I think Apple pay more to Intel for faster CPUs, pay more for more RAM, and pay more for more capacious storage. Why do you think that a spec bump costs practically nothing?.
Apple commonly replaces processors with similarly priced models. Ram prices fall and they update the stock amounts. They have a manufacturing budget you know, and good margins on the machines that they sell. That aside I don't see a ram upgrade coming until next year. I think if they were refreshing they could keep it at 4 but lower the price to go to 8 thus pushing the upgrade since the cost of ram is currently low enough to do this, and they have done similar things in the past.
I think Apple pay more to Intel for faster CPUs, pay more for more RAM, and pay more for more capacious storage. Why do you think that a spec bump costs practically nothing?
Not really. Think about it the new SKUs from intel aren't more expensive they just nudge all the other processors down the price scale. RAM has dropped significantly in cost over the year, with many companies struggling to stay afloat. Thus it would be easy for Apple to double they RAM in the Mac line up. Likewise the storage companies have just increased the per platter capacity of their drives, this meampns a significant drop in cost per bit.
So yeah I don't see a problem with a configuration bump at all. In fact it would be easy for Apple to go after one of these or all of them.
Quote:
While March or April seems more likely, I would not rule out a February launch. It will depend on future Ivy Bridge yields, which can be estimated now only with considerable imprecision.
Actually they can't be estimated at all as the latest rumor is a production delay. That could be BS but the whole feasability of a bump revolves around when Apple can launch with Ivy Bridge. There is a huge difference between Ivy Bridge being two months away or 6+ months away. Right now I suspect IB is farther away than it is close. I could be completely wrong about that.
That is the key question here if the major update requires IB then the question then becomes when does IB arrive? My point is this: if IB is 6-9 months away a spec bump to the current machines is very likely. The obvious flip side to that is that if IB arrives before the end of the year then no bump is required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Possible, sure, but there is also plenty of circumstantial data to suggest that a major overhaul will visit the next MBP update.
As hmm points out the MBA languished before the major overhaul.
There is a huge difference between letting a failed product languish verses ignoring your bread and butter. The old AIRs had a number of issues which where best resolved with an aggressive engineering effort. Since sales where abysmal they could easily hold off on an update. The MBP is a different story altogether, it sells well and more importantly sells to more demanding users.
That is the key question here if the major update requires IB then the question then becomes when does IB arrive? My point is this: if IB is 6-9 months away a spec bump to the current machines is very likely. The obvious flip side to that is that if IB arrives before the end of the year then no bump is required.
There is a huge difference between letting a failed product languish verses ignoring your bread and butter. The old AIRs had a number of issues which where best resolved with an aggressive engineering effort. Since sales where abysmal they could easily hold off on an update. The MBP is a different story altogether, it sells well and more importantly sells to more demanding users.
There are too many unknown variables to make a single educated guess that isn't qualified by a half-dozen options.
As someone who is waiting for a revamped MBP I'm pretty excited about all the new UltraBooks appearing. I'm hoping that will push Apple to release the new designs sooner rather than later as I care more about the ODD being removed (but still remaining decent internal storage which the MBAs can't give me) than I am about the latest CPU and GPU offerings.
There are too many unknown variables to make a single educated guess that isn't qualified by a half-dozen options.
What else would you expect from Future Hardware? All we can do is consider news reports and rumors.
Quote:
As someone who is waiting for a revamped MBP I'm pretty excited about all the new UltraBooks appearing. I'm hoping that will push Apple to release the new designs sooner rather than later
I don't think Apple gives a rats a$$ about what the competition is doing right now.
Quote:
as I care more about the ODD being removed (but still remaining decent internal storage which the MBAs can't give me) than I am about the latest CPU and GPU offerings.
A desire shared by many!!! However what I was trying to point out is that such a machine may be tied to the delivery of Ivy Bridge. It is possible this is not the case. Further even if they did do a new case I don't think they would go radically thin like the AIRs. Pro users still have the need for performance not possible in an ultra thin laptop. The new Pros might take some cues from the AIRs but they will likely appear scaled up.
Why? Because things like GPUs, Ethernet and other features are still important to Pro users. I for one would not want to give up a laptop drive bay even if the new Pros have SSD slots. In the end there is a limit to how thin the Pros will get for the foreseeable future. Well at least along one edge, I can see a significant wedge like appearance in the new chassis.
Why? Because things like GPUs, Ethernet and other features are still important to Pro users. I for one would not want to give up a laptop drive bay even if the new Pros have SSD slots. In the end there is a limit to how thin the Pros will get for the foreseeable future. Well at least along one edge, I can see a significant wedge like appearance in the new chassis.
Right now the MBPs will take a 12.5mm HDD/SSD, mostly due to the ODD is 12.7mm. They could reduce the casing by several millimeters. How? Using the milled top panel (like in the MBA) and thinner display components could reduce it by a mm or more right there.
Then you have removing the ODD and only allowing a 9.5mm HDD/SSD (along with an SSD card for booting and apps). That will save you over 3mm more. Of course, we need to consider heat dissipation of the logic boards and fans, but Apple also has the benefit of spacing out the CPU and GPU along the backside (thickest part of the wedge) of the case chassis so that the two hottest components can dissipate heat more effectively by an elongated logic board instead of a squarish logic board.
Or? if Apple really wants to go to the extreme they could move to 7mm HDDs which is also the common size of SSDs without the spacer. This removes a HDD platter reducing the overall capacity but they are at least up to 500GB, which (combined with an SSD card) I'd argue is on the cusp of being good enough for the first revised MBPs.
Right now the MBPs will take a 12.5mm HDD/SSD, mostly due to the ODD is 12.7mm. They could reduce the casing by several millimeters. How? Using the milled top panel (like in the MBA) and thinner display components could reduce it by a mm or more right there.
Then you have removing the ODD and only allowing a 9.5mm HDD/SSD (along with an SSD card for booting and apps). That will save you over 3mm more. Of course, we need to consider heat dissipation of the logic boards and fans, but Apple also has the benefit of spacing out the CPU and GPU along the backside (thickest part of the wedge) of the case chassis so that the two hottest components can dissipate heat more effectively by an elongated logic board instead of a squarish logic board.
Or? if Apple really wants to go to the extreme they could move to 7mm HDDs which is also the common size of SSDs without the spacer. This removes a HDD platter reducing the overall capacity but they are at least up to 500GB, which (combined with an SSD card) I'd argue is on the cusp of being good enough for the first revised MBPs.
