PDA

View Full Version : Supplies Mac Pro Constrained - New MacPro Coming??




rudeboynyc
Jun 9, 2011, 10:14 PM
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1167660

Finally?!
Been waiting to upgrade my MacPro. What specs do you guys expect?



VirtualRain
Jun 9, 2011, 10:18 PM
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1167660

Finally?!
Been waiting to upgrade my MacPro. What specs do you guys expect?

I wouldn't get too excited. :o

The source of the news says that the Mac Pro and Mac Mini SERVER versions are supply constrained. This makes perfect sense. I personally expect the Mac Pro and Mac Mini Server variations to EOL and not be replaced with anything.

It's being widely reported out of WWDC that Lion Server will be an App Store purchase going forward. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for Apple to offer them as a BTO option anymore... so sell down the existing stock and EOL them. People can then just buy the regular models and add the Server software after purchase.

blunti
Jun 9, 2011, 10:25 PM
was about to buy the 6 or 12 core today but after reading this i might just wait until next(?) tuesday to find out if anythings gonna happen...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rudeboynyc
Jun 9, 2011, 10:31 PM
I wouldn't get too excited. :o

The source of the news says that the Mac Pro and Mac Mini SERVER versions are supply constrained. This makes perfect sense. I personally expect the Mac Pro and Mac Mini Server variations to EOL and not be replaced with anything.

It's being widely reported out of WWDC that Lion Server will be an App Store purchase going forward. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for Apple to offer them as a BTO option anymore... so sell down the existing stock and EOL them. People can then just buy the regular models and add the Server software after purchase.

So since servers aren't BTO any more, and their supply is constrained it would be a new mac pro that replaces them?

goMac
Jun 9, 2011, 11:18 PM
The source of the news says that the Mac Pro and Mac Mini SERVER versions are supply constrained. This makes perfect sense. I personally expect the Mac Pro and Mac Mini Server variations to EOL and not be replaced with anything.

It's being widely reported out of WWDC that Lion Server will be an App Store purchase going forward. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for Apple to offer them as a BTO option anymore... so sell down the existing stock and EOL them. People can then just buy the regular models and add the Server software after purchase.

At least on the Mac Mini, the hardware is different. It's not simply a different software bundle.

johnnymg
Jun 9, 2011, 11:26 PM
Go to the Apple website and verify for yourself that there is no constraint on the Mac Mini server and MP server. This is just another BS rumor.

JohnG

sjordan
Jun 9, 2011, 11:55 PM
Hate to say this but I hope it's bs....I bought a mp today so I would be upset :)

mcnallym
Jun 10, 2011, 02:17 AM
So since servers aren't BTO any more, and their supply is constrained it would be a new mac pro that replaces them?

If you goto the Apple website then you can see that OSX Lion Server will be 34.99 app store download.

http://www.apple.com/uk/macosx/server/

As such no need to sell separate server versions at all.

As has been widely discussed on here already then the Sandybridge-E based Xeons won't be launching until Q4 2011/Q1 2012, so other then a processor bump to higher speeds then nothing to change too.

It wouldn't make sense for Apple to design and build a new enclosure around the existing motherboard when will be changing it with the Sandybridge-E Xeons and supporting chipset motherboard when they launch.

Concorde Rules
Jun 10, 2011, 04:34 AM
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1167660

Finally?!
Been waiting to upgrade my MacPro. What specs do you guys expect?

Nothing.

Because there is no point in upgrading it with nothing to upgrade to.

End of 2011. Early 2012. And if your REALLY lucky maybe Apple will get a deal to get the chips early again like the 2009 MP.

But that is STILL Q3 (Extremely unlikely)/Q4 2011.

/End Thread.

zephonic
Jun 10, 2011, 05:01 AM
[inhale]

Ahhh....nothing like the smell of fresh speculation in the morning. :)

nanofrog
Jun 10, 2011, 11:25 AM
And if your REALLY lucky maybe Apple will get a deal to get the chips early again like the 2009 MP.
Unfortunately, they did not get the 2009 MP processors early (Apple was actually behind other vendors in releasing those models).

The 2008 MP was the last year they did get parts early, and were able to beat other vendors with shipping systems. It seems this was the last year Apple had this deal with Intel (2009 on has so far followed Intel's standard release schedule).

VirtualRain
Jun 10, 2011, 11:53 AM
Unfortunately, they did not get the 2009 MP processors early (Apple was actually behind other vendors in releasing those models).

Not true... Apple actually announced Nehalem before Intel :)

If you Google Apple Nehalem first you will get a lot of stories like these...

http://news.cnet.com/apple-beats-intel-to-nehalem-ep-chip-launch/

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/160619/apple_jumpstarts_nehalem_launch_for_intel.html

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=662263

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/lenovo_becomes_first_pc_maker_announce_nehalem_workstations_apple_doesnt_count

Umbongo
Jun 10, 2011, 11:56 AM
delete

nanofrog
Jun 10, 2011, 12:27 PM
Not true... Apple actually announced Nehalem before Intel :)

If you Google Apple Nehalem first you will get a lot of stories like these...
As in users' actually had systems in their hands?

As a general rule, announcements /= shipped systems.

In this case, I don't recall this actually being any different either (I seem to recall there was a delay between the announcement and when users' actually had the box, unpacked it, and had it setup and running). Not "users' had systems in hand ~ 1Q or better ahead of other vendors' products making to users doorsteps as was the case with the 2008.

Umbongo
Jun 10, 2011, 12:40 PM
People had 2009 Mac Pros shortly after Apple announced them. Less than a week in this case, and so like 3 weeks before the official Intel and partners releases:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=664724

nanofrog
Jun 10, 2011, 01:01 PM
People had 2009 Mac Pros shortly after Apple announced them. Less than a week in this case, and so like 3 weeks before the official Intel and partners releases:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=664724
I recall that the CPU's were officially shipped on March 29, 2009 (which can easily be confirmed by Wiki or other sources). What I didn't recall, is how long it took for those that bought the Apple MP's to actually get them.

As per the PC versions, shipments were reaching users as early as April IIRC, so the lead time Apple had was minimal in that instance (past instances lead to ~1Q sooner shipments than other vendors, which is usually the norm in such cases as a 13wk lead time is quite common to iron out the manufacturing and build up enough stock to actually ship it out).

Though the difference only seems to be about 1 - 1.5 months in this instance, it was still a lead on the competition. :D Thanks for the clarification (particularly on the link as to when the 2009 made it to human hands that weren't attached to Apple employees :p).

Sarmiento
Jun 10, 2011, 04:12 PM
I'm eager for the next Mac Pro but unfortunately I don't think it's coming soon. Instead they will drop the term server on their hardware and announce any computer can serve as a server just by buying the Lion Server version.

I've read the apple website that states you must have Snow Leopard Server to upgrade to Lion Server but I don't think this is what they really mean. I think they will allow you to upgrade to Lion Server with the regular version. Hopefully we get clarification soon.

Hope I'm wrong about the Mac Pro update and we see new stuff soon. :(

Concorde Rules
Jun 11, 2011, 04:23 AM
Unfortunately, they did not get the 2009 MP processors early (Apple was actually behind other vendors in releasing those models).

The 2008 MP was the last year they did get parts early, and were able to beat other vendors with shipping systems. It seems this was the last year Apple had this deal with Intel (2009 on has so far followed Intel's standard release schedule).

Nah.

I ordered mine March 23rd. People already had theres by now as I was looking at the difference between the 2.66 (which I eventually swapped to) and the 2.93.

It was two-three weeks max before "official" CPU release date.

Garamond
Jun 14, 2011, 06:08 PM
Oh, it's this thread again.

chrismacguy
Jun 15, 2011, 06:21 AM
Oh, it's this thread again.

We really need a sticky with "The Mac Pro WILL NOT be updated until Q4 2011 at the earliest, more likely Q1 2012 as the CPUs required to update the Mac Pro will not be available until then, so there is nothing to update it too", since this must be being rehashed at least once a week.

Bear
Jun 15, 2011, 11:08 AM
The source of the news says that the Mac Pro and Mac Mini SERVER versions are supply constrained. This makes perfect sense. I personally expect the Mac Pro and Mac Mini Server variations to EOL and not be replaced with anything.

It's being widely reported out of WWDC that Lion Server will be an App Store purchase going forward. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for Apple to offer them as a BTO option anymore... so sell down the existing stock and EOL them. People can then just buy the regular models and add the Server software after purchase.

Quite true.

Go to the Apple website and verify for yourself that there is no constraint on the Mac Mini server and MP server. This is just another BS rumor.Actually, Apple has been know to constrain delivery through distribution channels without it affecting Apple's ability to sell and deliver the systems directly.

So while, I do believe that they probably are constrained. It's only the server version and doesn't point to updated models.

goMac
Jun 15, 2011, 01:39 PM
We really need a sticky with "The Mac Pro WILL NOT be updated until Q4 2011 at the earliest, more likely Q1 2012 as the CPUs required to update the Mac Pro will not be available until then, so there is nothing to update it too", since this must be being rehashed at least once a week.

Sigh. The golden rule of Apple: They update once a year. Always.

xgman
Jun 15, 2011, 02:03 PM
Sigh. The golden rule of Apple: They update once a year. Always.

or 18 months . . or whenever they feel like it. . .

nanofrog
Jun 15, 2011, 03:37 PM
Sigh. The golden rule of Apple: They update once a year. Always.
They can't even update that often if there's no parts. :eek: So they're stuck dealing with Intel's schedules just like everyone else. :p

Unfortunately, the Xeons are getting more and more complex, so it's taking longer to develop than it did a few years ago (to be expected IMO though when in 3 years they've gone from 771 pins to 2011 pins).

srf4real
Jun 15, 2011, 05:49 PM
We really need a sticky with "The Mac Pro WILL NOT be updated until Q4 2011 at the earliest, more likely Q1 2012 as the CPUs required to update the Mac Pro will not be available until then, so there is nothing to update it too", since this must be being rehashed at least once a week.

