New Mac Pros rumored with 8-core Xeon E5 CPUs, Thunderbolt & USB 3.0

1456810

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 197
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post

    The Mac Pro is designed for other programs than games. If you want a gaming machine you need one with a higher CPU speed and fewer cores, as most games gain little from 4 cores and nothing from more than that. Then, you need a top graphics card. That's where the Mac Pro falls down. When it first comes out, it usually has a card option that about two thirds up the ladder, but not a top card (not talking about the expensive pro cards). But then they fail to give us newer cards as they come out, so people buy PC cards and flash them which may not work with every feature or need.

    It's just not really a gaming machine, though it can work pretty well at it, if you buy the right one.


     


    I'm hoping for new Mac Pros just so I can get an updated graphics card. Sure, for a few games, but I've run across some beautiful terrain generators for which a 4870 just can't do justice.

  • Reply 142 of 197
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


     


    Wow that statement is so wrong. And so reeks of someone making up for something else being too small. 


     


    A workstation only needs 'macho' in terms of power. Physical size and look are beside the point. 





    Such machines are more accurately described as "deskside" rather than "desktop" computers (whether a true workstation or merely a tower). Hardly anyone actually puts them on the desk where they take up useful space to no good end. They are put where convenient and appearance really does not matter much so long as it is a function device.

  • Reply 143 of 197
    tomahawktomahawk Posts: 164member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    What is it with you people? Isn't it obvious that Apple isn't interested in a low volume model like that? Give it up already!


     


    You're still missing the point.


     


    The Xserve was a low volume machine and therefor was cut.  The Mac Pro is a low volume machine (and there were concerns it would be cut).  Why not make a few minor modifications that make the machine serve both purposes?  Now you have a machine that is still potentially low volume, but you've increased sales slightly because it can fit in another market.

  • Reply 144 of 197
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member


    Tomahawk,


     


    Your point about killing two birds with one stone is well taken, if Apple had any intention of bothering to continue the product line. Like many others, I doubt the Mac Pro, however configured, is in Apple's long term plans. If the rumored Mac Pro update is not the last hurrah, it is not far from it. History has shown that Apple can not be expected to update the platform with new graphics cards & etc in between major refreshes, if there is to be one, and so many people are on the banks of the Rubicon contemplating crossing it. Once crossed, there really is no turning back. Even a hack is not a long term solution as once the Mac Pro is EOL'd, OS X will certainly leave the necessary code behind in the trash heap of history.


     


    Apple have had plenty of opportunities to put out the word in one way or another that they intend to continue the Mac Pro line, but have not done so. Reading the tea leaves, if this is not the end of the road, the end of the road is just around the corner.


     


    Cheers

  • Reply 145 of 197
    misamisa Posts: 827member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by gwmac View Post


    I am happy Apple is updating the Mac Pro. My Mac Pro is only 3 years old and runs well so need for me to get this version, but I want that option in the future and I am glad I will be able to upgrade when needed. I understand the need to have a high end Mac Pro with as many slots for Ram and as many CPU's and cores possible for those people that demand every ounce of performance they can get. What I don't understand is why Apple insists on putting a Xeon in the low end model that only includes one CPU. Aren't the high performance ivy bridge Core i7 as fast if not faster than Xeon when you only have one? Not to mention a lot cheaper. 



    You're looking at it wrong.


     


    The E5 replaces the 5000 series Xeons. Intel just so happens to make 1, 2, and 4 processor models of the E5, where as before they didn't. (Though the DP's could be used in UP configuration)


    The E3 is the rebadged i7/i5 with ECC support, that's it.


     


    If you look at Apple's previous Mac Pro offerings, they offered UP and DP, using 5000 series processors, so logically they'll use E5-1xxx and E5-2xxx parts, in up to 8 core's. They could make a 4x4 or 4x8 (eg 32 cores) system if they wanted to. But past a certain point you're no longer selling workstations, but high end servers. Ask people who build data centers how they pick parts, and why the Xsan/Xserve wasn't a successful product. They pick the cheapest parts for the power envelope. So in data centers where space and power is a premium, building a 4x8 system makes sense, where neither are a premium, putting 42 1U's with a single or dual processor is more economical since the $/core is cheaper. 