That was really nicely detailed. Whatever they do I hope they can work the cooling out well. I could deal with some noise factor if it could keep a quad core laptop cool under heavy processor loads.
Of all the things about my MBP that bother me thickness is not an issue. Given the opportunity I'm sure Apple will try to thin the machine down, I'm just not convinced that shooting for absolute thinnest is the best thing to do for a Pro. A better fan system goes a long way to enabling full use of the processors and a thicker case helps deliver that fan system. On top of that I don't want to loose access to common HD sizes. The 9.5 mm drives would be a good compromise here but a Tera Byte drive would be nice.
Spacing out components on the logic board is a long tested method of spreading out the heat load. The problem is I want the HD along that thick edge. In any event new platter tech has already allowed for thinner high capacity drives this fall.
The big issue in my mind is that the MBPs need to remain PRO machines in every sense of the word. That means top performance across the CPU and GPUs. As long as we see performance progress on these two fronts the Pros will remain viable. However many users need as much internal storage as is possible, I'd hate to see Apple get to aggressive and impact the Pros storage capability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Right now the MBPs will take a 12.5mm HDD/SSD, mostly due to the ODD is 12.7mm. They could reduce the casing by several millimeters. How? Using the milled top panel (like in the MBA) and thinner display components could reduce it by a mm or more right there.
Then you have removing the ODD and only allowing a 9.5mm HDD/SSD (along with an SSD card for booting and apps). That will save you over 3mm more. Of course, we need to consider heat dissipation of the logic boards and fans, but Apple also has the benefit of spacing out the CPU and GPU along the backside (thickest part of the wedge) of the case chassis so that the two hottest components can dissipate heat more effectively by an elongated logic board instead of a squarish logic board.
Or? if Apple really wants to go to the extreme they could move to 7mm HDDs which is also the common size of SSDs without the spacer. This removes a HDD platter reducing the overall capacity but they are at least up to 500GB, which (combined with an SSD card) I'd argue is on the cusp of being good enough for the first revised MBPs.
That is the key question here if the major update requires IB then the question then becomes when does IB arrive? My point is this: if IB is 6-9 months away a spec bump to the current machines is very likely. The obvious flip side to that is that if IB arrives before the end of the year then no bump is required.
There is a huge difference between letting a failed product languish verses ignoring your bread and butter. The old AIRs had a number of issues which where best resolved with an aggressive engineering effort. Since sales where abysmal they could easily hold off on an update. The MBP is a different story altogether, it sells well and more importantly sells to more demanding users.
I mentioned update times on other models too. I was saying that if Apple by some chance was getting processors early as they have a few times in the past, we might see them wait. It seems like they've been trending toward updating the laptops around once a year, but never a full year in between. If they are going to bump it before Ivy Bridge I imagine they'd want to for holiday sales boosts. Right after the holidays might not be so good especially if that led to returns of the old ones. On the Airs I agree they really put some energy into that design.
I still worry that they're going the route of limiting the truly professional grade features to the 17", but that's been a concern for some time.
In fact it looks like the have been fairly regular at about 240 days average.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I mentioned update times on other models too. I was saying that if Apple by some chance was getting processors early as they have a few times in the past, we might see them wait. It seems like they've been trending toward updating the laptops around once a year, but never a full year in between. If they are going to bump it before Ivy Bridge I imagine they'd want to for holiday sales boosts. Right after the holidays might not be so good especially if that led to returns of the old ones. On the Airs I agree they really put some energy into that design.
Thus is around the time they have done so in the past. That is early fall.
Quote:
I still worry that they're going the route of limiting the truly professional grade features to the 17", but that's been a concern for some time.
I'm not sure I buy this either. If you are willing to pay for it you can have yourself a very capable 15" MBP. That is Today, I do worry about the future and the rumored move to even thinner MBPs.
Thin may be in but there is such a thing as to thin. It is like finding a girl friend. You look around for thin but not too thin. After all if the body looks like a bag of bones do you really want it laying next to you. I'm assuming you aren't the guy arrested a few years ago in the cemetery and sent to the mental health ward. He loved sleeping with the bones.
Frankly I think you are hung up on the phrase "truly professional grade" which is a BS phrase. The 15 " machine is used by many professionals.
Frankly I think you are hung up on the phrase "truly professional grade" which is a BS phrase. The 15 " machine is used by many professionals.
You never know
Yeah it's a BS phrase. What I was getting at was that I hope that the 15" machines aren't fully gutted of powerful features that are then left on the 17" to quell complaints. I am concerned that the potential is there as it's the route they went with the express card slot (and I liked having esata capability ). I don't think they'll gut it too hard while the 13" macbook pro still exists. It seems like their decisions aren't currently set in stone for where the line is going.
That incident with the bones happened locally a few years ago. It resulted in weeks of jokes around the plant.
Quote:
Yeah it's a BS phrase. What I was getting at was that I hope that the 15" machines aren't fully gutted of powerful features that are then left on the 17" to quell complaints.
I really don't think you have to worry, Apple pays more attention to the laptop line then maybe the should. I suspect they realize what Pro users need. I'm somewhat guarded here though as I expect them to consider giving up discreet video chips. In this situation the low end 15" MBP would have integrated video to get a separate GPU you would have to buy the high end 15" MBP.
That sounds bad but it really depends upon where Intel goes with IB. If the integrated GPU fixes it's outstanding issues and more than doubles performance their won't be a huge need for discreet GPUs. In a sense discreet GPUs become a special feature for more demanding professionals. I'm not sure where Ivy Bridge is, but at some point having the GPU integrated on die with the CPU will be a huge advantage. AMD is going after this market big time, but we are still just starting to see hardware that partially implements their plans.
Quote:
I am concerned that the potential is there as it's the route they went with the express card slot (and I liked having esata capability ).
You know I've yet to use my express card port. If I had a choice right now I'd rather see more USB ports on the MBPs. I never seem to have enough of them.
Quote:
I don't think they'll gut it too hard while the 13" macbook pro still exists. It seems like their decisions aren't currently set in stone for where the line is going.
Well I can't read corporate minds, but I don't think the concept of Pro hardware is going away. In fact IB should bring far faster hardware to us. You mention the 13" MBP, imagine that machine with double the performance both CPU and GPU wise. When the 15" gets updated it will also see improvements. More importantly the extra space freeded up by the higher integration chips means space to implement other concepts.
Now whatever Apple does it will likely be explained in the context of the future. That is Apple won't build hardware suitable for the past. Rather they build for their version of the future. You may not agree with that vision but building for the past is a mistake.