One thing I always liked about Apple; they love to knock your socks off with their new product line. I think you are mistaken sir but you need not reply.. we've gotten your point, over, and over, and over, and over...... in every single weekly "when is MP update?" thread.

I know that BB is out of both MP base model and upgraded MP for five weeks now and that tells me that something is changing. I can't say whether BB is discontinuing the MP, or if Apple's number one retailer outside of an Apple store is not able to get more inventory due to constrained supplies. I also am aware that other retailers are out of stock going on two weeks now. I know Lion is coming in July. I know that some say CPU is not ready, but do they work for Apple building the MacPro? DOUBT IT.:p

TripleCore
Jun 15, 2011, 06:01 PM
I actually like these threads. Keep them coming.

Many things point to an update in the not too distant future with whatever chip or architecture update they have designed into it.

Intel has a 'roadmap', but Apple doesn't play all it's cards fully in the open either (nor does Intel). Surprise is part of their style. No one here knows exactly when these new products will be revealed but the conjecture is certainly entertaining.

With the new fast iMacs, TB, Lion, and FCP X, Apple will lose revenues now if they had to wait another half year to update their high-end hardware. They are smarter than that.

rudeboynyc
Jun 19, 2011, 01:51 PM
I'll just put this here...

CNet's Brian Tong has revealed on Twitter that "all new" next generation Mac Pros and Mac minis will arrive in late July or early August.

EXCLUSIVE: My sources tell me ALL NEW Next-Gen Mac Pros and Mac Minis will launch either end of July first week of August.
Tong previously accurately predicted the arrival of new iMacs in the "end of April or 1st week of May". The iMacs did arrive in the 1st week of May as predicted. Tong indicates his source for the Mac Pro and Mac Mini updates are the same as for the iMac updates.

No details are provided on the specs of the machines besides the expected incorporation of Thunderbolt and Sandy Bridge CPUs.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/19/new-mac-pros-and-mac-minis-launching-august/

Photoshopper
Jun 19, 2011, 02:46 PM
so whenever the new MP's come out, this August or '12, what's an educated guess as to pricing? Is it a guarantee that it will be comparable to the current models, more, or any way it could be less?
I'm ready to buy a refurb '10 (when I get my new interest-free card!) and would hate to get stiffed like last time when I bought a PPC right before the switch to Intel...

sbb155
Jun 19, 2011, 03:14 PM
We really need a sticky with "The Mac Pro WILL NOT be updated until Q4 2011 at the earliest, more likely Q1 2012 as the CPUs required to update the Mac Pro will not be available until then, so there is nothing to update it too", since this must be being rehashed at least once a week.

yeah, right... heard this erroneous bit of information before. MPs are coming this summer.

derbothaus
Jun 19, 2011, 04:14 PM
yeah, right... heard this erroneous bit of information before. MPs are coming this summer.

You must think Apple makes processors.

anim8or
Jun 19, 2011, 04:47 PM
You must think Apple makes processors.

You must work for Intel?

derbothaus
Jun 19, 2011, 05:07 PM
You must work for Intel?

Nope. They are in Portland:)

sbb155
Jun 19, 2011, 05:24 PM
You must work for Intel?

Nope, there are processors already available - for example, the hex 3.2 and hex 3.46

And, MR says 'dont buy updates soon'

and the lead story on the MR home page is that they are coming this summer

Yep, why cannot people admit that they could be wrong?

sbb155
Jun 19, 2011, 05:25 PM
You must think Apple makes processors.

intel actually has been making MP and apple processors for a few years now, it is different from the older procs made by someone else (power pc)

derbothaus
Jun 19, 2011, 11:04 PM
Oh. That must be why I know what a W3680 is in my sig;)

nanofrog
Jun 20, 2011, 12:34 AM
CNet's Brian Tong has revealed on Twitter that "all new" next generation Mac Pros and Mac minis will arrive in late July or early August.

EXCLUSIVE: My sources tell me ALL NEW Next-Gen Mac Pros and Mac Minis will launch either end of July first week of August.
Tong previously accurately predicted the arrival of new iMacs in the "end of April or 1st week of May". The iMacs did arrive in the 1st week of May as predicted. Tong indicates his source for the Mac Pro and Mac Mini updates are the same as for the iMac updates.

No details are provided on the specs of the machines besides the expected incorporation of Thunderbolt and Sandy Bridge CPUs.
Yes, he got the iMacs right. But he's gotten a lot more wrong.

And if you take a closer look, the author of the CNET article is Steven Musil, who got the information from Tong, who got it from someone else... It's not first hand knowledge (or the actual source revealed), so it's open to question.

More importantly to me at least, is the lack of any details.

What I mean, is if it's not a new socket, then it's not a new machine (faster clocks of the same CPU family /= an update; proper definition of an update <new model> means a redesigned main board, not swap out a couple of parts that aren't soldered to the board such as a faster clocked CPU on the same socket and/or perhaps a faster GPU card). Generally speaking, such changes are silent, not accompanied by a lot of hoopla calling it "a brand new model".

Granted, adding a TB chip to the logic board could allow for this, but it's not going to improve performance in other parts of the system (same memory throughput, same PCIe bandwidth, ... as it's the same socket, even faster clocked versions of the CPU still have the same memory controller, same chipset, same ICH...). Just an improvement in peripherals, not the real guts of the systems.

But it would also be just as plausible to add a PCIe based Thunderbolt card (maybe with/without video support), but that's not even a different logic board (cheaper though, as there's no new R&D in the logic board). Matrox has already announced a Thunderbolt PCIe card, at an MSRP of $299 USD. Not cheap, and has a limited use for desktops (i.e. shared peripherals with laptops or pulling in camera data when TB equipped cameras actually show up for example).

Now consider the R&D cost over a mid-season refresh for a new logic board (i.e. TB chip soldered to the board, not a PCIe card, and the costs are expensive), and a limited amount of systems sold (no indication that the MP sells in massive quantities). So the R&D cost per system is higher than with other systems, such as the iMac (which released with a new CPU BTW). Thus it would either push the systems up a few hundred (just the TB chip alone, as they're ~$90 USD in quantities of 1k), or cut into Apple's margins. We're not even considering what the faster clocks would add or a faster GPU (and Apple's history doesn't show an inclination to cut margins...).

So releasing a TB equipped MP without a new socket just doesn't make financial sense from my POV, especially if it's done directly on the logic board (hardware design and manufacturing background).

Nope, there are processors already available - for example, the hex 3.2 and hex 3.46

And, MR says 'dont buy updates soon'

and the lead story on the MR home page is that they are coming this summer
In terms of the CPU's you're indicating, they're not on a new socket. Just faster clocks of the existing systems. That's a refresh, not a new system (new system = new socket). And going with an LGA1155 is a step backwards in system performance, so I seriously don't expect that to be the case. Unless they're going to dump the DP systems (i.e. dump animators).

You're not paying attention to fact, and trying to latching on to any rumor that gives any credence to you want to happen instead.

The rest of us have used provable facts, such as publicly available information from Intel as well as past history with Apple's releases. Not fantasy, supported by vapor... err... rumors.

intel actually has been making MP and apple processors for a few years now, it is different from the older procs made by someone else (power pc)
Actually, this is not the case either.

Intel used to produce the logic boards as well as provide the CPU's, but the last MP to have an Intel made board was the 2008 (model 3,1). From 2009 on, they're made and assembled by Hon Hai Precision, aka Foxconn (still use Intel CPU's of course, but Intel is no longer involved in the PCB design or manufacture).

Concorde Rules
Jun 20, 2011, 06:29 AM
*snip*

Agreed.

Unless Apple has done a STORMING deal with Intel, he has the Mac Pros wrong.

sbb155
Jun 20, 2011, 07:13 AM
Yes, he got the iMacs right. But he's gotten a lot more wrong.

And if you take a closer look, the author of the CNET article is Steven Musil, who got the information from Tong, who got it from someone else... It's not first hand knowledge (or the actual source revealed), so it's open to question.

More importantly to me at least, is the lack of any details.

What I mean, is if it's not a new socket, then it's not a new machine (faster clocks of the same CPU family /= an update; proper definition of an update <new model> means a redesigned main board, not swap out a couple of parts that aren't soldered to the board such as a faster clocked CPU on the same socket and/or perhaps a faster GPU card). Generally speaking, such changes are silent, not accompanied by a lot of hoopla calling it "a brand new model".

Granted, adding a TB chip to the logic board could allow for this, but it's not going to improve performance in other parts of the system (same memory throughput, same PCIe bandwidth, ... as it's the same socket, even faster clocked versions of the CPU still have the same memory controller, same chipset, same ICH...). Just an improvement in peripherals, not the real guts of the systems.

But it would also be just as plausible to add a PCIe based Thunderbolt card (maybe with/without video support), but that's not even a different logic board (cheaper though, as there's no new R&D in the logic board). Matrox has already announced a Thunderbolt PCIe card, at an MSRP of $299 USD. Not cheap, and has a limited use for desktops (i.e. shared peripherals with laptops or pulling in camera data when TB equipped cameras actually show up for example).

Now consider the R&D cost over a mid-season refresh for a new logic board (i.e. TB chip soldered to the board, not a PCIe card, and the costs are expensive), and a limited amount of systems sold (no indication that the MP sells in massive quantities). So the R&D cost per system is higher than with other systems, such as the iMac (which released with a new CPU BTW). Thus it would either push the systems up a few hundred (just the TB chip alone, as they're ~$90 USD in quantities of 1k), or cut into Apple's margins. We're not even considering what the faster clocks would add or a faster GPU (and Apple's history doesn't show an inclination to cut margins...).

