New 18-core Intel Xeon W processors likely to be used in Apple's iMac Pro

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 31
    rob53 said:
    I'd like to know how many OSes and applications can actually make use of 8 cores. I know the "pro" apps (usually) can but I've seen more apps making use of GPUs instead of CPU cores. I'd also like to see actual documentation of the number of cores standard pro apps use, like Adobe apps. Once someone gives all the details on which apps can make good use of multiple cores, not just spread the work around and not gain any speed, then we can see whether the mainstream (not "pro"??) computers are simply using this as a marketing ploy. 
    It depends on what you're trying to accomplish.  If you spend your day in Final Cut, then the more cores, the better.  If you're looking for the ultimate Mac gaming rig, then top core speed and just an 8/16 CPU likely makes more sense (and a lot cheaper too).  And the high density core chips have to run at slower speeds to manage heat dissipation, a problem that current 2013 Mac Pro users have if you select the 12 core model.  On single threaded tasks, the last few iMacs clean its clock.  But I took a tour of Youtube's content creator facility just outside of Los Angeles earlier this year and all of their editing rooms were run by 12 core 2013 Mac Pros.  For the right application, the number of cores matter.  The 18/36 Xeon running at 2.3 Ghz isn't going to set the world on fire until you bring 36 threads to bear when you are editing multiple uncompressed 4K files.  The only curious thing about this chip is that it can burst to 4.3 GHz I assume for short periods of time or demanding single threaded tasks.  Maybe it might handle it better than the current crop of Xeons.
    watto_cobrafastasleep
  • Reply 22 of 31
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,943member
    macxpress said:
    I expect the next MacPro to be a super high-end workstation....and it won't be cheap either. I would expect prices starting around $4500 and higher, without a display. 
    I wonder if there's a chance Apple would go with the Mac mini strategy for the NNMP:

    iMac=$$$$/Mac mini=$$$

    iMac Pro=$$$$$/Mac Pro=$$$$

    With iMac Pro pricing being so high I feel like it's a possibility...
  • Reply 23 of 31
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,788member
    appex said:
    Apple should make headless Macs and displays instead of all-in-ones like iMac, which are a brutal environmental aggression when after seven years the CPU is no longer supported by new macOS versions, yet displays may last for more than 20 years.
    As usual, this is nonsense. I really have no idea where you're coming from with this repetitive narrative.
    watto_cobrawilliamlondonfastasleep
  • Reply 24 of 31
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,894member
    I get the new thermal dynamics system but they had better remember to drill enough holes in this one and I will skip using this one in any environment that has to be dusted frequently or with an internal drive optio that spins in any way :neutral: 
    Agree. I hope Apple will do some real world, worst case testing with this machine before finalizing it.  Run some big renders with DaVinci Resolve.  Run some really complex After Effects renders. Basically find the most demanding video/graphics apps and max them out.  I've heard too many stories about the current Mac Pro burning up graphics cards with DaVinci and Apple really needs to avoid that kind of bad press with this new "Pro" iMac.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 25 of 31
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,697member
    macxpress said:
    I expect the next MacPro to be a super high-end workstation....and it won't be cheap either. I would expect prices starting around $4500 and higher, without a display. 
    If Apple run true to form there will be a spread starting around $3,500 going all the way to $10K but the middle of the road model, usually the safest investment, dollar for performance, will be right around your guesstimate.
  • Reply 26 of 31
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,697member

    macxpress said:
    I expect the next MacPro to be a super high-end workstation....and it won't be cheap either. I would expect prices starting around $4500 and higher, without a display. 
    Apple already stated the base model starts at $4999.
    Apple have already stated the base price on an unannounced new Mac Pro not expected till 2018?  I missed that.  Where was that, can you post a link please.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 27 of 31
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,396member
    MacPro said:

    macxpress said:
    I expect the next MacPro to be a super high-end workstation....and it won't be cheap either. I would expect prices starting around $4500 and higher, without a display. 
    Apple already stated the base model starts at $4999.
    Apple have already stated the base price on an unannounced new Mac Pro not expected till 2018?  I missed that.  Where was that, can you post a link please.
    Sorry, misread that as iMac Pro — since that's what this thread was about to begin with. They have not announced any details regarding the Mac Pro.
  • Reply 28 of 31
    copelandcopeland Posts: 298member
    Brings up memories of the 20th anniversary mac, an allinone computer asking for $ 7,499 at its release.
    Let's think how that worked out for Apple? At the end of its life time (1 full year) it was sold for $ 1,995.
    If the low end starts at $4,999 how high will the price for the full blown version be? $8,000?

  • Reply 29 of 31
    I've been traveling, but really pleased to learn about these now. I had come to believe "Skylake-W" must not exist (i.e., the leaked slide was fake). But in hindsight, once the Purley line came out and really didn't mesh with Apple's iMac Pro lineup announcement and images (for example, too few memory slots), then we should have guessed. ... And here it is, right on time.

