PDA

View Full Version : New Mac Pros With Up to 16 Cores Coming in Late July/Early August?




MacRumors
Jun 24, 2011, 10:10 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/24/new-mac-pros-with-up-to-16-cores-coming-in-late-julyearly-august/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/mac_pro_mid2011_browser1.jpg


Apple is preparing to release new "Mid 2011" Mac Pro models, according to 9 to 5 Mac (http://9to5mac.com/2011/06/23/apple-gearing-up-to-launch-upgraded-mac-pro-with-16-core-processor/) who cites internal Apple documents reportedly mentioning options ranging from six to sixteen processor cores. According to the source, Apple has begun putting together product manuals for the new Mac Pros, which are said to begin shipping in late July or early August.Following a report from earlier this week that claims that Apple is gearing up to launch a new Mac Pro in late July or early August, a reliable source tells 9to5Mac that Apple has referenced a mid-2011 Mac Pro in multiple internal documents.The late July/early August timeframe for the new Mac Pro release was first reported (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/19/new-mac-pros-and-mac-minis-launching-august/) over the weekend by CNET's Brian Tong, whose sources had previously accurately pinpointed the latest iMac release within a small window six weeks ahead of time.

The primary question surrounding a Mac Pro release within the rumored timeframe is just which processors Apple will be using. A 16-core configuration would almost certainly come as a pair of 8-core processors, and 8-core Sandy Bridge processors of the server class used in the Mac Pro line aren't scheduled to appear until the fourth quarter of this year as Intel's Xeon E5 line. While Apple has been known to receive early access to Intel processors in the past, it seems ambitious to suppose that Apple would have that much advance access to be able to ship new Mac Pros by early August given Intel's production plans.

One intriguing report from M.I.C gadget (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/20/mac-pro-to-use-custom-intel-cpu-more-details-on-mac-mini-and-time-capsule/) surfacing last weekend claimed that Apple will be using a "unique CPU" in the new Mac Pros. Intel has in the past provided custom processors for Apple, pushing out a specially-designed mobile chip (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/17/intels-custom-processor-for-macbook-air/) for the original MacBook Air back in 2008. M.I.C gadget does not, however, have a track record for Apple hardware records, so the reliability of the claim is unknown.

Article Link: New Mac Pros With Up to 16 Cores Coming in Late July/Early August? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/24/new-mac-pros-with-up-to-16-cores-coming-in-late-julyearly-august/)



alent1234
Jun 24, 2011, 10:14 AM
figures, the new lower end Xeons are supposed to ship soon

andrei.barbuta
Jun 24, 2011, 10:15 AM
Last update was uninspired. If this one is in the likes of the 2008 one them I'm in!

kjs862
Jun 24, 2011, 10:17 AM
how about a case redesign?

Capt Underpants
Jun 24, 2011, 10:17 AM
I thought Apple was transitioning towards a 2 year upgrade cycle on the mac pro.

Pleasant surprise.

chaosbunny
Jun 24, 2011, 10:20 AM
Looking forward to a new gpu for my 2010 quad. :)

Bubba Satori
Jun 24, 2011, 10:20 AM
Please have a bto for an i7.
And don't charge an absurd $2,500 for a base model
with 3GB, 5,400rpm and a junk GPU. It's insulting. :mad:
Thanks.

igazza
Jun 24, 2011, 10:20 AM
Will they support 128GB of ram ? :D

minik
Jun 24, 2011, 10:20 AM
I'm sure we will see a new Mac Pro this year, but that screenshot looks like it's from ACSS and very easy to modify.

Keebler
Jun 24, 2011, 10:21 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

I've noticed plenty of mps o their refurb site. Usually a few models but tons of them up there now. Top end 12 core is over $1000 off. Wonder how new pricing will affect those.

Ugh. I'm going to want a new one. 2009 is slow for processing m2vs for DVDs. Need speed baby!!!! :)

Hellhammer
Jun 24, 2011, 10:23 AM
Maybe the Sandy Bridge-E CPUs are coming in Q3 after all, or Apple gets very early access, or this will be an announcement and release will be in September-October.

Heilage
Jun 24, 2011, 10:27 AM
Screen shot from the internal service source. Might be fake, might be real.

(No 2011 model is listed there now)

Tonewheel
Jun 24, 2011, 10:29 AM
And no doubt they'll be priced out of this world.

slimpio
Jun 24, 2011, 10:30 AM
I wonder when apple is going to put decent video cards in the mac pro's configuration? Gaming cards don't do the job as quadro or ati fire pro.

chrmjenkins
Jun 24, 2011, 10:31 AM
how about a case redesign?

What's wrong with this one? Many consider it the epitome of towers.

Maybe the Sandy Bridge-E CPUs are coming in Q3 after all, or Apple gets very early access, or this will be an announcement and release will be in September-October.

Yeah, it's very interesting. If Intel is practicing this much favoritism, it really makes you wonder, particularly given Apple's ARM fanaticism.

toddybody
Jun 24, 2011, 10:32 AM
What happened to the rumor about Apple supporting select PC-Desktop GPU's(AMD 6series)...I think the 6970 was mentioned.

If Lion would provide CF support and the ability to use standard 6xxx cards...fantastic. The 5870 for 449.00 and 5770 for 249.99 is a horrible nightmare of a joke.

The Pro is graphically "handicapable" as is.

daylight28
Jun 24, 2011, 10:35 AM
FCPX is going to kill it for Apple in the proApps. so why get a 12 or 16 core if FCP 7 will not use the power!!! I love Apple Please Fix FCPX

Elven
Jun 24, 2011, 10:35 AM
I hope they keep the current case exterior design, but implement many of the more modern storage solutions inside the chassis.

Also I agree with a previous post, if they are to push a high end price tag even on the base model, offer a reasonable specification to bolster it's appeal.

ratzzo
Jun 24, 2011, 10:35 AM
And no doubt they'll be priced out of this world.

Especially if you take Apple's upgrades :D

Bear
Jun 24, 2011, 10:37 AM
Maybe the Sandy Bridge-E CPUs are coming in Q3 after all, or Apple gets very early access, or this will be an announcement and release will be in September-October.
For the Mac Pro, I think I would be surprised if all the models were shipping immediately. So, yeah August announcement, shipment 4-6 weeks after and maybe longer on the highest end models.
Yeah, it's very interesting. If Intel is practicing this much favoritism, it really makes you wonder, particularly given Apple's ARM fanaticism.Apple is a very large customer. Also, I suspect it would be a while before ARM could displace Intel processors in any quantity that would annoy Intel.

bearcatrp
Jun 24, 2011, 10:40 AM
I would hate to see the price of the 16 core/32 thread monster. 12 core/24 thread Mac pro's top out over 5 grand. My guess would be 8 to 10 grand. Who can afford it besides folks currently making a lot of money. Will be interesting for sure.

edk99
Jun 24, 2011, 10:48 AM
It better come with Blu-ray. LOL!

DaveP
Jun 24, 2011, 10:51 AM
Please have a bto for an i7.
And don't charge an absurd $2,500 for a base model
with 3GB, 5,400rpm and a junk GPU. It's insulting. :mad:
Thanks.

I highly doubt i7 will be an option, though it would be great. Apple seems to have moved away from what I might refer to as mid-range options in the Mac Pro line. Before the iMac was as powerful, it was nice to get a PowerMac for $1,500. I think Apple wants to prevent the MacPro being an iMac replacement and instead have clear demarcation in speed.

autrefois
Jun 24, 2011, 10:57 AM
A 16-core configuration would almost certainly come as a pair of 8-core processors [...] One intriguing report from M.I.C gadget (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/20/mac-pro-to-use-custom-intel-cpu-more-details-on-mac-mini-and-time-capsule/) surfacing last weekend claimed that Apple will be using a "unique CPU" in the new Mac Pros.

