Okay now I'm getting nervous. This seems like an overly long delay. Plus with the death of the Xserve I have to wonder if Mac Pro is going to be discontinued.
Okay now I'm getting nervous. This seems like an overly long delay. Plus with the death of the Xserve I have to wonder if Mac Pro is going to be discontinued.
Apple makes these machines out of server hardware, Xeons that is. ThEy can't sell anything that Intel doesn't have chips for.
Frankly the Mac Pro is so old Apple had better wait for a new generation of chips from Intel. Delivering some sort of bump at this point wouldn't impress the primary audience.
Apple makes these machines out of server hardware, Xeons that is. ThEy can't sell anything that Intel doesn't have chips for.
Frankly the Mac Pro is so old Apple had better wait for a new generation of chips from Intel. Delivering some sort of bump at this point wouldn't impress the primary audience.
They haven't had any new cpu options. Given the significant drops in processor pricing, hard drives, ram, etc. they could have done a mid generation refresh. Doing these things is incredibly simple for Apple but it would definitely make people feel like they still care. Right now things look bad for the line because it's a calendar year with 0 updates to the line. An update would help them pick up end of year spending. Is a socket change happening from Sandy Bridge E to the Ivy Bridget version of these chips?
They haven't had any new cpu options. Given the significant drops in processor pricing, hard drives, ram, etc. they could have done a mid generation refresh. Doing these things is incredibly simple for Apple but it would definitely make people feel like they still care. Right now things look bad for the line because it's a calendar year with 0 updates to the line. An update would help them pick up end of year spending. Is a socket change happening from Sandy Bridge E to the Ivy Bridget version of these chips?
I'm not sure about Ivy Bridge but supposedly Sandy Bridge E comes with a new chipset.
There is little incentive for Apple to do a midterm upgrade when almost 80% of sales goes to laptops and a good portion of the rest goes to iMac and Mini. I just think the stats reflect the reality that Mac Pro doesn't draw people the way it use to. Most people simply aren't looking for massive workstation type hardware.
I'm not sure about Ivy Bridge but supposedly Sandy Bridge E comes with a new chipset.
There is little incentive for Apple to do a midterm upgrade when almost 80% of sales goes to laptops and a good portion of the rest goes to iMac and Mini. I just think the stats reflect the reality that Mac Pro doesn't draw people the way it use to. Most people simply aren't looking for massive workstation type hardware.
Well it's not entirely a midterm upgrade. Sandy Bridge E was pushed back. I doubt that its successor will be out a couple months later. If intel has processors appropriate to the mac pro out early enough to make an announcement and get it on the store this year, they get year end purchasing dollars that they may not see otherwise. It's a small percentage of sales for them and yet in total dollars it could still be pretty good if you look at the math on it. Now if it's going to use the same chipset as any potential Ivy Bridge release, they may have minimal work to adjust it for that generation later.
Also I'm not entirely confident you'll see an Ivy Bridge release at all on the mac pro. At this point the machine needs to be updated. Ivy Bridge could be something as simple as tack on updated release at the top for them with no major revision afterward until Haswell. Assuming it somewhat lives up to intel's hype, that would be about the time we could start looking for real design changes within any line currently sold by Apple. They have little incentive for design changes at the moment if much greater changes are a couple release cycles away.
I have been wanting to participate in this discussion but haven't had the time. There is lots of talk about the Sandy Bridge-E processors in the next Mac Pros, but what about the video card options. I don't know of any Video cards that support Thunderbolt, and doesn't thunderbolt have to be on the motherboard? Right now the Mac Pro is incompatible with the Thunderbolt display. I have to believe that Apple will want to fix this as soon as humanly possible.
I have been wanting to participate in this discussion but haven't had the time. There is lots of talk about the Sandy Bridge-E processors in the next Mac Pros, but what about the video card options. I don't know of any Video cards that support Thunderbolt, and doesn't thunderbolt have to be on the motherboard? Right now the Mac Pro is incompatible with the Thunderbolt display. I have to believe that Apple will want to fix this as soon as humanly possible.