Apple commonly replaces processors with similarly priced models. Ram prices fall and they update the stock amounts. They have a manufacturing budget you know, and good margins on the machines that they sell. That aside I don't see a ram upgrade coming until next year. I think if they were refreshing they could keep it at 4 but lower the price to go to 8 thus pushing the upgrade since the cost of ram is currently low enough to do this, and they have done similar things in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Not really. Think about it the new SKUs from intel aren't more expensive they just nudge all the other processors down the price scale. RAM has dropped significantly in cost over the year, with many companies struggling to stay afloat. Thus it would be easy for Apple to double they RAM in the Mac line up. Likewise the storage companies have just increased the per platter capacity of their drives, this meampns a significant drop in cost per bit.
So yeah I don't see a problem with a configuration bump at all. In fact it would be easy for Apple to go after one of these or all of them.
All this is true, but you're comparing apples to oranges. The question was whether or not a speed bump costs virtually nothing. The corresponding comparison is between what Apple would pay for components in the future with or without a speed bump. The prices Apple paid in the past are irrelevant to the economic decision about the future which Apple face. Apple would have to pay more in the future for components if it bumps the speed of the MacBook Pro than they would have to pay in the future if they don't bump the speed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I'm pretty excited about all the new UltraBooks appearing. I'm hoping that will push Apple to release the new designs sooner rather than later as I care more about the ODD being removed (but still remaining decent internal storage which the MBAs can't give me) than I am about the latest CPU and GPU offerings.
I think you may be a bit disappointed. Apple's discontinuation of the MacBook (which I did not expect so soon) leads me to expect that the next major revision to the MacBook Pro will drop all rotating media and go completely to solid-state. I'm expecting two mSATA slots for storage. I think the main distinctions between the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro lines will be:
17W versus 35W CPUs
4GB versus 8GB RAM (maybe expandable in the MacBook Pro)
All this is true, but you're comparing apples to oranges. The question was whether or not a speed bump costs virtually nothing. The corresponding comparison is between what Apple would pay for components in the future with or without a speed bump. The prices Apple paid in the past are irrelevant to the economic decision about the future which Apple face. Apple would have to pay more in the future for components if it bumps the speed of the MacBook Pro than they would have to pay in the future if they don't bump the speed.
it really makes no difference here. As long as they can maintain margins there is little reason to avoid a bump. Even then the reason to bump a machine, especially a bump that fills in before a big overhaul, is to maintain sales momentum. Failure to bump can have an adverse impact on sales.
Quote:
I think you may be a bit disappointed. Apple's discontinuation of the MacBook (which I did not expect so soon) leads me to expect that the next major revision to the MacBook Pro will drop all rotating media and go completely to solid-state.
This is actually a concern of mine. I want the optical to go, but I want to see the capability for hybrid storage built into the machine. That is a SSD and the provision for a large capacity HD. The reason is fairly straight forward, SSD is not economical for bulk storage.
Quote:
I'm expecting two mSATA slots for storage.
I'm really hopping not!!! MSATA would be a big mistake in my mind. It would be far easier to implement a SSD standard based on PCI-Express. That is quibbling over the interface though, the important thing is that Apple adopts an industry standard interface and card format.
Quote:
I think the main distinctions between the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro lines will be:
17W versus 35W CPUs
4GB versus 8GB RAM (maybe expandable in the MacBook Pro)
RAM capacity is a huge issue for Pro users, the only rational thing for Apple to do here is to expand that capability. 8GB is a starting point these days not an end point.
Quote:
one versus two mSATA slots
The card slots for SSD storage should be standard and at a minimal two in the Pros.
Quote:
single-channel versus dual-channel Thunderbolt
11", 13", and 15" versus 13", 15", and 17"
Price, weight, and thickness
I'd like to see the new Pros come with more USB ports, some supporting USB3 and two Thunderbolt ports. The dual TB ports could be used for data but I'm more concerned with driving dual monitors. For Ivy Bridge I still think Apple will have to add discreet GPUs, at least as an option. Oh don't leave out an Ethernet port either.
It looks like we see similar hardware configurations in the future but you seem have a more limited view almost as if you are expecting a regression. On the other hand I'm expecting a noticeably more powerful machine.
The other way to look at this is that Apple nailed the low end entry level market with the AIRs and does have a solid grip on the professional market. Apple realizes the needs of the professional market is dramatically different than the entry level market so they aren't going to screw up the MBPs on purpose. In other words they will strive to build a machine to meet the requirements of professionals in the future, that may mean dropping some older features. The trick for them is getting the right mix of new features so that the machines are compelling. If they don't sales will suck.
it really makes no difference here. As long as they can maintain margins there is little reason to avoid a bump.
Apple's objective is not to maintain margins. Apple's objective is to (continue to) increase margins. Apple have again and again demonstrated a willingness to accept smaller gains in market share in order to increase margins. I don't see any reason to expect that to change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Even then the reason to bump a machine, especially a bump that fills in before a big overhaul, is to maintain sales momentum. Failure to bump can have an adverse impact on sales.
Yes, absolutely. However, I'm not convinced that the MacBook Pro is seeing any sort of sales slump. If sales are slumping, then certainly Apple should bump the specs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This is actually a concern of mine. I want the optical to go, but I want to see the capability for hybrid storage built into the machine. That is a SSD and the provision for a large capacity HD. The reason is fairly straight forward, SSD is not economical for bulk storage.
Can we agree that at some future time it will make sense for Apple to drop internal HD support and go SSD only? We can disagree about whether that time will come in six months or six years. If we can agree that Apple will eventually do this, there is some advantage to doing it at the same time as dropping the optical brick because engineering one major redesign costs less than engineering two major redesigns. Also, it's seems that Apple are very interesting in pushing customers into the iCloud, which going SSD only would help to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I'm really hopping not!!! MSATA would be a big mistake in my mind. It would be far easier to implement a SSD standard based on PCI-Express. That is quibbling over the interface though, the important thing is that Apple adopts an industry standard interface and card format.
I have not put any thought into which interface is better, so I'll take your word for it. I only note that Apple recently chose mSATA for this application.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
RAM capacity is a huge issue for Pro users, the only rational thing for Apple to do here is to expand that capability. 8GB is a starting point these days not an end point.
