They could only have updated it to Haswell over Ivy Bridge. There's not much point in doing that with Broadwell coming up. The following article is old but gives details on Broadwell-EP:
Apple would use E5-2600v4. This will probably arrive early 2016 although there is a possibility they can be launched at IDF in August.
- up to 18-core (50-80% faster CPU) - DDR4, up to 512GB RAM - 2GB/s SSDs (maybe 3GB/s), possibly more storage if Intel makes an impact with 3D NAND - 3x 5K display output - new AMD GPUs up to 16GB video memory, should be about 2x the previous models in performance
The October Mac event can show off Retina Thunderbolt displays.
They could only have updated it to Haswell over Ivy Bridge. There's not much point in doing that with Broadwell coming up. The following article is old but gives details on Broadwell-EP:
anyone have any idea? It seems Apple has no more love for mac pro..
Really don't be a complete idiot with this no more love nonsense. All you need to consider is when will AMD and Intel have viable chips for an upgrade. At this point there is nothing worthwhile in the pipeline.
Really don't be a complete idiot with this no more love nonsense. All you need to consider is when will AMD and Intel have viable chips for an upgrade. At this point there is nothing worthwhile in the pipeline.
Intel actually updates chipsets once every two cycles, so technically they could use the same board for Haswell + Broadwell but not Broadwell + Skylake. Intel has increased price alongside their core count increases, so I wouldn't expect to see the use of anything such as 18 core chips. It's likely to be similar. As for AMD, I haven't looked at what they have out now. This is still probably a small number of units for Apple, so they don't update it very often. Updating around thunderbolt updates is a little bit ridiculous, but that may happen here if an update is close.
Really don't be a complete idiot with this no more love nonsense. All you need to consider is when will AMD and Intel have viable chips for an upgrade. At this point there is nothing worthwhile in the pipeline.
Really don't be a complete idiot with this no more love nonsense. All you need to consider is when will AMD and Intel have viable chips for an upgrade. At this point there is nothing worthwhile in the pipeline.
ok...so when are they bring out viable chips?
Intel has an event on August 18th, they usually announce Xeon models at these:
Intel actually updates chipsets once every two cycles, so technically they could use the same board for Haswell + Broadwell but not Broadwell + Skylake. Intel has increased price alongside their core count increases, so I wouldn't expect to see the use of anything such as 18 core chips. It's likely to be similar. As for AMD, I haven't looked at what they have out now. This is still probably a small number of units for Apple, so they don't update it very often. Updating around thunderbolt updates is a little bit ridiculous, but that may happen here if an update is close.
The fact remains there isn't anything at the moment to produce a worthwhile update. In the case of the Mac Pro a GPU update is just as important as a CPU update so Apple really needs a complete solution.
As it is I really have to wonder if Mac Pro sales have been enough to focus Apples interest. If we get an update every 2-3 years we will likely be doing good in the future.
The fact remains there isn't anything at the moment to produce a worthwhile update. In the case of the Mac Pro a GPU update is just as important as a CPU update so Apple really needs a complete solution.
As it is I really have to wonder if Mac Pro sales have been enough to focus Apples interest. If we get an update every 2-3 years we will likely be doing good in the future.
Both intel (from your favorite review site) and AMD updated their lines late in 2014 with suitable components. Apple clearly opted not to use them. That actually doesn't make a lot of sense to me, because the cpus used the same socket and chipset. The AMDs are a nice step up. In fact the imac and macbook pro have chips based on their updates. Thunderbolt 3 may not be out for a while, but Broadwell EP would require a logic board update either way. I was surprised that they didn't do an early 2015 update with those components then wait on anything further until thunderbolt 3 becomes available. Anyway it's no longer of great concern to me. I was just a little surprised by this.
Really don't be a complete idiot with this no more love nonsense. All you need to consider is when will AMD and Intel have viable chips for an upgrade. At this point there is nothing worthwhile in the pipeline.
So...therefore.....they still don't any love for mac pro users?
Really don't be a complete idiot with this no more love nonsense. All you need to consider is when will AMD and Intel have viable chips for an upgrade. At this point there is nothing worthwhile in the pipeline.
So...therefore.....they still don't any love for mac pro users?
Intel and AMD mostly cater to the server audience with their higher-end chips. The workstation audience is smaller and not likely to upgrade as often.