The unique part is that the next Mac Pro is not going to get a pair of 8-core processors, but rather 8 dual-core A5s and will run iOS. That would certainly be "unique" and be another step towards the common wisdom/fear of Apple moving the Mac more and more towards the iDevices. If you think people were mad about Final Cut Pro, wait until this announcement! ;)

joeyhockey
Jun 24, 2011, 10:58 AM
The image is a fake. You can query anything in the Apple Service Source and have it show up on the page. Look, Apple is coming out with a SuperMac Pro Widget!
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-tkCQVMBcAx8/TgSzXpvyyNI/AAAAAAAAE3o/myJkYrNdlHM/Untitled.png

Plus, the Service Source documentation is usually the LAST place that gets updated when a product is released.

NinjaHERO
Jun 24, 2011, 10:59 AM
Sounds speedy. :D

Cynicalone
Jun 24, 2011, 11:00 AM
Seems to be to early.

Maybe Intel is giving Apple early access, in hopes of securing future business from them. What if Intel is really trying to become the fabricator of the Apple ARM chips.

gglockner
Jun 24, 2011, 11:03 AM
WANT!

Heck, I'll be content with a 6-core Sandy Bridge Xeon. I would lose 2 cores but gain much in speed. But true 16-core (not just hyperthreading) sounds awesome.

Lone Deranger
Jun 24, 2011, 11:04 AM
FCPX is going to kill it for Apple in the proApps. so why get a 12 or 16 core if FCP 7 will not use the power!!! I love Apple Please Fix FCPX

Because for the professional there are many, many non Apple applications out there that will run very nicely on these machines. Maya, Mudbox, ZBrush, Houdini, Cinema 4D, Nuke.. to name but a few.

schin
Jun 24, 2011, 11:05 AM
16-cores is insane. I wonder how long it till take for MBPs to get 8-cores :rolleyes:

twoodcc
Jun 24, 2011, 11:07 AM
sounds great to me! but please lower the prices this time!

kavika411
Jun 24, 2011, 11:08 AM
I don't know much about cores. I'm curious - what percent of the general computer population would would be helped by 16 cores? What apps/processes need 16 cores?

Anonymous Freak
Jun 24, 2011, 11:11 AM
I think this makes perfect sense. Aim the "Mac Pro" at the *HIGH* end "Pro" market with the Xeon E7-series processors. They have a line of dual-socket E7s that go up to 10 cores. (Of course, they cost $4000 each CPU... Even the single dual-socket-compatible six-core E7 starts at $775 per CPU.) But 20 cores at 2.4 GHz would absolutely blow away the previous Mac Pro. (At a not-insignificant $10,000 for a complete system, though...)


I don't know much about cores. I'm curious - what percent of the general computer population would would be helped by 16 cores? What apps/processes need 16 cores?

Not much, hence the "Pro".

djrod
Jun 24, 2011, 11:11 AM
I don't know much about cores. I'm curious - what percent of the general computer population would would be helped by 16 cores? What apps/processes need 16 cores?

Mac Pros are not for general computer population

gorgeousninja
Jun 24, 2011, 11:12 AM
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)

Why oh why oh why are we not getting 16 core processors in the new macbook airs? This is just typical disgusting corner cutting by Apple yet again!!!

BornAgainMac
Jun 24, 2011, 11:12 AM
I hope it isn't $4,999 or more for the high end model.

Keebler
Jun 24, 2011, 11:17 AM
I don't know much about cores. I'm curious - what percent of the general computer population would would be helped by 16 cores? What apps/processes need 16 cores?

the general population is geared towards the imac ,which is perfect. MPros are good for them as well, but in terms of harnessing the power, I use:

Photoshop
Aperture
Scanning software
FCP 7 (although there are issues with its own software being able to fully utilize the MP power)
DVDSP (can help with processing builds faster and importing files)
Bitvice (for creating m2v files for DVDs) - this software uses all cores without being asked so the more ='s a faster processing time, which means I finish projects faster, which is a better turnaround time to clients.
Probably some other apps in there, but it gives you an idea. It's like having a V8 truck....you could use one for the heck of it, but those that really buy them for work haul horses, equipment etc...

kavika411
Jun 24, 2011, 11:18 AM
the general population is geared towards the imac ,which is perfect. MPros are good for them as well, but in terms of harnessing the power, I use:

Photoshop
Aperture
Scanning software
FCP 7 (although there are issues with its own software being able to fully utilize the MP power)
DVDSP (can help with processing builds faster and importing files)
Bitvice (for creating m2v files for DVDs) - this software uses all cores without being asked so the more ='s a faster processing time, which means I finish projects faster, which is a better turnaround time to clients.
Probably some other apps in there, but it gives you an idea. It's like having a V8 truck....you could use one for the heck of it, but those that really buy them for work haul horses, equipment etc...

Thanks. That was very helpful.

dante@sisna.com
Jun 24, 2011, 11:19 AM
how about a case redesign?

Please NO I love the current case. Keep it the same.

CplBadboy
Jun 24, 2011, 11:20 AM
I highly doubt i7 will be an option, though it would be great. Apple seems to have moved away from what I might refer to as mid-range options in the Mac Pro line. Before the iMac was as powerful, it was nice to get a PowerMac for $1,500. I think Apple wants to prevent the MacPro being an iMac replacement and instead have clear demarcation in speed.

So will these new Xeon processors be faster than the i7's etc? I would really like a MacPro over an iMac. Dont know why Apple dont offer a decent entry level MP with a beefy BTO of an up to date graphics card. Need a new gaming PC ready for BF3 but dont want a sole gaming set up to do it. The MacPro would fit perfectly in storing all my media films etc and acting as a future proof home server with massive storage options.

Small White Car
Jun 24, 2011, 11:21 AM
Funny...with an SSD, new graphics card, and Lion I finally feel like my 2006 Mac Pro's processors are finally being used to their full potential.

People are so focused on the numbers they never noticed that these XEON chips often worked at half power because everything else couldn't keep up or take advantage of them.

The first-generation Mac Pro is going to be one of the longest-lasting machines I've ever owned. I'm 5 years in and I just now feel like it's working at its full potential. It'll be a few more years before I try and replace it.

Michael73
Jun 24, 2011, 11:21 AM
A 16 core MP would quickly put an end to any bragging rights current iMac owners have about having the speediest Macs.

My 2008 MP is getting a little long in the tooth and in February the AppleCare ran out. I already purchased a new 2011 MBP for my business this year and have been tossing around the idea of getting a Cintiq 21UX as well. Depending on pricing, a new MP looks like a good 2012 business expense to me.

G2244
Jun 24, 2011, 11:24 AM
I am pretty sure the AMD Bulldozer Server processors should be out by then.
:eek:

Robellyn
Jun 24, 2011, 11:26 AM
I am pretty sure the AMD Bulldozer Server processors should be out by then.
:eek:

Yeah, but sadly, I don't think Intel's 'Thunderbolt' will interface will AMD's 'Bulldozer', do you?

chrmjenkins
Jun 24, 2011, 11:33 AM
For the Mac Pro, I think I would be surprised if all the models were shipping immediately. So, yeah August announcement, shipment 4-6 weeks after and maybe longer on the highest end models.
Apple is a very large customer. Also, I suspect it would be a while before ARM could displace Intel processors in any quantity that would annoy Intel.