Have you looked at pricing for 4Mb DRAM chips?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The card slots for SSD storage should be standard and at a minimal two in the Pros.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I'd like to see the new Pros come with more USB ports, some supporting USB3 and two Thunderbolt ports. The dual TB ports could be used for data but I'm more concerned with driving dual monitors. For Ivy Bridge I still think Apple will have to add discreet GPUs, at least as an option. Oh don't leave out an Ethernet port either.
I agree, except that I would be surprised to see Apple support USB3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
It looks like we see similar hardware configurations in the future but you seem have a more limited view almost as if you are expecting a regression. On the other hand I'm expecting a noticeably more powerful machine.
No, I don't think that is an accurate characterization of my expectations. I expect Apple to pursue their strategic objectives. That includes making Macs more like consumer electronics and less like DIY PeeCees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The other way to look at this is that Apple nailed the low end entry level market with the AIRs and does have a solid grip on the professional market. Apple realizes the needs of the professional market is dramatically different than the entry level market so they aren't going to screw up the MBPs on purpose. In other words they will strive to build a machine to meet the requirements of professionals in the future, that may mean dropping some older features. The trick for them is getting the right mix of new features so that the machines are compelling. If they don't sales will suck.
I have and the types suitable for the macbook pro are about there in pricing. As I mentioned if it's not made standard they could do what they have done before and lower the cost of upgrading to 8GB encouraging people to buy their ram upgrades from Apple. $100 is enough to subsidize is at current chip pricing. Personally I wish the cost of 8GB chips would come down so that I could load 16 into a laptop That seems to be about the sweet spot for me where I no longer notice disk paging (ever).
I have and the types suitable for the macbook pro are about there in pricing. As I mentioned if it's not made standard they could do what they have done before and lower the cost of upgrading to 8GB encouraging people to buy their ram upgrades from Apple. $100 is enough to subsidize is at current chip pricing. Personally I wish the cost of 8GB chips would come down so that I could load 16 into a laptop That seems to be about the sweet spot for me where I no longer notice disk paging (ever).
The price per bit of 4Gb DRAM chips is still well over double the price per bit of 2Gb DRAM chips. To put 8GB in a MacBook Pro requires 32x 2Gb chips or 16x 4Gb chips. That's the upper limit of what is plausible today. Putting 64 DRAM chips in a laptop is not really plausible. 4Gb chips are still too expensive (though that could change very quickly).
If I were Apple, I would put 16x 2Gb chips (4GB) directly on the motherboard of the MacBook Pro starting with the next major redesign and offer 16x 4Gb (8GB) as a BTO option. I suppose Apple might instead choose to use 32x chips so that they can make 8GB standard and offer a 16GB BTO option, but power consumption and reliability argue against it.
The price per bit of 4Gb DRAM chips is still well over double the price per bit of 2Gb DRAM chips. To put 8GB in a MacBook Pro requires 32x 2Gb chips or 16x 4Gb chips. That's the upper limit of what is plausible today. Putting 64 DRAM chips in a laptop is not really plausible. 4Gb chips are still too expensive (though that could change very quickly).
If I were Apple, I would put 16x 2Gb chips (4GB) directly on the motherboard of the MacBook Pro starting with the next major redesign and offer 16x 4Gb (8GB) as a BTO option. I suppose Apple might instead choose to use 32x chips so that they can make 8GB standard and offer a 16GB BTO option, but power consumption and reliability argue against it.
From what I see you're breaking it down into memory components rather than oem dimms. Apple doesn't build their own ram. It may be labeled apple ram but they just they do buy it prebuilt. I looked up retail costs for reference per dimm and at a retail level they have come down. I don't know where to find wholesale component information on such an item.
Are 8GB dimms really that unreliable (I haven't looked into it in detail as I haven't had the opportunity to upgrade a laptop this far, the previous comment was workstation related)?
Also the lowest mac pro being at 3GB standard (remember BTO isn't an in store option for those who purchase them there) is a bit ridiculous when even the laptops have surpassed that.
From what I see you're breaking it down into memory components rather than oem dimms. Apple doesn't build their own ram. It may be labeled apple ram but they just they do buy it prebuilt. I looked up retail costs for reference per dimm and at a retail level they have come down. I don't know where to find wholesale component information on such an item.
Are 8GB dimms really that unreliable (I haven't looked into it in detail as I haven't had the opportunity to upgrade a laptop this far, the previous comment was workstation related)?
I expect the next major redesign of the MacBook Pro will not support SO-DIMMs but will more likely follow the MacBook Air and have the DRAM chips permanently fixed to the motherboard. That lowers cost and increases reliability (though it raises the repair cost if memory does fail).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Also the lowest mac pro being at 3GB standard (remember BTO isn't an in store option for those who purchase them there) is a bit ridiculous when even the laptops have surpassed that.
3GB (or 6GB) makes sense for the current Mac Pro because the chipset used organizes memory into 3 banks. The chipset that will be used with an Ivy Bridge Mac Pro supports 4 banks and I expect either 4GB or 8GB will be the minimum supported.
I expect the next major redesign of the MacBook Pro will not support SO-DIMMs but will more likely follow the MacBook Air and have the DRAM chips permanently fixed to the motherboard. That lowers cost and increases reliability (though it raises the repair cost if memory does fail).
I hope they don't go this route. One of the things about macs is they tend to have relatively long service lives assuming a lack of ultra costly hardware failures. That used to be limited more to the screen or logic board components. Any idea why they went this design route?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling
3GB (or 6GB) makes sense for the current Mac Pro because the chipset used organizes memory into 3 banks. The chipset that will be used with an Ivy Bridge Mac Pro supports 4 banks and I expect either 4GB or 8GB will be the minimum supported.
All tests I've viewed on this suggested that the real world performance impact of ignoring installation in sets of three was practically non existent. On the Apple site it doesn't make a single mention of any advantage from tri channel bandwidth when you go to place an order. 3GB just isn't really a realistic amount for such a machine. The only thing I can find that reflects your concern on memory bandwidth is that three dimm configurations are available even though they don't actually state the reasoning.
Quoted from the apple store description
The single-processor Mac Pro supports up to 32GB of DDR3 ECC SDRAM memory in four slots. Choose more memory to improve overall system performance.
Because accessing data from memory is much faster than accessing data from a hard drive, the more memory your system has, the faster it can manipulate your data. The result is greater application performance, especially when working with large files and memory-intensive applications such as graphics, audio, video, and scientific applications.
Depending on the processor you choose, the single-processor Mac Pro uses the following types of memory:
2.8GHz and 3.2GHz quad-core processors: 1066MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM
The SDRAM in the Mac Pro uses an advanced memory technology that is not only fast, but also reliable. ECC provides this added layer of reliability by automatically correcting memory errors if they occur.