It'll be more profitable for Apple to upgrade every 2 years and it doesn't make a huge difference to the end buyer because the resale value is determined by their upgrade cycle. If you look at HP's options, they go up to an 18-core E5-2699v3 and allow two but these processors cost $7400 each. If you compare similar pricing/spec, Apple offers:
2.7GHz 12-core E5-2697v2
16GB RAM
256GB SSD
Dual 2GB D300 GPUs
OS X
$6599
HP offers:
2.6GHz 14-core E5-2697v3
16GB RAM
256GB SSD
Single 2GB W2100 GPU
Linux
$7457
The HP processor is about 30-40% faster but if that's all Apple had added, it wouldn't be all that big of an upgrade from the last model. The bar in the middle of the following image would have been Haswell-EP and the right is Broadwell-EP, the current MP is the grey bar:
Jumping from grey to dark blue makes for a far more compelling upgrade and Apple makes more profit in between by selling older chips at the same price. Plus they can offer other advances, if they use displayport 1.4 they can support 8K displays and those can run at 4K on older platforms. They can use faster SSDs, which can go up to 3GB/s. DDR4 RAM will let it expand to 512GB. I expect they'd use GPUs based on the R9 3xx series that just came out:
That can have 16GB of video memory. It would have two of the GPUs but perhaps not the highest end ones depending on the power draw - they'd be FirePro equivalents. It would be good if they moved the entry model to 6-core. It would be better for Intel to make this change so there isn't a cheaper option to go for. That way you couldn't just get an iMac for the same performance, it would always be faster, likely by about 50%.
So...therefore.....they still don't any love for mac pro users?
It has nothing to do with Apple there is nothing available from their suppliers to make a worthwhile upgrade. The Mac Pro is a workstation that sells to professional users who aren't about to swap out a machine for a minimal upgrade. The market the Mac Pro sells into is not the same market that is composed of tweak era that upgrade every six months for a 2% performance delta.
Honestly I don't even know why you bother to post, the Mac Pro is not an iPhone and it certainly isn't the latest gaming machine.
It has nothing to do with Apple there is nothing available from their suppliers to make a worthwhile upgrade. The Mac Pro is a workstation that sells to professional users who aren't about to swap out a machine for a minimal upgrade. The market the Mac Pro sells into is not the same market that is composed of tweak era that upgrade every six months for a 2% performance delta.
Honestly I don't even know why you bother to post, the Mac Pro is not an iPhone and it certainly isn't the latest gaming machine.
I have an cMP...i ain't using it for gaming nor obviously it's not iPhone...just need an upgrade for my usage....
Intel and AMD mostly cater to the server audience with their higher-end chips. The workstation audience is smaller and not likely to upgrade as often.
It'll be more profitable for Apple to upgrade every 2 years and it doesn't make a huge difference to the end buyer because the resale value is determined by their upgrade cycle. If you look at HP's options, they go up to an 18-core E5-2699v3 and allow two but these processors cost $7400 each. If you compare similar pricing/spec, Apple offers:
2.7GHz 12-core E5-2697v2
16GB RAM
256GB SSD
Dual 2GB D300 GPUs
OS X
$6599
HP offers:
2.6GHz 14-core E5-2697v3
16GB RAM
256GB SSD
Single 2GB W2100 GPU
Linux
$7457
The HP processor is about 30-40% faster but if that's all Apple had added, it wouldn't be all that big of an upgrade from the last model. The bar in the middle of the following image would have been Haswell-EP and the right is Broadwell-EP, the current MP is the grey bar:
Jumping from grey to dark blue makes for a far more compelling upgrade and Apple makes more profit in between by selling older chips at the same price. Plus they can offer other advances, if they use displayport 1.4 they can support 8K displays and those can run at 4K on older platforms. They can use faster SSDs, which can go up to 3GB/s. DDR4 RAM will let it expand to 512GB. I expect they'd use GPUs based on the R9 3xx series that just came out:
That can have 16GB of video memory. It would have two of the GPUs but perhaps not the highest end ones depending on the power draw - they'd be FirePro equivalents. It would be good if they moved the entry model to 6-core. It would be better for Intel to make this change so there isn't a cheaper option to go for. That way you couldn't just get an iMac for the same performance, it would always be faster, likely by about 50%.
THANKS! THIS is the type of answer i was seeking.... hopefully by end of 2015...