Well, I partly rationalize Intel giving Apple sweetheart deals in 2 ways 1) Apple must pay a premium per chip compared to what other OEM/ODMs do and 2) Intel wants to go on their good side and get some Atom and mobile class application processors in Apple products. They realize it's one of the best ins to the smartphone/tablet space.

heisetax
Jun 24, 2011, 11:34 AM
Funny...with an SSD, new graphics card, and Lion I finally feel like my 2006 Mac Pro's processors are finally being used to their full potential.

People are so focused on the numbers they never noticed that these XEON chips often worked at half power because everything else couldn't keep up or take advantage of them.

The first-generation Mac Pro is going to be one of the longest-lasting machines I've ever owned. I'm 5 years in and I just now feel like it's working at its full potential. It'll be a few more years before I try and replace it.

I've been using 2 ATI 3870 video cards in mine. I'm not sure what else I could put in. Which video card do you have in yours? I've been using WD 10,000 rpm hard drives as my start up drives. I've been looking at an SSD.

Mine seems to be doing the job as well or better now than it did back in 2006.

tarproductions
Jun 24, 2011, 11:39 AM
Funny...with an SSD, new graphics card, and Lion I finally feel like my 2006 Mac Pro's processors are finally being used to their full potential.

The first-generation Mac Pro is going to be one of the longest-lasting machines I've ever owned. I'm 5 years in and I just now feel like it's working at its full potential. It'll be a few more years before I try and replace it.

Interesting, would like to hear more. I still use my 2006 MacPro as my main desktop. What graphics card/SSD did you go with?

Iconoclysm
Jun 24, 2011, 11:43 AM
Please have a bto for an i7.
And don't charge an absurd $2,500 for a base model
with 3GB, 5,400rpm and a junk GPU. It's insulting. :mad:
Thanks.

Why would you want an i7 Mac Pro? The reason these cost $2500 is because of the processors, not the GPU. There's nothing insulting about it.

JonoX
Jun 24, 2011, 11:45 AM
Looks nice to me..just might be my first Mac Pro. I've wanted a PowerMac for years but never bought one.

fixmymac
Jun 24, 2011, 11:45 AM
The image is a fake. You can query anything in the Apple Service Source and have it show up on the page. Look, Apple is coming out with a SuperMac Pro Widget!
Image (https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-tkCQVMBcAx8/TgSzXpvyyNI/AAAAAAAAE3o/myJkYrNdlHM/Untitled.png)

Plus, the Service Source documentation is usually the LAST place that gets updated when a product is released.

Agreed on both points. It is simple to make the Service Source page display whatever you want.

Also, the manuals are often weeks after the product is released. Latest iMac manuals were only available a week or two ago.

fixmymac
Jun 24, 2011, 11:48 AM
Interesting, would like to hear more. I still use my 2006 MacPro as my main desktop. What graphics card/SSD did you go with?

I would also be keen to hear how your pimped Mac Pro is performing. My 8-core 3.0Ghz model is shouting at me for an SSD. Latest build of Lion runs well on it, however AirDrop seems to be missing. I am guessing that this is to do with the model of card installed.

What SSD did you go for?

georgepeter
Jun 24, 2011, 11:50 AM
WOW - this will be just fab for editing my Bar Mitzvah videos on that hot new FCPX.

Small White Car
Jun 24, 2011, 11:51 AM
Which video card do you have in yours?

What graphics card/SSD did you go with?

The ATI 5770 (http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC742ZM/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY). It says 2009 or 2010 but it works fine on my machine.

I'm a Final Cut Editor, though, not a gamer. So I can't say if this card would make them happy. For me the speed of the hard drives matters more, honestly. The times I wait for stuff is video compressing. Just plain old cutting and real-time filters were never a problem even before this. But waiting for that DVD to compress while the processors work at 40%...that's always been my headache.

I'll tell you the 2 places I noticed the biggest improvement with the video card upgrade: Safari and Aperture scrolling. I figured Aperture would get better but I was amazed at how much Safari improved. I hadn't realized how much my video card was holding up my web experience before.

I haven't gotten an SSD yet. That's next on my list but funds dictate I'll have to wait a little while longer. But I can already feel my machine breathing easier, I know that'll just kick it up another notch. I did get this mount (http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/MM352A52MP9/) along with a 5th hard drive. I'm adding a 5th SATA drive to my 2nd optical bay now and once I do get an SSD it can go in there too. So I'll have an SSD + 5 SATA drives.

Robellyn
Jun 24, 2011, 11:53 AM
The image is a fake. You can query anything in the Apple Service Source and have it show up on the page. Look, Apple is coming out with a SuperMac Pro Widget!
Image (https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-tkCQVMBcAx8/TgSzXpvyyNI/AAAAAAAAE3o/myJkYrNdlHM/Untitled.png)

Plus, the Service Source documentation is usually the LAST place that gets updated when a product is released.

Yeah, the image is almost certainly a fake. Thankfully for us hopeful types, that picture isn't the 'evidence', just an illustration!

toddybody
Jun 24, 2011, 11:55 AM
The ATI 5770 (http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC742ZM/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY). It says 2009 or 2010 but it works fine on my machine.

I'm a Final Cut Editor, though, not a gamer. So I can't say if this card would make them happy. For me the speed of the hard drives matters more, honestly. The times I wait for stuff is video compressing. Just plain old cutting and real-time filters were never a problem even before this. But waiting for that DVD to compress while the processors work at 40%...that's always been my headache.

I'll tell you the 2 places I noticed the biggest improvement with the video card upgrade: Safari and Aperture scrolling. I figured Aperture would get better but I was amazed at how much Safari improved. I hadn't realized how much my video card was holding up my web experience before.

I haven't gotten an SSD yet. That's next on my list but funds dictate I'll have to wait a little while longer. But I can already feel my machine breathing easier, I know that'll just kick it up another notch.


Its sad when a 5770 is an "upgrade". You can buy that card for $90 now.

Small White Car
Jun 24, 2011, 12:03 PM
Its sad when a 5770 is an "upgrade". You can buy that card for $90 now.

Well, price-vs-performance was a factor. I find that if you're not doing anything that involves 3D (games, animation) the video card just doesn't make all that big a difference to your life.

Like I said, my biggest gain was Safari browsing. I'm enjoying it but it's not exactly changing the way I work.

KaneBaker
Jun 24, 2011, 12:08 PM
What's wrong with this one? Many consider it the epitome of towers.



Yeah, it's very interesting. If Intel is practicing this much favoritism, it really makes you wonder, particularly given Apple's ARM fanaticism.

Well first of all, winter is already here.
I agree that the Tower is awesome in its design, but I think it could be further improved. The rumors that would make it a standard rack sized enclosure would we sweet. Since many people are using it in studio environments (broadcast production here), it would be beneficial to have it ride carts without additional effort. It doesn't need to shrin much, but some would be good.

azentropy
Jun 24, 2011, 12:09 PM
Please have a bto for an i7.
And don't charge an absurd $2,500 for a base model
with 3GB, 5,400rpm and a junk GPU. It's insulting. :mad:
Thanks.

Extremely insulting. The entry level Mac Pro was a bad value when first released a year ago. I don't care how great the expandability, case, powersupply etc. are, a $2500 system should have better than a $280 CPU, a $100 GPU, a $50 HD, and $50 of memory (retail pricing).