So releasing a TB equipped MP without a new socket just doesn't make financial sense from my POV, especially if it's done directly on the logic board (hardware design and manufacturing background).


In terms of the CPU's you're indicating, they're not on a new socket. Just faster clocks of the existing systems. That's a refresh, not a new system (new system = new socket). And going with an LGA1155 is a step backwards in system performance, so I seriously don't expect that to be the case. Unless they're going to dump the DP systems (i.e. dump animators).

You're not paying attention to fact, and trying to latching on to any rumor that gives any credence to you want to happen instead.

The rest of us have used provable facts, such as publicly available information from Intel as well as past history with Apple's releases. Not fantasy, supported by vapor... err... rumors.


Actually, this is not the case either.

Intel used to produce the logic boards as well as provide the CPU's, but the last MP to have an Intel made board was the 2008 (model 3,1). From 2009 on, they're made and assembled by Hon Hai Precision, aka Foxconn (still use Intel CPU's of course, but Intel is no longer involved in the PCB design or manufacture).

The point is, new MPs ARE coming this summer. Refresh is still a NEW MP = one not available now. No one will say that the 2011 MP IS the same as a 2010 MP. It will be updated this summer, you are probably wrong, and so are the naysayers. I like how the naysayers are already revising the history - they saud before that NO new MPs until 2012. Well, thanks to apple to stop their discourse. woo-hoo new MP are coming SOON! a few weeks! AWESOME!

There are processors, the idea that there aren;t is just wrong. what about the 3.2 hex? the 3.46 hex?

NEW MPs are COMING - and the source is one WHO IS USING THE SAME SOURCE AS IMAC REFRESH

AWESOME!

Concorde Rules
Jun 20, 2011, 07:15 AM
The point is, new MPs ARE coming this summer. Refresh is still a NEW MP = one not available now. No one will say that the 2011 MP IS the same as a 2010 MP. It will be updated this summer, you are probably wrong, and so are the naysayers. I like how the naysayers are already revising the history - they saud before that NO new MPs until 2012. Well, thanks to apple to stop their discourse. woo-hoo new MP are coming SOON! a few weeks! AWESOME!

There are processors, the idea that there aren;t is just wrong. what about the 3.2 hex? the 3.46 hex?

NEW MPs are COMING - and the source is one WHO IS USING THE SAME SOURCE AS IMAC REFRESH

AWESOME!

So why is your source more trustworthy than the *Intel* roadmap? :confused:

iMacs I can believe. Mac Pros I am sceptical about because SB-E is so close.

Two options IMO:
1. SB-E early for July 2011 Launch and possibly shipping same day but more likely later on.
2. SB-E late 2011.

We shall see who is right in July, anyhow.

mrblack927
Jun 20, 2011, 09:21 AM
So why is your source more trustworthy than the *Intel* roadmap? :confused:

iMacs I can believe. Mac Pros I am sceptical about because SB-E is so close.

Two options IMO:
1. SB-E early for July 2011 Launch and possibly shipping same day but more likely later on.
2. SB-E late 2011.

We shall see who is right in July, anyhow.

I'm late to the discussion so forgive me if this has been answered but, why is everyone so quick to assume that Apple has to include server-grade procs in the Mac Pro? What if they just use the latest sandy bridge (socket 1155) chips? It would still be an upgrade, since the current iMacs are supposedly faster than the current Mac Pros (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/15/27-inch-imac-core-i7-with-ssd-is-fastest-mac-ever/), and they would be able to launch in the timeframe of this rumor.

Now then, I know the first thing people will say to that is "The Mac Pro is a prosumer machine!" and "That's only if you're not doing massively parallel work!". Believe me, I know. But look at the trend Apple has been following. Is it really such a stretch to think they will demote the mac pro to a consumer level machine, slash the price, and market it a new affordable yet expandable desktop product?

Umbongo
Jun 20, 2011, 09:48 AM
I'm late to the discussion so forgive me if this has been answered but, why is everyone so quick to assume that Apple has to include server-grade procs in the Mac Pro? What if they just use the latest sandy bridge (socket 1155) chips? It would still be an upgrade, since the current iMacs are supposedly faster than the current Mac Pros (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/15/27-inch-imac-core-i7-with-ssd-is-fastest-mac-ever/), and they would be able to launch in the timeframe of this rumor.

Now then, I know the first thing people will say to that is "The Mac Pro is a prosumer machine!" and "That's only if you're not doing massively parallel work!". Believe me, I know. But look at the trend Apple has been following. Is it really such a stretch to think they will demote the mac pro to a consumer level machine, slash the price, and market it a new affordable yet expandable desktop product?

Yes it is a stretch. They have many consumer level desktops covering many budgets - they don't need more of them. The logical transition is to LGA 2011 parts.

G4er?
Jun 20, 2011, 09:55 AM
Is it really such a stretch to think they will demote the mac pro to a consumer level machine, slash the price, and market it a new affordable yet expandable desktop product?

That, that, sounds like, GASP:eek:... an XMac.

Sure wish Apple would recognize the gap between the Mini and the Mac Pro.

wfj5444
Jun 20, 2011, 10:29 AM
As much as I would like to have a 'desktop Mac' without a monitor, such as a single proc Mac Pro running consumer level proc/mem, I don't think Apple will do it.

They have their spots covered

Consumer or Pro - Mac Mini for specific tasks
Consumer -iMac (Yes some Pro's use it)
Pro - MP

As much as I want to be able to access my drives, change video cards, add a Thunderbolt board, it just isn't in the cards right now. Consider though how much money Apple could make with a ~$1,000-1700 mini Mac Pro with consumer chips. It would still be premium over a Dell or HP. All that isn't thinking like Apple.

In the end it comes back to simplicity. The product lines are simple and defined with no real cross over. A Mini Mac Pro would make Pro folks and high end Consumers take a pause and try to decide. Right now the model you need for what you do/want is clear.

Bear
Jun 20, 2011, 12:21 PM
...
In the end it comes back to simplicity. The product lines are simple and defined with no real cross over. A Mini Mac Pro would make Pro folks and high end Consumers take a pause and try to decide. Right now the model you need for what you do/want is clear.Well a "mini" Mac Pro would probably be limited to 4 memory slots, 1 optical drive. Maybe only 2 HDs. And an MacBook Air style SSD connector.

It could be placed quite well in the product line. The question is the actual price and how well it would sell. And how badly would it eat into sales of the base Mac Pro is still a bit of a concern?

On the other side of the coin, if I were running a business and this "mini" model could do what I needed, it would probably be easy to justify upgrades more often due to the lower cost. As you said, it's all about the trade offs.

TheAnalogue
Jun 20, 2011, 02:25 PM
There are processors, the idea that there aren;t is just wrong. what about the 3.2 hex? the 3.46 hex?

These are not new processors, they are a year old just like the ones in the 2010 Mac Pros. Are they slightly and I mean slightly more powerful? Yes they are, but a 0.13GHz (3.46-3.33) increase WOULD NOT EVEN BRING ABOUT A NOTICEABLE INCREASE IN PERFORMANCE. Thats like going from a 600HP Car Engine to a 610HP engine. is there a slight difference yes, but would you notice it while driving? not at all. Whereas the new Sandy Bridge Processors have a new design, and if you look at the consumer products, the New Sandy Bridge Processors are considerably more powerful than the last generation. Nothing groundbreaking, but a noticeable increase in performance.

I would also like to point out that you are now doing what you have been complaining about others doing: stating things that are speculation as fact.

I am not saying that new Mac Pros are not coming out this summer, or that Apple doesn't have some deal with intel, all of that is possible. but at this point there is not enough information to call it either way.

G4er?
Jun 20, 2011, 02:25 PM
In the end it comes back to simplicity. The product lines are simple and defined with no real cross over. A Mini Mac Pro would make Pro folks and high end Consumers take a pause and try to decide. Right now the model you need for what you do/want is clear.

Hardly. The Mac Pro is huge and has more horsepower than I will ever need. What I want to be able to do is open my computer case easily without having to resort to using items more likely to be found in an autobody shop than in a home toolbox. Replace a drive easily if it goes bad, Have two internal hard drives (main and backup) and an optical drive that I still use.

Lack of a Mini Mac Pro or some sort of headless Mac between the Mini and the Mac Pro is causing me to pause and try to decide on leaving Apple.

You can claim that the product lines are simple and defined but the product lines so not meet my needs.

NutsNGum
Jun 20, 2011, 02:47 PM
C'mon headless iMac!

nanofrog
Jun 20, 2011, 04:00 PM
The point is, new MPs ARE coming this summer.
Based on a couple of speculative tweets that offer absolutely no evidential support whatsoever?

The rest of use that have used the Q4 2011 date are getting that from a verifiable source (Intel's Roadmap).

So why do you insist on believing unsupported speculation vs. any real facts that currently exist?

Refresh is still a NEW MP = one not available now. No one will say that the 2011 MP IS the same as a 2010 MP.
It all depends on what CPU's you're talking about. Historically speaking, the MP's have usually gotten different CPU's (different family from previous models, and that includes both the 2007 and 2010's, where the socket remained the same).

Tossing in a faster clock from the existing family won't qualify (no change in core counts or any other aspect of the architecture). The GPU and Thunderbolt can be changed and added respectively via PCIe cards, which was clearly stated before. Something like this isn't really worthy of a new model (wouldn't increase the overall system performance but by a couple of percent due to faster clocks - new CPU's lines tend to change this by 10% or so with most usage patterns).

It's all incremental upgrades in terms of speed gains when measuring clocks, but different architectures push this. For example, benchmarks (and some rare application suites) can demonstrate/truly utilize the performance differences between current and previous architectures.

So just tossing in a faster clock and couple of PCIe cards in the existing system would be a mistake IMO (reasons stated in previous posts in multiple threads you keep spreading this around). Others have even picked up on this, and tried to explain it to you (hint: based on monetary impact for Apple).