Mac Pro supports 8GB registered DIMMs (R-DIMMs) for up to 32GB of memory in Quad-Core and 6-Core systems. R-DIMMs cannot be mixed with unregistered DIMMs.
Comments
I think Apple pay more to Intel for faster CPUs, pay more for more RAM, and pay more for more capacious storage. Why do you think that a spec bump costs practically nothing?.
Apple commonly replaces processors with similarly priced models. Ram prices fall and they update the stock amounts. They have a manufacturing budget you know, and good margins on the machines that they sell. That aside I don't see a ram upgrade coming until next year. I think if they were refreshing they could keep it at 4 but lower the price to go to 8 thus pushing the upgrade since the cost of ram is currently low enough to do this, and they have done similar things in the past.
I think Apple pay more to Intel for faster CPUs, pay more for more RAM, and pay more for more capacious storage. Why do you think that a spec bump costs practically nothing?
Not really. Think about it the new SKUs from intel aren't more expensive they just nudge all the other processors down the price scale. RAM has dropped significantly in cost over the year, with many companies struggling to stay afloat. Thus it would be easy for Apple to double they RAM in the Mac line up. Likewise the storage companies have just increased the per platter capacity of their drives, this meampns a significant drop in cost per bit.
So yeah I don't see a problem with a configuration bump at all. In fact it would be easy for Apple to go after one of these or all of them.
While March or April seems more likely, I would not rule out a February launch. It will depend on future Ivy Bridge yields, which can be estimated now only with considerable imprecision.
Actually they can't be estimated at all as the latest rumor is a production delay. That could be BS but the whole feasability of a bump revolves around when Apple can launch with Ivy Bridge. There is a huge difference between Ivy Bridge being two months away or 6+ months away. Right now I suspect IB is farther away than it is close. I could be completely wrong about that.
Possible, sure, but there is also plenty of circumstantial data to suggest that a major overhaul will visit the next MBP update.
As hmm points out the MBA languished before the major overhaul.
There is a huge difference between letting a failed product languish verses ignoring your bread and butter. The old AIRs had a number of issues which where best resolved with an aggressive engineering effort. Since sales where abysmal they could easily hold off on an update. The MBP is a different story altogether, it sells well and more importantly sells to more demanding users.
That is the key question here if the major update requires IB then the question then becomes when does IB arrive? My point is this: if IB is 6-9 months away a spec bump to the current machines is very likely. The obvious flip side to that is that if IB arrives before the end of the year then no bump is required.
There is a huge difference between letting a failed product languish verses ignoring your bread and butter. The old AIRs had a number of issues which where best resolved with an aggressive engineering effort. Since sales where abysmal they could easily hold off on an update. The MBP is a different story altogether, it sells well and more importantly sells to more demanding users.
There are too many unknown variables to make a single educated guess that isn't qualified by a half-dozen options.
As someone who is waiting for a revamped MBP I'm pretty excited about all the new UltraBooks appearing. I'm hoping that will push Apple to release the new designs sooner rather than later as I care more about the ODD being removed (but still remaining decent internal storage which the MBAs can't give me) than I am about the latest CPU and GPU offerings.
There are too many unknown variables to make a single educated guess that isn't qualified by a half-dozen options.
What else would you expect from Future Hardware? All we can do is consider news reports and rumors.
As someone who is waiting for a revamped MBP I'm pretty excited about all the new UltraBooks appearing. I'm hoping that will push Apple to release the new designs sooner rather than later
I don't think Apple gives a rats a$$ about what the competition is doing right now.
as I care more about the ODD being removed (but still remaining decent internal storage which the MBAs can't give me) than I am about the latest CPU and GPU offerings.
A desire shared by many!!! However what I was trying to point out is that such a machine may be tied to the delivery of Ivy Bridge. It is possible this is not the case. Further even if they did do a new case I don't think they would go radically thin like the AIRs. Pro users still have the need for performance not possible in an ultra thin laptop. The new Pros might take some cues from the AIRs but they will likely appear scaled up.
Why? Because things like GPUs, Ethernet and other features are still important to Pro users. I for one would not want to give up a laptop drive bay even if the new Pros have SSD slots. In the end there is a limit to how thin the Pros will get for the foreseeable future. Well at least along one edge, I can see a significant wedge like appearance in the new chassis.
In any event I think you will be waiting awhile.
Why? Because things like GPUs, Ethernet and other features are still important to Pro users. I for one would not want to give up a laptop drive bay even if the new Pros have SSD slots. In the end there is a limit to how thin the Pros will get for the foreseeable future. Well at least along one edge, I can see a significant wedge like appearance in the new chassis.
Right now the MBPs will take a 12.5mm HDD/SSD, mostly due to the ODD is 12.7mm. They could reduce the casing by several millimeters. How? Using the milled top panel (like in the MBA) and thinner display components could reduce it by a mm or more right there.
Then you have removing the ODD and only allowing a 9.5mm HDD/SSD (along with an SSD card for booting and apps). That will save you over 3mm more. Of course, we need to consider heat dissipation of the logic boards and fans, but Apple also has the benefit of spacing out the CPU and GPU along the backside (thickest part of the wedge) of the case chassis so that the two hottest components can dissipate heat more effectively by an elongated logic board instead of a squarish logic board.
Or? if Apple really wants to go to the extreme they could move to 7mm HDDs which is also the common size of SSDs without the spacer. This removes a HDD platter reducing the overall capacity but they are at least up to 500GB, which (combined with an SSD card) I'd argue is on the cusp of being good enough for the first revised MBPs.
Right now the MBPs will take a 12.5mm HDD/SSD, mostly due to the ODD is 12.7mm. They could reduce the casing by several millimeters. How? Using the milled top panel (like in the MBA) and thinner display components could reduce it by a mm or more right there.
Then you have removing the ODD and only allowing a 9.5mm HDD/SSD (along with an SSD card for booting and apps). That will save you over 3mm more. Of course, we need to consider heat dissipation of the logic boards and fans, but Apple also has the benefit of spacing out the CPU and GPU along the backside (thickest part of the wedge) of the case chassis so that the two hottest components can dissipate heat more effectively by an elongated logic board instead of a squarish logic board.
Or? if Apple really wants to go to the extreme they could move to 7mm HDDs which is also the common size of SSDs without the spacer. This removes a HDD platter reducing the overall capacity but they are at least up to 500GB, which (combined with an SSD card) I'd argue is on the cusp of being good enough for the first revised MBPs.