Keebler
Jun 24, 2011, 12:11 PM
Interesting, would like to hear more. I still use my 2006 MacPro as my main desktop. What graphics card/SSD did you go with?

i just put an OCZ agility 120 GB in my 2009 MP and I can't believe how much zippier it is for accessing files and launching apps. very very nice edition.

Lots of threads on SSD recommendations. I suggest hopping the to Mac Pro form as there was a specific thread on it. Lots of great info.

As for the MP form factor, I believe the rumour of a smaller, thinner case designed for racks etc... I can see them cutting down on size.

then again, that was before hearing about 16 cores (possibly). might change that idea. lol

Lone Deranger
Jun 24, 2011, 12:12 PM
I would hate to see the price of the 16 core/32 thread monster. 12 core/24 thread Mac pro's top out over 5 grand. My guess would be 8 to 10 grand. Who can afford it besides folks currently making a lot of money. Will be interesting for sure.

The answer to that question is in the name. Pro's. :)

4God
Jun 24, 2011, 12:14 PM
Funny...with an SSD, new graphics card, and Lion I finally feel like my 2006 Mac Pro's processors are finally being used to their full potential.

People are so focused on the numbers they never noticed that these XEON chips often worked at half power because everything else couldn't keep up or take advantage of them.

The first-generation Mac Pro is going to be one of the longest-lasting machines I've ever owned. I'm 5 years in and I just now feel like it's working at its full potential. It'll be a few more years before I try and replace it.

Yep, that's exactly how I feel. I have an early '08 eight core and I just replaced my failing 3870 graphics card with a 5770 (just in time for the new FCPX), added some RAM and an SSD. All this now makes my machine feel snappy and apps like BitVice and FCPX fly on this thing!

RalfTheDog
Jun 24, 2011, 12:16 PM
What's wrong with this one? Many consider it the epitome of towers.



Yeah, it's very interesting. If Intel is practicing this much favoritism, it really makes you wonder, particularly given Apple's ARM fanaticism.

Who is to say, Intel will not be moving to ARM for their high end stuff. X86 is getting very old. Current implementation of ARM is slow because it is built for power consumption and price. If it was built for speed it would obliterate X86. Eventually, Intel has no choice but to drop all the legacy garbage. Intel has the licenses to build ARM and nothing on the market has the potential to compete with ARM for speed.

winston1236
Jun 24, 2011, 12:19 PM
And no doubt they'll be priced out of this world.

Hence the "pro"

toddybody
Jun 24, 2011, 12:43 PM
Well, price-vs-performance was a factor. I find that if you're not doing anything that involves 3D (games, animation) the video card just doesn't make all that big a difference to your life.

Like I said, my biggest gain was Safari browsing. I'm enjoying it but it's not exactly changing the way I work.

Agreed....my gripe is on a philosophical level:) 5770 is more than adequate for daily tasking and many graphically oriented applications, save gaming. Im a Mac user by day/no good PC gamer by night, so I pine for Apple to embrace current off the shelf GPU's:)

milo
Jun 24, 2011, 12:46 PM
I assume these will include thunderbolt. And they BETTER include sata III, it was pathetic they didn't upgrade to those last time around.

Please have a bto for an i7.
And don't charge an absurd $2,500 for a base model
with 3GB, 5,400rpm and a junk GPU. It's insulting. :mad:
Thanks.

What they should do is just make the base model (single chip) i7 by default. Xeon in a single chip machine is pretty much pointless.

Will they support 128GB of ram ? :D

I think the current ones might already, there are 16 gig ram chips shipping now.

FCPX is going to kill it for Apple in the proApps. so why get a 12 or 16 core if FCP 7 will not use the power!!!

Logic.


A 16 core MP would quickly put an end to any bragging rights current iMac owners have about having the speediest Macs.

Those so called "bragging rights" were based on misinformation, there are already 12 core macs and a 6 or 8 core configured similarly would have topped that comparison as well.


Why would you want an i7 Mac Pro? The reason these cost $2500 is because of the processors, not the GPU. There's nothing insulting about it.

Because an i7 base model would perform as well or better than the xeon that's in there now, and save a lot of money. And the reason they cost $2500 is because you're getting ripped off, not because you're getting the performance that price should fetch. That has been one of the weakest parts of Apple's product line for years, and as the most expensive yeah, it's pretty insulting. Especially considering it ships with 3x1 gigs of ram.

Umbongo
Jun 24, 2011, 12:54 PM
What they should do is just make the base model (single chip) i7 by default. Xeon in a single chip machine is pretty much pointless.

Apple using Xeons in the single CPU Mac Pros allowed the use of 8GB and 16GB DIMMs. ECC allows error detection; and while prevention might not be an issue for someone who sits in a creative app all day and isn't fussed about getting as close to 100% uptime as possible, Mac Pros are used in many types of situations where it a welcome feature. The cost for Apple to use Xeons and ECC memory over selling them with a Core i7 and non-ECC memory would not have changed the retail price either. So it would be pointless to not use Xeons.

azentropy
Jun 24, 2011, 01:05 PM
Why would you want an i7 Mac Pro? The reason these cost $2500 is because of the processors, not the GPU. There's nothing insulting about it.

That is not correct, at least for the entry model. The base Mac Pro uses a W3520 which according to Intel's Price list (http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/INTC/1224760103x0x477071/751D44BC-066B-4CFB-BC4E-E4627F3BC1DE/June_19_11_1ku_Price.pdf) is a $284 CPU. The i7-2600 ($294 and quite a bit faster) is in systems costing ~$700.

bartzilla
Jun 24, 2011, 01:05 PM
One intriguing report from M.I.C gadget (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/20/mac-pro-to-use-custom-intel-cpu-more-details-on-mac-mini-and-time-capsule/) surfacing last weekend claimed that Apple will be using a "unique CPU" in the new Mac Pros.

Maybe it will be a 16 core atom. A new definition of "pro" processor to go along with Final Cut Pro's new definition of "pro" software.

toddybody
Jun 24, 2011, 01:12 PM
Maybe it will be a 16 core atom. A new definition of "pro" processor to go along with Final Cut Pro's new definition of "pro" software.


You forgot the "da dum tsh" (rimshot)

G4er?
Jun 24, 2011, 01:18 PM
Sounds like Apple is paying a little attention to the professionals again. Finally.
Now if Apple would only pay some attention to those of us that want something for the gap between the Mini and the Mac Pro.

I think I'll open a shopping center and get Apple to build a store there. I'll design it where they have to put it between a Gap and a Gap For Kids. :)

cmaier
Jun 24, 2011, 01:23 PM
Who is to say, Intel will not be moving to ARM for their high end stuff. X86 is getting very old. Current implementation of ARM is slow because it is built for power consumption and price. If it was built for speed it would obliterate X86. Eventually, Intel has no choice but to drop all the legacy garbage. Intel has the licenses to build ARM and nothing on the market has the potential to compete with ARM for speed.

No it wouldn't, not in the real world.

Umbongo
Jun 24, 2011, 01:26 PM
No it wouldn't, not in the real world.

So for desktop systems where performance is expected x86 is going to be the instruction set for some time to come?

TwoLabsMedia
Jun 24, 2011, 01:41 PM
Figures...just picked up a new Mac Pro. Here's hoping for PCIe Thunderbolt cards...

milo
Jun 24, 2011, 01:45 PM
Apple using Xeons in the single CPU Mac Pros allowed the use of 8GB and 16GB DIMMs. ECC allows error detection; and while prevention might not be an issue for someone who sits in a creative app all day and isn't fussed about getting as close to 100% uptime as possible, Mac Pros are used in many types of situations where it a welcome feature. The cost for Apple to use Xeons and ECC memory over selling them with a Core i7 and non-ECC memory would not have changed the retail price either. So it would be pointless to not use Xeons.

