PDA

View Full Version : Intel's Penryn Xeon Processors Due in November




MacRumors
Aug 15, 2007, 10:25 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

TheRegister.co.uk (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/08/15/intel_penryn_xeon_launch/) reports that the first Intel Penryn chips will be formally launched on November 11th. The report apparently comes from Intel's own website for dealers.

The first of the Penryn processors will be Xeon CPUs and come in 2.00GHz, 2.33GHz, 2.50GHz, 2.66GHz, 2.83GHz, 3.00GHz and 3.16GHz speeds with 1333MHz frontside buses. The 45nm chips are expected to be Quad-Core chips with 12MB of L2 cache.

Apple currently uses Xeon (server-class) processors in their Mac Pro computers. According to our Buyer's Guide (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac_Pro) the Mac Pro was last updated to an 8-Core configuration in April of this year. However, the base Quad-core configurations have not been updated since their first release in August 2006 (http://www.macrumors.com/2006/08/07/mac-pro-announced/).

The current Mac Pros offer Quad-Core configurations of 2.0GHz, 2.66GHz, and 3.0GHz (65nm, 4MB L2 Cache per Processor) and a 8-Core configuration at 3.0GHz (65nm, 8MB L2 Cache per Processor).

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/15/intels-penryn-xeon-processors-due-in-november/)



Eidorian
Aug 15, 2007, 10:27 AM
Hopefully Apple will get them early...

I need a Mac and I want Leopard!

samh004
Aug 15, 2007, 10:28 AM
So the top end speed increases by only 160MHz, but it's a real quad-core, has a larger cache and is 45nm, so uses less power and generates less heat ?

darwen
Aug 15, 2007, 10:29 AM
I think they need to slow down their updates on the Mac Pro's. They are trying to keep the computer competitively matched in speed but they are killing the resale value with the shorter shelf life since the intel switch.

Eidorian
Aug 15, 2007, 10:29 AM
So the top end speed increases by only 160MHz, but it's a real quad-core, has a larger cache and is 45nm, so uses less power and generates less heat ?Define "real quad core".

I think they need to slow down their updates on the Mac Pro's. They are trying to keep the computer competitively matched in speed but they are killing the resale value with the shorter shelf life since the intel switch.What Mac Pro update? It's still stuck in August 2006.

NewbieNerd
Aug 15, 2007, 10:31 AM
Define "real quad core"..

4 cores on a single chip, as opposed to to 2 dual-core chips

iSee
Aug 15, 2007, 10:32 AM
Would these be a downgrade for the MacPro?
I'm not sure what the "server-class" CPUs they are currently using provide that these Penryn chips lack, if anything.

These have a bigger cache, faster clocks, and a faster front-side bus, so it's hard to imaging that these wouldn't be an upgrade, right? :confused:

Eidorian
Aug 15, 2007, 10:32 AM
4 cores on a single chip, as opposed to to 2 dual-core chipsIt's still 2 x 2 in Penryn.

jesteraver
Aug 15, 2007, 10:33 AM
12 MB of cache and 1333 MHz of FSB *drools*

I can't wait to see that in a notebook / imac, feel the burn.

Lucky Mac Pro users. Also the DDR3 will be amazing.

Oh well, next Mac for me is probably 2010.

Multimedia
Aug 15, 2007, 10:33 AM
I think they need to slow down their updates on the Mac Pro's. They are trying to keep the computer competitively matched in speed but they are killing the resale value with the shorter shelf life since the intel switch.I believe that was meant with extreme sarcasm.

All signs point to Tuesday November 13. God knows I've been plenty wrong before. But there's always hope. :D

overcast
Aug 15, 2007, 10:35 AM
I think they need to slow down their updates on the Mac Pro's. They are trying to keep the computer competitively matched in speed but they are killing the resale value with the shorter shelf life since the intel switch.
I'm praying that is sarcasm.

iSee
Aug 15, 2007, 10:35 AM
I think they need to slow down their updates on the Mac Pro's. They are trying to keep the computer competitively matched in speed but they are killing the resale value with the shorter shelf life since the intel switch.

Wow!!!! You are a unique individual. I think you may be the only person on the planet (really, any being at all, no matter where/what they are) that thinks Mac Pro updates are coming too fast! :D ;)

Cuyahoga
Aug 15, 2007, 10:35 AM
I think they need to slow down their updates on the Mac Pro's. They are trying to keep the computer competitively matched in speed but they are killing the resale value with the shorter shelf life since the intel switch.

Lyndsey Nagle: Do I detect a note of sarcasm?
Professor Frink: (With sarcasm detector) Are you kidding? This baby is off the charts mm-hai.
Comic Book Guy: Oh! A SARCASM DETECTOR, that's a REAL useful invention!
[Sarcasm detector explodes]

But...really?

RealMcCoy
Aug 15, 2007, 10:41 AM
I need more speed ! Hmmm ... or was it crack ? ;o)

plumbingandtech
Aug 15, 2007, 10:41 AM
12 MB of cache and 1333 MHz of FSB *drools*

I can't wait to see that in a notebook / imac, feel the burn.

Lucky Mac Pro users. Also the DDR3 will be amazing.

Oh well, next Mac for me is probably 2010.

I doubt this will be the final bus speed and cache if they choose to put this in a macbook pro.

Others can chime in though I may be wrong.

Eidorian
Aug 15, 2007, 10:43 AM
12 MB of cache and 1333 MHz of FSB *drools*

I can't wait to see that in a notebook / imac, feel the burn.

Lucky Mac Pro users. Also the DDR3 will be amazing.

Oh well, next Mac for me is probably 2010.More like 3/6 MB, 800/1066 MHz, and DDR2/3. Right?

BKKbill
Aug 15, 2007, 10:46 AM
Hopefully Apple will get them early...

I need a Mac and I want Leopard!

I need an iMac and it has to have Leopard. :D Still waiting.

Eidorian
Aug 15, 2007, 10:47 AM
I need an iMac and it has to have Leopard. :D Still waiting.Ugh the iMac...

danielwsmithee
Aug 15, 2007, 10:47 AM
It's still 2 x 2 in Penryn.Lets clear this up a little.

The current configurations are
Quad 2 + 2
Octo (2x2)+(2x2)

The new Penryns are still (2x2)+(2x2). There are benchmarks already showing that they get 20-30% better performance at the same clock speed.

BKKbill
Aug 15, 2007, 10:50 AM
Ugh the iMac...

Please. We all have our needs and wants. :o

Mac Enroe
Aug 15, 2007, 10:52 AM
I was just about to go for a 2,66 with the ati gpu, Iīm sure we'll get mac pro updates late november (or sooner). With Leopard out by then it's worth the wait!:D

Multimedia
Aug 15, 2007, 10:52 AM
12 MB of cache and 1333 MHz of FSB *drools*...

Lucky Mac Pro users. Also the DDR3 will be amazing.Looks about right.I doubt this will be the final bus speed and cache if they choose to put this in a macbook pro.

Others can chime in though I may be wrong.How do yo think Apple is going to be able to reduce the embedded cache size and FSB speed when they get their motherboards from Intel as well?More like 3/6 MB, 800/1066 MHz, and DDR2/3. Right?Not! Why would you even imagine such lame down dumbing which is not even possible on the cache and certainly not the RAM either. Only the 1066 FSB might be a distant possibility. But I don't see why Apple would want/need to slow the FSB down by 1/5th - especially when the goal is to eclipse the current breed of MPs. :rolleyes:

Eidorian
Aug 15, 2007, 10:54 AM
Not! Why would you even imagine such lame down dumbing which is not even possible on the cache and certainly not the RAM either. Only the 1066 FSB might be a distant possibility. But I don't see why Apple would want/need to slow the FSB down by 1/5th - especially when the goal is to eclipse the current breed of MPs. :rolleyes:*face palm*

Santa Rosa Refresh and Montevina

Squonk
Aug 15, 2007, 10:55 AM
GREAT! Just in time for those late holiday shoppers!!! :D:apple:

When are mobile versions supposed to be available?

Multimedia
Aug 15, 2007, 10:56 AM
Lets clear this up a little.

The current configurations are
Quad 2 + 2
Octo (2x2)+(2x2)

The new Penryns are still (2x2)+(2x2). There are benchmarks already showing that they get 20-30% better performance at the same clock speed.I don't have a problem with that. We can only receive what is bleeding edge possible guys. I'll be happy to take 20-30% better performance @ 3.16GHz x 8 cores any time they're ready with the tech. Very exciting going into 2008 like gangbusters.

Multimedia
Aug 15, 2007, 10:59 AM
*face palm*

Santa Rosa Refresh and MontevinaI don't know what that means. I didn't mean to offend you.

Would you please elaborate?

Eidorian
Aug 15, 2007, 11:00 AM
I don't know what that means. I didn't mean to offend you.

Would you please elaborate?The post that I was replying to was about notebooks and the iMac (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=4051377&postcount=16).

Peace
Aug 15, 2007, 11:03 AM
I'm assuming since the dye is 45nm the socket would be different?

Alpinism
Aug 15, 2007, 11:04 AM
i like the one 'negative' score, where a fanboy realizes that his itune & safari Mac Pro is going to be last generation soon :D

For the rest of us PRO USERS, ITS ABOUT FRIGGIN TIME !!! :mad:

oscarfrancis
Aug 15, 2007, 11:05 AM
I'm assuming since the dye is 45nm the socket would be different?

Not necessarily. I do believe the first generation of Penryn is pin-compatible with current Santa Rosa motherboards; don't quote me on that.

Eidorian
Aug 15, 2007, 11:06 AM
I'm assuming since the dye is 45nm the socket would be different?Nope it's still Socket P, J, and T.

You just might not have the proper VRM to handle the chips though.

peletrane
Aug 15, 2007, 11:07 AM
I don't have a problem with that. We can only receive what is bleeding edge possible guys. I'll be happy to take 20-30% better performance @ 3.16GHz x 8 cores any time they're ready with the tech. Very exciting going into 2008 like gangbusters.


But didn't you just buy a refurbished MP?? What are you going to do with 2 MP sand 1 PM G5?. In other words, is there something that you can only run effectively with the 20-30% performance boost that you could not run effectively with the old models?

I have a quad 2.66 MP to run logic and aperture and I'm perfectly happy with it. It does what I need it do, and then some.

Multimedia
Aug 15, 2007, 11:10 AM
But didn't you just buy a refurbished MP?? What are you going to do with 2 MP sand 1 PM G5?. In other words, is there something that you can only run effectively with the 20-30% performance boost that you could not run effectively with the old models?

I have a quad 2.66 MP to run logic and aperture and I'm perfectly happy with it. It does what I need it do, and then some.I'm a power hog that would like to simultaneously crush HD recordings down to mp4 files faster than any of this stuff can do.

peletrane
Aug 15, 2007, 11:15 AM
I'm a power hog that would like to simultaneously crush HD recordings down to mp4 files faster than any of this stuff can do.


Interesting. So, do you have any recommendations/info as to Blu-Ray burners for the MP?? I'm holding out for one for the extra drive bay in my MP. When will these become more affordable/mainstream? I'm thinking primariily for the storage value--50 GB per blu-ray disk?? Bring it on!

dollystereo
Aug 15, 2007, 11:17 AM
I couldnt wait anymore, I got my MP 2.66 stock, yesterday (in Chile) So if the computers get updated in november, we will see them here in January.
What I really want is an optional 512 DDR3 really fast GPU (8800 or HD2900), as a upgrade for my MP (even a PC compatible with some flashing).

iBunny
Aug 15, 2007, 11:28 AM
I think they need to slow down their updates on the Mac Pro's. They are trying to keep the computer competitively matched in speed but they are killing the resale value with the shorter shelf life since the intel switch.

Some of you old die hard mac fans annoy me. Sorry.

Listen. They are finally updating as new technology comes out because they can. Intel is on regular intervals to release new chips.... Old Macs never got updated because IMB couldent release a chip to save its ass. Powerbook G5 anyone? never happened because they couldnt.

To Hell with the resale value. Buy a computer, use the computer, and then get a new one when you need it. Dont worry about how much you can sell it for.

____

Anyway on to Peryn. Its gonna be a good chip. Much improved over the current C2D implementation. More IPC, Large Cache, Should run cooler because of the smaller process, better at handleing multimedia, SSE4 support, and better virtulization tech. Even tho its only slightly faster in clock speed, its other improvements are where the money is going to be made.