Comments
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20131220211018_Intel_Readies_18_Core_Xeon_Broadwell_EP_Microprocessors_for_Launch_in_2015_Report.html
Apple would use E5-2600v4. This will probably arrive early 2016 although there is a possibility they can be launched at IDF in August.
- up to 18-core (50-80% faster CPU)
- DDR4, up to 512GB RAM
- 2GB/s SSDs (maybe 3GB/s), possibly more storage if Intel makes an impact with 3D NAND
- 3x 5K display output
- new AMD GPUs up to 16GB video memory, should be about 2x the previous models in performance
The October Mac event can show off Retina Thunderbolt displays.
They could only have updated it to Haswell over Ivy Bridge. There's not much point in doing that with Broadwell coming up. The following article is old but gives details on Broadwell-EP:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20131220211018_Intel_Readies_18_Core_Xeon_Broadwell_EP_Microprocessors_for_Launch_in_2015_Report.html
Apple would use E5-2600v4. This will probably arrive early 2016 although there is a possibility they can be launched at IDF in August.
- up to 18-core (50-80% faster CPU)
- DDR4, up to 512GB RAM
- 2GB/s SSDs (maybe 3GB/s), possibly more storage if Intel makes an impact with 3D NAND
- 3x 5K display output
- new AMD GPUs up to 16GB video memory, should be about 2x the previous models in performance
The October Mac event can show off Retina Thunderbolt displays.
more like 2016 then..
Really don't be a complete idiot with this no more love nonsense. All you need to consider is when will AMD and Intel have viable chips for an upgrade. At this point there is nothing worthwhile in the pipeline.
Really don't be a complete idiot with this no more love nonsense. All you need to consider is when will AMD and Intel have viable chips for an upgrade. At this point there is nothing worthwhile in the pipeline.
Intel actually updates chipsets once every two cycles, so technically they could use the same board for Haswell + Broadwell but not Broadwell + Skylake. Intel has increased price alongside their core count increases, so I wouldn't expect to see the use of anything such as 18 core chips. It's likely to be similar. As for AMD, I haven't looked at what they have out now. This is still probably a small number of units for Apple, so they don't update it very often. Updating around thunderbolt updates is a little bit ridiculous, but that may happen here if an update is close.
Really don't be a complete idiot with this no more love nonsense. All you need to consider is when will AMD and Intel have viable chips for an upgrade. At this point there is nothing worthwhile in the pipeline.
ok...so when are they bring out viable chips?
Intel has an event on August 18th, they usually announce Xeon models at these:
http://forwardthinking.pcmag.com/none/327496-xeon-d-aims-at-microservers-but-arm-promises-competition
They might not launch them but they can demo them and give details on availability.
The fact remains there isn't anything at the moment to produce a worthwhile update. In the case of the Mac Pro a GPU update is just as important as a CPU update so Apple really needs a complete solution.
As it is I really have to wonder if Mac Pro sales have been enough to focus Apples interest. If we get an update every 2-3 years we will likely be doing good in the future.
The fact remains there isn't anything at the moment to produce a worthwhile update. In the case of the Mac Pro a GPU update is just as important as a CPU update so Apple really needs a complete solution.
As it is I really have to wonder if Mac Pro sales have been enough to focus Apples interest. If we get an update every 2-3 years we will likely be doing good in the future.
Both intel (from your favorite review site) and AMD updated their lines late in 2014 with suitable components. Apple clearly opted not to use them. That actually doesn't make a lot of sense to me, because the cpus used the same socket and chipset. The AMDs are a nice step up. In fact the imac and macbook pro have chips based on their updates. Thunderbolt 3 may not be out for a while, but Broadwell EP would require a logic board update either way. I was surprised that they didn't do an early 2015 update with those components then wait on anything further until thunderbolt 3 becomes available. Anyway it's no longer of great concern to me. I was just a little surprised by this.
Really don't be a complete idiot with this no more love nonsense. All you need to consider is when will AMD and Intel have viable chips for an upgrade. At this point there is nothing worthwhile in the pipeline.
So...therefore.....they still don't any love for mac pro users?
Intel and AMD mostly cater to the server audience with their higher-end chips. The workstation audience is smaller and not likely to upgrade as often.