I don't follow graphics hardware as much as I used to. However the iMacs video chip is on a card of sorts. I don't know though if that is a standard card or not, but all you really need is the ability to get the video signals to the Thunderbolt chip. On a Pro they might use an extended card to do that.
The thing is a number of other factors come into play here that might cause Apple to think seriously about putting the GPU on the motherboard. One just has to look at the Mini to grasp what is going on. What is that you say, well it is the idea that base machines these days will be using integrated graphics. This will eventually happen on the Mac Pro. So as I see it Thunderbolt is just one factor here and yes I expect the GPU to be placed right on the motherboard.
I don't follow graphics hardware as much as I used to. However the iMacs video chip is on a card of sorts. I don't know though if that is a standard card or not, but all you really need is the ability to get the video signals to the Thunderbolt chip. On a Pro they might use an extended card to do that.
The thing is a number of other factors come into play here that might cause Apple to think seriously about putting the GPU on the motherboard. One just has to look at the Mini to grasp what is going on. What is that you say, well it is the idea that base machines these days will be using integrated graphics. This will eventually happen on the Mac Pro. So as I see it Thunderbolt is just one factor here and yes I expect the GPU to be placed right on the motherboard.
I've mentioned before that it's highly unlikely that this is the only possible method of integration. The imac uses a laptop card. The top imac uses one which is considered a laptop card but is really more of an underclocked desktop card, and it is actually fairly high in wattage (around 100W). I'm not sure we'll see this kind of design just yet. What makes you think this is the way to go? I'm just wondering because Intel hasn't done well with integrated graphics thus far.
If I had to guess, the spread would look much like the current line, with the lower-end models being 6-cores, and the higher-end sporting dual 8-cores. Judging from the prices, I think we can rest well in the knowledge that the new machines will come at a premium (as if we thought otherwise ).
And, according to this article, Ivy Bridge based models will start to appear around April or March.
So, I guess the next question is, will we see an early spring bump, or will Apple wait a few months more for Ivy Bridge?
I've mentioned before that it's highly unlikely that this is the only possible method of integration. The imac uses a laptop card. The top imac uses one which is considered a laptop card but is really more of an underclocked desktop card, and it is actually fairly high in wattage (around 100W).
I suspect the discussion here involves details none of us have at the moment. I'm assuming that card in the iMac is a custom design. One that routes some of the Display Port lines to the motherboard and then on to the Thunderbolt chip. The big question is how do they get that signal to the Thunderbolt chip.
Quote:
I'm not sure we'll see this kind of design just yet. What makes you think this is the way to go?
In the end I see the GPU becoming tightly coupled to the CPU. Things like Sandy Bridge and AMDs Fusion are just a start. However at the performance end of things discreet GPUs will be around for a long while. However the desire to tightly couple those two types of processors is still going to be there, so I could see a system where a two socket board has one socket filled with a GPU. That is a bit of dreaming on my part but a GPU on the motherboard is a rational alternative. It means being able to route many Display Port lines to an enhanced Thunderbolt chip to support multiple monitors. This would be a key factor, if Apple puts ultiple TB ports on a Mac Pro they need to make them symmetrical, that is all of them need to be able to drive a display. Other than a card with custom I/O I don't know of an easy way to otherwise support TB properly.
Quote:
I'm just wondering because Intel hasn't done well with integrated graphics thus far.
No they haven't but this isn't integrated graphics. At least not in the top of the line model. What I see or maybe better wish for is a platform where the low end uses desktop SB type processors with integrated graphics. The high end machines take a different motherboard with Xeon processors and have implemented on board a discreet GPU.
This would allow Apple to push out a more reasonably priced base model and a high end model with enhanced computational performance. Sort of like what we see now with the Mini but on a grander scale. Think about it the base model would come with a four core Sandy Bridge at maybe $1250, the high end could start with a six core processor and a high performance GPU. With a little custom ordering that high end model could easily support 12 cores.
It would be a good deal for the customer too. He would be able to choose single thread performance or massive numbers of real threads. One could fit the Mac to their needs.
Well, we now know what flavors the E5 will come in:
All of these are scheduled to appear in Q1 2012.
Let's hope the Pro follows soon after.