I wish they would have waited for Peryn to introduce the new iMac. But oh well. The iMac is gonna be out of date already :D

Silencio
Aug 15, 2007, 11:35 AM
Now if only Apple could just get us some better video cards. Hopefully the GPU "downgrade" in the new iMac isn't a sign of things to come for the Mac Pro. :rolleyes:

I guess hardware RAID built on to the logic board isn't going to happen now, what with Apple's recent rollout of their $1,000 RAID card -- which is probably just as junky as the one they sell for the Xserve. Sigh.

Whatever, I'm pretty sure I'm buying the next revision of Mac Pro -- whatever it is -- unless the price of Rev A refurbs drops to a way too tempting level, which would be a bit of history repeating with how I ended up getting my current G5 tower.

hollywoodmacguy
Aug 15, 2007, 11:36 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

TheRegister.co.uk (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/08/15/intel_penryn_xeon_launch/) reports that the first Intel Penryn chips will be formally launched on November 11th. The report apparently comes from Intel's own website for dealers.

The first of the Penryn processors will be Xeon CPUs and come in 2.00GHz, 2.33GHz, 2.50GHz, 2.66GHz, 2.83GHz, 3.00GHz and 3.16GHz speeds with 1333MHz frontside buses. The 45nm chips are expected to be Quad-Core chips with 12MB of L2 cache.

The current Mac Pros offer Quad-Core configurations of 2.0GHz, 2.66GHz, and 3.0GHz (65nm, 4MB L2 Cache per Processor) and a 8-Core configuration at 3.0GHz (65nm, 8MB L2 Cache per Processor).

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/15/intels-penryn-xeon-processors-due-in-november/)

I realize that the primary implication of this news, at least at first, is for the Mac Pros. Anyone think there's any chance Penryn chips will be shipped in MBPs this year?

Was waiting to finally upgrade my Titanium PowerBook G4 to a MBP as soon as Leopard ships in October/November, but, if there's going to be a chip change, I'd wait a little longer...

Thanks in advance for any advice...

~Shard~
Aug 15, 2007, 11:42 AM
I realize that the primary implication of this news, at least at first, is for the Mac Pros. Anyone think there's any chance Penryn chips will be shipped in MBPs this year?

Was waiting to finally upgrade my Titanium PowerBook G4 to a MBP as soon as Leopard ships in October/November, but, if there's going to be a chip change, I'd wait a little longer...

Well, it looks like this first batch from Intel will be Xeon chips, so it's doubtful they would make it into the MBP - you'd have to wait for the mobile version for the portables, I'm thinking. I'd love to see these babies in the iMac as well. :cool:

tk421
Aug 15, 2007, 11:43 AM
All signs point to Tuesday November 13. God knows I've been plenty wrong before. But there's always hope. :D

Oh, I hope so! I need a Mac Pro (not an iMac) and I will definitely buy one by the end of 2007. The point at which I 100% have to have it is December.

I've held out long enough to get an iLife upgrade. October will bring the new OS. Please, please upgrade the Mac Pro in November!

Iced Angel
Aug 15, 2007, 11:44 AM
do you guys think it's likely to put this in macbook pros in near future ?

Eidorian
Aug 15, 2007, 11:45 AM
do you guys think it's likely to put this in macbook pros in near future ?More then likely not until MWSF 2008.

KindredMAC
Aug 15, 2007, 11:48 AM
OK someone set me straight on this, hopefully multimedia (because I trust him after all our years on here), are these new chips QUAD CORE chips or are they DUAL CORE CHIPS in a two chip config?

Because if they are QUAD CORE chips, this would be freaking outrageous to have a single chip in a low end Mac Pro and fill the remaining higher end slots as all OCTO CORE Mac Pro!

Another quick question, at 45nm are these chips low enough power to be able to make their way into a laptop???
Then we could have all OCTO CORE Mac Pros and bump everything up to QUAD COREs except the Mac mini (if that is even around after 1/1/2008) and MacBook. That would make a nice gap between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro. One of my friends here at work is debating between the the two and something like that would definitely make or break the deal.

digitalbiker
Aug 15, 2007, 11:51 AM
I believe that was meant with extreme sarcasm.

All signs point to Tuesday November 13. God knows I've been plenty wrong before. But there's always hope. :D

I think you are being a bit optimistic. I doubt the MacPro will get a major update until MW2008. By that time all the pieces will be in place for a complete redesign. New GPU's, new MB, new Processors, Blu-Ray, etc.

Besides, I have the MacPro Octo and it is already too much hardware for the software. Really these babies need Leopard and re-written 64 bit multi-threaded software to make the most of the system.

The current Octo is amazing for virtualization. I run multiple VM's of Linux, Vista, XP along with OS X using workstation class scientific software and the Octo doesn't even kick on the fans.

baz-ireland
Aug 15, 2007, 11:52 AM
Hi guys,

New to your forum. Just wanted to know if these new processors are gonna be available for iMacs? I am waiting to buy a new 24 inch 2.8ghz iMac, probably within the next month or two, would it be wise to wait to November for the new processors are will these be geared towards the Mac Pro only?

I keep a close eye on this site as a great way of keeping up to date on all things Apple related. I know Apple always release new gear all the time and to try to keep up to date with it would be impossible, should I just go ahead and buy the iMac with the Core 2 Duo Extreme chips in them?

I know this is a different topic but what about the GLARE issue on these new iMacs, something to worry about? I have a MacBook with a glossy screen and find no issue with glare from the screen.

Many thanks,
Baz, Ireland, Europe.

Iced Angel
Aug 15, 2007, 11:56 AM
More then likely not until MWSF 2008.


i wanted to get one tomorrow before I read this ...
But i can't wait no more ... no time to waste till 2008 :D Thanx

Eidorian
Aug 15, 2007, 12:01 PM
Hi guys,

New to your forum. Just wanted to know if these new processors are gonna be available for iMacs? I am waiting to buy a new 24 inch 2.8ghz iMac, probably within the next month or two, would it be wise to wait to November for the new processors are will these be geared towards the Mac Pro only?

I keep a close eye on this site as a great way of keeping up to date on all things Apple related. I know Apple always release new gear all the time and to try to keep up to date with it would be impossible, should I just go ahead and buy the iMac with the Core 2 Duo Extreme chips in them?

I know this is a different topic but what about the GLARE issue on these new iMacs, something to worry about? I have a MacBook with a glossy screen and find no issue with glare from the screen.

Many thanks,
Baz, Ireland, Europe.The first Penryn processors to come out are going to be Xeon ones. Expect mobile and desktop ones next year.

OK someone set me straight on this, hopefully multimedia (because I trust him after all our years on here), are these new chips QUAD CORE chips or are they DUAL CORE CHIPS in a two chip config?

Because if they are QUAD CORE chips, this would be freaking outrageous to have a single chip in a low end Mac Pro and fill the remaining higher end slots as all OCTO CORE Mac Pro!

Another quick question, at 45nm are these chips low enough power to be able to make their way into a laptop???
Then we could have all OCTO CORE Mac Pros and bump everything up to QUAD COREs except the Mac mini (if that is even around after 1/1/2008) and MacBook. That would make a nice gap between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro. One of my friends here at work is debating between the the two and something like that would definitely make or break the deal.Wolfdale is dual core Penryn Xeon while Harpertown would be quad core (Two Wolfdales on one chip)

I expect to see mobile quad core chips next year for desktop replacement laptops (MBP 17" but not in any smaller laptops.

~Shard~
Aug 15, 2007, 12:01 PM
Hi guys, New to your forum.

Welcome! I hope you find it an informative and fun place! :)

Just wanted to know if these new processors are gonna be available for iMacs? I am waiting to buy a new 24 inch 2.8ghz iMac, probably within the next month or two, would it be wise to wait to November for the new processors are will these be geared towards the Mac Pro only?

In all likelihood these processors will be geared towards the Mac Pros since they are the Xeon class of chips. Xeons never make it into Apple's portable line-up (MBs, MBPs) and further to this, Apple utilizes mobile chips in their iMacs as well - for instance, Apple went with Merom instead of Conroe in the iMacs.

Also, with the iMacs just being updated, Apple would not release another significant update to them so soon, at least in my opinion. They kind of did this once with the last G5 iMac being released only a short time before the first Intel iMac, but that was a unique situation due to the architecture migration.

Lastly, even if Intel is releasing these in November, they may not show up in any Mac machine that quickly, so I wouldn't bet on that either. I would expect a significant Mac Pro update at MWSF 08 utilizing Penryn, but doubt we'll see anything beforehand. Just my opinion though. :cool:

I know this is a different topic but what about the GLARE issue on these new iMacs, something to worry about? I have a MacBook with a glossy screen and find no issue with glare from the screen.

If you find no issues with the glossy MBs then you shouldn't with the iMac either.

Stridder44
Aug 15, 2007, 12:04 PM
But didn't you just buy a refurbished MP?? What are you going to do with 2 MP sand 1 PM G5?. In other words, is there something that you can only run effectively with the 20-30% performance boost that you could not run effectively with the old models?

I have a quad 2.66 MP to run logic and aperture and I'm perfectly happy with it. It does what I need it do, and then some.


Yeah! What the crap do you guys do to buy new Mac Pros everytime they're released? Sell the old machines? Steal from the rich and give high interest rates to the poor? I'm still stuck on this old iMac G4 that makes children cry with it's slowness. XD

Granted I am a college kid living on a college wage, but damn.

MagnusVonMagnum
Aug 15, 2007, 12:04 PM
I think they need to slow down their updates on the Mac Pro's. They are trying to keep the computer competitively matched in speed but they are killing the resale value with the shorter shelf life since the intel switch.

Who cares about YOUR resale value. Apple is about supporting buyers, not sellers where they make nothing. What can I get for this dual-G4 PowerMac? Nothing. It's worth more to use it as an Internet machine and server here. Yet can I get a cheap graphics card to replace the Rage 128 it came with? NO WAY. Ancient Radeon 7500s go for more than I paid for my Radeon 7500 for my Windows machine many years ago brand NEW when it was still considered a good card! At least $150 for an OUTDATED Mac Radeon 7500 in 2007! Yet the entire machine is worth less than $250 on the personal sale market (stores will gladly sell you one for $400 though).


Some of us want an actual gaming machine. I want a better graphics card, the Penryn chipset and a LOWER starting price for the Mac Pro (since Apple refuses to do a mid-range gaming capable machine)

skellener
Aug 15, 2007, 12:12 PM
A year between updates of a computer is ridiculous! We had to wait almost as long for the recent iMacs and minis. Let's hope that doesn't happen again.

MagnusVonMagnum
Aug 15, 2007, 12:14 PM
Because if they are QUAD CORE chips, this would be freaking outrageous to have a single chip in a low end Mac Pro and fill the remaining higher end slots as all OCTO CORE Mac Pro!


You can ALREADY get an octo core Mac Pro!

I say enough with the mostly USELESS (to regular users) multi-cores (4-8 processors when 95% of all programs can use ONE processor ONLY? That leaves 7 processors doing almost NOTHING). I don't care what anyone says. Multi-threaded apps aren't going to appear quickly any time soon. It's VERY hard to write and especially debug multi-threaded programs, so the idea of multi-threaded gaming engines, for example just isn't going to appear overnight.

Instead of 8-cores, how about a dual-core MacPro with a HIGH END gaming graphics card? It irritates me to no end that Apple proclaims the MacPro is the ultimate gaming machine when it has such a crappy offering of graphics cards for the gamer. I'm no gaming addict either, but I do like to play games occasionally and I want a machine that's good for at least 2-3 years of being able to play games reasonably SMOOTH. I gather the current cards are barely in the 50fps range with newer games and the brand spanking NEW iMac not only does WORSE than its predecessor from a year ago, but is useless ALREADY for some of those games in native resolutions.

Someone please tell me how companies like EA are supposed to come back with new games if the current brand new machines can't even keep up with games that are already out???

Why is Steve Jobs BLIND to the gaming potential of Macs? Even if he doesn't like games, it's stupid to ignore such a large market, IMO. And even if the games aren't there on Macs today, BootCamp means you should STILL have the hardware there because I can always boot into XP to play them (screw Vista!)

baz-ireland
Aug 15, 2007, 12:14 PM
Ok, thank you folks for your opinions and advice. I will go ahead and order my new iMac on the strength of your comments. I appreciate them.

Many Thanks from a PC switcher and new Apple convert!!

Think different, think APPLE!!

baz, Belfast, Northern Ireland, Europe.:apple:

EagerDragon
Aug 15, 2007, 12:16 PM
Willl it still be limited to ECC memory?
Expensive for a non-server environment.