That was really nicely detailed. Whatever they do I hope they can work the cooling out well. I could deal with some noise factor if it could keep a quad core laptop cool under heavy processor loads.
Spacing out components on the logic board is a long tested method of spreading out the heat load. The problem is I want the HD along that thick edge. In any event new platter tech has already allowed for thinner high capacity drives this fall.
The big issue in my mind is that the MBPs need to remain PRO machines in every sense of the word. That means top performance across the CPU and GPUs. As long as we see performance progress on these two fronts the Pros will remain viable. However many users need as much internal storage as is possible, I'd hate to see Apple get to aggressive and impact the Pros storage capability.
Right now the MBPs will take a 12.5mm HDD/SSD, mostly due to the ODD is 12.7mm. They could reduce the casing by several millimeters. How? Using the milled top panel (like in the MBA) and thinner display components could reduce it by a mm or more right there.
Then you have removing the ODD and only allowing a 9.5mm HDD/SSD (along with an SSD card for booting and apps). That will save you over 3mm more. Of course, we need to consider heat dissipation of the logic boards and fans, but Apple also has the benefit of spacing out the CPU and GPU along the backside (thickest part of the wedge) of the case chassis so that the two hottest components can dissipate heat more effectively by an elongated logic board instead of a squarish logic board.
Or? if Apple really wants to go to the extreme they could move to 7mm HDDs which is also the common size of SSDs without the spacer. This removes a HDD platter reducing the overall capacity but they are at least up to 500GB, which (combined with an SSD card) I'd argue is on the cusp of being good enough for the first revised MBPs.
That is the key question here if the major update requires IB then the question then becomes when does IB arrive? My point is this: if IB is 6-9 months away a spec bump to the current machines is very likely. The obvious flip side to that is that if IB arrives before the end of the year then no bump is required.
There is a huge difference between letting a failed product languish verses ignoring your bread and butter. The old AIRs had a number of issues which where best resolved with an aggressive engineering effort. Since sales where abysmal they could easily hold off on an update. The MBP is a different story altogether, it sells well and more importantly sells to more demanding users.
I mentioned update times on other models too. I was saying that if Apple by some chance was getting processors early as they have a few times in the past, we might see them wait. It seems like they've been trending toward updating the laptops around once a year, but never a full year in between. If they are going to bump it before Ivy Bridge I imagine they'd want to for holiday sales boosts. Right after the holidays might not be so good especially if that led to returns of the old ones. On the Airs I agree they really put some energy into that design.
I still worry that they're going the route of limiting the truly professional grade features to the 17", but that's been a concern for some time.
I mentioned update times on other models too. I was saying that if Apple by some chance was getting processors early as they have a few times in the past, we might see them wait. It seems like they've been trending toward updating the laptops around once a year, but never a full year in between. If they are going to bump it before Ivy Bridge I imagine they'd want to for holiday sales boosts. Right after the holidays might not be so good especially if that led to returns of the old ones. On the Airs I agree they really put some energy into that design.
Thus is around the time they have done so in the past. That is early fall.
I still worry that they're going the route of limiting the truly professional grade features to the 17", but that's been a concern for some time.
I'm not sure I buy this either. If you are willing to pay for it you can have yourself a very capable 15" MBP. That is Today, I do worry about the future and the rumored move to even thinner MBPs.
Thin may be in but there is such a thing as to thin. It is like finding a girl friend. You look around for thin but not too thin. After all if the body looks like a bag of bones do you really want it laying next to you. I'm assuming you aren't the guy arrested a few years ago in the cemetery and sent to the mental health ward. He loved sleeping with the bones.
Frankly I think you are hung up on the phrase "truly professional grade" which is a BS phrase. The 15 " machine is used by many professionals.
He loved sleeping with the bones.
Frankly I think you are hung up on the phrase "truly professional grade" which is a BS phrase. The 15 " machine is used by many professionals.
You never know
Yeah it's a BS phrase. What I was getting at was that I hope that the 15" machines aren't fully gutted of powerful features that are then left on the 17" to quell complaints. I am concerned that the potential is there as it's the route they went with the express card slot (and I liked having esata capability
You never know
That incident with the bones happened locally a few years ago. It resulted in weeks of jokes around the plant.
Yeah it's a BS phrase. What I was getting at was that I hope that the 15" machines aren't fully gutted of powerful features that are then left on the 17" to quell complaints.
I really don't think you have to worry, Apple pays more attention to the laptop line then maybe the should. I suspect they realize what Pro users need. I'm somewhat guarded here though as I expect them to consider giving up discreet video chips. In this situation the low end 15" MBP would have integrated video to get a separate GPU you would have to buy the high end 15" MBP.
That sounds bad but it really depends upon where Intel goes with IB. If the integrated GPU fixes it's outstanding issues and more than doubles performance their won't be a huge need for discreet GPUs. In a sense discreet GPUs become a special feature for more demanding professionals. I'm not sure where Ivy Bridge is, but at some point having the GPU integrated on die with the CPU will be a huge advantage. AMD is going after this market big time, but we are still just starting to see hardware that partially implements their plans.
I am concerned that the potential is there as it's the route they went with the express card slot (and I liked having esata capability
You know I've yet to use my express card port. If I had a choice right now I'd rather see more USB ports on the MBPs. I never seem to have enough of them.
I don't think they'll gut it too hard while the 13" macbook pro still exists. It seems like their decisions aren't currently set in stone for where the line is going.
Well I can't read corporate minds, but I don't think the concept of Pro hardware is going away. In fact IB should bring far faster hardware to us. You mention the 13" MBP, imagine that machine with double the performance both CPU and GPU wise. When the 15" gets updated it will also see improvements. More importantly the extra space freeded up by the higher integration chips means space to implement other concepts.
Now whatever Apple does it will likely be explained in the context of the future. That is Apple won't build hardware suitable for the past. Rather they build for their version of the future. You may not agree with that vision but building for the past is a mistake.
Apple commonly replaces processors with similarly priced models. Ram prices fall and they update the stock amounts. They have a manufacturing budget you know, and good margins on the machines that they sell. That aside I don't see a ram upgrade coming until next year. I think if they were refreshing they could keep it at 4 but lower the price to go to 8 thus pushing the upgrade since the cost of ram is currently low enough to do this, and they have done similar things in the past.