The price difference isn't as huge as it used to be, but the i7s are still cheaper not to mention that the memory and motherboard used are generally cheaper for them as well. There's just no excuse for a quad machine costing $2500, particularly with those specs. If they are going to cut corners on the base MP, and that is what they're doing, they might as well cut a few more and make it more affordable for that market. If people need more, that's what the higher end models are for.

i7s can use 8 gig chips, people are doing it now with iMacs (and that's even laptop ram).

And what was apple thinking only putting 4 ram slots in the base MP? Not to mention that these machines use triple channel ram, why not 6 or even 9 (or more)?

friedmud
Jun 24, 2011, 01:50 PM
This would be a bummer... I might not upgrade from my current dual 2.93Ghz 6 core Nehalem Mac Pro.

I was really hoping for dual 10-core processors (yes they exist... http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/06/intel-rolls-out-10-core-20-threaded-xeon-e7s-shows-everyone-wh/ )... that would cause me to upgrade!

40 logical cores is where it's at!

Justinf79
Jun 24, 2011, 01:51 PM
Funny...with an SSD, new graphics card, and Lion I finally feel like my 2006 Mac Pro's processors are finally being used to their full potential.

People are so focused on the numbers they never noticed that these XEON chips often worked at half power because everything else couldn't keep up or take advantage of them.

The first-generation Mac Pro is going to be one of the longest-lasting machines I've ever owned. I'm 5 years in and I just now feel like it's working at its full potential. It'll be a few more years before I try and replace it.

Yeah I plan on keeping my '09 MP for years and just upgrading it. I'm going to replace my GT120 card with whatever comes out as a BTO option for the next MP, and add a SSD with Lion, sometime this year. :)

maclaptop
Jun 24, 2011, 02:08 PM
how about a case redesign?

I second that!

However we are living in the "Post PC" era according to Jobs.

It's all about Angry Birds, and other minutia.

Umbongo
Jun 24, 2011, 02:11 PM
The price difference isn't as huge as it used to be, but the i7s are still cheaper not to mention that the memory and motherboard used are generally cheaper for them as well.

It has been $0 on LGA 1366. Memory cost was $5-10 more per GB for non-ECC UDIMMs. As the logic boards are custom anyway there wouldn't be additional cost - it is a firmware issue to have ECC U/RDIMMs working. I agree the system price is very high for what you get hardware wise - the margin must be huge when the retail cost of similar components is under 50% of Apple's price. i7 vs Xeon is just not the issue and the i7 offers no benefit to the end user.

i7s can use 8 gig chips, people are doing it now with iMacs (and that's even laptop ram).

There are currently no 8GB non-ECC unbuffered 240 DIMMs available for desktops so right now to use 8GB DIMMs with a Core i5 or Core i7 CPU you have to have a board that will let you use ECC unbuffered DIMMs and that will just disable ECC functionality and 8GB ECC UDIMMs were only available in mid 2010 IIRC. I assume this is a market doesn't demand it kind of thing. Apple get around this of course because of using laptop memory.

And what was apple thinking only putting 4 ram slots in the base MP? Not to mention that these machines use triple channel ram, why not 6 or even 9 (or more)?

This has always been an annoyance of mine too. I figure their real world testing didn't show enough difference so they didn't care and it kept the dual processor systems further apart in terms of features.

CFreymarc
Jun 24, 2011, 02:42 PM
how about a case redesign?

I'm sure that is in the works. I knew it would be a good leap. Knights Corner is isn't ready but 16-cores, we definitely have a Knights of the Round Table -- woohoo!

cmaier
Jun 24, 2011, 03:05 PM
So for desktop systems where performance is expected x86 is going to be the instruction set for some time to come?

Yep. Every supposed super-processor that was going to come along and drink x86's milkshake has failed to do so so far. What people like to deride as all the "baggage" in x86 is actually very useful to making general purpose software run fast. At their heart, every x86 is designed more or less like an ARM, MIPS, or PowerPC - the additional decoding logic and microcode ROMs add a little area, add a pipe stage or two for certain instructions, but, in the end, they allow code executed by modern compilers to execute very quickly. And, believe it or not, a lot of the "baggage" that wasn't so helpful has been working its way out - for example, AMD64/x86-64 gets rid of a lot of stuff that gummed up the works.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 24, 2011, 03:31 PM
I can see it now. 16-cores and yet no USB3. Might as well wait another year (well given how often they update, make that two).

JesterJJZ
Jun 24, 2011, 04:06 PM
Yeah, but sadly, I don't think Intel's 'Thunderbolt' will interface will AMD's 'Bulldozer', do you?

Yeah...didn't work out too well in Killdozer...

Keebler
Jun 24, 2011, 04:13 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

I would bet against usb3. They seem committed to thunderbolt plus if they wanted to start implementing it on their hardware, the mbps from feb would have had it I believe

OrangeSVTguy
Jun 24, 2011, 04:29 PM
Mac Pros are not for general computer population

Only for the real people that use Mac Pros to make them money. It's a tool after all :D

Oh and the filthy rich that like to play farmville and have nothing better to spend their money on.

Robellyn
Jun 24, 2011, 04:56 PM
Yeah...didn't work out too well in Killdozer...

Ha ha! I've never met another person who actually saw that movie!

umbilical
Jun 24, 2011, 05:27 PM
space for 8 HDs? (4tb x 8 = 32tb!!!) with new case of rack ? I want that! for reemplace my macpro 08 ;)

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 24, 2011, 07:32 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

I would bet against usb3. They seem committed to thunderbolt plus if they wanted to start implementing it on their hardware, the mbps from feb would have had it I believe

That's exactly why I point out I probably wouldn't want anything to do with the new Mac Pro. I suppose you could add a USB3 card (unlike Thunderbolt which has to be on the motherboard), but that creates potential latency issues that wouldn't exist on the main board.

Some of us are betting that Apple is going to get USB3 starting next year whether they really want it or not since Intel is scheduled to start shipping it on all their motherboards next year. Apple would have to go out of their way to prevent its appearance on the Mac and that seems unlikely (although I wouldn't put it past Steve either). But until an official Apple USB3 driver is available, it won't do much good on a Hackintosh and add-in cards' support will be shoddy at best (the only one I saw thus far was only guaranteed to work with the hard drive controllers made by the same company...how convenient. Although that was some time ago that I looked. The only Mac I could put it in now is the MBP through its expansion slot...you know the one that current MBPs of the 15" variety no longer have? Gee that SD slot is sure useful instead, though, right? :rolleyes: )

BTW
Jun 24, 2011, 10:30 PM
Sounds like from all the rumors this will be a major update including a new form factor that'll allow it to be racked easily. This would then answer my question about what Apple is using in their own data center. Storage wise obviously not Apple's own product but servers are something they can produce. :cool:

pprior
Jun 24, 2011, 11:09 PM
The current mac pro is already starved for drive space - 4 drives just is not nearly enough. If they go rack mounted at 3 or even 4 high, it's going to be more cramped. The case needs to get bigger, not smaller!

I plunked down a large amount of money on several external raid boxes but I'd much rather have had my drives in the tower - have had PC towers that held 10+ drives.