Multimedia
Aug 15, 2007, 12:21 PM
I realize that the primary implication of this news, at least at first, is for the Mac Pros. Anyone think there's any chance Penryn chips will be shipped in MBPs this year?

Was waiting to finally upgrade my Titanium PowerBook G4 to a MBP as soon as Leopard ships in October/November, but, if there's going to be a chip change, I'd wait a little longer...

Thanks in advance for any advice...No Mobiel Penryns this year. But a 2.6 GHz C2D for the 17" is definitely possible and what I am holding out for so I can say it's more than 5GHz rather than the current less than 5GHz. ;)

EagerDragon
Aug 15, 2007, 12:23 PM
I don't have a problem with that. We can only receive what is bleeding edge possible guys. I'll be happy to take 20-30% better performance @ 3.16GHz x 8 cores any time they're ready with the tech. Very exciting going into 2008 like gangbusters.

You up for another system????
You have more computers than the pentagon, LOL.

EagerDragon
Aug 15, 2007, 12:30 PM
I realize that the primary implication of this news, at least at first, is for the Mac Pros. Anyone think there's any chance Penryn chips will be shipped in MBPs this year?

Was waiting to finally upgrade my Titanium PowerBook G4 to a MBP as soon as Leopard ships in October/November, but, if there's going to be a chip change, I'd wait a little longer...

Thanks in advance for any advice...

I think laptop versions are scheduled for 2nd or 3rd quater next year (think 2nd). May get pushed ahead, but likely Apple will use in 2nd quater.

Woot, quad core laptops, 4 cores running at 25% all the time.
LOL

hollywoodmacguy
Aug 15, 2007, 12:30 PM
No Mobiel Penryns this year. But a 2.6 GHz C2D for the 17" is definitely possible and what I am holding out for so I can say it's more than 5GHz rather than the current less than 5GHz. ;)

Thanks for the tip. I am waiting for a 17" MBP as well and will now not wait for this chip change before buying. This forum is great btw!

Realize this is off topic, but any idea when that 2.6GHz change might take effect? October/November with Leopard?

~Shard~
Aug 15, 2007, 12:36 PM
Ok, thank you folks for your opinions and advice. I will go ahead and order my new iMac on the strength of your comments. I appreciate them.

Many Thanks from a PC switcher and new Apple convert!!

Think different, think APPLE!!

baz, Belfast, Northern Ireland, Europe.:apple:

No problem, I'm sure you will be happy with your purchase, the new iMac is a great machine on the whole.

If you ever have any further questions, you can find the answers here on MacRumors. Just browse the Forums and if you can't find what you're looking for, just ask, we're all here to help. :cool:

KindredMAC
Aug 15, 2007, 12:36 PM
You can ALREADY get an octo core Mac Pro!

I say enough with the mostly USELESS (to regular users) multi-cores (4-8 processors when 95% of all programs can use ONE processor ONLY? That leaves 7 processors doing almost NOTHING). I don't care what anyone says. Multi-threaded apps aren't going to appear quickly any time soon. It's VERY hard to write and especially debug multi-threaded programs, so the idea of multi-threaded gaming engines, for example just isn't going to appear overnight.

Instead of 8-cores, how about a dual-core MacPro with a HIGH END gaming graphics card? It irritates me to no end that Apple proclaims the MacPro is the ultimate gaming machine when it has such a crappy offering of graphics cards for the gamer. I'm no gaming addict either, but I do like to play games occasionally and I want a machine that's good for at least 2-3 years of being able to play games reasonably SMOOTH. I gather the current cards are barely in the 50fps range with newer games and the brand spanking NEW iMac not only does WORSE than its predecessor from a year ago, but is useless ALREADY for some of those games in native resolutions.

Someone please tell me how companies like EA are supposed to come back with new games if the current brand new machines can't even keep up with games that are already out???

Why is Steve Jobs BLIND to the gaming potential of Macs? Even if he doesn't like games, it's stupid to ignore such a large market, IMO. And even if the games aren't there on Macs today, BootCamp means you should STILL have the hardware there because I can always boot into XP to play them (screw Vista!)

I know that you can already get an octo core Mac Pro, but only as the highest level Mac Pro. I was merely stating that it would be cool if all of the Mac Pros were octo core except for the base tier level.

And I agree with you on graphics card options for us. They stink. I wish we could have some choices between NVIDIA and ATI besides "oh here is ONE 256 card and here is ONE 512 card, that's all you can choose from".

Besides, anyone know if a 1 gig graphics card is anywhere around the corner or near future?
EDIT: found this: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/03/20/ati_firegl_v7350/

sweet160
Aug 15, 2007, 12:41 PM
You can ALREADY get an octo core Mac Pro!

I say enough with the mostly USELESS (to regular users) multi-cores (4-8 processors when 95% of all programs can use ONE processor ONLY? That leaves 7 processors doing almost NOTHING). I don't care what anyone says. Multi-threaded apps aren't going to appear quickly any time soon. It's VERY hard to write and especially debug multi-threaded programs, so the idea of multi-threaded gaming engines, for example just isn't going to appear overnight.

Instead of 8-cores, how about a dual-core MacPro with a HIGH END gaming graphics card? It irritates me to no end that Apple proclaims the MacPro is the ultimate gaming machine when it has such a crappy offering of graphics cards for the gamer. I'm no gaming addict either, but I do like to play games occasionally and I want a machine that's good for at least 2-3 years of being able to play games reasonably SMOOTH. I gather the current cards are barely in the 50fps range with newer games and the brand spanking NEW iMac not only does WORSE than its predecessor from a year ago, but is useless ALREADY for some of those games in native resolutions.

Someone please tell me how companies like EA are supposed to come back with new games if the current brand new machines can't even keep up with games that are already out???

Why is Steve Jobs BLIND to the gaming potential of Macs? Even if he doesn't like games, it's stupid to ignore such a large market, IMO. And even if the games aren't there on Macs today, BootCamp means you should STILL have the hardware there because I can always boot into XP to play them (screw Vista!)

especially after the release of the new imacs which are slower for gaming than the previous version. I have to look at the MacPro's. Its just so foking expensive to occasionaly play a game this way...

iPoodOverZune
Aug 15, 2007, 12:55 PM
Then we could have all OCTO CORE Mac Pros and bump everything up to QUAD COREs except the Mac mini (if that is even around after 1/1/2008) and MacBook. That would make a nice gap between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro. One of my friends here at work is debating between the the two and something like that would definitely make or break the deal.

I realize that the primary implication of this news, at least at first, is for the Mac Pros. Anyone think there's any chance Penryn chips will be shipped in MBPs this year?

Was waiting to finally upgrade my Titanium PowerBook G4 to a MBP as soon as Leopard ships in October/November, but, if there's going to be a chip change, I'd wait a little longer...

..


Um... Quad-core, Penryn MBP. Now that will be the time to leap-frog from my trusty-ol PB G4. Any reliable guess when that would be possible? I am fine if they get it by Spring end next year when I graduate. Hurray! :)

bigbossbmb
Aug 15, 2007, 01:01 PM
this article is talking about xeon chips... they will never go in the MBP


I'm exciting, I can't wait to ditch my G5 for an octo-core MP.

Macinposh
Aug 15, 2007, 01:03 PM
Nope it's still Socket P, J, and T.

You just might not have the proper VRM to handle the chips though.


Could you Eidoran clear this out : Will the Xeon Penryns be socket compatible with the current MPīs?
If they are, what other risks is there that they wouldnīt work. That VRM stuff you mention and??

Cheers.

Eidorian
Aug 15, 2007, 01:04 PM
Could you Eidoran clear this out : Will the Xeon Penryns be socket compatible with the current MPīs?
If they are, what other risks is there that they wouldnīt work. That VRM stuff you mention and??

Cheers.To the best of my knowledge Intel said they would support the the current 5000X chipset until 2009.

I just can't find that article right now.

AidenShaw
Aug 15, 2007, 01:14 PM
Willl it still be limited to ECC memory?
Expensive for a non-server environment.

Perhaps you really mean FB-DIMM memory like the current 5000 chipset for the Xeons?

There are also ECC DDR2/DDR3 DIMMs that aren't much more expensive than non-ECC memory.

When you get a few GiB of RAM in a system, ECC is a good investment. It's much better to get a kernel panic or blue screen with the message "memory error detected" than it is for the system to act strange and maybe corrupt your files.

mrmma
Aug 15, 2007, 01:14 PM
I'm very close to assembling a 4 or 5 node computing cluster and would love if each node had dual quad core processors. Rack mountable would be the best, but if, for the same money, I can get an octo Mac Pro, I don't see why XServes are a good choice as they're limited to 2 duals.

Anyone have a guess when they're making this change? Maybe it won't be natural for Apple until the new processors are out.

I don't need OS X Server, redundant power supplies or any of the other usual extras that Xserves offer.

capoditutti
Aug 15, 2007, 01:16 PM
this article is talking about xeon chips... they will never go in the MBP


I'm exciting, I can't wait to ditch my G5 for an octo-core MP.

This article (http://www.trustedreviews.com/cpu-memory/news/2007/08/15/Intel-Mobile-Processors-To-Be-Refreshed/p1) points out news on upcoming seperate mobile chip revisions for mobile machines, so i'm sure anything newer than this will be for next year.


CaPo

Rocketman
Aug 15, 2007, 01:22 PM
I believe that was meant with extreme sarcasm.

All signs point to Tuesday November 13. God knows I've been plenty wrong before. But there's always hope. :D

I posted a follow-up to a post I made earlier this year with predictions and it turns out they were about 83% accurate. I am quite capable of making mistakes and actually LIKE to be called on them, but I also toot my horn when I am somewhat consistently right :)

Rocketman

linky (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=4022336)

echoout
Aug 15, 2007, 01:49 PM
I work in motion graphics and digital audio which involves many multiprocessor apps. Renders still take hours or days. We're not going to see anything "fast enough" for a LOOOONG time. I think a lot of us are ready to see the 8-core drop into the top slot of the regular line, rather than this super machine that floats above it, both in terms of price and performance.

I'm just about ready to pull the trigger but am reluctant because I'll need 16GB of RAM to run my software and if something significantly faster is right around the corner, I might be able to spend the same money on something that goes much further. Weird time to buy right now.

-steven

You can ALREADY get an octo core Mac Pro!

I say enough with the mostly USELESS (to regular users) multi-cores (4-8 processors when 95% of all programs can use ONE processor ONLY? That leaves 7 processors doing almost NOTHING). I don't care what anyone says. Multi-threaded apps aren't going to appear quickly any time soon. It's VERY hard to write and especially debug multi-threaded programs, so the idea of multi-threaded gaming engines, for example just isn't going to appear overnight.

Instead of 8-cores, how about a dual-core MacPro with a HIGH END gaming graphics card? It irritates me to no end that Apple proclaims the MacPro is the ultimate gaming machine when it has such a crappy offering of graphics cards for the gamer. I'm no gaming addict either, but I do like to play games occasionally and I want a machine that's good for at least 2-3 years of being able to play games reasonably SMOOTH. I gather the current cards are barely in the 50fps range with newer games and the brand spanking NEW iMac not only does WORSE than its predecessor from a year ago, but is useless ALREADY for some of those games in native resolutions.

Someone please tell me how companies like EA are supposed to come back with new games if the current brand new machines can't even keep up with games that are already out???

Why is Steve Jobs BLIND to the gaming potential of Macs? Even if he doesn't like games, it's stupid to ignore such a large market, IMO. And even if the games aren't there on Macs today, BootCamp means you should STILL have the hardware there because I can always boot into XP to play them (screw Vista!)

Tara Davis
Aug 15, 2007, 01:53 PM
You can ALREADY get an octo core Mac Pro!

I say enough with the mostly USELESS (to regular users) multi-cores (4-8 processors when 95% of all programs can use ONE processor ONLY? That leaves 7 processors doing almost NOTHING). I don't care what anyone says. Multi-threaded apps aren't going to appear quickly any time soon. It's VERY hard to write and especially debug multi-threaded programs, so the idea of multi-threaded gaming engines, for example just isn't going to appear overnight.

Instead of 8-cores, how about a dual-core MacPro with a HIGH END gaming graphics card? It irritates me to no end that Apple proclaims the MacPro is the ultimate gaming machine when it has such a crappy offering of graphics cards for the gamer. I'm no gaming addict either, but I do like to play games occasionally and I want a machine that's good for at least 2-3 years of being able to play games reasonably SMOOTH. I gather the current cards are barely in the 50fps range with newer games and the brand spanking NEW iMac not only does WORSE than its predecessor from a year ago, but is useless ALREADY for some of those games in native resolutions.