Quote:
If I had to guess, the spread would look much like the current line, with the lower-end models being 6-cores, and the higher-end sporting dual 8-cores. Judging from the prices, I think we can rest well in the knowledge that the new machines will come at a premium (as if we thought otherwise ).
Yes that premium is likely to stick. My problem is that it doesn't have too. There is no reason why they can't have a base model at a reasonable price point. A model for people simply looking for an expandable Mac who really don't need Xeon level hardware.
To do this they need to have one machine with a Sandy Bridge type processor with the integrated GPU. That sort of machine would allow for a much cheaper motherboard.
Quote:
So, I guess the next question is, will we see an early spring bump, or will Apple wait a few months more for Ivy Bridge?
Could you imagine the whining if Apple skips out on a Pro update to wait for Ivy Bridge. Not that it is a bad idea just that some have no patients. In any event an Ivy Bridge based pro would make for a very nice low end machine.
So, I guess the next question is, will we see an early spring bump, or will Apple wait a few months more for Ivy Bridge?
The E3 chips are quad-core single socket so only suitable for the entry Mac Pro but it would be an unusual setup because they usually put the older chips in the entry model. I suppose it doesn't matter though as it will still be lower performance than dual processor Sandy Bridge chips.
I wonder what the reason was for the delay to the E5 chips. They were supposed to arrive at the end of this year. That is one hell of a wait for a new model - it will be nearly 600 days since the last one when it arrives and presumably still a quad-core at $2500. There better be a redesign this time round.
The E3 chips are quad-core single socket so only suitable for the entry Mac Pro but it would be an unusual setup because they usually put the older chips in the entry model. I suppose it doesn't matter though as it will still be lower performance than dual processor Sandy Bridge chips.
In a way this is rubbish, for many quad cores will give them a significant boost over dual cores. It really depends upon the software you make use of. More so very few people these days run their machines in the way that benchmarkers do to ""prove"" one system is faster than another. Most people will have multiple apps running which makes use of those extra cores.
Quote:
I wonder what the reason was for the delay to the E5 chips. They were supposed to arrive at the end of this year.
I'd like to know myself, so many rumors are floating around that you just don't know. I lean towards last minute bugs but have no inside info.
Quote:
That is one hell of a wait for a new model - it will be nearly 600 days since the last one when it arrives and presumably still a quad-core at $2500. There better be a redesign this time round.
Not really if you think about other industries. As users of computer hardware we have gotten use to updates to hardware on a fairly fast basis. In a sense we where conditioned to expect frequent hardware debuts. The problem is today's chips are far more complex than in the past and even the best laid plans will suffer set backs.
In a way this is rubbish, for many quad cores will give them a significant boost over dual cores. It really depends upon the software you make use of. More so very few people these days run their machines in the way that benchmarkers do to ""prove"" one system is faster than another. Most people will have multiple apps running which makes use of those extra cores.
You misinterpreted him there. He meant that E3 Ivy Bridge would still be slower than dual socket Sandy Bridge E workstations. He simply stated it as "dual processor" as it would have been commonly written before the rise of multiple processor cores in mainstream machines.
You misinterpreted him there. He meant that E3 Ivy Bridge would still be slower than dual socket Sandy Bridge E workstations. He simply stated it as "dual processor" as it would have been commonly written before the rise of multiple processor cores in mainstream machines.
That's right, I was saying dual processor (not dual-core) quad-core Sandy Bridge is still faster than single processor quad-core Ivy Bridge so it wouldn't matter using a newer architecture on the low-end model compared to the higher-end models.
That's right, I was saying dual processor (not dual-core) quad-core Sandy Bridge is still faster than single processor quad-core Ivy Bridge so it wouldn't matter using a newer architecture on the low-end model compared to the higher-end models.
My excuse is that I was on break at the time. As to Ivy Bridge I'm not at all certain that there will be a huge performance increase clock for clock in the CPU anyways.
My excuse is that I was on break at the time. As to Ivy Bridge I'm not at all certain that there will be a huge performance increase clock for clock in the CPU anyways.