Wild-Bill
Jun 24, 2011, 11:30 PM
I'm sure Apple will price everything but the 6-core single-CPU Mac Pro into the freakin' stratosphere..... So you can pay through the nose for a 16-core behemoth that has no blu-ray, no USB 3, a shoddy entry-level video card, with the option to add an AMD 6970 card for twice the retail pc-version's price!! Oh, and let's not forget the crappy standard hard drive they'll have in there that you'll need to yank out and repurpose for something that doesn't require speed...

Wow!!! I can hardlywait !!!!! :eek:

No thanks, Apple.

My excellently-priced 2008 Mac Pro is doing just fine....

InuNacho
Jun 25, 2011, 12:08 AM
Before the iMac was as powerful, it was nice to get a PowerMac for $1,500. I think Apple wants to prevent the MacPro being an iMac replacement and instead have clear demarcation in speed.

Oh yeah, buy the crappy 400MHz for $1,599 and stick a dual 1.8GHz in later on down the road.
I'd gladly take a base Pro for $1,599 and stick a superpowerful-ultradeluxe processor in it at a later date.

ARobinson
Jun 25, 2011, 12:50 AM
Definitely selling my obsolete Mac Pro and buying the newest new one of the new ones. Jk. After a couple years of thunderbolt maybe...

Riot Nrrrd
Jun 25, 2011, 02:25 AM
Please NO I love the current case. Keep it the same.

Yeah, please keep it the same -- I just LOVE slicing my palms whenever I have to carry mine. :rolleyes:

Are you nuts? :confused:

Loki!
Jun 25, 2011, 03:02 AM
Apple will name new towers: MAC PRO X, it will look exactly like a iMac but with a beautiful magnetic dock! (and at less than half price!! Kit available on macstore):D:p

TripHop
Jun 25, 2011, 05:00 AM
Figures...just picked up a new Mac Pro. Here's hoping for PCIe Thunderbolt cards...Nope. PCIe bus can't support Thunderbolt speed. Thunderbolt only works directly into the motherboard. This was explained in the original Thunderbolt briefing in February. Better return it for a refund and wait for the new ones.

Hellhammer
Jun 25, 2011, 05:12 AM
Nope. PCIe bus can't support Thunderbolt speed. Thunderbolt only works directly into the motherboard. This was explained in the original Thunderbolt briefing in February. Better return it for a refund and wait for the new ones.

Thunderbolt is connected to PCIe even though it is on the motherboard.

http://newsroom.intel.com/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/38-2035-1452/Thunderbolt_Block_Diagram.jpg

There is no official word from Intel concerning Thunderbolt PCIe cards. The issue is that TB includes DisplayPort so a plain PCIe card won't work for video. It's possible that there will be GPUs with Thunderbolt as that would provide video too.

lesreaper2009
Jun 25, 2011, 01:36 PM
FCPX is going to kill it for Apple in the proApps. so why get a 12 or 16 core if FCP 7 will not use the power!!! I love Apple Please Fix FCPX

I use After Effects, Cinema 4d, Nuke, Smoke, so I still love the MacOS environment.

Screw FCPX. Major Apple Fail.

MSlaw
Jun 25, 2011, 03:35 PM
The CPU is not the only expensive part in it...

Actually the ECC ram is expensive as hell too.

AidenShaw
Jun 25, 2011, 03:43 PM
Thunderbolt is connected to PCIe even though it is on the motherboard.

http://newsroom.intel.com/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/38-2035-1452/Thunderbolt_Block_Diagram.jpg

There is no official word from Intel concerning Thunderbolt PCIe cards. The issue is that TB includes DisplayPort so a plain PCIe card won't work for video. It's possible that there will be GPUs with Thunderbolt as that would provide video too.

Let's hope that TBolt without DisplayPort is possible (of course it's possible, I mean let's hope that it is "allowed").

xgman
Jun 25, 2011, 04:46 PM
I can see it now. 16-cores and yet no USB3. Might as well wait another year (well given how often they update, make that two).

You can bet money on NO USB 3 and I hope I loose that bet. Two things are clear. Apple hates Flash and Apple hates USB3. :rolleyes:

xgman
Jun 25, 2011, 04:47 PM
The CPU is not the only expensive part in it...

Actually the ECC ram is expensive as hell too.

The ecc ram isn't that much anymore.

benthewraith
Jun 25, 2011, 09:05 PM
Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/24/new-mac-pros-with-up-to-16-cores-coming-in-late-julyearly-august/)


Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/mac_pro_mid2011_browser1.jpg)


Apple is preparing to release new "Mid 2011" Mac Pro models, according to 9 to 5 Mac (http://9to5mac.com/2011/06/23/apple-gearing-up-to-launch-upgraded-mac-pro-with-16-core-processor/) who cites internal Apple documents reportedly mentioning options ranging from six to sixteen processor cores. According to the source, Apple has begun putting together product manuals for the new Mac Pros, which are said to begin shipping in late July or early August.The late July/early August timeframe for the new Mac Pro release was first reported (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/19/new-mac-pros-and-mac-minis-launching-august/) over the weekend by CNET's Brian Tong, whose sources had previously accurately pinpointed the latest iMac release within a small window six weeks ahead of time.

The primary question surrounding a Mac Pro release within the rumored timeframe is just which processors Apple will be using. A 16-core configuration would almost certainly come as a pair of 8-core processors, and 8-core Sandy Bridge processors of the server class used in the Mac Pro line aren't scheduled to appear until the fourth quarter of this year as Intel's Xeon E5 line. While Apple has been known to receive early access to Intel processors in the past, it seems ambitious to suppose that Apple would have that much advance access to be able to ship new Mac Pros by early August given Intel's production plans.

One intriguing report from M.I.C gadget (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/20/mac-pro-to-use-custom-intel-cpu-more-details-on-mac-mini-and-time-capsule/) surfacing last weekend claimed that Apple will be using a "unique CPU" in the new Mac Pros. Intel has in the past provided custom processors for Apple, pushing out a specially-designed mobile chip (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/17/intels-custom-processor-for-macbook-air/) for the original MacBook Air back in 2008. M.I.C gadget does not, however, have a track record for Apple hardware records, so the reliability of the claim is unknown.

Article Link: New Mac Pros With Up to 16 Cores Coming in Late July/Early August? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/24/new-mac-pros-with-up-to-16-cores-coming-in-late-julyearly-august/)

Now, will it have a 10 Meg pipe? I need to know so I can have the fast response times necessary to keep my high scores in all the massive multi online role playing games. ;)

Supa_Fly
Jun 25, 2011, 11:07 PM
It's all about Angry Birds, and other minutia.

MoFAQR! If I hear that stupid game again I'm going to punch somebody! I cannot go a day without hearing that game on some platform or another like its the holy grain, AARRRGH!!

k, rant over.

Anyone remember the days of the PowerMac G5 ... its introductory year ... how awesome EVERYBODY loved that machine in the Mac/Apple community the world over ... and how erked/pissed-off every WinPC user was ... how they resorted to those applications not be available for OSX?!

Those where great times.

Now I'm actually looking forward to purchasing a used 22008/2009 Mac Pro (intel cpu).

On another note - this argument of ARM-based cpu's reminds me of a 7yr old post on these boards over CISC vs RISC based cpu's ... I got so lost over that thread - but it was engaging.

arogge
Jun 26, 2011, 02:09 PM
What apps/processes need 16 cores?

Bibble 5 (http://www.bibblelabs.com/products/bibble5/features/speed.html)

Dark Void
Jun 26, 2011, 02:24 PM
starting at $5,999 or so i assume?

i mean, does anyone even buy the 12 core? why put any effort into a 16 core instead of something else?

