus as desktop Core i7 cpus start at $284 (2.80 Core i7-860 in the iMac) just like the 2.66 Xeon W3520. The price of the chipset is irrelevant: $52 for the X58 and $43 from the H57 (that doesn't even offer as many PCIe lanes as the X58). And the price of ECC RAM is not even $5 more per GB. That would make a grand total of $24 of savings using a Core i7-860 instead of a Xeon W3520.
So the $2499 MP uses a 2.66 Xeon W3520 cpu ($284)
The $2899 MP uses a 2.93 Xeon W3540 cpu ($562)
The $3699 MP uses a 3.33 Xeon W3580 cpu ($999)
What seems nonsensical to you comes from your completly wrong hypothesis.
FWIW, I believe that the current uni-processor MP is way overpriced (and already was at launch). I hope Apple will came to their senses and offer a good price cut along with newer/faster cpus (and gpus), eveything else could even stay the same, most pros won't mind.
$2199 QC 3.06GHz W3550 ($387) (+$100 on the cpu -$400 price cut)
$2499 QC 3.20GHz W3560 ($562) ($400 price cut)
or $2699 6C 3.20GHz W3670 ($xxx) available in Q3
$3299 6C 3.33GHz W3680 ($999) ($400 price cut)
$3499 dual QC 2.53 E5630 ($551 each) (+$200 due to the double speedbump)
$4699 dual 6C 2.66 X5650 ($996 each) same price, corebump
$5899 dual 6C 2.93 X5670 ($1,440 each) same price, corebump
This way the lines don't overlap in terms of pricing. And the base MP would be more powerful than the high-end BTO iMac.
As as gpus are concerned, Apple is so far behind, that anything "newer" would be a step in the right "direction".
Nvidia 3xx series, ATI 5xxx series... whatever, I don't expect much in that area.
It is indeed not true as the uni-processor MP uses Xeons of the 35xx series.
I never noticed that before, it's even written on the Mac Pro spec page. I always though the single processor model used the same chips as the 8-core.
FWIW, I believe that the current uni-processor MP is way overpriced (and already was at launch).
Yea, I agree entirely. I'd like to see it go back down to what it was before. I think they are pushing it away from the top-end iMac in terms of price.
Actually, I mentioned it because there is precedent. The nVidia 6800 was launched on the Mac side-by-side with its PC debut (at least I think that was the product number... there have been so many they all blur together).
They've also done surprising things with pricing in the past. This usually happens when they realize they've gotten out of touch with the market, and they're reading Lemon's comments on some thread here....
Well, Programmer, I hope they are going to SURPRISE me!
I won't promise to sell pleasure myself if they do.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Yeah, that would be horrendous if it started at £2300. The Xeon 5600-series chips seem to be pretty much the same price though:
E5620 2.4GHz - $387, 4-core 8-thread
X5650 2.66GHz - $996, 6-core 12-thread
X5670 2.93GHz - $1440, 6-core 12-thread
The Mac Pro models are likely to become:
Single 6-core X5650 2.66GHz £1940
dual quad-core E5620 2.4GHz £2553
dual 6-core X5650 2.66GHz £3697
dual 6-core X5670 2.93GHz £4678
One odd thing is that the X5550 in the current single processor machine actually costs more than 2 x E5520 in the more expensive Xeon. They couldn't sell an 8-core cheaper than a quad but it seems like artificial pricing going on as they are all 2P capable CPUs so no tax involved with the CPUs.
It seems nonsensical that 2 x quad 2.26GHz = $746 and 1 x quad 2.66GHz = $958 and yet the former costs $650 more than the latter from Apple. Surely adding an extra socket to the motherboard doesn't cost $862.
Let's just hope the price goes down this time.
Yeah, they do put some modern GPUs in the machines and of late, they are making better decisions in the GPU department but the only products they'd hold for a GPU would be the low-end ones for an IGP like the 320M. With the Mac Pro, there are so many options already that they can pretty much choose what they want. I think it's most likely the CPUs are what's holding up with the Mac Pro.