Hehe... well it's not predicted to be one. He was saying that they'd probably use the older type on the low end seeing as that's what they did the last time. It's not a real precedence though when intel didn't come out with direct westmere replacements at all.
Comments
So refresh my memory. When was the last update to the Mac Pro line?
July 2010.
July 2010.
Okay now I'm getting nervous. This seems like an overly long delay. Plus with the death of the Xserve I have to wonder if Mac Pro is going to be discontinued.
Okay now I'm getting nervous. This seems like an overly long delay.
Oh, come off it. The first two models had a 518 day wait in between releases. This is child's play.
Plus with the death of the Xserve I have to wonder if Mac Pro is going to be discontinued.
Of course it will! I don't know anyone who doesn't believe that by now. I'd bet the next one will be the third to last model.
Okay now I'm getting nervous. This seems like an overly long delay. Plus with the death of the Xserve I have to wonder if Mac Pro is going to be discontinued.
Apple makes these machines out of server hardware, Xeons that is. ThEy can't sell anything that Intel doesn't have chips for.
Frankly the Mac Pro is so old Apple had better wait for a new generation of chips from Intel. Delivering some sort of bump at this point wouldn't impress the primary audience.
Apple makes these machines out of server hardware, Xeons that is. ThEy can't sell anything that Intel doesn't have chips for.
Frankly the Mac Pro is so old Apple had better wait for a new generation of chips from Intel. Delivering some sort of bump at this point wouldn't impress the primary audience.
They haven't had any new cpu options. Given the significant drops in processor pricing, hard drives, ram, etc. they could have done a mid generation refresh. Doing these things is incredibly simple for Apple but it would definitely make people feel like they still care. Right now things look bad for the line because it's a calendar year with 0 updates to the line. An update would help them pick up end of year spending. Is a socket change happening from Sandy Bridge E to the Ivy Bridget version of these chips?
They haven't had any new cpu options. Given the significant drops in processor pricing, hard drives, ram, etc. they could have done a mid generation refresh. Doing these things is incredibly simple for Apple but it would definitely make people feel like they still care. Right now things look bad for the line because it's a calendar year with 0 updates to the line. An update would help them pick up end of year spending. Is a socket change happening from Sandy Bridge E to the Ivy Bridget version of these chips?
I'm not sure about Ivy Bridge but supposedly Sandy Bridge E comes with a new chipset.
There is little incentive for Apple to do a midterm upgrade when almost 80% of sales goes to laptops and a good portion of the rest goes to iMac and Mini. I just think the stats reflect the reality that Mac Pro doesn't draw people the way it use to. Most people simply aren't looking for massive workstation type hardware.
I'm not sure about Ivy Bridge but supposedly Sandy Bridge E comes with a new chipset.
There is little incentive for Apple to do a midterm upgrade when almost 80% of sales goes to laptops and a good portion of the rest goes to iMac and Mini. I just think the stats reflect the reality that Mac Pro doesn't draw people the way it use to. Most people simply aren't looking for massive workstation type hardware.
Well it's not entirely a midterm upgrade. Sandy Bridge E was pushed back. I doubt that its successor will be out a couple months later. If intel has processors appropriate to the mac pro out early enough to make an announcement and get it on the store this year, they get year end purchasing dollars that they may not see otherwise. It's a small percentage of sales for them and yet in total dollars it could still be pretty good if you look at the math on it. Now if it's going to use the same chipset as any potential Ivy Bridge release, they may have minimal work to adjust it for that generation later.
Also I'm not entirely confident you'll see an Ivy Bridge release at all on the mac pro. At this point the machine needs to be updated. Ivy Bridge could be something as simple as tack on updated release at the top for them with no major revision afterward until Haswell. Assuming it somewhat lives up to intel's hype, that would be about the time we could start looking for real design changes within any line currently sold by Apple. They have little incentive for design changes at the moment if much greater changes are a couple release cycles away.
I have been wanting to participate in this discussion but haven't had the time. There is lots of talk about the Sandy Bridge-E processors in the next Mac Pros, but what about the video card options. I don't know of any Video cards that support Thunderbolt, and doesn't thunderbolt have to be on the motherboard? Right now the Mac Pro is incompatible with the Thunderbolt display. I have to believe that Apple will want to fix this as soon as humanly possible.