Not really. Think about it the new SKUs from intel aren't more expensive they just nudge all the other processors down the price scale. RAM has dropped significantly in cost over the year, with many companies struggling to stay afloat. Thus it would be easy for Apple to double they RAM in the Mac line up. Likewise the storage companies have just increased the per platter capacity of their drives, this meampns a significant drop in cost per bit.
So yeah I don't see a problem with a configuration bump at all. In fact it would be easy for Apple to go after one of these or all of them.
All this is true, but you're comparing apples to oranges. The question was whether or not a speed bump costs virtually nothing. The corresponding comparison is between what Apple would pay for components in the future with or without a speed bump. The prices Apple paid in the past are irrelevant to the economic decision about the future which Apple face. Apple would have to pay more in the future for components if it bumps the speed of the MacBook Pro than they would have to pay in the future if they don't bump the speed.
I'm pretty excited about all the new UltraBooks appearing. I'm hoping that will push Apple to release the new designs sooner rather than later as I care more about the ODD being removed (but still remaining decent internal storage which the MBAs can't give me) than I am about the latest CPU and GPU offerings.
I think you may be a bit disappointed. Apple's discontinuation of the MacBook (which I did not expect so soon) leads me to expect that the next major revision to the MacBook Pro will drop all rotating media and go completely to solid-state. I'm expecting two mSATA slots for storage. I think the main distinctions between the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro lines will be:
17W versus 35W CPUs
4GB versus 8GB RAM (maybe expandable in the MacBook Pro)
one versus two mSATA slots
single-channel versus dual-channel Thunderbolt
11", 13", and 15" versus 13", 15", and 17"
Price, weight, and thickness
All this is true, but you're comparing apples to oranges. The question was whether or not a speed bump costs virtually nothing. The corresponding comparison is between what Apple would pay for components in the future with or without a speed bump. The prices Apple paid in the past are irrelevant to the economic decision about the future which Apple face. Apple would have to pay more in the future for components if it bumps the speed of the MacBook Pro than they would have to pay in the future if they don't bump the speed.
it really makes no difference here. As long as they can maintain margins there is little reason to avoid a bump. Even then the reason to bump a machine, especially a bump that fills in before a big overhaul, is to maintain sales momentum. Failure to bump can have an adverse impact on sales.
I think you may be a bit disappointed. Apple's discontinuation of the MacBook (which I did not expect so soon) leads me to expect that the next major revision to the MacBook Pro will drop all rotating media and go completely to solid-state.
This is actually a concern of mine. I want the optical to go, but I want to see the capability for hybrid storage built into the machine. That is a SSD and the provision for a large capacity HD. The reason is fairly straight forward, SSD is not economical for bulk storage.
I'm expecting two mSATA slots for storage.
I'm really hopping not!!! MSATA would be a big mistake in my mind. It would be far easier to implement a SSD standard based on PCI-Express. That is quibbling over the interface though, the important thing is that Apple adopts an industry standard interface and card format.
I think the main distinctions between the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro lines will be:
17W versus 35W CPUs
4GB versus 8GB RAM (maybe expandable in the MacBook Pro)
RAM capacity is a huge issue for Pro users, the only rational thing for Apple to do here is to expand that capability. 8GB is a starting point these days not an end point.
one versus two mSATA slots
The card slots for SSD storage should be standard and at a minimal two in the Pros.
single-channel versus dual-channel Thunderbolt
11", 13", and 15" versus 13", 15", and 17"
Price, weight, and thickness
I'd like to see the new Pros come with more USB ports, some supporting USB3 and two Thunderbolt ports. The dual TB ports could be used for data but I'm more concerned with driving dual monitors. For Ivy Bridge I still think Apple will have to add discreet GPUs, at least as an option. Oh don't leave out an Ethernet port either.
It looks like we see similar hardware configurations in the future but you seem have a more limited view almost as if you are expecting a regression. On the other hand I'm expecting a noticeably more powerful machine.
The other way to look at this is that Apple nailed the low end entry level market with the AIRs and does have a solid grip on the professional market. Apple realizes the needs of the professional market is dramatically different than the entry level market so they aren't going to screw up the MBPs on purpose. In other words they will strive to build a machine to meet the requirements of professionals in the future, that may mean dropping some older features. The trick for them is getting the right mix of new features so that the machines are compelling. If they don't sales will suck.
it really makes no difference here. As long as they can maintain margins there is little reason to avoid a bump.
Apple's objective is not to maintain margins. Apple's objective is to (continue to) increase margins. Apple have again and again demonstrated a willingness to accept smaller gains in market share in order to increase margins. I don't see any reason to expect that to change.
Even then the reason to bump a machine, especially a bump that fills in before a big overhaul, is to maintain sales momentum. Failure to bump can have an adverse impact on sales.
Yes, absolutely. However, I'm not convinced that the MacBook Pro is seeing any sort of sales slump. If sales are slumping, then certainly Apple should bump the specs.
This is actually a concern of mine. I want the optical to go, but I want to see the capability for hybrid storage built into the machine. That is a SSD and the provision for a large capacity HD. The reason is fairly straight forward, SSD is not economical for bulk storage.
Can we agree that at some future time it will make sense for Apple to drop internal HD support and go SSD only? We can disagree about whether that time will come in six months or six years. If we can agree that Apple will eventually do this, there is some advantage to doing it at the same time as dropping the optical brick because engineering one major redesign costs less than engineering two major redesigns. Also, it's seems that Apple are very interesting in pushing customers into the iCloud, which going SSD only would help to do.
I'm really hopping not!!! MSATA would be a big mistake in my mind. It would be far easier to implement a SSD standard based on PCI-Express. That is quibbling over the interface though, the important thing is that Apple adopts an industry standard interface and card format.
I have not put any thought into which interface is better, so I'll take your word for it. I only note that Apple recently chose mSATA for this application.
RAM capacity is a huge issue for Pro users, the only rational thing for Apple to do here is to expand that capability. 8GB is a starting point these days not an end point.
Have you looked at pricing for 4Mb DRAM chips?
The card slots for SSD storage should be standard and at a minimal two in the Pros.
I agree.
I'd like to see the new Pros come with more USB ports, some supporting USB3 and two Thunderbolt ports. The dual TB ports could be used for data but I'm more concerned with driving dual monitors. For Ivy Bridge I still think Apple will have to add discreet GPUs, at least as an option. Oh don't leave out an Ethernet port either.
I agree, except that I would be surprised to see Apple support USB3.
It looks like we see similar hardware configurations in the future but you seem have a more limited view almost as if you are expecting a regression. On the other hand I'm expecting a noticeably more powerful machine.