It will be updated this summer, you are probably wrong, and so are the naysayers.
Based on what actual facts?

Tweets and any articles using Tong's Tweets as a source do not qualify as there's no substantiation (i.e. name of the source it actually came from, pics/screen shots, internal documents, ...). Mr. Tong didn't do any of this - it's completely unsubstantiated in any shape, form or fashion.

I like how the naysayers are already revising the history - they said before that NO new MPs until 2012. Well, thanks to apple to stop their discourse. woo-hoo new MP are coming SOON! a few weeks! AWESOME!
They're not out yet, so how can anyone remotely revise history that hasn't even been made? :confused:

And as per dates, show us some real proof, which Tong's tweets don't provide (opinion claimed as "inside information" is not fact).

There are processors, the idea that there aren;t is just wrong. what about the 3.2 hex? the 3.46 hex?
We've covered this. :rolleyes:

Please go back and read (and not just what was aimed directly at you - but it's certainly there, and even repeated again this time around).

NEW MPs are COMING - and the source is one WHO IS USING THE SAME SOURCE AS IMAC REFRESH
Maybe. It could easily be stated as "coming from an inside source", when in fact it's his own opinion.

Supply data could be easily used (I actually did in terms of what was likely well before he ever did <even back when Intel still called it by it's codename - LightPeak>, and it was accurate <SB processor + Thunderbolt>). I didn't go for dates, as it was in a MP thread (had more to do with the direction workstations are going).

So why is your source more trustworthy than the *Intel* roadmap? :confused:
Exactly.

As you mention, we'll know in July/August (remember, some were adamant about one at WWDC this month, and that never happened either).

The real issue for me, is that August to March is only 6 months. So the financial impact releasing MP's that rapidly would have on Apple (MP sales are small) is what I'm focusing on.

The only way this would make any sense to me (particularly meeting a summer release date), is if they've decided to dump the DP systems all together (skip LGA2011 entirely) and go for a less powerful CPU series (i.e. LGA1155 based, which are already in production; adding ECC to the memory controller isn't that difficult as the real work has already been done for other parts). But it would mean the MP would be slower than currently available machines (particularly in I/O throughput to the CPU, which is the LGA1155's weakness, and thusly the iMac's), and solely rely on PCIe slots to generate it's sales volume.

I could see a significant uproar over something like this. Even to the extent the MP would be declared EOL entirely (too many sales lost, so they determine that it's no longer a viable profit generator).

What if they just use the latest sandy bridge (socket 1155) chips?
Intel is going to release a Xeon based LGA1155 part. But as to it's viability, see the portion of this post directly above...

Now I'm not saying it's impossible, but there's going to be some fall-out if they do (i.e. loose animators and other power workstation users as the machine won't be sufficient for their needs).

The LGA1155 Xeons are the bottom end (aka entry level) workstation parts. But the MP has been using high range parts (suitable to 1 or 2 sockets only), which is why they've never used Multiprocessor sockets (previously known as the 7xxx series Xeons, which are super expensive).

The logical transition is to LGA 2011 parts.
If they remotely plan to have a faster machine and keep their current MP market base, definitely.

There are other possibilities (LGA1155 or even LGA1355 <when they show up in Q4 2011>), but it will change their market base, considerably so if they go with an LGA1155 based model (reduced I/O throughput to the CPU, and more akin to the iMac - just has slots and no built-in monitor, which isn't really much of a product distinguishment IMO).

I realize that's a system some would want (many have bemoaned the lack of a headless mac), but the pricing would also be used to set it apart I suspect (not the reasonable X-Mac they've been dreaming about - just as is currently the case with the base SP Quad core MP's since 2009).


As much as I want to be able to access my drives, change video cards, add a Thunderbolt board, it just isn't in the cards right now. Consider though how much money Apple could make with a ~$1,000-1700 mini Mac Pro with consumer chips. It would still be premium over a Dell or HP. All that isn't thinking like Apple.
The pricing would, as Apple wants high margins (last report I saw, the Gross Margin was hovering at ~41%).

I would also like to point out that you are now doing what you have been complaining about others doing: stating things that are speculation as fact.
Exactly, and I'd add ignoring actual facts that others have provided (more than blind speculation, as its been based on an assemblage of publicly available facts).

goMac
Jun 20, 2011, 04:09 PM
Again, processor release timelines don't matter.

Apple refreshes products every year. Sometimes they use the same processor. Sometimes they use a different one. The processor argument is a red herring.

ugru
Jun 20, 2011, 04:43 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/20/mac-pro-to-use-custom-intel-cpu-more-details-on-mac-mini-and-time-capsule/

Here they come!!!! Here they come!!!!

Gief 1 naw!!!!!!1!!

philipma1957
Jun 20, 2011, 04:56 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/20/mac-pro-to-use-custom-intel-cpu-more-details-on-mac-mini-and-time-capsule/

Here they come!!!! Here they come!!!!

Gief 1 naw!!!!!!1!!

finally some sense is made, a quote from the above link.




'As for the Mac Pro, MICGadget is also claiming that the new MacPro will be come in a "rack-mountable" design in their new server version to help replace the Xserve. We've heard this before as well, but they are also claiming that Apple will be using a "unique CPU" developed for the Mac and not seen in the PC.
Sandy Bridge and Thunderbolt are coming to the new Mac Pro, and at the same time, an unique CPU will be developed for Mac. This unique CPU is not seen in PC.' .

What will this stop from happening. a repeat of my 2010 quad 2.8 to a hex 3.2 cpu upgrade . Apple has a history of killing off really good upgrade paths. My upgrade was easy peasy less then 30 minutes and for about 400usd net a quad became a hex. a 10000 geek bench moved to 15500. Apple did this with mac minis. from 2009 and 2010 they can not be upgraded. 2007 was doable.

sbb155
Jun 20, 2011, 05:03 PM
as usual, the people who said no upgrade untiul q4 or 2012 are continuing to be wrong as more information comes out! This is going to be awesome! New processors as some of us had hoped for.
New procs will be good, and the 2010 MP is looking very old now. AWESOME!!!!

sbb155
Jun 20, 2011, 05:04 PM
Again, processor release timelines don't matter.

Apple refreshes products every year. Sometimes they use the same processor. Sometimes they use a different one. The processor argument is a red herring.

You are very wise, and of course correct. All smoke and mirrors, the idea that there aren;t processors. There are always processors to upgrade to. after a few monhs

derbothaus
Jun 20, 2011, 05:31 PM
The "custom" part worries me. We'll just have to wait and see. This would represent a strong change in the way the Pro's are sourced. AND would start a nifty new PC vs. Mac power struggle in who is fastest:) It was pointless previously as they both used the same exact parts.

nanofrog
Jun 20, 2011, 06:29 PM
The processor argument is a red herring.
So they can magically add processors that haven't been developed in the real world whenever they want? :confused:

Let's take a look at history shall we...
Apple switches to Intel in 2006...

2006 model = brand new boards and new CPU's from Intel (51xx series)
2007 model = same board in the 2006, but new CPU's are available (53xx series allowed Apple to release the 1st Octads)
2008 model = new boards (due to different chipset) + new CPU's (54xx series)
2009 model = new boards (different socket, chipset, ICH) + new CPU's (35xx and 55xx series for SP and DP systems respectively)
2010 = new boards (added the latch mechanism to the DP daughter board as a means of running standard IHS equipped DP CPU's) + new CPU's (36xx and 56xx series, which allowed for Hex and Dodeca systems)

From one model to another since the Intel switch, there's been new CPU families introduced.

So how can you claim that the CPU changes in each new Intel model are a Red Herring?
Seriously.... I'd like to know what you guys are smoking. :eek: :D :p

If you notice, the newer systems are based on Intel's new Tick-Tock cycle (2009 on), which means a socket is supported for 2 years (new architecture followed by a die shrink, which allows for more cores = more efficient parts). 2006 - 2008 was before this was initiated, and the actual socket was LGA771 (but Intel still managed to release new CPU's on that socket).

This has been clearly stated by Intel, and there's plenty of sources on this. Granted, this has no bearing on the 2006 - 2008 models, but does from 2009 on, which means, that Intel is poised to introduce a new socket with Sandy Bridge Xeons (in fact, there's 3; LGA1155 for the entry level, LGA1355 for the mid-level, and LGA2011 for the high-end).

The Intel Roadmap alone is sufficient proof, but there's articles on this if you're interested (BTW, their source is the publicized Intel Roadmap).

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/20/mac-pro-to-use-custom-intel-cpu-more-details-on-mac-mini-and-time-capsule/
Please note both the sources (links, which are a round-robin of sites linking each other as sources) and this bit from the front page...
MICGadget has not previously published many original rumors, so their reliability is unknown.....
That simple statement (bolded text) is critically important.

Yes, it's what some people want to hear, and it can fit the other rumors' timeframe for a new MP release.

But if you dig deeper, it all adds up to very unreliable sources (and in the case of Apple v. Intel relations, there's more to it than what's linked on MR's page, as it appears Apple screwed Intel over on PCB manufacturing <where the real money is> when they switched to Foxconn - it seems they used the contract dates to their advantage, and didn't re-sign with Intel). Somehow, I doubt Intel looks all that kindly at Apple over that situation (more per unit profit in PCB manufacturing than CPU's). Ye olde raw materials v. finished goods bit in terms of profit per unit.

To give you an idea, Foxconn reduced their bid on assembly due to the lucrative PCB manufacturing (assembly is typically a "looser", so companies need to make up for it in another area). You can research this, as the information is out there (it was even a Front Page article in MR IIRC).

as usual, the people who said no upgrade until q4 or 2012 are continuing to be wrong as more information comes out! This is going to be awesome! New processors as some of us had hoped for.
New procs will be good, and the 2010 MP is looking very old now. AWESOME!!!!
Again, you're not digging into the information (dig into the sources and pay attention), and latching onto opinion and calling it proof.