I don't follow graphics hardware as much as I used to. However the iMacs video chip is on a card of sorts. I don't know though if that is a standard card or not, but all you really need is the ability to get the video signals to the Thunderbolt chip. On a Pro they might use an extended card to do that.
The thing is a number of other factors come into play here that might cause Apple to think seriously about putting the GPU on the motherboard. One just has to look at the Mini to grasp what is going on. What is that you say, well it is the idea that base machines these days will be using integrated graphics. This will eventually happen on the Mac Pro. So as I see it Thunderbolt is just one factor here and yes I expect the GPU to be placed right on the motherboard.
I don't follow graphics hardware as much as I used to. However the iMacs video chip is on a card of sorts. I don't know though if that is a standard card or not, but all you really need is the ability to get the video signals to the Thunderbolt chip. On a Pro they might use an extended card to do that.
The thing is a number of other factors come into play here that might cause Apple to think seriously about putting the GPU on the motherboard. One just has to look at the Mini to grasp what is going on. What is that you say, well it is the idea that base machines these days will be using integrated graphics. This will eventually happen on the Mac Pro. So as I see it Thunderbolt is just one factor here and yes I expect the GPU to be placed right on the motherboard.
I've mentioned before that it's highly unlikely that this is the only possible method of integration. The imac uses a laptop card. The top imac uses one which is considered a laptop card but is really more of an underclocked desktop card, and it is actually fairly high in wattage (around 100W). I'm not sure we'll see this kind of design just yet. What makes you think this is the way to go? I'm just wondering because Intel hasn't done well with integrated graphics thus far.
http://www.cpu-world.com//news_2011/2011102701_Prices_of_Xeon_E5-2600-series_CPUs.html
All of these are scheduled to appear in Q1 2012.
If I had to guess, the spread would look much like the current line, with the lower-end models being 6-cores, and the higher-end sporting dual 8-cores. Judging from the prices, I think we can rest well in the knowledge that the new machines will come at a premium (as if we thought otherwise
And, according to this article, Ivy Bridge based models will start to appear around April or March.
So, I guess the next question is, will we see an early spring bump, or will Apple wait a few months more for Ivy Bridge?
I've mentioned before that it's highly unlikely that this is the only possible method of integration. The imac uses a laptop card. The top imac uses one which is considered a laptop card but is really more of an underclocked desktop card, and it is actually fairly high in wattage (around 100W).
I suspect the discussion here involves details none of us have at the moment. I'm assuming that card in the iMac is a custom design. One that routes some of the Display Port lines to the motherboard and then on to the Thunderbolt chip. The big question is how do they get that signal to the Thunderbolt chip.
I'm not sure we'll see this kind of design just yet. What makes you think this is the way to go?
In the end I see the GPU becoming tightly coupled to the CPU. Things like Sandy Bridge and AMDs Fusion are just a start. However at the performance end of things discreet GPUs will be around for a long while. However the desire to tightly couple those two types of processors is still going to be there, so I could see a system where a two socket board has one socket filled with a GPU. That is a bit of dreaming on my part but a GPU on the motherboard is a rational alternative. It means being able to route many Display Port lines to an enhanced Thunderbolt chip to support multiple monitors. This would be a key factor, if Apple puts ultiple TB ports on a Mac Pro they need to make them symmetrical, that is all of them need to be able to drive a display. Other than a card with custom I/O I don't know of an easy way to otherwise support TB properly.
I'm just wondering because Intel hasn't done well with integrated graphics thus far.
No they haven't but this isn't integrated graphics. At least not in the top of the line model. What I see or maybe better wish for is a platform where the low end uses desktop SB type processors with integrated graphics. The high end machines take a different motherboard with Xeon processors and have implemented on board a discreet GPU.
This would allow Apple to push out a more reasonably priced base model and a high end model with enhanced computational performance. Sort of like what we see now with the Mini but on a grander scale. Think about it the base model would come with a four core Sandy Bridge at maybe $1250, the high end could start with a six core processor and a high performance GPU. With a little custom ordering that high end model could easily support 12 cores.