Someone please tell me how companies like EA are supposed to come back with new games if the current brand new machines can't even keep up with games that are already out???

Why is Steve Jobs BLIND to the gaming potential of Macs? Even if he doesn't like games, it's stupid to ignore such a large market, IMO. And even if the games aren't there on Macs today, BootCamp means you should STILL have the hardware there because I can always boot into XP to play them (screw Vista!)

*sigh*

HOW TO BUILD A GAMING MACHINE:

Step 1: Buy the very best graphics card you can afford.
Step 2: Buy the cheapest reliable motherboard you can find that works with the card from Step 1.
Step 3: Max out the memory, overclock the CPU, put in a good cooling system.
Step 4: Frag your buddy.

Apple will *never* make a machine which rivals something like that. There is almost ZERO market for a pre-built "gamer" machine, because hard-core gamers like to build their own systems which target the dollars where it makes the biggest difference to game performance above all other considerations, and furthermore will only tolerate margins which are vastly lower than a company like Apple would find worth the trouble.

The Mac Pro *can* play games yes, but it's called a Mac "Pro" because it's a professional workstation, not a toy.

If you want a toy, head to your favorite mom-n-pop commodity PC screwdriver shop, assemble one, and use your two-seat Windows license from work or school to put an OS on it. You may have to deal with the a few more security and stability hassles, but you will be happier with your purchase.

Me, I haven't gamed in about a year, and when I did I found the performance of the old G4 Mac mini running World of Warcraft to be good enough for me. I can't believe all this wailing and gnashing of teeth because dedicated cards an order of magnitude more powerful than anything you could get a couple years ago won't be '1337 enough for you to play Madden Football on with more polygons than your friend's homebrew gaming rig.

The EA games in the pipeline will play fine on minis and MacBooks, fly on iMacs, and scream on the few Mac Pros that actually get used for gaming. Certainly good enough for 99% of Mac users. Settle down and get some perspective.

Eidorian
Aug 15, 2007, 01:59 PM
*sigh*

HOW TO BUILD A GAMING MACHINE:

Step 1: Buy the very best graphics card you can afford.
Step 2: Buy the cheapest reliable motherboard you can find.
Step 3: Max out the memory, overclock the CPU, put in a good cooling system.
Step 4: Frag your buddy.

Apple will *never* make a machine which rivals something like that. There is almost ZERO market for a pre-built "gamer" machine, because hard-core gamers like to build their own systems which target the dollars where it makes the biggest difference to game performance above all other considerations, and furthermore will only tolerate margins which are vastly lower than a company like Apple would find worth the trouble.

The Mac Pro *can* play games yes, but it's called a Mac "Pro" because it's a professional workstation, not a toy.

If you want a toy, head to your favorite mom-n-pop commodity PC screwdriver shop, assemble one, and use your two-seat Windows license from work or school to put an OS on it. You may have to deal with the a few more security and stability hassles, but you will be happier with your purchase.

Me, I haven't gamed in about a year, and when I did I found the performance of the old G4 Mac mini running World of Warcraft to be good enough for me. I can't believe all this wailing and gnashing of teeth because dedicated cards an order of magnitude more powerful than anything you could get a couple years ago won't be '1337 enough for you to play Madden Football on with more polygons than your friend's homebrew gaming rig.

The EA games in the pipeline will play fine on minis and MacBooks, fly on iMacs, and scream on the few Mac Pros that actually get used for gaming. Certainly good enough for 99% of Mac users. Settle down and get some perspective.Post of the day quality good sir. *monocle*

Tara Davis
Aug 15, 2007, 02:36 PM
Post of the day quality good sir. *monocle*

LOL. I think you mean "good ma'am", but thanks. :)

ErikCLDR
Aug 15, 2007, 02:47 PM
OMG AppleWorks, RIP.

That software was part of my childhood computer education.
:(

henjin
Aug 15, 2007, 03:20 PM
*face palm*

Santa Rosa Refresh and Montevina

Apple has a history of holding back, available speed or hardware, so as to make an easy "awesome" upgrade which costs them nothing. When the powerbooks Aluminum came out the superdrives were capable of rewrite on DVDs but this was crippled, till an update of the line made it something to brag about. A lot of us downloaded a hack. So typical of Apple.

Dell would love to be in the same boat as Apple but one thing Dell will do is give the current cpu, gpu or drives. Only Apple has this weird habit of crippling hardware. :mad:

However Apple now lives in the Intel world, a mere browser click away from Dell or HPQ and so I doubt they will cripple the new CPUs as this game will be too obvious.:D

I will be buying the next upgrade to the line; 8core MacPro though sexy have not proved to be that much better than 4core.

The MacPro towers are amazing value compared to Gateway, Dell or HPQ. It would be nice to see Apple offer the latest like Alienware but you can't argue with how wonderful these towers are. I'll be buying the RAID card as well.:)

I'm glad Apple is getting back to its core business. I own an iPod but the latest Samsung flash player looks so superior. I buy Apple for work. Quite happy to buy a pod from Samsung or Sony or Dell!:eek:

Exciting end to 2007;)

shawnce
Aug 15, 2007, 03:29 PM
A year between updates of a computer is ridiculous! We had to wait almost as long for the recent iMacs and minis. Let's hope that doesn't happen again.

What is their to update exactly? The Mac Pros are already using the latest / fastest workstation processors and chipsets from Intel.

shawmanus
Aug 15, 2007, 03:30 PM
I think intel would release 3.33ghz yorkfield quad-core(XE for desktop) this year. Sadly apple wont be using it.

Yorkfield Non-XE, wolfdale(desktop),wolfdale-dp(servers) along with penryn mobile Q1 next year.

There wont be too much clockspeed increase unless AMD pulls a 3ghz Agena or barcelona and that kicks harpertown/yorkfield's a**.

Even mobile we would be seeing T7800 (2.6ghz non-xe) and x7900(already in iMac?) in 65nm. 45 nm would see same clockspeeds with more cache. Hopefully they would reduce the TDP. I am sure intel can release a 3ghz mobile with 45nm.

Lets keep fingers crossed that K10 from AMD is really good. Then Intel would release faster penryns or even pull forward release of Nehalem.

Multimedia
Aug 15, 2007, 03:55 PM
Thanks for the tip. I am waiting for a 17" MBP as well and will now not wait for this chip change before buying. This forum is great btw!

Realize this is off topic, but any idea whent tahat 2.6GHz change might take effect? October/November with Leopard?No clue. But since overclocked 2.6 to 2.8 is already an option on iMacs that is scheduled for deliver a month from now i don't see why it can't be added before the end of year. But I'm just a hope and a prayer not predicting when.

Counter
Aug 15, 2007, 03:59 PM
Penryn wont use FBDIMM's........amirite?

suneohair
Aug 15, 2007, 04:03 PM
What is their to update exactly? The Mac Pros are already using the latest / fastest workstation processors and chipsets from Intel.

Wrong. Intel dropped the price on Quad-core Clovertowns, they are now about the same price as Dual-core Woodcrests. So no. Apple does not use the faster processors from Intel.

Also, the graphics cards are very outdated. The HD and RAM spec could be bumped as they have both fallen in price.

Penryn wont use FBDIMM's........amirite?
Penryn is a class of chips. Xeons will use FB-DIMMs. The rest will not, and will possibly move to DRR3.

Carl Spackler
Aug 15, 2007, 04:05 PM
What is their to update exactly? The Mac Pros are already using the latest / fastest workstation processors and chipsets from Intel.

Didn't the prices for Clovertown drop just recently? I'd like to see the appropriate Clovertowns across the board at the current price points.

Also, if Color requires the ATI x1900, it should be the base card, methinks. I'd also like to see a standard 2 gigs of RAM like the MBP.

I'm not sure why these updates didn't come in along with the sorta quite Mini updates.

digitalbiker
Aug 15, 2007, 04:17 PM
Wrong. Intel dropped the price on Quad-core Clovertowns, they are now about the same price as Dual-core Woodcrests. So no. Apple does not use the faster processors from Intel.

Also, the graphics cards are very outdated. The HD and RAM spec could be bumped as they have both fallen in price.

My mac pro is using two quad-core 3.0 ghz Xeons right now. I don't see a possible update except the GPU, or Blu-ray combo drives.

twoodcc
Aug 15, 2007, 04:22 PM
can't wait to see these in a mac pro!

suneohair
Aug 15, 2007, 04:30 PM
My mac pro is using two quad-core 3.0 ghz Xeons right now. I don't see a possible update except the GPU, or Blu-ray combo drives.

Yes. But the 2.66Ghz Clovertown is at the same price as the 2.66Ghz Woodcrest. You have the two quad cores, but there is not reason they couldn't stick a 2.66Ghz Clovertown at the base model.

Siemova
Aug 15, 2007, 04:38 PM
From what I've read, new iMac 24" BTO processor is an x7800 2.6Ghz overclocked to 2.8, not an x7900. (Ah, I see Multimedia beat me to that!)

Anyway, I know other people have already brought this up, but I wanted to confirm:

Judging by what I've read, the Santa Rosa refresh - that is, basically, the introduction of mobile Penryns - is definitely slated for Q1 '08 (http://www.dailytech.com/Mobile+Intel+Penryn+Core+2+Duos+Revealed/article8067.htm). I'm betting we'll get a MBP refresh sometime around then... unless Apple decides to wait until summer for Montevina, which pairs Penryn chips with an updated chipset (see end of this article (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/07/18/intel_roadmaps_45nm_mobile_cpus/) for more details). But I don't really think they'd do that.

As for iMacs, they could either go the same way, or (as I somewhat forlornly hope) with the cooler 45nm chips Apple could finally start using desktop-class processors in its consumer desktop again. Wolfdale's TDP is only supposed to be ~60W... But no. I don't really expect it. However, I have read comments from Intel saying they will offer quad-core mobile Penryns. Wouldn't mind one of those.

A thorough description of Penryn and its benefits here (http://www.digital-daily.com/cpu/intel_penryn_nehalem/).

suneohair
Aug 15, 2007, 04:42 PM
From what I've read, new iMac 24" BTO processor is an x7800 2.6Ghz overclocked to 2.8, not an x7900. (Ah, I see Multimedia beat me to that!)

Anyway, I know other people have already brought this up, but I wanted to confirm:

Judging by what I've read, the Santa Rosa refresh - that is, basically, the introduction of mobile Penryns - is definitely slated for Q1 '08 (http://www.dailytech.com/Mobile+Intel+Penryn+Core+2+Duos+Revealed/article8067.htm). I'm betting we'll get a MBP refresh sometime around then... unless Apple decides to wait until summer for Montevina, which pairs Penryn chips with an updated chipset (see end of this article (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/07/18/intel_roadmaps_45nm_mobile_cpus/) for more details). But I don't really think they'd do that.

As for iMacs, they could either go the same way, or (as I somewhat forlornly hope) with the cooler 45nm chips Apple could finally start using desktop-class processors in its consumer desktop again. Wolfdale's TDP is only supposed to be ~60W... But no. I don't really expect it. However, I have read comments from Intel saying they will offer quad-core mobile Penryns. Wouldn't mind one of those.

A thorough description of Penryn and its benefits here (http://www.digital-daily.com/cpu/intel_penryn_nehalem/).

Do we have a source for that? That seems very unlikely. As overclocking can be considered "stealing." I am sure Intel would have a problem with Apple buying 2.6Ghz chips to save cash and then overclocking to 2.8Ghz.

Eidorian
Aug 15, 2007, 04:44 PM
Do we have a source for that?I'm sure that the people over in the HD 2600 XT threads could run CPU-Z for us.

suneohair
Aug 15, 2007, 04:45 PM
I'm sure that the people over in the HD 2600 XT threads could run CPU-Z for us.

Yeah. I just want to see where this idea started. See my post above.

Multimedia
Aug 15, 2007, 04:49 PM
Do we have a source for that? That seems very unlikely. As overclocking can be considered "stealing." I am sure Intel would have a problem with Apple buying 2.6Ghz chips to save cash and then overclocking to 2.8Ghz.It's a logical deduction since Intel doesn't sell 2.8GHz Meroms while Apple offers them for $250 on new iMacs if you're willing to wait a month for delivery. So my GUESS is that intel is certifying some of their 2.6 Meroms as overclockable to 2.8 and selling those units to Apple as such. Meanwhile, the 17" MBP awaits the plain old 2.6GHz model as an option this Fall (I Hope).

suneohair
Aug 15, 2007, 04:58 PM
It's a logical deduction since Intel doesn't sell 2.8GHz Meroms while Apple offers them for $250 on new iMacs if you're willing to wait a month for delivery. So my GUESS is that intel is certifying some of their 2.6 Meroms as overclockable to 2.8 and selling those units to Apple as such. Meanwhile, the 17" MBP awaits the plain old 2.6GHz model as an option this Fall (I Hope).