It would truly be in your best interest to learn the difference.

All smoke and mirrors, the idea that there aren;t processors. There are always processors to upgrade to. after a few monhs
The only smoke and mirrors are the sources you keep latching onto.

Check the sources. If you have a brain in your head, you'll see that there are canyons there, not just holes in them.

sbb155
Jun 20, 2011, 07:56 PM
well, maybe the poster is AGAINST the updates, and has been from the get go.. There were those of us that said there would be an upgrade. We are pro-upgrade this summer.

So now that upgrades are obviously coming, it will be interesting to see how the revisionist history goes along

"No processors to upgrade to" - yeah right. Ever heard of the 3.2 hex???!!!

What a joke.

goMac
Jun 20, 2011, 08:31 PM
So they can magically add processors that haven't been developed in the real world whenever they want? :confused:

Again, Apple does not care about the processors. They are a computer company. They make computers. They upgrade those computers once a year. Always has been the rule, always will be.

This entire processor revision discussion is a tempest in a teapot. Apple operates on one year cycles. Even if there were no new processors this year (and I'm pretty sure that Intel has faster processors in the same series they've added), there are plenty of other components to add.

Again, Apple is a products company. They refresh each product (each major product) once a year.

sbb155
Jun 20, 2011, 08:43 PM
Again, Apple does not care about the processors. They are a computer company. They make computers. They upgrade those computers once a year. Always has been the rule, always will be.

This entire processor revision discussion is a tempest in a teapot. Apple operates on one year cycles. Even if there were no new processors this year (and I'm pretty sure that Intel has faster processors in the same series they've added), there are plenty of other components to add.

Again, Apple is a products company. They refresh each product (each major product) once a year.

Gomac - you are so right. There are naysayers. And there already are processors! The 3.2 hex for example could replace the 2.8 quad!
New MPs are coming. The naysayers are less reliable than the source of the information!

Umbongo
Jun 20, 2011, 09:33 PM
Again, Apple does not care about the processors. They are a computer company. They make computers. They upgrade those computers once a year. Always has been the rule, always will be.

This entire processor revision discussion is a tempest in a teapot. Apple operates on one year cycles. Even if there were no new processors this year (and I'm pretty sure that Intel has faster processors in the same series they've added), there are plenty of other components to add.

Again, Apple is a products company. They refresh each product (each major product) once a year.

Yet they have only release Mac Pros with new processors and closely following Intel's schedule.

Gomac - you are so right. There are naysayers. And there already are processors! The 3.2 hex for example could replace the 2.8 quad!
New MPs are coming. The naysayers are less reliable than the source of the information!

It makes no sense to release a workstation with processors that would be 6 months old come August and would be set to be made obsolete within 2-3 months.

Apple do not need to release Mac Pros every year, nor are they in a rush to sell them. The majority of customers are not waiting for new models, they buy them as a tool when they are needed. Most customers also won't be rushing to buy them anyway as new OS + new system for production is a no-no in many fields. This is how the workstation market is. It isn't a highly marketable product, it doesn't sell in huge volume, and the competing hardware products are on the same schedule.

It makes absolute sense for Apple to follow Intel's workstation road maps if they are going to continue to have a professional system.

nanofrog
Jun 20, 2011, 10:28 PM
Again, Apple does not care about the processors. They are a computer company. They make computers. They upgrade those computers once a year. Always has been the rule, always will be.

This entire processor revision discussion is a tempest in a teapot. Apple operates on one year cycles. Even if there were no new processors this year (and I'm pretty sure that Intel has faster processors in the same series they've added), there are plenty of other components to add.

Again, Apple is a products company. They refresh each product (each major product) once a year.
They can't upgrade if there isn't suitable parts. And in such situations, they can't stick to a yearly upgrade cycle.

BTW, on the consumer side, there were logical reasons for sticking with existing CPU's; specifically, they didn't want to deal with integrated GPU's on the CPU die. They wanted better GPU's in their systems, so they went with non IGP based CPU's and added an embedded GPU chip to the board.

But the biggest issue you don't seem to grasp, is that the consumer side /= enterprise. This is what Umbongo is trying to convey as well. They're totally different markets with different relevant factors (what's used to base decisions on).

Let's take CPU efficiency into consideration. As enterprise customers run racks full of systems, rather than just one here and there, it has a direct relation to costs, such as the physical building size (smaller building = cheaper to build or rent), HVAC system needed to keep those racks cool (cost of the unit, installation, and maintenance), and the electricity all of it uses (you've never seen a high electricity bill until you've seen one for a data center full of rack mounted systems and storage - EXPENSIVE vs. a bill for a house or apartment; I'm talking about thousands of dollars per month here).

So they sweat those sorts of details vs. a home user (cheaper operations costs can translate into higher profits).

BTW, the reason Intel caters to the enterprise market like this, is because that's where most of their profit margins come from. So their requests are a big deal to Intel and other companies that sell enterprise grade equipment (storage, networking, whatever).

goMac
Jun 20, 2011, 11:26 PM
They can't upgrade if there isn't suitable parts. And in such situations, they can't stick to a yearly upgrade cycle.

No, again, Apple always upgrades yearly, always.

Even if there were no CPUs, there are plenty of other parts. GPU, Thunderbolt, case design, etc. Even faster clocked processors of the same series.

CPU release cycles do not matter. Apple always upgrades yearly. Keeps the products fresh. Keeps the products selling.

Heck, the iPhone 3G didn't even feature a new processor or GPU. It was the same device, with a new case, 3G antenna, and GPS. Not at all a radical re-working. Just a refinement.

nanofrog
Jun 21, 2011, 03:46 AM
No, again, Apple always upgrades yearly, always.

Even if there were no CPUs, there are plenty of other parts. GPU, Thunderbolt, case design, etc. Even faster clocked processors of the same series.

CPU release cycles do not matter. Apple always upgrades yearly. Keeps the products fresh. Keeps the products selling.

Heck, the iPhone 3G didn't even feature a new processor or GPU. It was the same device, with a new case, 3G antenna, and GPS. Not at all a radical re-working. Just a refinement.
What you're claiming is fine and dandy for consumer products, but you don't seem to understand the differences between consumer and enterprise systems (Xeon = enterprise). Totally different set of determining factors - from performance criteria to marketing and everything in between.

Enterprise parts are more complicated, which takes more time to develop and test (not just make sure the bugs are worked out, but more time is spent testing areas such as reliability as they need to be capable of 24/7 operation @ 100% load for 5 years). And this is all before system vendors ever get their hands on RTM versions. Then system vendors have to verify they'll work in their boards that are rolling off of the assembly line as they're supposed to (system validation and QC testing).

They don't put as much effort into consumer systems (less complicated + less validation = shorter development cycle).

Simply put, it's not the same (you're comparing Apple's to Oranges). So don't confuse consumer development cycles with that of enterprise systems.

zephonic
Jun 21, 2011, 04:25 AM
Although I have taken Intel's Xeon roadmap for granted as the de facto indicator for new MacPros, I am thinking that it may well be different this time.

Even when you disregard the bespoke CPU rumors, it would make no sense for Apple to wait for the SandyBridge Xeons (unless they get them early).

Their entire product line has been updated or is about to be updated (MBA/MM) in anticipation of Lion/iCloud/MacAppStore, but they are gonna let their flagship machine just sit and get long in the tooth because of some lousy CPU's?

From a business POV, it makes no sense.

A case redesign with ThB, new GPU and a CPU speed bump is enough of a change to tout it as all-new.

I'm not saying they will, I'm just saying it makes sense. New CPU's or not.

philipma1957
Jun 21, 2011, 04:55 AM
While I would tend to side with N-frog in these arguments I am thinking that apple has a T-bolt/iCloud/Lion concept and has cut a deal for a unique cpu for the pro. So While My guess was Oct-Dec for the last few months of these threads An order date in Aug with Sept delivery looks more likely. If it happens like that it will be interesting to see how good these machines are.

Rack mount only for a mac pro? Al la server?

wfj5444
Jun 21, 2011, 04:56 AM
Hardly. The Mac Pro is huge and has more horsepower than I will ever need. What I want to be able to do is open my computer case easily without having to resort to using items more likely to be found in an autobody shop than in a home toolbox. Replace a drive easily if it goes bad, Have two internal hard drives (main and backup) and an optical drive that I still use.

Lack of a Mini Mac Pro or some sort of headless Mac between the Mini and the Mac Pro is causing me to pause and try to decide on leaving Apple.

You can claim that the product lines are simple and defined but the product lines so not meet my needs.

The product lines meet my needs, but not my desires by a long shot.

I agree I want to be able to do those things. I really want to be able to add an SSD to my iMac that sits along side my large HD but of course I can't reasonably. With Thunderbolt maybe, but it isn't elegant.

philipma1957
Jun 21, 2011, 05:01 AM
The product lines meet my needs, but not my desires by a long shot.

I agree I want to be able to do those things. I really want to be able to add an SSD to my iMac that sits along side my large HD but of course I can't reasonably. With Thunderbolt maybe, but it isn't elegant.

Well iMacs are an aside. I have always thought that the hdd/ssd access to them borders on a criminal act of theft. A simple 4 screw panel in the back allowing just ssd/hdd access would really help the iMac user.

AppleDroid
Jun 21, 2011, 06:56 AM
No, again, Apple always upgrades yearly, always.



What you're claiming is fine and dandy for consumer products, but you don't seem to understand the differences between consumer and enterprise systems (Xeon = enterprise). Totally different set of determining factors - from performance criteria to marketing and everything in between.