No, I don't think that is an accurate characterization of my expectations. I expect Apple to pursue their strategic objectives. That includes making Macs more like consumer electronics and less like DIY PeeCees.
The other way to look at this is that Apple nailed the low end entry level market with the AIRs and does have a solid grip on the professional market. Apple realizes the needs of the professional market is dramatically different than the entry level market so they aren't going to screw up the MBPs on purpose. In other words they will strive to build a machine to meet the requirements of professionals in the future, that may mean dropping some older features. The trick for them is getting the right mix of new features so that the machines are compelling. If they don't sales will suck.
I agree.
Have you looked at pricing for 4Mb DRAM chips?
I agree.
I have and the types suitable for the macbook pro are about there in pricing. As I mentioned if it's not made standard they could do what they have done before and lower the cost of upgrading to 8GB encouraging people to buy their ram upgrades from Apple. $100 is enough to subsidize is at current chip pricing. Personally I wish the cost of 8GB chips would come down so that I could load 16 into a laptop
I have and the types suitable for the macbook pro are about there in pricing. As I mentioned if it's not made standard they could do what they have done before and lower the cost of upgrading to 8GB encouraging people to buy their ram upgrades from Apple. $100 is enough to subsidize is at current chip pricing. Personally I wish the cost of 8GB chips would come down so that I could load 16 into a laptop
The price per bit of 4Gb DRAM chips is still well over double the price per bit of 2Gb DRAM chips. To put 8GB in a MacBook Pro requires 32x 2Gb chips or 16x 4Gb chips. That's the upper limit of what is plausible today. Putting 64 DRAM chips in a laptop is not really plausible. 4Gb chips are still too expensive (though that could change very quickly).
If I were Apple, I would put 16x 2Gb chips (4GB) directly on the motherboard of the MacBook Pro starting with the next major redesign and offer 16x 4Gb (8GB) as a BTO option. I suppose Apple might instead choose to use 32x chips so that they can make 8GB standard and offer a 16GB BTO option, but power consumption and reliability argue against it.
The price per bit of 4Gb DRAM chips is still well over double the price per bit of 2Gb DRAM chips. To put 8GB in a MacBook Pro requires 32x 2Gb chips or 16x 4Gb chips. That's the upper limit of what is plausible today. Putting 64 DRAM chips in a laptop is not really plausible. 4Gb chips are still too expensive (though that could change very quickly).
If I were Apple, I would put 16x 2Gb chips (4GB) directly on the motherboard of the MacBook Pro starting with the next major redesign and offer 16x 4Gb (8GB) as a BTO option. I suppose Apple might instead choose to use 32x chips so that they can make 8GB standard and offer a 16GB BTO option, but power consumption and reliability argue against it.
From what I see you're breaking it down into memory components rather than oem dimms. Apple doesn't build their own ram. It may be labeled apple ram but they just they do buy it prebuilt. I looked up retail costs for reference per dimm and at a retail level they have come down. I don't know where to find wholesale component information on such an item.
Are 8GB dimms really that unreliable (I haven't looked into it in detail as I haven't had the opportunity to upgrade a laptop this far, the previous comment was workstation related)?
Also the lowest mac pro being at 3GB standard (remember BTO isn't an in store option for those who purchase them there) is a bit ridiculous when even the laptops have surpassed that.
From what I see you're breaking it down into memory components rather than oem dimms. Apple doesn't build their own ram. It may be labeled apple ram but they just they do buy it prebuilt. I looked up retail costs for reference per dimm and at a retail level they have come down. I don't know where to find wholesale component information on such an item.
Are 8GB dimms really that unreliable (I haven't looked into it in detail as I haven't had the opportunity to upgrade a laptop this far, the previous comment was workstation related)?
I expect the next major redesign of the MacBook Pro will not support SO-DIMMs but will more likely follow the MacBook Air and have the DRAM chips permanently fixed to the motherboard. That lowers cost and increases reliability (though it raises the repair cost if memory does fail).
Also the lowest mac pro being at 3GB standard (remember BTO isn't an in store option for those who purchase them there) is a bit ridiculous when even the laptops have surpassed that.
3GB (or 6GB) makes sense for the current Mac Pro because the chipset used organizes memory into 3 banks. The chipset that will be used with an Ivy Bridge Mac Pro supports 4 banks and I expect either 4GB or 8GB will be the minimum supported.
I expect the next major redesign of the MacBook Pro will not support SO-DIMMs but will more likely follow the MacBook Air and have the DRAM chips permanently fixed to the motherboard. That lowers cost and increases reliability (though it raises the repair cost if memory does fail).
I hope they don't go this route. One of the things about macs is they tend to have relatively long service lives assuming a lack of ultra costly hardware failures. That used to be limited more to the screen or logic board components. Any idea why they went this design route?
3GB (or 6GB) makes sense for the current Mac Pro because the chipset used organizes memory into 3 banks. The chipset that will be used with an Ivy Bridge Mac Pro supports 4 banks and I expect either 4GB or 8GB will be the minimum supported.
All tests I've viewed on this suggested that the real world performance impact of ignoring installation in sets of three was practically non existent. On the Apple site it doesn't make a single mention of any advantage from tri channel bandwidth when you go to place an order. 3GB just isn't really a realistic amount for such a machine. The only thing I can find that reflects your concern on memory bandwidth is that three dimm configurations are available even though they don't actually state the reasoning.
Quoted from the apple store description
The single-processor Mac Pro supports up to 32GB of DDR3 ECC SDRAM memory in four slots. Choose more memory to improve overall system performance.
Because accessing data from memory is much faster than accessing data from a hard drive, the more memory your system has, the faster it can manipulate your data. The result is greater application performance, especially when working with large files and memory-intensive applications such as graphics, audio, video, and scientific applications.
Depending on the processor you choose, the single-processor Mac Pro uses the following types of memory:
2.8GHz and 3.2GHz quad-core processors: 1066MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM
3.33GHz 6-core processor: 1333MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM
8GB DIMMs (24GB or 32GB configurations): 1333MHz DDR3 ECC R-DIMM SDRAM
The SDRAM in the Mac Pro uses an advanced memory technology that is not only fast, but also reliable. ECC provides this added layer of reliability by automatically correcting memory errors if they occur.
Mac Pro supports 8GB registered DIMMs (R-DIMMs) for up to 32GB of memory in Quad-Core and 6-Core systems. R-DIMMs cannot be mixed with unregistered DIMMs.