     


    People who use MacMini's as data center servers, are out of their mind if they're running anything business-critical on them. It wouldn't make sense to except where space and power are a premium, and reliability is not a priority. Those are not enterprise hard drives in the mini and apple time capsule, and they don't come with ECC memory (apparently there is exactly one mobile cpu that can.) Though a Macmini is probably the cheaper than an Atom-based 1U server and you can fit 2 of them in their space.

  • Reply 146 of 197
    fyngyrzfyngyrz Posts: 61member


    8 cores? That's.... hopefully just the base configuration. I've had an 8-core machine for years now. I'm looking for 16 (or more) cores, not to mention more, faster RAM -- and drives.


     


    And no, virtual cores a'la hyper-threading won't do. I need more FPUs.


     


    Power! give me POWER!


     


    Now, a mac with four CPU sockets capable of 8 cores each... and quad ported RAM to deal with them -- I'd buy that in a heartbeat. Maybe just a twitch of a ventricle.


     


    I'm not in the market for another 8-core, though. I already sit around enough with all 8 cores pegged. It's not that entertaining.


     


    Well, unless we're talking about a $999, 8-core short-tower with a couple of card slots and 8 ram slots. Might be worth networking a few of those.

  • Reply 147 of 197
    maddanmaddan Posts: 75member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fyngyrz View Post


    8 cores? That's.... hopefully just the base configuration. I've had an 8-core machine for years now. I'm looking for 16 (or more) cores, not to mention more, faster RAM -- and drives.


     


    The base configuration is probably 6 cores but it sounds like you'll get your 16 cores but don't expect more than that.


     


  • Reply 148 of 197
    bbwibbwi Posts: 812member
    I concur. There are a lot of technicalities in this article that are flat out wrong. Makes me think the writer was purposely thrown off course by their source

    Ivy Bridge WILL be in the new Pros, it's better at voltage, has MUCH better thru put, supports more cores, and to that guy who said there is no Xeon version of Ivy Bridge he's wrong, too
  • Reply 149 of 197

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


     


    Looks like the current MP is limited to 48 or 96 megs of usable ram.  I assume the next gen being quad channel will up that to 64 and 128?  Does that mean still just four ram slots on the base model or eight slots on all machines?  Four slots on a $2400 machine always seemed dumb to me.



    OWC just came out with a  way to get 64 - 128GB, in the current 8,12 core Mac Pro (2009 & 2010).


    hxxp://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1333-memory

  • Reply 150 of 197
    maddanmaddan Posts: 75member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bbwi View Post



    Ivy Bridge WILL be in the new Pros, it's better at voltage, has MUCH better thru put, supports more cores, and to that guy who said there is no Xeon version of Ivy Bridge he's wrong, too


    The new E3 Xeons are Ivy Bridge. They are unsuitable unless Apple really is planning to introduce a micro-server in a rack mountable case. The 6 and 8 core E5 Xeons that are likely to be in any new Mac Pro model are definitely Sandy Bridge unless Intel has planned a big surprise announcement for WWDC.

  • Reply 151 of 197
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,671member
    tomahawk wrote: »
    The Xserve was a low volume machine and therefor was cut.  The Mac Pro is a low volume machine (and there were concerns it would be cut).  Why not make a few minor modifications that make the machine serve both purposes?  Now you have a machine that is still potentially low volume, but you've increased sales slightly because it can fit in another market.

    Like a toaster and refrigerator? TS put it way better, what was that, a toasterator? No, a... darn! TS, please!
  • Reply 152 of 197
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

    Like a toaster and refrigerator? TS put it way better, what was that, a toasterator? No, a... darn! TS, please!


     


    Froaster, wasn't it?


     


    image

  • Reply 153 of 197
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,671member
    Froaster, wasn't it?


    ThanQ! that was it!!!

    And thanks for this video, superfunkycalifragifunny!
  • Reply 154 of 197
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,671member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    That is rather sad. If no one pointed it out and it was an obscure error that might be one thing but this is a rather substantial accuracy problem. More so it seems to indicate a complete lack of knowledge with respect to the technology and industry.
    I realize as a news + rumors site there is a fine line with the respect to news and rumors. Even rumors though need to reflect a bit of knowledge or understanding of what is being discussed. Frankly it looks like just about anybody could induce questionable reporting by these bloggers, they just look gullible.

    melgross wrote: »
    Well, officially, bloggers are journalists, and so what they say is supposedly considered to be news, and information, just as it is from the NY Times and WSJ. So why question their accuracy? I mean, after all, they've been sued by Apple and others, and won their cases. So who are we to question that? If they come out with "information", it must be true, right? And so when sites such as AI quote them, they are quoting people who are entirely professional in what they do, and who have outstanding reputations for honesty and accuracy.