Interesting deduction. Intel didn't sell 3.0Ghz Clovertowns until recently and even then that was 5 months after Apple was using them....

That could be the case though. Has anyone taken a look at the processor in the 24" to verify?

bigbossbmb
Aug 15, 2007, 05:26 PM
This article (http://www.trustedreviews.com/cpu-memory/news/2007/08/15/Intel-Mobile-Processors-To-Be-Refreshed/p1) points out news on upcoming seperate mobile chip revisions for mobile machines, so i'm sure anything newer than this will be for next year.

those aren't revisions, intel is just introducing another merom chip (exactly the same as the others) that is clocked at 2.6ghz... along with a new Celeron!!

nothing is changing with the mobile chips until next winter/spring

offwidafairies
Aug 15, 2007, 05:29 PM
I need more speed ! Hmmm ... or was it crack ? ;o)

heh heh
u need rehab

MacCoaster
Aug 15, 2007, 05:30 PM
I say enough with the mostly USELESS (to regular users) multi-cores (4-8 processors when 95% of all programs can use ONE processor ONLY? That leaves 7 processors doing almost NOTHING). I don't care what anyone says. Multi-threaded apps aren't going to appear quickly any time soon. It's VERY hard to write and especially debug multi-threaded programs, so the idea of multi-threaded gaming engines, for example just isn't going to appear overnight.
7 processors doing nothing? I think you need to educate yourself. Mac OS X's scheduler will properly divide the CPU time on all 8 cores for all processes and threads that are running. For example, right now on my dual core iMac at work I have 296 threads, and 92 processes. Both cores are being used. Same is true if I were using a 8 core Mac Pro, all of the 8 cores will be occupied with any of the 296 threads or 92 processes. Understand?

8 core is very beneficial, even with Tiger. Leopard is apparently improving the scheduler to make it more aware of the fact that the systems are running multicore (i.e >1 core per CPU).

offwidafairies
Aug 15, 2007, 05:31 PM
Meanwhile, the 17" MBP awaits the plain old 2.6GHz model as an option this Fall (I Hope).

Just the 17"????

Siemova
Aug 15, 2007, 06:19 PM
Do we have a source for that? That seems very unlikely. As overclocking can be considered "stealing." I am sure Intel would have a problem with Apple buying 2.6Ghz chips to save cash and then overclocking to 2.8Ghz.

Well, I read it a few different places (AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/08/14/apples_new_imac_core_2_extreme_mac_mini_benchmarked.html) for example), but like Multimedia said it also seemed self-evident. Now that I look into it further, though, I suppose they could possibly sport x7900's before their official release. Indeed, it'd be interesting to find out for sure. :) Though it doesn't really matter, at least in a Mac -- 2.8 Ghz is 2.8 Ghz!

AidenShaw
Aug 15, 2007, 08:20 PM
...systems are running multicore (i.e >1 core per CPU).

The words "core" and "socket" are unambiguous, they refer to physical entities.

The words "CPU" and "processor", however, mean different things at different times in different contexts.

A "core" fits the description of "CPU" and "processor" that have been used for decades. To the software, there's almost no difference between two cores in two dies in two packages in two sockets, and two cores on one die in one package in one socket. Both require SMP-capable (where "SMP" is "Simultaneous Multi-PROCESSing) operating systems. Both can run two threads at the same time.

Some licensing schemes, however, call the first "two processors" and the second "one processor". A non-technical distinction for purely marketing reasons.

In your reply you even use "core" and "processor" interchangeably....


7 processors doing nothing? I think you need to educate yourself. Mac OS X's scheduler will properly divide the CPU time on all 8 cores for all processes and threads that are running....

I think that the original post was referring to the fact that very few *applications* run 8 times faster with an 8 CPU system.

This is due to both older programming that didn't think to exploit parallelism, and the unfortunate fact that many applications have data or temporal dependencies that make it impossible to split a problem into multiple pieces that can be done in parallel.

Running a task for 1/8 of a second on one core, then 1/8 of a second on the next, ... is not "useful". Running the task in 1/8th the time by running on all cores at once is useful. Unfortunately, few programs do the latter today.

macintel4me
Aug 15, 2007, 08:40 PM
Running a task for 1/8 of a second on one core, then 1/8 of a second on the next, ... is not "useful". Running the task in 1/8th the time by running on all cores at once is useful. Unfortunately, few programs do the latter today.
True.

And in the real-world you can run multiple instances of the same app at the same time. The app may not be written well to take advantage of multiple cores, but OS X certainly is and has been for decades. For example, run 4 instances of HandBrake and encode 4 movies into H.264. You'll see those 4 cores fly regardless of how the app was written.

MacCoaster
Aug 15, 2007, 09:05 PM
The words "core" and "socket" are unambiguous, they refer to physical entities.

The words "CPU" and "processor", however, mean different things at different times in different contexts.
...
In your reply you even use "core" and "processor" interchangeably....
That's because he originally used `processor`. But you're correct, CPU and processor could mean different things. I tend to say CPU/Processor as the socket itself. But again, you're correct.
I think that the original post was referring to the fact that very few *applications* run 8 times faster with an 8 CPU system.

This is due to both older programming that didn't think to exploit parallelism, and the unfortunate fact that many applications have data or temporal dependencies that make it impossible to split a problem into multiple pieces that can be done in parallel.

Running a task for 1/8 of a second on one core, then 1/8 of a second on the next, ... is not "useful". Running the task in 1/8th the time by running on all cores at once is useful. Unfortunately, few programs do the latter today.
That's true to an extent. However, there are some programming problems that simply cannot be divided into separate threads. For example, some operations require to be in linear order. That's the first thing a programmer must determine. Can we break this up? If so, how? If not, how do we allow the user to add more tasks, if that's possible?

Your programs are never going to execute in exactly one timeslice on a processing unit. So you have no say on that. It's the operating system's decision. My point was who cares if not every app is highly threaded? Is it really important for iCal to have a zillion threads? Most professional-level software are already taking advantage of as many cores as they can.

*shrug* I'm still right that the 7 "processors" aren't left unused. :p

vansouza
Aug 15, 2007, 09:28 PM
Yeah! What the crap do you guys do to buy new Mac Pros everytime they're released? Sell the old machines? Steal from the rich and give high interest rates to the poor? I'm still stuck on this old iMac G4 that makes children cry with it's slowness. XD

Granted I am a college kid living on a college wage, but damn.

A strong but shame filled ... yes.

EagerDragon
Aug 15, 2007, 09:32 PM
Perhaps you really mean FB-DIMM memory like the current 5000 chipset for the Xeons?

There are also ECC DDR2/DDR3 DIMMs that aren't much more expensive than non-ECC memory.

When you get a few GiB of RAM in a system, ECC is a good investment. It's much better to get a kernel panic or blue screen with the message "memory error detected" than it is for the system to act strange and maybe corrupt your files.

Yes could not remeber FB-DIMM at the moment.

Will the new systems require FB-DIMM?

reallynotnick
Aug 15, 2007, 09:53 PM
*sigh*
The EA games in the pipeline will play fine on minis and MacBooks, fly on iMacs, and scream on the few Mac Pros that actually get used for gaming. Certainly good enough for 99% of Mac users. Settle down and get some perspective.

Ok, there is no such thing as a modern game that will play fine on a Mini or MacBook, not with that ****** integrated GMA 950. I was really hoping we would see santa rosa with the x300(0?) chips, though those are not much better.

When a Mac Pro $2,000+ does not out pace a $350 xbox 360 then their is a problem, and it is a problem.

The absolutely only reason these graphics would be good enough for 99% of the mac population is because anyone who really cares about games has moved away from the Mac platform, which is indeed not a good thing. Realistically I believe it is more like 88%.

Rocketman
Aug 15, 2007, 09:55 PM
It's a logical deduction since Intel doesn't sell 2.8GHz Meroms while Apple offers them for $250 on new iMacs if you're willing to wait a month for delivery. So my GUESS is that intel is certifying some of their 2.6 Meroms as overclockable to 2.8 and selling those units to Apple as such. Meanwhile, the 17" MBP awaits the plain old 2.6GHz model as an option this Fall (I Hope).

Intel officially approved overclocking. The fact was posted to either MacRumors or Slashdot for sure.

Rocketman

Digital Skunk
Aug 15, 2007, 10:26 PM
Ok, there is no such thing as a modern game that will play fine on a Mini or MacBook, not with that ****** integrated GMA 950. I was really hoping we would see santa rosa with the x300(0?) chips, though those are not much better.

When a Mac Pro $2,000+ does not out pace a $350 xbox 360 then their is a problem, and it is a problem.

The absolutely only reason these graphics would be good enough for 99% of the mac population is because anyone who really cares about games has moved away from the Mac platform, which is indeed not a good thing. Realistically I believe it is more like 88%.

You do realize that the xBox and other gaming machines aren't as capable as desktop workstations right? I doubt the Mac Pro would get beaten by a gaming machine when used for video editing. You are right about that GMA 950, I was hoping for better when the updates rolled around but I just sucked it up and got the MacBook Pro.

Most people that care about games are going to buy a PC or build their own... I was one of them, but I still wanted my Mac. In the end... I gave up on games. Stopped way back when with Dark Reign 1 and 2, Sim City, Civilization 1, and the first Red Alert. Got a Mac... games wouldn't work... threw the games away and looked for Mac equivalents. :D

Now they are coming back.... SWEE!:cool:

MagnusVonMagnum
Aug 15, 2007, 11:25 PM
*sigh*


I'm the one that should be sighing at the reply of yet another Apple apologist that doesn't get it at all.


HOW TO BUILD A GAMING MACHINE:

Step 1: Buy the very best graphics card you can afford.
Step 2: Buy the cheapest reliable motherboard you can find that works with the card from Step 1.
Step 3: Max out the memory, overclock the CPU, put in a good cooling system.
Step 4: Frag your buddy.

Apple will *never* make a machine which rivals something like that. There is almost ZERO market for a pre-built "gamer" machine, because hard-core gamers like to build their own systems which target the dollars where it


Who said I was a hard core gamer? I am not. But like MOST PC users (or former PC users), I DO occasionally play a game on my computer and WHEN I do, I don't want it to run at 20fps, which is what the new iMacs are giving with certain new games at native LCD resolutions. Asking for 80fps on those games is hardly hard core. Hard core systems can do 120+ or more.

Now what I WANT to do is get rid of my old PC an *NOT* have to buy another one! I don't want to hear about gaming consoles either. There are some games that only really 'work' well on computers. I mean we're not talking about a gaming iMac, but perhaps an iMac (or better yet a low-end MacPro type setup or mini-tower) that has a REASONABLE graphics card that won't be totally obsolete in a year or two. This is especially important on iMacs because you can't replace the darn card. At least if I buy a MacPro, I can assume sooner or later a newer card will be offered for it so it won't be obsolete next year. But this newest set of iMacs are OBSOLETE ON ARRIVAL!!! They are actually SLOWER than the previous generation o iMac with the NVidia option! There is NO EXCUSE that any REASONABLE person would take or believe for that! I've been waiting for the refresh, expecting an iMac I could live with, but instead they go BACKWARDS!

The MacPro is the ONLY viable Mac to run games beyond 2007 period. The MBP does better than the top of the line iMac even! That's unbelievable to me.

But what I really get sick and tired of is people making EXCUSES for Apple's total and utter incompetence in this area. If you don't like playing games or only play games on a console, FINE. Ignore our pleas and comments. You might as well go buy a MacMini because unless you do 3D video, you don't NEED even what the iMac offers. Intel GMA is good enough forever! 2D rules the world in 2007!

But some of us do more than browse and play with Garage Band. I thought the move to Intel was a god-send. FINALLY, I could ditch the Windows platform for good because I could run parallels or boot camp for my legacy software while I slowly ween off Windows entirely (I *HATE* Vista for more than one reason). But that doesn't mean I want CRAP hardware!

I've heard this song and dance about how long Macs last (shelf life) and how great their hardware quality is, but the truth of the matter is the newest ones are ALREADY obsolete. What good does it do to have great so-and-so specs, but then have utter and total CRAP for the graphics? Graphics are more important than ANY other system on a computer, IMO. They're what you see every day and interact with (followed by sound, which is also often ignored and to get really good sound on a Mac you need a Firewire box because new Macs don't even have what most PCs have and that is 5.1 or better standard sound.)