It'll be more profitable for Apple to upgrade every 2 years and it doesn't make a huge difference to the end buyer because the resale value is determined by their upgrade cycle. If you look at HP's options, they go up to an 18-core E5-2699v3 and allow two but these processors cost $7400 each. If you compare similar pricing/spec, Apple offers:
2.7GHz 12-core E5-2697v2
16GB RAM
256GB SSD
Dual 2GB D300 GPUs
OS X
$6599
HP offers:
2.6GHz 14-core E5-2697v3
16GB RAM
256GB SSD
Single 2GB W2100 GPU
Linux
$7457
The HP processor is about 30-40% faster but if that's all Apple had added, it wouldn't be all that big of an upgrade from the last model. The bar in the middle of the following image would have been Haswell-EP and the right is Broadwell-EP, the current MP is the grey bar:
Jumping from grey to dark blue makes for a far more compelling upgrade and Apple makes more profit in between by selling older chips at the same price. Plus they can offer other advances, if they use displayport 1.4 they can support 8K displays and those can run at 4K on older platforms. They can use faster SSDs, which can go up to 3GB/s. DDR4 RAM will let it expand to 512GB. I expect they'd use GPUs based on the R9 3xx series that just came out:
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/45347/leaked-benchmarks-amd-radeon-r9-390x-see-beating-titan/index.html
That can have 16GB of video memory. It would have two of the GPUs but perhaps not the highest end ones depending on the power draw - they'd be FirePro equivalents. It would be good if they moved the entry model to 6-core. It would be better for Intel to make this change so there isn't a cheaper option to go for. That way you couldn't just get an iMac for the same performance, it would always be faster, likely by about 50%.
It has nothing to do with Apple there is nothing available from their suppliers to make a worthwhile upgrade. The Mac Pro is a workstation that sells to professional users who aren't about to swap out a machine for a minimal upgrade. The market the Mac Pro sells into is not the same market that is composed of tweak era that upgrade every six months for a 2% performance delta.
Honestly I don't even know why you bother to post, the Mac Pro is not an iPhone and it certainly isn't the latest gaming machine.
It has nothing to do with Apple there is nothing available from their suppliers to make a worthwhile upgrade. The Mac Pro is a workstation that sells to professional users who aren't about to swap out a machine for a minimal upgrade. The market the Mac Pro sells into is not the same market that is composed of tweak era that upgrade every six months for a 2% performance delta.
Honestly I don't even know why you bother to post, the Mac Pro is not an iPhone and it certainly isn't the latest gaming machine.
I have an cMP...i ain't using it for gaming nor obviously it's not iPhone...just need an upgrade for my usage....
Intel and AMD mostly cater to the server audience with their higher-end chips. The workstation audience is smaller and not likely to upgrade as often.
It'll be more profitable for Apple to upgrade every 2 years and it doesn't make a huge difference to the end buyer because the resale value is determined by their upgrade cycle. If you look at HP's options, they go up to an 18-core E5-2699v3 and allow two but these processors cost $7400 each. If you compare similar pricing/spec, Apple offers:
2.7GHz 12-core E5-2697v2
16GB RAM
256GB SSD
Dual 2GB D300 GPUs
OS X
$6599
HP offers:
2.6GHz 14-core E5-2697v3
16GB RAM
256GB SSD
Single 2GB W2100 GPU
Linux
$7457
The HP processor is about 30-40% faster but if that's all Apple had added, it wouldn't be all that big of an upgrade from the last model. The bar in the middle of the following image would have been Haswell-EP and the right is Broadwell-EP, the current MP is the grey bar:
Jumping from grey to dark blue makes for a far more compelling upgrade and Apple makes more profit in between by selling older chips at the same price. Plus they can offer other advances, if they use displayport 1.4 they can support 8K displays and those can run at 4K on older platforms. They can use faster SSDs, which can go up to 3GB/s. DDR4 RAM will let it expand to 512GB. I expect they'd use GPUs based on the R9 3xx series that just came out:
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/45347/leaked-benchmarks-amd-radeon-r9-390x-see-beating-titan/index.html
That can have 16GB of video memory. It would have two of the GPUs but perhaps not the highest end ones depending on the power draw - they'd be FirePro equivalents. It would be good if they moved the entry model to 6-core. It would be better for Intel to make this change so there isn't a cheaper option to go for. That way you couldn't just get an iMac for the same performance, it would always be faster, likely by about 50%.
THANKS! THIS is the type of answer i was seeking.... hopefully by end of 2015...