    The other thing this probably indicates is the Mac Pro (not iMac Pro) will use Purley. Very unlikely that they would bring out a Mac Pro that is basically just a headless iMac Pro.
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 30 of 31
    AnandTech does a good job of placing these into context. They see them as the equivalents of the Xeon E5-1600 series (used in the default Late 2013 Mac Pro 4-core and 8-core configurations). As they explain it, "Historically, the E5-1600 series were identical processors to the E5-2600 series, except without the dual socket capabilities and consequently priced more appropriately for single socket workstations."

    The big difference between the past and the present is that the single-socket Xeons no longer share a platform with the enterprise/data center Xeons. Xeon-W uses LGA 2066 and Xeon-SP uses LGA 3647. So Apple really does have a decision to make here. They can't straddle the line between the two spheres like they did in the Late 2013 Mac Pro to offer the high-end 12-core configuration (a Xeon E5-2697 processor).

    If they choose to stay with the Xeon-W family in the 2018 Mac Pro, then it's just a modular, headless iMac Pro with more flexibility in terms of GPUs, storage, and so on. That wouldn't be a bad thing. But I'm starting to think the 2018 Mac Pro will be dual-socket LGA-3647. I mean, I don't think Apple can have it both ways like they did in the Late 2013 Mac Pro.

    Maybe someone with more expertise can step in here and clarify. The next (i.e., second) generation of Xeon-SP (and Xeon-W) is called Cascade Lake, due in 2018. This seems likely for the 2018 Mac Pro. Think "persistent memory."
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 31 of 31
    rob53 said:
    wizard69 said:
    With AMDs Thread Ripper you will get 16 cores and 32 threads.   It is an ideal solution for a Pro workstation especially considering the industries Apple targets.    Likewise an AMD GPU would work wonders in such a machine.     

    In either case, Intel or AMD, you really want to go for as many cores as possible if you want to consider the machine to be a "pro" device.  This especially when the industry is about to transition to six and eight core machines in the mainstream.  
    8-Core Mac Pro 
    Nvidia GPU 
    Optane SSD 
    128GB of ECC RAM 
    Dual 40" UHD displays

    Vrooooooom
    I'd like to know how many OSes and applications can actually make use of 8 cores. I know the "pro" apps (usually) can but I've seen more apps making use of GPUs instead of CPU cores. I'd also like to see actual documentation of the number of cores standard pro apps use, like Adobe apps. Once someone gives all the details on which apps can make good use of multiple cores, not just spread the work around and not gain any speed, then we can see whether the mainstream (not "pro"??) computers are simply using this as a marketing ploy. 

    In order for Apple, or any computer manufacturer, to sell a full-blown computer like people are describing, they need to know how many people would actually purchase and use one of these monsters. If that number is under 100K, then I don't see Apple spending the effort to design, manufacture and sell one. Of course, if I had won the last Powerball, I would have made a strong request of Apple to build some, enhancing the request with $100M. Since I didn't win, I don't have any power to get them to do anything.
    I can provide that information. How would you like it? A screen capture of Activity Monitor? All Native DAWs like Digital Performer, Cubase, Logic X, Pro Tools plus sample hosting applications like Vienna Ensemble Pro are extremely optimized for multithreaded CPUs, and DON'T rely on the GPU at all. These apps will use as many cores as the machine has. The macOS via Grand Central Dispatch works with the applications to dispute the workload and threading across the cores evenly. It's a myth that Adobe apps, and/or video editing apps make up the bulk of Apple's Pro User base, and need the most CPU resources on Macs. Audio apps do. I can prove that also. Again, it's because of the huge of amount of data being streamed and processed through the CPU at once, without help from the GPU (this is not parallel task taking place), that causes the CPU to use so many cores at once. That's why the 6,1 Mac Pro was actually quite successful for the composers and studios that use extremely large DAW templates based on MIDI and sample libraries. Because the apps didn't make much use of the GPU, the fact that they got old and were not non-upgradeable didn't affect these users. As opposed to MIDi sample library templates (which contain up to 1000s of tracks being played back simultaneously, audio track processing doesn't need quite that amount of power until you start getting into real time convolution reverbs and other VIs. But again, these apps along with macOS take advantage of all 12-cores in my older MacPro, 100% (or 2400% in my case), and can and do max out all cores (physical and virtual), equally. i have two 12-core Mac Pros with 128GBs of RAM each and m.2 SSDs in the PCIe slots. The Mac Pros are in a host/slave config via Ethernet and it's barely enough. I need these new Mac Pros to be available with workstation Xeons, not Core i9s, with the higher the core count the better, (18-cores or more per Mac Pro). Two 18-core Mac Pros, or one 36-core Mac Pro with a new/current workstation-class Xeon should do it. The music industry, (recording studios, Hollywood film scoring studios, etc..) buy a lot of Mac Pros (and free still buying up and modifying the 2009, 2010 and 2012 cMPs which end up as fast or faster, (faster in my case), and for us it's all about the CPU, (how many cores, how fast, PCIe type and number of lanes, lots of RAM). My m.2 PCie SSDs RAIDs read at almost 6GB/s which is amazing. (BTW, that's 6000MB/s! and I use every bit of that speed for audio sample streaming toothy CPU to keep it "fed"). I do use FCPX from time to time but it's not important in calculating my CPU needs, but my DAW with Vienna Ensemble Pro are. Steve Steele stevesteele.com
Sign In or Register to comment.