It just seems to me for all the hoopla about Apple Hardware, the REALITY is beyond form factor, it's really a sad joke. Just because it's way better than the lowest/cheapest Dell out there doesn't mean it's 'great' in any sense of the word! I can put together a higher-end Dell (let alone building my own) for way less than the mid-road iMac that will run circles around it in almost all areas! You can't even pay more (dollar for dollar) to get a faster iMac because there is no such thing!

I realize Apple makes most of their money selling hardware so my dream of being able to buy MacOS X for any hardware I want isn't likely to happen any time soon, if ever (without hacking anyway), but if I HAVE to buy Apple's hardware, then at least offer me hardware I want to buy, even if I have to pay a little more!

Macs can run Windows too now and that means access to Windows games. Steve Jobs touted Electronic Arts' return to the Mac, so how about offering us a reasonable way to play those games, Mr. Jobs....

i, Podius
Aug 16, 2007, 01:28 AM
Magnus, you and I are in the same boat, I think.

Having decided to switch, I've waited for the last 8 months for Apple to update the iMacs, assuming that a better video card would be in the offering. Naturally, I was pretty damn pissed off to see the new iteration. I also happen to think they're pretty damn ugly, but that's neither here nor there.

I am, however still desirous of the Mac platform, as I'm sick of XP, and have no interest in moving to Vista. I find my only choice is now to get a Mac Pro. Thus I've been thinking about the Mac Pro option, in terms of my needs, and whilst I initially dismissed it as too expensive, I've been thinking about it more, and whilst it's true that all I need is an iMac with a better video card, that doesn't mean that a Mac Pro is actually a bad buy for a gamer - even a non-hard-core gamer.

What it requires, really, is a slightly changed philosophy on gaming hardware. Now, generally speaking, my 4.5 year old AMD Athlon XP 2200+ with 1GB of RAM actually gets me by pretty well for gaming, with the exception of my rather crappy Radeon 9600 video card. Theoretically, I could just upgrade my video card, and squeeze a slightly longer gaming life out of my machine. Except of course, for the fact that I want to play Supreme Commander (which, due to its excessively accurate physics and complex AI, requires Dual Core or a processor roughly twice the speed of mine), and also because my motherboard uses the now discarded AGP slot for its video card.

Now, the point I'm trying to make is that while games like Supreme Commander provide exceptions to the rule, generally speaking, gaming advances lean much more heavily on the graphics cards than the processors. The result being that you can get away with using the same CPU for half a decade, assuming that the industry doesn't decide to change the graphics card adapter standard, meaning that a graphics card update necessitates a new motherboard, and with it a new processor, RAM, &c. (which is where I am). Now, if we consider the Mac Pro, it offers more processing power than we need - twice as much, really. Gaming rigs these days are either sticking in the last of the single core processors from AMD, or the shiny new dual-core Intels. Gaming rigs with quad-core, however, are pretty much unheard of. This is significant, because buying a Mac Pro puts you ahead of the game. Whilst games are only beginning to be written to take advantage of multiple cores, over time, this will become more common-place, just as, over time, dual core PCs will become commonplace, and gamers will eventually start moving to quad core.

The point being, whilst a top of the line PC will probably get you by for 4-5 years, with appropriate video card upgrades, I believe that a Mac Pro (Say, the 2.66 with the x1900, which is what I'm looking at) ought to last around a 6-8 year range. (Again, obviously the video card will have to be upgraded eventually). And when that time comes, theoretically I could just find two "old" 3.0GHz Quad Xeons that are currently in the top-of-the-line Mac Pros to pop in, and more than double my processing power, without having to upgrade everything else.

The point being that the extra $1000 (Australian) that I'll spend getting a Mac Pro over a sufficiently spec'd PC will buy me a lot more longevity than it would if I threw another $1000 at the PC (given the lack of options in terms of quad core on the market, and economies of scale with Apple, &c.). The value of the Pro also becomes more apparent when you consider noise - I leave my computer on at night, (in my room while I sleep) for various reasons, and over the years I've spent somewhere in the range of $400-500 trying to make it quieter (custom heatsinks, special case, quiet PSU) and the result is a machine that's still nowhere near as quiet as a Mac Pro. Now, noise may not necessarily be an issue for you, but it certainly is for me, and when factored into the cost equations, makes the Mac Pro look that much more reasonable.

The point I'm trying to make is that whilst it's true that a Mac Pro is more than what you need, it's more-than-what-you-need at a price that's cheaper than more-than-what-you-need in PC form. Because the Mac Pro is a somewhat popular machine, economies of scale make it possible to buy hardware that wouldn't make sense for a PC builder, but which can nevertheless work economically. It just requires changing from a "buy slightly-above-mid-range hardware and upgrade every couple of years" mentality to a "buy high-range hardware and upgrade once a decade or so" mentality.

Well, that's what I'm thinking, anyway.


I'm the one that should be sighing at the reply of yet another Apple apologist that doesn't get it at all.


Who said I was a hard core gamer? I am not. But like MOST PC users (or former PC users), I DO occasionally play a game on my computer and WHEN I do, I don't want it to run at 20fps, which is what the new iMacs are giving with certain new games at native LCD resolutions. Asking for 80fps on those games is hardly hard core. Hard core systems can do 120+ or more.

Now what I WANT to do is get rid of my old PC an *NOT* have to buy another one! I don't want to hear about gaming consoles either. There are some games that only really 'work' well on computers. I mean we're not talking about a gaming iMac, but perhaps an iMac (or better yet a low-end MacPro type setup or mini-tower) that has a REASONABLE graphics card that won't be totally obsolete in a year or two. This is especially important on iMacs because you can't replace the darn card. At least if I buy a MacPro, I can assume sooner or later a newer card will be offered for it so it won't be obsolete next year. But this newest set of iMacs are OBSOLETE ON ARRIVAL!!! They are actually SLOWER than the previous generation o iMac with the NVidia option! There is NO EXCUSE that any REASONABLE person would take or believe for that! I've been waiting for the refresh, expecting an iMac I could live with, but instead they go BACKWARDS!

The MacPro is the ONLY viable Mac to run games beyond 2007 period. The MBP does better than the top of the line iMac even! That's unbelievable to me.

But what I really get sick and tired of is people making EXCUSES for Apple's total and utter incompetence in this area. If you don't like playing games or only play games on a console, FINE. Ignore our pleas and comments. You might as well go buy a MacMini because unless you do 3D video, you don't NEED even what the iMac offers. Intel GMA is good enough forever! 2D rules the world in 2007!

But some of us do more than browse and play with Garage Band. I thought the move to Intel was a god-send. FINALLY, I could ditch the Windows platform for good because I could run parallels or boot camp for my legacy software while I slowly ween off Windows entirely (I *HATE* Vista for more than one reason). But that doesn't mean I want CRAP hardware!

I've heard this song and dance about how long Macs last (shelf life) and how great their hardware quality is, but the truth of the matter is the newest ones are ALREADY obsolete. What good does it do to have great so-and-so specs, but then have utter and total CRAP for the graphics? Graphics are more important than ANY other system on a computer, IMO. They're what you see every day and interact with (followed by sound, which is also often ignored and to get really good sound on a Mac you need a Firewire box because new Macs don't even have what most PCs have and that is 5.1 or better standard sound.)

It just seems to me for all the hoopla about Apple Hardware, the REALITY is beyond form factor, it's really a sad joke. Just because it's way better than the lowest/cheapest Dell out there doesn't mean it's 'great' in any sense of the word! I can put together a higher-end Dell (let alone building my own) for way less than the mid-road iMac that will run circles around it in almost all areas! You can't even pay more (dollar for dollar) to get a faster iMac because there is no such thing!

I realize Apple makes most of their money selling hardware so my dream of being able to buy MacOS X for any hardware I want isn't likely to happen any time soon, if ever (without hacking anyway), but if I HAVE to buy Apple's hardware, then at least offer me hardware I want to buy, even if I have to pay a little more!

Macs can run Windows too now and that means access to Windows games. Steve Jobs touted Electronic Arts' return to the Mac, so how about offering us a reasonable way to play those games, Mr. Jobs....

Tara Davis
Aug 16, 2007, 01:38 AM
Asking for 80fps on those games is hardly hard core.

You realize that when you shell out 8 bucks to see a movie in the theater, you're watching a 24 fps image, right?

When you turn on a TV set and watch "Lost", you're getting 30 fps.

With one comment, you told me everything I need to know about how twisted and myopic your perspective is. NORMAL PEOPLE do not demand 80fps+ gaming.

More importantly, people who actually *need* systems like the Mac Pro generally don't give a crap about how well it plays games. They are too busy using it to make money and/or advance human knowledge. If they wanted to play games, they would have bought a Windows PC (or perhaps a DS Lite... or something.)

You, my friend, are a gamer. Accept it. Go build a kick-ass toy for yourself, and leave the rest of us alone. The Mac Pro is a fantastic professional workstation. The fact that you are unhappy that Apple does not make an affordable kick-ass game machine is not our problem, nor does it have anything to do with the discussion of emerging chip technologies for the Mac Pro. Buh-bye.

Mike Teezie
Aug 16, 2007, 01:57 AM
Excellent news. Will Apple use the 2.83GHz, 3.00GHz and 3.16GHz chips in the MacPro line?

I'm buying a MacPro in December, and a Quad 3Ghz sure would be nice. I know nothing about video cards, I just want to be able to run a 30" and 20" ACD (20" in portrait orientation) from the video card it comes with.

i, Podius
Aug 16, 2007, 02:00 AM
You realize that when you shell out 8 bucks to see a movie in the theater, you're watching a 24 fps image, right?

When you turn on a TV set and watch "Lost", you're getting 30 fps.

With one comment, you told me everything I need to know about how twisted and myopic your perspective is. NORMAL PEOPLE do not demand 80fps+ gaming.

More importantly, people who actually *need* systems like the Mac Pro generally don't give a crap about how well it plays games. They are too busy using it to make money and/or advance human knowledge. If they wanted to play games, they would have bought a Windows PC (or perhaps a DS Lite... or something.)

You, my friend, are a gamer. Accept it. Go build a kick-ass toy for yourself, and leave the rest of us alone. The Mac Pro is a fantastic professional workstation. The fact that you are unhappy that Apple does not make an affordable kick-ass game machine is not our problem, nor does it have anything to do with the discussion of emerging chip technologies for the Mac Pro. Buh-bye.

What you obviously don't realise is that the 80fps he's referring to is the average. Yes, you only need 24fps for smooth video, but your television doesn't start dropping frames when the action gets intense. If you're playing a game where the average framerate is 24fps, then any time where the game gets processor-intensive, (like, oh, say, in the middle of a battle?) the frame rate drops massively - so you'd end up with a stuttering 5-10fps. The result being that you would, naturally, die. You want it at 80fps so that when the game gets busy, it drops to somewhere around the 30-40 fps mark, so that you can still actually play it. "NORMAL PEOPLE" as you put it, do actually demand 80fps gaming, they just don't realise it. Rather, they'd phrase it as "I want a smooth gaming experience that doesn't start stuttering as soon as anything happens", which is what 80fps gaming means.

Perhaps you should do a little research next time, before getting so haughty.

BKKbill
Aug 16, 2007, 03:29 AM
I'm the one that should be sighing at the reply of yet another Apple apologist that doesn't get it at all.



Who said I was a hard core gamer? I am not. But like MOST PC users (or former PC users), I DO occasionally play a game on my computer and WHEN I do, I don't want it to run at 20fps, which is what the new iMacs are giving with certain new games at native LCD resolutions. Asking for 80fps on those games is hardly hard core. Hard core systems can do 120+ or more.

Now what I WANT to do is get rid of my old PC an *NOT* have to buy another one! I don't want to hear about gaming consoles either. There are some games that only really 'work' well on computers. I mean we're not talking about a gaming iMac, but perhaps an iMac (or better yet a low-end MacPro type setup or mini-tower) that has a REASONABLE graphics card that won't be totally obsolete in a year or two. This is especially important on iMacs because you can't replace the darn card. At least if I buy a MacPro, I can assume sooner or later a newer card will be offered for it so it won't be obsolete next year. But this newest set of iMacs are OBSOLETE ON ARRIVAL!!! They are actually SLOWER than the previous generation o iMac with the NVidia option! There is NO EXCUSE that any REASONABLE person would take or believe for that! I've been waiting for the refresh, expecting an iMac I could live with, but instead they go BACKWARDS!