Honestly I don't know why you keep responding to someone who is clearly just saying the same thing over and over to get your riled up. ;) He just wants to be right. (And very well may be given today's rumor)

Concorde Rules
Jun 21, 2011, 09:10 AM
well, maybe the poster is AGAINST the updates, and has been from the get go.. There were those of us that said there would be an upgrade. We are pro-upgrade this summer.

So now that upgrades are obviously coming, it will be interesting to see how the revisionist history goes along

"No processors to upgrade to" - yeah right. Ever heard of the 3.2 hex???!!!

What a joke.

LOL.

I'm going to be buying the Sandy Bridge Mac Pro, and hence I want to get my hands on it. So hardly against the update, why the hell did you think that would be a clever thing to say!? :confused:

Mac Pro 2009 - Mac Pro 2010 - Possible MP2011

Single CPU
1. W3520 2.66Ghz Quad-> W3530 2.8GHz Quad-> W3540 2.93Ghz Quad
2. W3540 2.93Ghz Quad-> W3565 3.2GHz Quad-> W3580 3.33Ghz Quad or W3670 3.2Ghz Hex
3. W3580 3.33Ghz Quad-> W3680 3.33GHz Hex-> W3690 3.46Ghz Hex

Dual CPU
4. E5520 2.26Ghz Quad-> E5620 2.4GHz Quad-> E5630 2.53Ghz Quad
5. X5550 2.66Ghz Quad-> X5650 2.66GHz Hex-> X5670 2.93GHz Hex
6. X5570 2.93Ghz Quad-> X5670 2.93GHz Hex-> X5680 3.30Ghz Hex

Is it *really* worth a new generation for 133Mhz which barely does anything worthwhile? Really?




Again, Apple does not care about the processors. They are a computer company. They make computers. They upgrade those computers once a year. Always has been the rule, always will be.

This entire processor revision discussion is a tempest in a teapot. Apple operates on one year cycles. Even if there were no new processors this year (and I'm pretty sure that Intel has faster processors in the same series they've added), there are plenty of other components to add.

Again, Apple is a products company. They refresh each product (each major product) once a year.

Actually, the last two Mac Pro updates were 420 and 511 days apart. Thats *more* than a year, however you cut it...


IF Apple have managed to get a deal on the LGA2011 Xeon chips then yes July could very well be a new launch.

Please note: Not even the ENTHUSIASTS (they are still using 2600K which however you cut it is THE WRONG SOCKET), who get chips EARLY have access to samples of SB-E... *THIS IS AN IMPORTANT NOTE*

However IF they are launched there are a few possible scenarios:

Most Likely to Least Likely:
1. No new Mac Pro until Q4 2011 as this is the LGA2011 launch date.
2. New Mac Pro but shipping Q3 2011.
3. New Mac Pro but ship July.
4. New Mac Pro with TB, new GPUs and a simple speed bump (VERY unlikely).

Nano, I think we should leave it there.

Time will tell who is right.

goMac
Jun 21, 2011, 12:31 PM
Honestly I don't know why you keep responding to someone who is clearly just saying the same thing over and over to get your riled up. ;) He just wants to be right. (And very well may be given today's rumor)

Cause people are talking in circles to get around that Apple updates every year. :p

What you're claiming is fine and dandy for consumer products, but you don't seem to understand the differences between consumer and enterprise systems (Xeon = enterprise). Totally different set of determining factors - from performance criteria to marketing and everything in between.

Rabble rabble rabble rabble.

The Mac Pro is also sold to consumers. I'd say pretty much every computer sold in the Apple Store is intended to be sold to consumers, and they all obey the upgrade once a year rule. XServe was never sold straight to consumers.

I'm pretty sure at some point Apple even directly said in a report they update once per year...

Regardless, I'm going to repeat it again. You can talk in circles all you want, but Apple updates once a year. Always.


Actually, the last two Mac Pro updates were 420 and 511 days apart. Thats *more* than a year, however you cut it...

And in what years? 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006...

Yes, they may not be 360 days apart, but they are once a year.

zephonic
Jun 21, 2011, 12:42 PM
And in what years? 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006...

Yes, they may not be 360 days apart, but they are once a year.

Q4 2011 is still this year. :p

Concorde Rules
Jun 21, 2011, 01:02 PM
And in what years? 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006...

Yes, they may not be 360 days apart, but they are once a year.

Yes, and we still have half this year yet to go.

As Nanofrog said earlier, the Mac Pro's have only EVER been released with NEW Code Name CPUs.

2006 - Woodcrest (Duals)
2007 - Clovertown (Quads)
2008 - Hapertown (Quads)
2009 - Bloomfield & Gainestown (Quads)
2010 - Gulftown (Hexs)
2011 - Sandy Bridge (No codename for the LGA2011 CPUs that I can find)

So lemme see, every update has a new codename CPU.

The next code name CPU is.... Sandy Bridge LGA2011!

What makes this year any special? :confused:

fabriciom
Jun 21, 2011, 02:02 PM
I dont know what to get in the middle of this. But how about this. Supposedly apple is upgrading the mac pro servers. How about a new mac pro server machine with intel Beckton 8 cores?

wfj5444
Jun 21, 2011, 02:04 PM
Well iMacs are an aside. I have always thought that the hdd/ssd access to them borders on a criminal act of theft. A simple 4 screw panel in the back allowing just ssd/hdd access would really help the iMac user.

I really don't understand why Apple feels a hard drive with a mount system like the MP, a single railed system behind a plate, wouldn't work.

Open the access door, push a button and the drive is 'ejected' on rails. Change out the drive on the rails, slip it back in, replace plate. Drive connectors, data and power, are standard now. Oh well, pie in the sky. My iMac will go on Ebay as soon as the Mac Pros are announced IF they are a reasonable upgrade.

goMac
Jun 21, 2011, 02:18 PM
As Nanofrog said earlier, the Mac Pro's have only EVER been released with NEW Code Name CPUs.

New code name CPUs?

Ok, let me repeat again. Apple will release every year. If there are new CPUs, great, Apple will use them. If not, they'll do a revision anyway.

Heck, the 2007s, unless you got a quad core, shipped with the exact same processors as the previous revision.

The amount of spin here is crazy. Apple bases their release cycle on when Intel changes the code names of their CPUs? Please.

Q4 2011 is still this year. :p

I don't disagree. Apple has gotten early/first access to new CPUs before, if this custom CPU rumor doesn't pan out.

Of course the reason they get early access is because they pressure Intel because.... (and now repeat after me...)

Concorde Rules
Jun 21, 2011, 03:19 PM
New code name CPUs?

Ok, let me repeat again. Apple will release every year. If there are new CPUs, great, Apple will use them. If not, they'll do a revision anyway.

Heck, the 2007s, unless you got a quad core, shipped with the exact same processors as the previous revision.


Code names : Woodcrest, Beckton, Conroe, Penryn, Windsor (AMD), San Diego (AMD), Merom, etc...


What we seem to be arguing about is if Apple will speedbump the line or wait 2/3 months and use a new socket.

I am firmly in the camp for the latter.

It's a case of:

July/August: TB + ATi 6xxx GPUs + Speedbump + Re-design (maybe).
Late Q3/Q4: TB + ATi 6xxx GPUs + Sandybridge + Re-design (maybe).

There is pretty much no question the MP will be updated this year, just people won't get their hands on one in July or anytime before late Q3/Q4.

TheAnalogue
Jun 21, 2011, 03:22 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

As Nanofrog said earlier, the Mac Pro's have only EVER been released with NEW Code Name CPUs.

New code name CPUs?

Ok, let me repeat again. Apple will release every year. If there are new CPUs, great, Apple will use them. If not, they'll do a revision anyway.

Heck, the 2007s, unless you got a quad core, shipped with the exact same processors as the previous revision.

The amount of spin here is crazy. Apple bases their release cycle on when Intel changes the code names of their CPUs? Please.

Q4 2011 is still this year. :p

I don't disagree. Apple has gotten early/first access to new CPUs before, if this custom CPU rumor doesn't pan out.

Of course the reason they get early access is because they pressure Intel because.... (and now repeat after me...)

You know what else happens once a year? ?

INTEL COMES OUT WITH NEW PROCESSORS. What a concept. So let's put 2 and 2 together.

Intel introduces new processors, and apple uses them. Yes apple could have a deal with intel to get them early. If Mac pros come out this summer that will be the case. The chances of apple introducing new Mac pros with out new processors, or with old processors is next to nothing

goMac
Jun 21, 2011, 03:55 PM
INTEL COMES OUT WITH NEW PROCESSORS. What a concept. So let's put 2 and 2 together.

So? There are newer Gulftowns right now. Why is it that people were saying Apple wouldn't do a rev for those?

Intel comes out with processors all the time, not just on a yearly basis. But again, Intel's processor schedule has no effect on that Apple revs their products once a year.

Isn't it funny that Apple needs to update the Mac Pro this year and there are rumors of a custom processor? It's almost like Apple said "Hey! Intel! We're releasing new Mac Pros this year like we always do and we need new processors! Make us something!"

But of course that would be impossible because Apple sticks exactly to whatever Xeon roadmap Intel has instead of their own internal yearly roadmap. I'm sure in since they aren't doing a Mac Pro this year they just sent the Mac Pro team down to Chucky Cheeses where they've been having a year long pizza party.

After all, it's been a quiet year. With Thunderbolt, new Final Cut Pro, Motion, and Lion, Apple knows Pro users are not in a buying mood this year.

Intel introduces new processors, and apple uses them. Yes apple could have a deal with intel to get them early. If Mac pros come out this summer that will be the case. The chances of apple introducing new Mac pros with out new processors, or with old processors is next to nothing

2007 revision. They continued selling Mac Pros with last revision processors.

Umbongo
Jun 21, 2011, 04:29 PM
So? There are newer Gulftowns right now. Why is it that people were saying Apple wouldn't do a rev for those?