The GT120 card in the entry model just seems like the cheapest card they can get hold of to keep the price down for people buying them for CPU performance. The higher up cards will be chosen for their double-precision compute performance. ATI cards seem to perform better in this regard. I'd expect something like the Radeon 5850 as BTO in the next one. The current one they use has something like 240GFLOPS double-precision and the 5850 has 418GFLOPs.
When it comes to GPUs, cost isn't an issue at all, it's $300-400 for a high end card so they should give the option when you are paying $2000-3000 for the machine.
100% with you, Marv' again.
I was being somewhat facetious and tongue in cheek (me?) with the price example. But history tells us the 'cranked' (the only word I can use) the UK price up to nearly £2k from £1500. Expect anything. And they yanked the dual processor as standard sometime back.
Artificial pricing? Apple?
Brah-hahahhahahahahahahah. No kidding. What do you call the prices on iMac, Mac Mini and the Pro? All machines with between 50-100% mark ups.
We can hope for a move to cheaper AMD chips. But you know Apple. They'll just keep the prices and take the extra profit from using cheaper chips.
'Maximising their profits.' (I'd call it greed, but then, I'm in the UK and getting stiffed. Every other PC vendor can sell their PCs 'competitively' here.)
Historically, Apple are using better gpus. But that isn't saying much. In a competitive market context, there are 'bucket shop' outfits offering a much better gpu with 1 gig of vram as STANDARD on machines costing half the 'pro' with better cpu performance. And Apple have to cheek to charge extra for a two year old card. Or the cheek to expect you to get the 'high end' iMac to get a low end 4850. It's low end. Low end. Fact. Fact. Fact. (Stamps up and down on the fact.)
The last few years, Apple have really put up prices in the UK. My support of them feels grudging at the moment. There's no doubting the excellence of the 'total' package. But they're getting greedy. So when Steve starts talking about liberal arts and stuff. Yeah. I hear that. But he's no working class hero with the prices he charges.
But their specs for the desktops are lame in the main. Ram, HD and Gpus are cheap. CHEAP. And they're being cheap ass by not including them as standard or offering the option. No. You have to go to the next tier up to get something that should be accessible on the 'bottom' rung of the ladder.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a Martin
I know it's been asked thousand times before, but dear Apple – please stop insist only using the Xeon processors from Intel!
Why don't give us a desktop Mac that use the same processors from Intel that can be put in more affordable PCs.
A little more hardware options doesn't mean your product range gets muddled, right?
I know – ain't gonna happen.
Sounds good with that ATI card though.
Yeah it will I bet Apple will switch from Intel to AMD processors!
Thanks this would be a good article for me to write on my blog below!
Amen brothers.
You know. The same people who argue that Apple is right to charge these insane prices by using premium parts in the pro circumnavigate the argument for coming over to Intel in the first place. Performance. Yes. Choice. Yes. Competitive prices. Yes.
So, how many of these have Apple addressed?
AMD have six core computers over on overclockers.co.uk NOW!
Where is Apple? Behind. Fact.
What is Apple doing? Charging 2K for last years tech'. Fact.
Apple are using lame, out of date GPUs (CONSUMER GPUS!) on their 'workstation' 'pro' computer. Fact.
Marv' is right. They could use cheaper, just as powerful parts and give us consumers a better deal. Other vendors are doing that. Fact.
But that wouldn't fit in with their 'Ladder of Greed' they've constructed. (And they say money isn't the reason they do what they do. Yeah. ok.)
Lemon Bon Bon.
Watch the Towers walk out the store with an army of Apple loving ants.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I hate to say it, but I think the AMD processors are for the Mini.
If the Mini goes to AMD Fusion in 2011 it will be one heck of an update if you ask me. Especially with a SSD option. I actually like the Mini and the current update impresses me even more a move to Fusion should turn the little box into a powerhouse of performance.
The integrated radeon in the CPU would replace the NVidia 320M. Apple are constrained to Core 2 in the low end because of this.
Yep. Fusion would give them a good GPU and quad core CPUs in the little box. It seems like a no brainer upgrade if Fusion lives up to it's billing.
They clearly have no room for a sheet of paper, let alone a real discrete GPU, in the Mini. Thank god Apple have a Hate-on for the Intel integrated graphics.