The MacPro is the ONLY viable Mac to run games beyond 2007 period. The MBP does better than the top of the line iMac even! That's unbelievable to me.

But what I really get sick and tired of is people making EXCUSES for Apple's total and utter incompetence in this area. If you don't like playing games or only play games on a console, FINE. Ignore our pleas and comments. You might as well go buy a MacMini because unless you do 3D video, you don't NEED even what the iMac offers. Intel GMA is good enough forever! 2D rules the world in 2007!

But some of us do more than browse and play with Garage Band. I thought the move to Intel was a god-send. FINALLY, I could ditch the Windows platform for good because I could run parallels or boot camp for my legacy software while I slowly ween off Windows entirely (I *HATE* Vista for more than one reason). But that doesn't mean I want CRAP hardware!

I've heard this song and dance about how long Macs last (shelf life) and how great their hardware quality is, but the truth of the matter is the newest ones are ALREADY obsolete. What good does it do to have great so-and-so specs, but then have utter and total CRAP for the graphics? Graphics are more important than ANY other system on a computer, IMO. They're what you see every day and interact with (followed by sound, which is also often ignored and to get really good sound on a Mac you need a Firewire box because new Macs don't even have what most PCs have and that is 5.1 or better standard sound.)

It just seems to me for all the hoopla about Apple Hardware, the REALITY is beyond form factor, it's really a sad joke. Just because it's way better than the lowest/cheapest Dell out there doesn't mean it's 'great' in any sense of the word! I can put together a higher-end Dell (let alone building my own) for way less than the mid-road iMac that will run circles around it in almost all areas! You can't even pay more (dollar for dollar) to get a faster iMac because there is no such thing!

I realize Apple makes most of their money selling hardware so my dream of being able to buy MacOS X for any hardware I want isn't likely to happen any time soon, if ever (without hacking anyway), but if I HAVE to buy Apple's hardware, then at least offer me hardware I want to buy, even if I have to pay a little more!

Macs can run Windows too now and that means access to Windows games. Steve Jobs touted Electronic Arts' return to the Mac, so how about offering us a reasonable way to play those games, Mr. Jobs....

*sigh* + 1

Multimedia
Aug 16, 2007, 03:34 AM
Excellent news. Will Apple use the 2.83GHz, 3.00GHz and 3.16GHz chips in the MacPro line?Nobody outside Apple's inner circle would know that. We hope. The spread might be something less than 2.83 then 2.83 and 3.16 on top skipping 3.0 as that's the top now. Just guessing as usual.I'm buying a MacPro in December, and a Quad 3Ghz sure would be nice. I know nothing about video cards, I just want to be able to run a 30" and 20" ACD (20" in portrait orientation) from the video card it comes with.You can do that already with the base card that comes with it now - lowly nVidea GeForce 7300GT. I'm able to drive BOTH a 30" DELL as well as a 24" (1920 x 1200) DELL in Portrait mode and it is the bomb! :) :eek: :cool:

BTW: What's up with all these gamers invading this Pro space? Really pathetic having to wade through their dribble. Don't forget to wipe up after yourselves on your way out the door children. :rolleyes:

Aggamemnon
Aug 16, 2007, 04:32 AM
BTW: What's up with all these gamers invading this Pro space? Really pathetic having to wade through their dribble. Don't forget to wipe up after yourselves on your way out the door children. :rolleyes:

Oh FFS accept that some people have different requirements, and live with it. Wind your neck in. Do you want the platform to grow or not?

cwoloszynski
Aug 16, 2007, 07:05 AM
What you obviously don't realise is that the 80fps he's referring to is the average. Yes, you only need 24fps for smooth video, but your television doesn't start dropping frames when the action gets intense. If you're playing a game where the average framerate is 24fps, then any time where the game gets processor-intensive, (like, oh, say, in the middle of a battle?) the frame rate drops massively - so you'd end up with a stuttering 5-10fps. The result being that you would, naturally, die. You want it at 80fps so that when the game gets busy, it drops to somewhere around the 30-40 fps mark, so that you can still actually play it. "NORMAL PEOPLE" as you put it, do actually demand 80fps gaming, they just don't realise it. Rather, they'd phrase it as "I want a smooth gaming experience that doesn't start stuttering as soon as anything happens", which is what 80fps gaming means.

Perhaps you should do a little research next time, before getting so haughty.

Sounds like the gaming geeks like to quote big numbers to puff up their chests ... perhaps they should quote the sustatined frame rate on their hardware under load... like lots of readers here, I suspect that not everyone is aware of the ego-bloated frame rates you want to quote.. check the mirror for the 'haughty' person ... try some civility.. it works wonders....

nickane
Aug 16, 2007, 07:58 AM
dangnabbit. I guess apple knew this and so they're skipping the price cut in favour of keeping the 3.0 octo over-priced and waiting til penryn before offering octos across the line. That's a shame. No one wants to buy a year old computer when they know a few months' waiting will garner them twice as many render nodes for about the same money.

And, whilst Multimedia's wording may not be ideal, he has a point. If you have enough money to buy a mac pro for gaming then you're obviously not working in any of the industries that require workstation-class computers, otherwise you probably wouldn't have enough free time to game in the first place, let alone want to spend it looking at a screen less than a metre away from your face for a prolonged period of time.

It is a shame that part of the intel deal means having integrated graphics in low-end consumer macs (for how many years, though, i wonder...?). It is annoying that apple still put outdated graphics cards in imacs like the geforce 5200 in my g5 rev a., which necessitates me buying a pro. It is a further shame that jobsy won't just bring out a midi tower like the cube with expandable graphics and sound cards.

Oh well, those of us who need the power (though not all of it) for work will just have to content ourselves with saving up for longer and making sure we buy at the right time to maximise the longevity/resale value of our purchases (ie not now, but probably in november), and gamers will have to stick to consoles and PCs. But none of that has anything to do with Xeon's going 45nm first, and ahead of schedule, which is surely a good thing except that it's happening so soon that apple will probably wait til then for an update rather than hand on any of the woodcrest/clovertown savings onto us. Maybe that was part of the deal they made in getting the 3 GHz clovertown so early and they're still paying over the odds for the chips anyways?

jhtrico1850
Aug 16, 2007, 09:18 AM
So the top end speed increases by only 160MHz, but it's a real quad-core, has a larger cache and is 45nm, so uses less power and generates less heat ?

Intel Penryn quad core AKA Yorkfield is still dual die. Native does not mean it uses less power, just "more elegant", but yes, it uses less power and heat because high-k eliminates good amount of leakage.

Tara Davis
Aug 16, 2007, 09:37 AM
Oh FFS accept that some people have different requirements, and live with it. Wind your neck in. Do you want the platform to grow or not?

I don't care if the platform grows or not, as long as it remains viable.

The Mac Pro is not a game machine. It's just not. A handful of (misguided) gamers are eye-balling it as the "best" Mac-based gaming choice because they are dissatisfied with the gaming performance of Apple's consumer-grade systems.

But the fact that a few loud-mouths are unhappy that Apple doesn't make a game machine (as in, modest CPU / bleeding-edge GPU / low price) doesn't mean that people in a forum discussing Penryn want to skim through post after post after post of them whining about it.

I'm very excited about it. I was looking at the possibility of picking up a new Pro tower in October, but now I'm wondering if I want to wait an extra month to get the new chips. I think I might try to squeeze another month out of what I've got.

Digital Skunk
Aug 16, 2007, 09:49 AM
What's up with all these gamers invading this Pro space? Really pathetic having to wade through their dribble. Don't forget to wipe up after yourselves on your way out the door children. :rolleyes:

Hey Multimedia... I know how you feel but you have to respect their wishes and desires as well. Just like the gamers are saying the Mac Zealots should mature and realize that Apple doesn't offer the best of the best when it comes to gaming rigs... they have to mature and realize that Apple marketshare has been growing for 7 years straight regardless of the fact, the iPhone and iPod are pushing PC switchers to the Mac, Mac software is still far superior to anything on the market sans specially made stuff, and Apple's laptops (even the GMA 950) have been keeping up with the sales of PCs and Apple is a tenth the size of any PC distributor. In other words... Jobs kinda knows what he is doing to keep Apple afloat even if we aren't too happy with his decisions. Screw waiting for a gaming rig. I long since gave up on that.

If I was looking for a machine to be just a gaming rig then I would get one of three computers: A 24" iMac and suck it up with the GPU, a bottom line Mac Pro and never have any complaints, or a PC at half the cost of a Mac Pro but suck it up with Windows, viruses, spyware, crashing, malware, stupid little nuances that will get on my nerves.

The iPhone was put on the Cingular network and it is under powered etc. etc. People stopped complaining about it when they knew it may not change. Gamers need to understand that their mini-tower has been talked to death for 5 years (or since the Cube) and it isn't here yet. We hear you very clear... we just don't care anymore, you find a way around it.

And this graphics card thing is over rated. Graphics junkies respect the card more than any other piece of hardware in the machine. Even if they have the best it isn't good enough for their games. They will never be satisfied.

mozmac
Aug 16, 2007, 10:50 AM
I'd love to see what Apple has in store for these newer processors.

shawnce
Aug 16, 2007, 10:57 AM
Wrong. Intel dropped the price on Quad-core Clovertowns, they are now about the same price as Dual-core Woodcrests. So no. Apple does not use the faster processors from Intel. ...because they are not necessarily faster processors...

Tiger isn't well prepared for eight core systems and eight core system (2 socket with quad core processors, 2x4) run at lower clock rates (top end part to top end part). It wouldn't serve Apple's customer base to eliminate the quad core (2 socket with dual core processors, 2x2) option since the quad core systems can have higher clock-rates and don't degrade in efficiency as much as an eight core system does under Tiger (or with existing chipset).

Anyway Leopard, the next generation workstation chip-set, and Penryn based Xeon will allow 2x4 systems to run more efficiently (underload and power), among other related performance items.

I wouldn't expect Apple to rev. the Mac Pro until those things come together (the may not wait for Leopard). Apple may however provide more BTO processor options with the existing product (given recent Intel price drops).

Also, the graphics cards are very outdated. The HD and RAM spec could be bumped as they have both fallen in price. Those are BTO options, they can be changed (and some have changed) without what most folks mean when they say product "update" or "revision". The video adapters are waiting on Leopard and Leopard's delay has likely delayed some BTO plans that Apple had.

digitalbiker
Aug 16, 2007, 11:02 AM
they have to mature and realize that Apple marketshare has been growing for 7 years straight regardless of the fact,

It has been growing in spite of the fact that they ignore one of the largest computer markets. Just think how well Apple would be doing if they actually catered slightly to gamers.

Apple could be appealing to Pros, mass consumers, Gamers, and Business. Right now Apple really only focuses on Mass Consumers with a slight nod to the legacy pro customers. Apple almost completely igonores Gamers, and corporate businesses.

Multimedia, You have to be a little tolerent. The Mac Pro is really the only Apple choice for a true gamer. So whenever a rumor on the Mac Pro appears, of course Gamers are going to chime-in. If Apple actually made a mini-tower machine geared towards the high-end consumer & gamer, then the Mac Pro would be specifically for Pro-users.

InLikeALion
Aug 16, 2007, 11:52 AM
Do you have an answer for the person who asked about blue-ray drives? I am interested if you have any input for upgrade/add-on options for MacPros. I realize its a bit off-topic, but since the question had been posed in this thread, I thought there might be others here awaiting an answer.

On topic: If Apple is waiting new chipsets/motherboards, as well as the new Penryn chips for a new refresh (MWSF 08?), is there no incremental chip upgrades they could do in the meantime? Could they go all clovertown and keep the same clockspeeds? And I think upping the RAM should happen now, too, given that the mini now comes with a gig standard, and the MBPs with 2 gigs.

I think that since it's already been over a year, Apple needs to do some sort of upgrade, even if just to the current specks. I don't think they can go a year and a half without updating ANYTHING. I feel they also shouldn't save it all up for some big new upgrade. It seems there customers would be better served and late-buying investments would be not as bad a deal if they allowed incremental updates and maybe new GPUs between product cycles.

suneohair
Aug 16, 2007, 12:05 PM
...because they are not necessarily faster processors...

Tiger isn't well prepared for eight core systems and eight core system (2 socket with quad core processors, 2x4) run at lower clock rates (top end part to top end part). It wouldn't serve Apple's customer base to eliminate the quad core (2 socket with dual core processors, 2x2) option since the quad core systems can have higher clock-rates and don't degrade in efficiency as much as an eight core system does under Tiger (or with existing chipset).

Anyway Leopard, the next generation workstation chip-set, and Penryn based Xeon will allow 2x4 systems to run more efficiently (underload and power), among other related performance items.