Hellhammer
Jun 26, 2011, 03:26 PM
starting at $5,999 or so i assume?

i mean, does anyone even buy the 12 core? why put any effort into a 16 core instead of something else?

There is market for such high-end computers. If you make your living with your computer with e.g. video editing, then having the fastest possible machine can easily pay itself back in no time. You don't want to spend your precious work hours waiting for the computer to complete tasks, you want to minimize that time so there will be more time left for the actual work.

Sure, the market isn't as big as iPad's market but there are still buyers.

Dark Void
Jun 26, 2011, 03:28 PM
There is market for such high-end computers. If you make your living with your computer with e.g. video editing, then having the fastest possible machine can easily pay itself back in no time. You don't want to spend your precious work hours waiting for the computer to complete tasks, you want to minimize that time so there will be more time left for the actual work.

Sure, the market isn't as big as iPad's market but there are still buyers.

i see your point, but is 16 (even 12) cores necessary though? what actually needs 16 cores that 8 can't handle?

cmaier
Jun 26, 2011, 03:34 PM
i see your point, but is 16 (even 12) cores necessary though? what actually needs 16 cores that 8 can't handle?

Tons of scientific and engineering software can make almost linear use of additional cores. For example, electronic design automation, finite element analysis, forecasting, etc. Also things like rendering, etc. In many instances this can shave many hours or even days off of jobs.

arogge
Jun 26, 2011, 03:39 PM
i see your point, but is 16 (even 12) cores necessary though? what actually needs 16 cores that 8 can't handle?

How many more applications do you want to mention? More CPU power means less time waiting for many tasks to complete, which means less money spent on personnel waiting around for computers to respond with the desired results. Now that software is being optimized to take advantage of multi-core CPUs on multi-CPU systems, the financial gains as a result of these upgrades could be considerable.

Hellhammer
Jun 26, 2011, 03:40 PM
i see your point, but is 16 (even 12) cores necessary though? what actually needs 16 cores that 8 can't handle?

If you have 8 and 16-core machines running at same clock speed with equal micro-architectures, the 16-core will be twice as fast as the 8-core if the software is able to take advantage of all 16 cores. If you use your machine for work, that is a huge performance increase and can potentially increase productivity by the same amount, which means more money.

Dark Void
Jun 26, 2011, 05:08 PM
If you have 8 and 16-core machines running at same clock speed with equal micro-architectures, the 16-core will be twice as fast as the 8-core if the software is able to take advantage of all 16 cores. If you use your machine for work, that is a huge performance increase and can potentially increase productivity by the same amount, which means more money.

fair enough, i mean, i just figured that there was some sort of cap somewhere that would deem the 16 cores unnecessary, i.e. a cap within the amount of time it takes to do a simple task. i can see it being different for some scientific programming in that it may require such core power but my thought is something like: if you are working in photoshop with an 8-core processor and it reacts instantly, wouldn't it be the same on a 16-core? sorry if that doesn't make sense.

Hellhammer
Jun 26, 2011, 05:49 PM
fair enough, i mean, i just figured that there was some sort of cap somewhere that would deem the 16 cores unnecessary, i.e. a cap within the amount of time it takes to do a simple task. i can see it being different for some scientific programming in that it may require such core power but my thought is something like: if you are working in photoshop with an 8-core processor and it reacts instantly, wouldn't it be the same on a 16-core? sorry if that doesn't make sense.

Photoshop can only use four cores currently so it would make absolutely no difference ;) Unless you do something very CPU intensive, you have no reason to buy a 12 or 16-core Mac Pro. Photo editing in general isn't very CPU heavy so people who use that won't need a high-end Mac Pro.

chrono1081
Jun 26, 2011, 06:45 PM
Photoshop can only use four cores currently so it would make absolutely no difference ;) Unless you do something very CPU intensive, you have no reason to buy a 12 or 16-core Mac Pro. Photo editing in general isn't very CPU heavy so people who use that won't need a high-end Mac Pro.

+840583040 I get into this argument all the time with friends. They think using Photoshop means they need a $3k+ computer.

AidenShaw
Jun 26, 2011, 08:20 PM
+840583040They think using Photoshop means they need a $3k+ computer.

I agree - they don't need a MiniMac, a PC will do the job just fine for much cheaper.

</sarcasm> ;)

cmaier
Jun 26, 2011, 08:23 PM
fair enough, i mean, i just figured that there was some sort of cap somewhere that would deem the 16 cores unnecessary, i.e. a cap within the amount of time it takes to do a simple task. i can see it being different for some scientific programming in that it may require such core power but my thought is something like: if you are working in photoshop with an 8-core processor and it reacts instantly, wouldn't it be the same on a 16-core? sorry if that doesn't make sense.

Yes, makes sense. Many jobs aren't instant, though. Rendering a 3-D scene, calculating the optimal sizes and locations for wires on a microchip, predicting weather, figuring out if a bridge will fall down in high winds, etc. These things can take many hours. If a job can be cut from 20 hours to 10, that's the difference between being able to run it over night vs. sitting around all day at work waiting for results.

Dark Void
Jun 26, 2011, 09:00 PM
Photoshop can only use four cores currently so it would make absolutely no difference ;) Unless you do something very CPU intensive, you have no reason to buy a 12 or 16-core Mac Pro. Photo editing in general isn't very CPU heavy so people who use that won't need a high-end Mac Pro.

hehe perhaps photoshop wasn't the best example. let me try again with a more generalized approach!

so say you have a program that has hiccups with 4 cores but runs flawlessly and reacts instantly with 8 cores. wouldn't that instant reaction be the same with 12 cores or even 16? thus, my original post was born, as in, how much of a market could there possibly be for 16 cores? what doesn't run as smoothly as possible with 12 cores that 16 cores will resolve?

in terms of work, i definitely understand the whole cut down on time don't get me wrong, but what are people running that (forget the "instant" part here) 16 cores will cut down that time so significantly in comparison to 12 or even 8 cores? i suppose it's sped up but is it really justified?

Anonymous Freak
Jun 27, 2011, 12:54 AM
Let's hope that TBolt without DisplayPort is possible (of course it's possible, I mean let's hope that it is "allowed").

Well, Sony has already said that they'll support Thunderbolt using a modified USB connector... (So it could be a dual-use, either USB 3.0 or Thunderbolt.)

Hellhammer
Jun 27, 2011, 03:15 AM
hehe perhaps photoshop wasn't the best example. let me try again with a more generalized approach!

so say you have a program that has hiccups with 4 cores but runs flawlessly and reacts instantly with 8 cores. wouldn't that instant reaction be the same with 12 cores or even 16? thus, my original post was born, as in, how much of a market could there possibly be for 16 cores? what doesn't run as smoothly as possible with 12 cores that 16 cores will resolve?

in terms of work, i definitely understand the whole cut down on time don't get me wrong, but what are people running that (forget the "instant" part here) 16 cores will cut down that time so significantly in comparison to 12 or even 8 cores? i suppose it's sped up but is it really justified?

Well, I bet most people who already have a 12-core Mac Pro won't be upgrading to the 16-core version. Usually when people make purchases that big, they try to make it last several years by "future-proofing" it (that is a bit moot though). However, if you have e.g. 2008 8-core Mac Pro, then the jump from that to 16-core 2011 Mac Pro would be huge.

Again, it is justified if you think the end result will get you more money. If you cut the rendering time in half from 20 hours to 10 hours, that means you got 10 more hours for the actual work, thus you can do more work which equals to more money (or at least should).