It would be a good deal for the customer too. He would be able to choose single thread performance or massive numbers of real threads. One could fit the Mac to their needs.
Well, we now know what flavors the E5 will come in:
All of these are scheduled to appear in Q1 2012.
Let's hope the Pro follows soon after.
If I had to guess, the spread would look much like the current line, with the lower-end models being 6-cores, and the higher-end sporting dual 8-cores. Judging from the prices, I think we can rest well in the knowledge that the new machines will come at a premium (as if we thought otherwise
Yes that premium is likely to stick. My problem is that it doesn't have too. There is no reason why they can't have a base model at a reasonable price point. A model for people simply looking for an expandable Mac who really don't need Xeon level hardware.
To do this they need to have one machine with a Sandy Bridge type processor with the integrated GPU. That sort of machine would allow for a much cheaper motherboard.
So, I guess the next question is, will we see an early spring bump, or will Apple wait a few months more for Ivy Bridge?
Could you imagine the whining if Apple skips out on a Pro update to wait for Ivy Bridge. Not that it is a bad idea just that some have no patients. In any event an Ivy Bridge based pro would make for a very nice low end machine.
So, I guess the next question is, will we see an early spring bump, or will Apple wait a few months more for Ivy Bridge?
The E3 chips are quad-core single socket so only suitable for the entry Mac Pro but it would be an unusual setup because they usually put the older chips in the entry model. I suppose it doesn't matter though as it will still be lower performance than dual processor Sandy Bridge chips.
I wonder what the reason was for the delay to the E5 chips. They were supposed to arrive at the end of this year. That is one hell of a wait for a new model - it will be nearly 600 days since the last one when it arrives and presumably still a quad-core at $2500. There better be a redesign this time round.
The E3 chips are quad-core single socket so only suitable for the entry Mac Pro but it would be an unusual setup because they usually put the older chips in the entry model. I suppose it doesn't matter though as it will still be lower performance than dual processor Sandy Bridge chips.
In a way this is rubbish, for many quad cores will give them a significant boost over dual cores. It really depends upon the software you make use of. More so very few people these days run their machines in the way that benchmarkers do to ""prove"" one system is faster than another. Most people will have multiple apps running which makes use of those extra cores.
I wonder what the reason was for the delay to the E5 chips. They were supposed to arrive at the end of this year.
I'd like to know myself, so many rumors are floating around that you just don't know. I lean towards last minute bugs but have no inside info.
That is one hell of a wait for a new model - it will be nearly 600 days since the last one when it arrives and presumably still a quad-core at $2500. There better be a redesign this time round.
Not really if you think about other industries. As users of computer hardware we have gotten use to updates to hardware on a fairly fast basis. In a sense we where conditioned to expect frequent hardware debuts. The problem is today's chips are far more complex than in the past and even the best laid plans will suffer set backs.
In a way this is rubbish, for many quad cores will give them a significant boost over dual cores. It really depends upon the software you make use of. More so very few people these days run their machines in the way that benchmarkers do to ""prove"" one system is faster than another. Most people will have multiple apps running which makes use of those extra cores.
You misinterpreted him there
You misinterpreted him there
That's right, I was saying dual processor (not dual-core) quad-core Sandy Bridge is still faster than single processor quad-core Ivy Bridge so it wouldn't matter using a newer architecture on the low-end model compared to the higher-end models.
That's right, I was saying dual processor (not dual-core) quad-core Sandy Bridge is still faster than single processor quad-core Ivy Bridge so it wouldn't matter using a newer architecture on the low-end model compared to the higher-end models.
My excuse is that I was on break at the time. As to Ivy Bridge I'm not at all certain that there will be a huge performance increase clock for clock in the CPU anyways.
My excuse is that I was on break at the time. As to Ivy Bridge I'm not at all certain that there will be a huge performance increase clock for clock in the CPU anyways.
Hehe... well it's not predicted to be one. He was saying that they'd probably use the older type on the low end seeing as that's what they did the last time. It's not a real precedence though when intel didn't come out with direct westmere replacements at all.