Yes and I do hope that they continue to hate Intel at least until Intel gets it's head out of its a$$. Frankly I'd support Apple and the use of AMD hardware just to make sure Intel doesn't benefit from their stupidity.
I'm not a gamer either but do consider some of the features in NVidias GPUs to be critical for modern computers. One is the support of OpenCL. Another is solid video playback acceleration. I'm not even sure if Apple uses Intels Video acceleration hardware in the latest MBPs. Even if they somehow got that to work, Intels iGPUs just come up to short in ever other measure.
Maybe it isn't good "business" for Apple to go to AMDs Fusion but they need to do something about Intel screwing up their product line. It isn't that Arrandale is a bad idea but rather they didn't offer an alternative free of the IGPU.
Dave
Is the overall consensus here that the hold up is Intel not being able to produce the CPUs in quantity yet? I've seen no new Xeons in anything put out by crapware like Dell, HP, the windows world either, so it's not like Apple is lagging for the sake of not caring since iPad and iPhone rule the cashflow anyway and there are like 30 people waiting to buy a new Mac Pro (me being one of them).
My best understanding of a reasonable ETA for the new Mac Pro, is any minute now (since at least March).
Am I basically correct in all these assumptions, or do I have to wait, sober up and actually read like 900 pages of ranting?
tnx
Is the overall consensus here that the hold up is Intel not being able to produce the CPUs in quantity yet? I've seen no new Xeons in anything put out by crapware like Dell, HP, the windows world either, so it's not like Apple is lagging
It's the most likely scenario but Dell started selling the expected Apple upgrades back in March:
http://en.community.dell.com/dell-bl...rocessors.aspx
Apple use the 3500/5500 series right now. The next generation up is the 3600/5600 series. Dell are actually shipping these but dates only show up on the confirmation slip. Their free delivery offer ends June 28th but I doubt that's significant.
One of Dell's options is the T7500 Precision workstation:
http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/pr...bsd&cs=ukbsdt1
Don't you just love how they even put a picture of the internals on the site like they have no shame:
Look at the state of that.
It's not all that cheap either.
E5620(2.4GHz,5.86GT/s,12MB,4C)-Memory runs at 1066MHz
3GB DDR3 1066MHz ECC-UDIMM (3x1GB)
320GB (7,200 rpm)
single DVD burner
512MB Ati FirePro V5700
£1720
Apple's last generation option is:
W3520 2.66GHz 4.8GT/s 1066MHz
3GB DDR3 1066MHz
640GB 7200RPM
dual DVD burner
512MB NVidia GT 120
£1940
Obviously the Dell has a better video card and adding a better card brings the Mac Pro to £2103. Dell also has a much cheaper model with 800MHz RAM but Apple probably want to keep common stock of RAM and just decided not to build a cheap desktop model.
We'll just have to wait and see what they do and then complain when it inevitably costs too much, despite probably being quite good value for the parts you get and design.
Looking at the price list, there doesn't seem to be any cheap models in the 3600 series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...22_.2832_nm.29
The only chip close to the current low-end chip is the E5620 but is still $100 more. AMD has a lot more options and Apple could use the 8-core 2GHz Opteron 6128 in the low-end model and still be slightly cheaper than the current Mac Pro. It's not much faster than the Intel one though, which is 5 steps down:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...D+Opteron+6128
The Phenom II X6 1090T on the other hand is very impressive. That costs the same as the current Mac Pro low-end chip but is 30% faster. Despite being faster than the 5500 Xeons too, you can only use one in a machine so Xeons or Opterons for the high end (the Xeons more likely).
Yep. Fusion would give them a good GPU and quad core CPUs in the little box. It seems like a no brainer upgrade if Fusion lives up to it's billing.
Quad core CPU and DX11 support in a single package? Yes please. The trick will be the power consumption. If that combination can be had at close to the same consumption as we have in the Mini right now, Apple would be foolish not to. I think that if the 2011 AMD chips in the mobile line will still allow Apple to have current battery life claims, we could see all the small and portable Mac systems change over. I don't think the iMac or Mac Pro would be changing over anytime soon, if at all. Maybe next fall if the AMD experiment worked for the Mini and laptop lines.