    One would expect AI to be accurate and have an eye for detail since they are reporting on Apple, a company that is accurate and has an eye for detail. So when I read a line like: "SATA III/SAS 6-gigabyte-per-second drive connectivity" I don't understand how they can not see this fault. Not a small one, 800% difference. I cannot comprehend, sorry.
  • Reply 155 of 197
    conrailconrail Posts: 489member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    The Mac Pro is designed for other programs than games. If you want a gaming machine you need one with a higher CPU speed and fewer cores, as most games gain little from 4 cores and nothing from more than that. Then, you need a top graphics card. That's where the Mac Pro falls down. When it first comes out, it usually has a card option that about two thirds up the ladder, but not a top card (not talking about the expensive pro cards). But then they fail to give us newer cards as they come out, so people buy PC cards and flash them which may not work with every feature or need.


    Since this is Apple's only machine that has a swappable graphics card, it would be nice if they grew up enough to allow all PC graphics cards to work, provided the drivers were available.  Paying three times the price for a generation old graphics card just because it has the magical Apple ROM on it is insulting.

  • Reply 156 of 197
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Conrail View Post

    …it would be nice if they grew up enough…


     


    You should probably grow up a little. And read up on this stuff.

  • Reply 157 of 197
    gfeiergfeier Posts: 127member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by go4d1 View Post


    I'm a 67 year old developer.  I suspect this may be my "LAST COMPUTER!"





    I'm 65 myself and my 2006 Mac pro is showing its age. I just hope this ISN'T my last computer!

  • Reply 158 of 197
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    melgross wrote: »
    Of course they could. But how many would they sell? Not too many, I would wager. And therefor, the price would be too high. Then, there's that additional number of SKU's they would have to carry.
    It's not worth it.

    You mis the point here. A Mac Pro sized well to fit a rack doesn't have to be a rack mount machine from Apples standpoint. Rather it should be easily adaptable either with an Apple kit or third party kit. This relates to my position that the Mac Pro or it's replacement needs to be designed to serve the needs of a wider audience of users. In part that means being adaptable and of more reasonable cost.

    In other words Apple needs to take an example from the instrumentation field where many portable or transportable instruments can be mounted in a rack with adapter kits and pretty much serve in that capacity when the need comes up. Mainstream or the bulk of sales may go to portable uses but other uses have the option of integrating the instrument into a system of their choice.

    What is important here is that this sort of design bias doesn't have to impact looks negatively or even capability as the Mac Pro can be designed as large as Apple sees fit. I'd suggest though that large is not the way to go and that the bias should be towards half rack sized hardware. Putting two Mac Pros into 3 or 4"U's" of rack space would work out very nice all around. The important thing to realize is that these are not purpose designed rack mount machines but rather chassis designed to be easily adapted for such. It is a design concept that works well for instrumentation as mass production is focused on the most common need.
  • Reply 159 of 197
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    bbwi wrote: »
    I concur. There are a lot of technicalities in this article that are flat out wrong. Makes me think the writer was purposely thrown off course by their source
    Ivy Bridge WILL be in the new Pros, it's better at voltage, has MUCH better thru put, supports more cores, and to that guy who said there is no Xeon version of Ivy Bridge he's wrong, too

    The question is Xeons suitable for a Mac Pro or it's replacement. Right now there is nothing publicly acknowledged for sale that is suitable for such a machine. Intel has spoken repeatable about processors they are working on that would make for very interesting Mac Pros but I've heard nothing about actual releases of theses chips.
  • Reply 160 of 197
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Mel I have to ask what is it with you that you can't grasp what is being suggested here? It is pretty simple in reality, the Pro needs to be resized for easy rack mounting. That does not mean that Apple has to market a rack mount machine. All people are asking for is a clean avenue for adapting the case to professional installations when the need arises.
    melgross wrote: »
    What is it with you people? Isn't it obvious that Apple isn't interested in a low volume model like that? Give it up already!
Sign In or Register to comment.