Because there is no history of them doing that despite their being opportunities for it. Why on earth would Apple spend money to bring a system to market that has very small sales numbers and would be obsolete within 3 months?

You are entirely correct in that Apple have released new Mac Pro models each year, although the 2007 release was no different than the addition of the 3.33GHz quad core processor choice in December 2009 except that Apple gave it a new identifier.

I actually agree with you that if there weren't new processors coming out then Apple would probably have had a new Mac Pro this year using components that are out now, though they know far enough in advance that if that had been the case then I think they wouldn't have waited until August last year and the bump would have come in February or March this year when Intel updated the processors.

That isn't the situation though. The situation is Apple haven't updated yet, a new processor platform that replaces the existing one is scheduled for Q4 and as such it makes complete sense to believe that the next Mac Pros will be released with LGA 2011 Xeons based.

What people were saying originally was "hey look they are scheduled for Q4, they are the most likely thing Apple will use, but just be aware that last time Apple waited 5 months, they don't do system releases in December, last time there was a Q4 release it wasn't until January when workstation vendors were shipping so it could be 2012.

Saying "Apple release new Mac Pros every year so one will come in the next x months" is true, but not as helpful.

Robellyn
Jun 21, 2011, 04:36 PM
New processor? An Opteron Valencia perhaps? (Apple/Intel contract expiring ... these new chips set for global launch in Q3 2011?)

I know, I know ... not possible (Thunderbolt is the least of these reasons), But it would explain some things!

goMac
Jun 21, 2011, 05:09 PM
Because there is no history of them doing that despite their being opportunities for it. Why on earth would Apple spend money to bring a system to market that has very small sales numbers and would be obsolete within 3 months?

Because Xeon volumes probably won't ramp up until a few months after release, and that's assuming it releases on time.

Apple has done as short as 6 month cycles on computers (and shorter in some cases). A late summer 2011 followed by an early/mid summer 2012 model would fit with pervious behavior.

I actually agree with you that if there weren't new processors coming out then Apple would probably have had a new Mac Pro this year using components that are out now, though they know far enough in advance that if that had been the case then I think they wouldn't have waited until August last year and the bump would have come in February or March this year when Intel updated the processors.

Apple doesn't necessarily care about users getting outdated right away. But they know there is likely a segment of pro users waiting for Thunderbolt, and the longer they wait on shipping an upgrade, the more annoyed those users are going to be, and the less Thunderbolt is going to be adopted.

Previous patterns also point to new hardware revisions around Final Cut Pro releases (Thunderbolt entirely aside.) If you look at Apple historically, the evidence is practically screaming that a Mac Pro upgrade is inbound.

That isn't the situation though. The situation is Apple haven't updated yet, a new processor platform that replaces the existing one is scheduled for Q4 and as such it makes complete sense to believe that the next Mac Pros will be released with LGA 2011 Xeons based.

If the processors ship on time and in volume, which traditionally has never happened. Usually Apple waits at least a few months after processor release, if not more.

What people were saying originally was "hey look they are scheduled for Q4, they are the most likely thing Apple will use, but just be aware that last time Apple waited 5 months, they don't do system releases in December, last time there was a Q4 release it wasn't until January when workstation vendors were shipping so it could be 2012.

I'm not sure this argument ever made sense. I agree that Q4 is unlikely (but not impossible) for a Mac Pro launch, but that automatically assumed Q3 was also not an option. In fact, if we were going to assume that a new Mac Pro was coming Q1 or Q2 2012, Q3 2011 would be an even safer bet because it spaces out the revisions a little better.

Saying "Apple release new Mac Pros every year so one will come in the next x months" is true, but not as helpful.

It is when it's in context of people saying there would be no Mac Pro revision this year, which is not typical Apple behavior. I think people are confused because they came on after the Intel transition, so they think it's somehow linked to Intel chips. I've been following Apple upgrade cycles for 15 years, and it has nothing to do with the processors. If anything, Apple will force the processor vendors to release new chips every year for their timeline (which IBM and Motorola consistently complained very publicly about.)

sbb155
Jun 21, 2011, 06:33 PM
very wise, people like nan*** for example, spread that there wont be processors so there wont be a mac pro (a few weeks ago stated in several threads)
actually, if you look back several years, there is no correlation between timing of processors. Apple upgrades the line every year usually. Processors come out all the time, and there are several now

TheAnalogue
Jun 21, 2011, 09:15 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

INTEL COMES OUT WITH NEW PROCESSORS. What a concept. So let's put 2 and 2 together.

So? There are newer Gulftowns right now. Why is it that people were saying Apple wouldn't do a rev for those?

Intel comes out with processors all the time, not just on a yearly basis. But again, Intel's processor schedule has no effect on that Apple revs their products once a year.

Isn't it funny that Apple needs to update the Mac Pro this year and there are rumors of a custom processor? It's almost like Apple said "Hey! Intel! We're releasing new Mac Pros this year like we always do and we need new processors! Make us something!"

But of course that would be impossible because Apple sticks exactly to whatever Xeon roadmap Intel has instead of their own internal yearly roadmap. I'm sure in since they aren't doing a Mac Pro this year they just sent the Mac Pro team down to Chucky Cheeses where they've been having a year long pizza party.

After all, it's been a quiet year. With Thunderbolt, new Final Cut Pro, Motion, and Lion, Apple knows Pro users are not in a buying mood this year.

Intel introduces new processors, and apple uses them. Yes apple could have a deal with intel to get them early. If Mac pros come out this summer that will be the case. The chances of apple introducing new Mac pros with out new processors, or with old processors is next to nothing

2007 revision. They continued selling Mac Pros with last revision processors.

Do o have to quote myself? I already posted in this thread about this, a 0.133GHz speed increase isn't even noticeable, I'll use the same analogy, if you had a car with a 600 horse power engine, would you sell it to get the exact same car but with better speakers and a 610 horse power engine? The answer is no. A processor upgrade isn't worth it unless there is a 10% increase in processing power.

I fully expect a 2011 Mac pro, maybe even in July/August. But I know one thing Apple isn't stupid. They won't use the same CPU generation when if they wait a few months (still in 2011 thus a 2011 Mac Pro) they have the latest and greatest. Plus if you think about it, they might get new intel processors early. But the closer to the actual launch date the more likely.


Can we all agree that none of us know anything for sure? I mean really NONE OF US DO. so let's try to be civil. I love a good debate, but there needs to be a line, and some of us have crossed it.

sbb155
Jul 12, 2011, 05:04 PM
They can't even update that often if there's no parts. :eek: So they're stuck dealing with Intel's schedules just like everyone else. :p

Unfortunately, the Xeons are getting more and more complex, so it's taking longer to develop than it did a few years ago (to be expected IMO though when in 3 years they've gone from 771 pins to 2011 pins).

amazing how wrong the speculation has been... MPs are coming contrary to 'experts' beliefs a month ago

Mike Biggen
Jul 12, 2011, 05:09 PM
amazing how wrong the speculation has been... MPs are coming contrary to 'experts' beliefs a month ago

Until new Sandy Bridge Mac Pros are actually released, the speculation isn't actually wrong. I hope they do release them this week because I plan to buy one as long as it meets my criteria (Sandy Bridge, 6Gbps SATA, etc). Rumours have been wrong many times before, so don't go jumping the gun just yet.

goMac
Jul 12, 2011, 05:12 PM
amazing how wrong the speculation has been... MPs are coming contrary to 'experts' beliefs a month ago

No, next is the debate on if the new Mac Pros will really count as a revision. :p

If they don't adopt a new processor model, I expect said debate will be long and arduous.

Concorde Rules
Jul 12, 2011, 05:42 PM
amazing how wrong the speculation has been... MPs are coming contrary to 'experts' beliefs a month ago

That is just that. Speculation.

Rumours vs. Intel roadmap.

Either way I have the money for a SB ready so i'm not bothered.

zephonic
Jul 12, 2011, 06:30 PM
Because there is no history of them doing that despite their being opportunities for it. Why on earth would Apple spend money to bring a system to market that has very small sales numbers and would be obsolete within 3 months?


I'm not convinced new MacPros are due this week (although I do hope they are), but Apple did do a mid-cycle upgrade for the 2006 MacPro when the first quadcore Clovertowns became available.

From a marketing POV, I can see why they would want a new MacPro with the introduction of Lion as the whole range has been updated and it would look lame if the MacPro was not.

So it is conceivable that a new design, ThB, SATA3, better GPU and current Westmeres are considered enough to justify a new model now, with quiet upgrades to LGA2011 when they become available.

Or maybe Apple is gonna pull a rabbit out of the hat...

Umbongo
Jul 12, 2011, 07:40 PM
I'm not convinced new MacPros are due this week (although I do hope they are), but Apple did do a mid-cycle upgrade for the 2006 MacPro when the first quadcore Clovertowns became available.

They added a single processor choice which they did this in December 09 too. Wasn't anything more than that.

From a marketing POV, I can see why they would want a new MacPro with the introduction of Lion as the whole range has been updated and it would look lame if the MacPro was not.

So it is conceivable that a new design, ThB, SATA3, better GPU and current Westmeres are considered enough to justify a new model now, with quiet upgrades to LGA2011 when they become available.

Or maybe Apple is gonna pull a rabbit out of the hat...

For the audience of the Mac Pro I don't think that would be good marketing to update with a processor line that is going to be obsolete within a few months. I also don't think that there is any need for Apple to get Mac Pros out as soon as possible, they showed that with the 2010 models when they came out a long time after all the components they use. Mac Pros have also come a long time after OS releases. It is the one area where I expect the majority of buyers (as it is in the PC workstation arena) are more clued up on hardware because they are buying it for productivity rather than play and that product life-cycles of over 12 months are expected.