Well, Sony has already said that they'll support Thunderbolt using a modified USB connector... (So it could be a dual-use, either USB 3.0 or Thunderbolt.)

Has Sony officially said this? I only remember the picture of their laptop but I didn't really buy it.

Dark Void
Jun 27, 2011, 06:37 AM
Well, I bet most people who already have a 12-core Mac Pro won't be upgrading to the 16-core version. Usually when people make purchases that big, they try to make it last several years by "future-proofing" it (that is a bit moot though). However, if you have e.g. 2008 8-core Mac Pro, then the jump from that to 16-core 2011 Mac Pro would be huge.

Again, it is justified if you think the end result will get you more money. If you cut the rendering time in half from 20 hours to 10 hours, that means you got 10 more hours for the actual work, thus you can do more work which equals to more money (or at least should).

fair enough man, i see what you're saying and it's a good point. i just think that perhaps efforts could be used elsewhere instead of within a 16 core mac pro model when a 12 core model already exists. namely figure out what they are doing with the macbook.

cmaier
Jun 27, 2011, 09:03 AM
fair enough man, i see what you're saying and it's a good point. i just think that perhaps efforts could be used elsewhere instead of within a 16 core mac pro model when a 12 core model already exists. namely figure out what they are doing with the macbook.

Meanwhile there are a thousand people complaining apple doesn't spend enough time on its "pro" solutions, including the Mac pro.

BTW, MacBook is dead. Get over it. The future for low end MacBooks is the Air.

dev null
Jun 27, 2011, 01:53 PM
in terms of work, i definitely understand the whole cut down on time don't get me wrong, but what are people running that (forget the "instant" part here) 16 cores will cut down that time so significantly in comparison to 12 or even 8 cores? i suppose it's sped up but is it really justified?

A specific example would be the Vue products from E-on Software (www.e-onsoftware.com). If you want to make nice, ray-traced images or videos, be prepared to wait, regardless of the number of cores you have. I ran several three-hour renders yesterday on a 12-core Mac Pro. I've been working with 3d scenes since the Bryce 3 days in the '90s, and the hardware is never fast enough. Fortunately, rendering lends itself to parallel processes, so more cores directly reduce render time (if the software is written properly, as most is now).

The movie Avatar was rendered on more than thirty thousand cores (http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2010/01/39000-core-ubuntu-cluster-renders.html); it will be a few years yet before a Mac Pro will be *quite* that big.

deconstruct60
Jun 27, 2011, 03:10 PM
Well, Sony has already said that they'll support Thunderbolt using a modified USB connector... (So it could be a dual-use, either USB 3.0 or Thunderbolt.)

The USB standards body has already said that something that is physically compatible with USB is a non-starter. It is going to get blocked. This was likely yet another one of the original USB 3.0 prototypes (back when it had fiber optic elements ) that Intel also were floating around originally.

The USB folks want a path to "go fiber" if it eventually gets inexpensive enough. Allowing Thunderbolt to usurp that would 'dead end' the standard. That isn't going to happen.


Even if they did this. ...... if Thunderbolt forks quickly into two different kinds of plugs it is going to have adaptation problems. Likewise if the "backwards compatiblity" with Display Port becomes a "well sometimes it does and sometimes it isn't" ... that also will lead to adoptation problems.

deconstruct60
Jun 27, 2011, 03:20 PM
Unless you do something very CPU intensive, you have no reason to buy a 12 or 16-core Mac Pro.

it doesn't have to be just "you". If other users are using the computer at the same time the total CPU load goes up. Likewise if using PhotoShop and running multiple background apps ( rendering , etc.). Just pointing out that it doesn't have to be a single, embarrasing parallel application that motivaties having more cores.

Interactive response is a poor motivator for multiple cores. There are usually (broader spectrum of uses and applicatin mixes0 much slower bottlenecks in the system ( RAM , disk ) than CPU ones .

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 27, 2011, 03:25 PM
so say you have a program that has hiccups with 4 cores but runs flawlessly and reacts instantly with 8 cores. wouldn't that instant reaction be the same with 12 cores or even 16? thus, my original post was born, as in, how much of a market could there possibly be for 16 cores? what doesn't run as smoothly as possible with 12 cores that 16 cores will resolve?


Geeze, the sky is the limit. The first thing that comes to mind is Handbrake encoding. If 2-cores took two hours to complete a movie encode, 4 might take theoretically one hour, 8 cores a half hour and 16 would take 15 minutes (not going to be exact, but you get the idea). Now say I have 300 movies to encode from my DVD collection to M4V for AppleTV use. It's going to take 16 cores 75 hours to encode. Reduce that to 8 cores and it's going to take 150 hours instead (over 3 more days than with 16 cores). The same thing would apply to 3D computer animation rendering, etc. that takes a LONG time to process.

You only really see the benefit of a large number of cores with applications that need a lot of processing power. Imagine what they use super computers for with hundreds, even tens of thousands of processors in parallel. Decoding the human genome, atomic modeling. Processing the early universe, etc.

Do you need 16 cores just to run Microsoft Office? No way. ;)

deconstruct60
Jun 27, 2011, 03:36 PM
I can see it now. 16-cores and yet no USB3.

given that USB 3 needs software and Lion was arriving this year it was not likely USB 3.0 would arrive any sooner than Lion. Apple can be even lazier and wait till it is weaved into the support chipsets (which for the Xeon ones will be even later. )

USB 3.0 will probably come when Apple has to do the minimal amount of work to enable it.

Dark Void
Jun 27, 2011, 04:01 PM
BTW, MacBook is dead. Get over it. The future for low end MacBooks is the Air.

i'm well over it. my opinion was formed on my observations of a lot of people particularly on this forum that were concerned with the macbook and interested in its future and furthermore the lack of observation of the anticipation of a 4-core upgrade in the mac pro.

i personally could care less about either, i just figured that more people would be interested in the fate of the macbook (namely, amongst other things of course) as opposed to a mac pro upgrade. is that necessarily true? not at all. it was an opinion.

AppleFan1998
Jul 21, 2011, 01:49 AM
Okay, the mini specs were kind of disappointing. But hopefully these Mac Pros will have the hexacore standard.:D

xbjllb
Aug 31, 2011, 06:55 AM
From the visionary that brought you no optical, no flash, no Blu-ray, comes more Apple decades ahead of the curve vaportech.

The new Mac Pro. Downloadable at the App Store. Molecules reassemble on your desktop. Only takes nine months to download. No optical bays. Steve says optical bays are a bag of hurt and would add three months to the download time. Only runs iOS.

But think of the money saved on packaging. And how futuristic you'll be with your giant screenless iPad in a tower. That doubles as a cheese grater. Actually, does better at cheese grating than computing.

:apple:

Sacird
Aug 31, 2011, 12:50 PM
From the visionary that brought you no optical, no flash, no Blu-ray, comes more Apple decades ahead of the curve vaportech.

The new Mac Pro. Downloadable at the App Store. Molecules reassemble on your desktop. Only takes nine months to download. No optical bays. Steve says optical bays are a bag of hurt and would add three months to the download time. Only runs iOS.

But think of the money saved on packaging. And how futuristic you'll be with your giant screenless iPad in a tower. That doubles as a cheese grater. Actually, does better at cheese grating than computing.

:apple:

You also forgot "At an UNBELIEVABLE price of $1999.00" WOW.

500 cheaper for a downloadable Mac Pro!!! MAS FTW!