Apple getting LGA 2011 processors early seems far more likely to me than them designing new logic boards (for TB) to use old processors.

IceMacMac
Jul 12, 2011, 08:07 PM
For the audience of the Mac Pro I don't think that would be good marketing to update with a processor line that is going to be obsolete within a few months. I also don't think that there is any need for Apple to get Mac Pros out as soon as possible, they showed that with the 2010 models when they came out a long time after all the components they use. Mac Pros have also come a long time after OS releases. It is the one area where I expect the majority of buyers (as it is in the PC workstation arena) are more clued up on hardware because they are buying it for productivity rather than play and that product life-cycles of over 12 months are expected.

Apple getting LGA 2011 processors early seems far more likely to me than them designing new logic boards (for TB) to use old processors.




Good thinking, Umbongo. A premature Mac Pro, crippled by a lesser processor when much more powerful Intel goodies are less than 6 months away?

That would make pro users less than happy, and far more reluctant. It just doesn't seem like Job's style. Apple seems like the most patient tech company in the world.

So unless we see Intel surprise us with an accelerated release...I'm dubious Apple pushes the MacPro out the door.

goMac
Jul 12, 2011, 08:56 PM
Good thinking, Umbongo. A premature Mac Pro, crippled by a lesser processor when much more powerful Intel goodies are less than 6 months away?

That would make pro users less than happy, and far more reluctant. It just doesn't seem like Job's style. Apple seems like the most patient tech company in the world.

Apple's done it before on the pro line... And yes it made users unhappy. And no Apple didn't care.

A year, six months, what does it matter? Eventually the machine is going to get updated.

nanofrog
Jul 12, 2011, 11:05 PM
So unless we see Intel surprise us with an accelerated release...I'm dubious Apple pushes the MacPro out the door.
Unfortunately, SB-E5 started with a Q3 2011 release, was pushed back to Q4 2011, and now there's recent information it's to be postponed again to Q1 2012 for SB-E5.

Given past history of Apple getting chips from Intel early, the dates show a single quarter, not 2. So 6 months early seems extremely unlikely.

Apple's done it before on the pro line... And yes it made users unhappy. And no Apple didn't care.
I nor have others said another socket isn't possible, but it would mean that the MP is changing to a different machine (becomes an SP model only for example).

The problem with this however, is it's quite a step backwards in terms of performance (i.e. LGA1155 based). Particularly in the case of PCIe lanes (SB-E3 only has 20 usable lanes vs. 36 in current systems). Core counts could be an issue as well for some users, particularly as they currently offer a 12 core system.

As expansion is one of the main features that sets it apart from other models, dropping to a 20 lane design via SB-E3 seems a mistake.

A year, six months, what does it matter? Eventually the machine is going to get updated.
Seems quite a change from just a couple of days ago. :eek: :p

The MP, at least for the moment, would make better sense if it's based on the SB-E5.

But as mentioned before, the information available on Intel and the LGA2011 parts, indicates it will take some time (figure ~ 6 months if Intel is on time for Q4 2011, and gets Apple enough parts to begin manufacturing 1Q earlier than other vendors). March or so is realistic if not.

Say by the time Haswell rolls around, that could be used in either the iMac or a tower (enough lanes for I/O and cores on a single die) that an SP only model could be possible for a larger number of users (what I've said before), and not require an arm + leg + first born.

Where the iMac came in, was consider it's current market + former MP users that could benefit from such a system (many would in terms of the core count) - the combined sales volume would make such a system less expensive to produce due to the increased economy of scale.

Now some will differ on this, and that's fine, as it's a discussion. But the concept behind it seems reinforced when considering the focus Apple is giving to their consumer products vs. the enterprise market (iDevices in particular).

It may just be a lull, but the current evidence doesn't support this from my or others' perspective. And since their professional software is not tied to a particular system, such as the MP, that can at the very least open the possibility there will be a shift in how the systems are positioned in a few years time (i.e. when Haswell rolls around).

zephonic
Jul 13, 2011, 05:23 AM
No cigars, apparently:

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/13/those-were-mac-minis-and-white-macbook-part-numbers-not-mac-pros/

philipma1957
Jul 13, 2011, 06:25 AM
so my oct prediction is still good to go for a new pro! I was hoping to get a new mini so I actually prefer the mistake!

Concorde Rules
Jul 13, 2011, 07:56 AM
No cigars, apparently:

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/13/those-were-mac-minis-and-white-macbook-part-numbers-not-mac-pros/

Hah.

Knew it wasn't going to happen :D

Q4 it is then, good times.

mdgm
Jul 13, 2011, 08:09 AM
so my oct prediction is still good to go for a new pro!
You could be right

I was hoping to get a new mini so I actually prefer the mistake!
+1. As much as I'd like to get a Mac Pro, getting a new Mini would be far more affordable. I just can't justify buying a 2010 Mini at current prices when the 2010 Mini is mostly inferior to my late 2009 one. Then again, I expect the Mini update won't be as good as I'd like and I'll continue to want a new Mac Pro.

xgman
Jul 13, 2011, 08:10 AM
Hah.

Knew it wasn't going to happen :D

Q4 it is then, good times.

I know it has to do with Intel's schedule, but we are always dead last for the newer technology and updates. Getting tired of that. :(

telequest
Jul 13, 2011, 08:10 AM
[snip]
I nor have others said another socket isn't possible, but it would mean that the MP is changing to a different machine (becomes an SP model only for example).

[snip]
Now some will differ on this, and that's fine, as it's a discussion. But the concept behind it seems reinforced when considering the focus Apple is giving to their consumer products vs. the enterprise market (iDevices in particular).

It may just be a lull, but the current evidence doesn't support this from my or others' perspective. And since their professional software is not tied to a particular system, such as the MP, that can at the very least open the possibility there will be a shift in how the systems are positioned in a few years time (i.e. when Haswell rolls around).

I'm not sure how directly Apple's philosophy on pro software applies to pro hardware, but their recent actions regarding Final Cut Pro are a worrisome model for Mac Pro users. With FCP 7 they had a mature industry-leading product and an avid base of users whose businesses depended on it. Yet Apple had no qualms about canceling FCP 7 and replacing it with a much more consumer-oriented product (FCP X) despite the predictable outrage from these users.

If Apple decides it can make more money from killing or greatly modifying (i.e. dumbing down) the Mac Pro, there's not stopping them. I'm not saying it's gonna happen soon, but the FCP X debacle is cause for concern.

philipma1957
Jul 13, 2011, 08:22 AM
You could be right

+1. As much as I'd like to get a Mac Pro, getting a new Mini would be far more affordable. I just can't justify buying a 2010 Mini at current prices when the 2010 Mini is mostly inferior to my late 2009 one. Then again, I expect the Mini update won't be as good as I'd like and I'll continue to want a new Mac Pro.

I have about 1400 in gift cards that will get me a new mini not a new pro. Maybe with a t-bolt external. I would like to get the lacie t-bolt with hdds in it pull them out and put my own ssd's into it.

http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?id=10549



While I would love to get a new pro and do a quad cpu to an oct cpu upgrade thread I would need to sell the quad to hex 2010 pro to afford to do it. I think waiting until oct is better for that.

Umbongo
Jul 13, 2011, 08:36 AM
I know it has to do with Intel's schedule, but we are always dead last for the newer technology and updates. Getting tired of that. :(

I replied t you somewhere else, maybe you didn't see it. But always last to get what exactly? They were first to get Core 2, Penryn, Nehalem, Westmere.

Concorde Rules
Jul 13, 2011, 08:38 AM
I know it has to do with Intel's schedule, but we are always dead last for the newer technology and updates. Getting tired of that. :(

As the guy above me said, Apple on a few occasions has had things first.

Besides, the Mac Pro is a pro machine.

Enthusiasts want the best as fast as possible, pro users, don't really care.

I'm in the middle because being an enthusiast I want faster, but I also want it to work, perfectly, out of the box. The latter takes time and I'm all for it.

zephonic
Jul 13, 2011, 09:12 AM
I would not necessarily agree that dumping the dual-CPU models would be akin to "dumbing down".

The dual-CPU model is a left-over from the G4/G5 days when Apple CPU's seriously underperformed compared to the Wintel competition.

Now that we get the same hardware, I'd argue most people would be better of a with a single hexacore than with the dual quads.

Furthermore, not a lot of software takes full advantage of multiple CPU's under OSX. At least, not that I'm aware of, the few real-world benchmarks out there seem to corroborate this.

Topper
Jul 13, 2011, 09:54 AM
No cigars, apparently:

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/13/those-were-mac-minis-and-white-macbook-part-numbers-not-mac-pros/

I was very, very curious to see what kind of Mac Pro they could be bringing out on Thursday.
What cpu(s) they could conjure up?
Anything less than a Sandy Bridge E would be a huge disappointment.
Maybe they will still bring out some kind of Westmere upgrade Mac Pro on Thursday.
But with Sandy Bridge E right around the corner, who would want to buy an upgraded Westmere Mac Pro?
Me, I'm dreaming of Sandy Bridge E, TB, and HD 7970. Yum, yum, yum!
.

goMac
Jul 13, 2011, 10:51 AM
Well, at the least the Mac Mini doomsayers have been proven wrong. :p


I would not necessarily agree that dumping the dual-CPU models would be akin to "dumbing down".

The dual-CPU model is a left-over from the G4/G5 days when Apple CPU's seriously underperformed compared to the Wintel competition.

Now that we get the same hardware, I'd argue most people would be better of a with a single hexacore than with the dual quads.

Furthermore, not a lot of software takes full advantage of multiple CPU's under OSX. At least, not that I'm aware of, the few real-world benchmarks out there seem to corroborate this.

I think Apple would keep the dual cpu high end. A lot of people in the pro community can use all those cores. Apple would just put more of the emphasis on single cpu configs instead of dual.