I wouldn't expect Apple to rev. the Mac Pro until those things come together (the may not wait for Leopard). Apple may however provide more BTO processor options with the existing product (given recent Intel price drops).

Those are BTO options, they can be changed (and some have changed) without what most folks mean when they say product "update" or "revision". The video adapters are waiting on Leopard and Leopard's delay has likely delayed some BTO plans that Apple had.

They are quad-core processors, why wouldn't they be "faster". Apple could, right now, use dual 2.66Ghz Clovertowns in the base Mac Pro. Giving them an eight-core machine at the base model. Pricing allows for it.

The Cloveretowns do not run at a slower clock. In fact they match up pefrectly since Clovertowns are essentially two Woodcrest/Conroe dual cores slapped together. The X5355 runs at the same clock as the 5150 and they are just about the same price. So an all eight-core system line would serve the customer base. The numbers won't change simply the number of cores. Which we love. Then Harpertown will be quad-core, have faster clocks, faster per clock, etc. Please research before spewing incorrect thoughts.

You sayTiger isn't well prepared for eight-core, yet they are selling an eight-core system. I am guessing you think that is a waste right? Tiger may not be as effective as Leopard will be. But I highly doubt Apple would give people and eight-core option if it couldn't perform. There is no loss in efficiency.

Take a look:
http://barefeats.com/octopro5.html
http://barefeats.com/octopro1.html
http://barefeats.com/octopro3.html
http://barefeats.com/octopro4.html

Now, some tests don't show an increase. However, if that stuff will only be better in Leopard so be it. But don't say there is no increase. Because there indeed is.

And yes, those are BTO options. However, offering 1GB in a workstation at this point is ridiculous. A higher base RAM spec is good for everybody. If you were going to add 2x2GB (like myself) you would now be at 6GB instead of 5GB if they took to 2GB in the base.

BTO options have not changed. They added the expensive Clovertown and a RAID card. Nothing else has changed.

ktlx
Aug 16, 2007, 12:40 PM
Apple could be appealing to Pros, mass consumers, Gamers, and Business. Right now Apple really only focuses on Mass Consumers with a slight nod to the legacy pro customers. Apple almost completely igonores Gamers, and corporate businesses.
The point of business is to legally provide the best value to shareholders and not to maximize revenue or market share.

Apple's smart to ignore most gamers and the corporate desktop business. I've seen the margins on corporate desktops/laptops and Apple wants no part of that business. If you don't believe me, look at the margins reported by Dell, HP and Lenovo. For some time (possibly it's still true), HP actually lost money on their corporate desktop/laptops. From what I've read, it's the same reason why IBM dumped their stuff onto Lenovo: there wasn't enough profit to justify them remaining in that business.

The only companies making money on gamers are Intel, nVidia, AMD and the software houses. Neither business would bring Apple enough profit to make it worth the effort.

Multimedia
Aug 16, 2007, 12:44 PM
I have no idea when Blu-ray or HD-DVD will be added as an option or standard. Sooner would be better. But you know Apple - sometimes bleeding edge, other times bleeding laggards. :eek: :rolleyes: ;)

Given how cheap MP RAM is now and how they put 2GB standard in the MBPs, I think they should put two 2GB sticks in there to get you started with 4GB no matter which model. :)

trackball
Aug 16, 2007, 01:06 PM
Sounds like the gaming geeks like to quote big numbers to puff up their chests ... perhaps they should quote the sustatined frame rate on their hardware under load... like lots of readers here, I suspect that not everyone is aware of the ego-bloated frame rates you want to quote.. check the mirror for the 'haughty' person ... try some civility.. it works wonders....

Not to dampen your towel too much, but most users of the Mac Pro should know a fair amount about frame rates - especially if they are video editors. Processing video effects in real time such as in Final Cut Studio 2 would require more GPU power; not to mention that processing HD video require a fair amount of power as well. I believe editors would also want to be on the same page as the gamers for the power of the video cards that are shipped with the unit. However, the main complaint is about the iMac's video card and why they have skimped on the card - which was done for heat dispersement reasons. But in terms of getting a Pro the base line should run a game at smoothly enough, but at a higher cost. It is a shame that Apple has not considered much for gamers, but I feel in due time Apple will make the attempt to lure gamers into their realm - which should be when games can play natively in OS X, or whatever future Apple OS lays ahead.

JGowan
Aug 16, 2007, 02:04 PM
You sayTiger isn't well prepared for eight-core, yet they are selling an eight-core system. I am guessing you think that is a waste right? Tiger may not be as effective as Leopard will be. But I highly doubt Apple would give people and eight-core option if it couldn't perform. There is no loss in efficiency.I agree with you totally.

Also, what's wrong with buying with the future in mind?

Another point that I think people are completely losing sight of is the FACT that generally people who buy an expensive tower and spend a lot of money boosting Memory and upgrading the Video Card are planning on keeping it for more than a number of years. While it's perhaps true that in most cases today, these additional cores are not being utilized, it's good to know that Leopard will allow more for this and that the additional power can and will be utilized in the not-so-distant future. Considering how short of time it took for most everyone in the industry to come up with Universal Binaries for their software, it's obvious that they'll be modifying their code (and right soon) to handle the new power that Apple is unleashing with these super systems.

I love it here at macrumors.com -- on one hand, there is the Camp that shouts that the newly released iMac is shipping obsolete and on the other, there's the Camp who says that, basically the Mac Pros are "too powerful" because there's not enough software to take advantage of it. It would be fun to see if any of those people are in both camps. :rolleyes:

I'm buying a MacPro in December, and a Quad 3Ghz sure would be nice. I know nothing about video cards, I just want to be able to run a 30" and 20" ACD (20" in portrait orientation) from the video card it comes with.In my opinion, I wouldn't have December set in stone as the Buy month. While not always the case at all, January's MacWorld event could bring a new round of updates and possibly a whole new enclosure. It certainly might be worth the wait.

If you're doing it for tax reasons, ask your accountant about ways of showing debt in '07 so that you can take advantage of the purchase in April. Possibly buying a very large Apple gift card in December or taking a business load out in December.

Not sure although I'm going to be researching the situation for a big purchase in January myself. My Dual 1Ghz PwerMac G4 bought in January of 2002 is still plugging along, making my living for me, but the idea of a top tier Mac Pro with maxed ram and a couple of 30"s is going to be reality very soon.

I imagine that if my G4 could take care of me for 6 years, the new system should be able to go 8 or more. So much more power. Can't wait. :D

echoout
Aug 16, 2007, 02:08 PM
As it stands now, video production requires very little of a video card. Open GL is in a bad place right now and even the most demanding programs, such as After Effects CS3, can run great on the most basic video card offered. Our big issue is processor power and RAM, which are both headed in the right direction. With some exceptions, you would be hard-pressed to walk into a video or audio post production facility and not find a room full of MacPros.



Not to dampen your towel too much, but most users of the Mac Pro should know a fair amount about frame rates - especially if they are video editors. Processing video effects in real time such as in Final Cut Studio 2 would require more GPU power; not to mention that processing HD video require a fair amount of power as well. I believe editors would also want to be on the same page as the gamers for the power of the video cards that are shipped with the unit. However, the main complaint is about the iMac's video card and why they have skimped on the card - which was done for heat dispersement reasons. But in terms of getting a Pro the base line should run a game at smoothly enough, but at a higher cost. It is a shame that Apple has not considered much for gamers, but I feel in due time Apple will make the attempt to lure gamers into their realm - which should be when games can play natively in OS X, or whatever future Apple OS lays ahead.

Multimedia
Aug 16, 2007, 02:21 PM
As it stands now, video production requires very little of a video card. Open GL is in a bad place right now and even the most demanding programs, such as After Effects CS3, can run great on the most basic video card offered. Our big issue is processor power and RAM, which are both headed in the right direction. With some exceptions, you would be hard-pressed to walk into a video or audio post production facility and not find a room full of MacPros.Based on a Motion 3 class I had at the Palo Alto Apple Store last night, the video card is crucial for that work. The instructor, author of several Motion books, said the ATI 1900 512MB card is almost a must have item. Anybody got one laying around they want to let go cheap?

echoout
Aug 16, 2007, 03:34 PM
Yes! That is one of the major exceptions. That being said, Motion is still an unaccepted app by most of the post world. It's just so clunky compared to their other products. I use it mainly for its particle systems but in general, it just feels so immature. I'm not saying great things can't be done with it, just that VERY VERY few use it. Easily the crashiest Apple program I've ever used, also.

Based on a Motion 3 class I had at the Palo Alto Apple Store last night, the video card is crucial for that work. The instructor, author of several Motion books, said the ATI 1900 512MB card is almost a must have item. Anybody got one laying around they want to let go cheap?

OldTimey
Aug 16, 2007, 04:19 PM
You realize that when you shell out 8 bucks to see a movie in the theater, you're watching a 24 fps image, right?



In southern california i have to shell out $10.50 to see a movie...does that mean they play back at 31.5 fps? I would hope so, it costs 30% more than a movie wherever you are, so performance should scale appropriately no?:D

Multimedia
Aug 16, 2007, 04:56 PM
Yes! That is one of the major exceptions. That being said, Motion is still an unaccepted app by most of the post world. It's just so clunky compared to their other products. I use it mainly for its particle systems but in general, it just feels so immature. I'm not saying great things can't be done with it, just that VERY VERY few use it. Easily the crashiest Apple program I've ever used, also.That may have been in the past versions, but version 3 looks really stable an easy to use. It's full of Shake features too that weren't in versions 1 or 2. YOu might want to give it another go. :)

shawmanus
Aug 16, 2007, 05:14 PM
my suggestion is unless you need to desparately buy, wait for Nehalem. QuickPath(CSI)+IMC and mature 45nm process would kick harpertown's a**

Digital Skunk
Aug 16, 2007, 08:54 PM
It has been growing in spite of the fact that they ignore one of the largest computer markets. Just think how well Apple would be doing if they actually catered slightly to gamers.

The thing is that Apple does "slightly" cater to the gamers. I know you really meant "actually" catered. I want Apple to do so... I know every gamer out there would dump their pre-made Dells and maybe even the Alienwares for a rig that ran every game ever created and Mac OS X. I hope Apple listens to the whisperers and whiners and make that machine that everyone wants... but as we all know Apple only moves in two directions... Either they will make a tower like all the gamers want and it will be a tad bit over the price point most want it at, or Apple won't do it at all because they see something that we all can't.

Yes! That is one of the major exceptions. That being said, Motion is still an unaccepted app by most of the post world. It's just so clunky compared to their other products. I use it mainly for its particle systems but in general, it just feels so immature. I'm not saying great things can't be done with it, just that VERY VERY few use it. Easily the crashiest Apple program I've ever used, also.

As my video editing colleague multimedia mentioned before... the previous versions of Motion were very limiting. LiveType did most of what you need without all of the flashiness. Now it seems to be much improved... haven't gotten my hands on it yet. The one thing that will drive it's use in the professional world up is media convergence and compatibility. If the Apple engineers know what they could have on the media market, they will make every pro app they have sync in some why with each other. Aperture, Final Cut Pro, iLife Apps, iWork Apps, and the OS of course already sync very well with each other. If Apple brings in DVD Studio Pro, Soundtrack, Logic, Motion, Any Server based App (FCP Server too), and maybe some kinda juiced up version of iWeb that works with flash and other Adobe web programs Apple will always be on the bleeding edge of multimedia/media convergence production. The only people wanting the other apps would be the ones that want to be left behind with big deficits.

my suggestion is unless you need to desparately buy, wait for Nehalem. QuickPath(CSI)+IMC and mature 45nm process would kick harpertown's a**

I don't know why anyone would want to wait a full year for a new processor when the new ones haven't even come out yet. The new ones will kick butt because they are still a year off from full production. We'd be waiting forever for any kind of mature process or style of manufacturing.

kaneda
Aug 17, 2007, 12:07 AM
Macpro needs a new chassis...time to change...

tristan
Aug 17, 2007, 02:18 AM
No Mac Pro update until November? I assumed it would happen right after the iMac. Grr...

macintel4me
Aug 17, 2007, 08:37 AM
This is really good news. If the Penryn Xeon chips were released any later, then Apple, or any other computer vendor, would miss the Holiday season. I really thought the earliest we would see a Mac Pro update would be Jan 08. Now that it looks fairly certain for we will see the release in Nov 07, then my 5 year-old Dell will be retired now just a couple months earlier....and that makes be happier. :)

I expect the "entry level" Mac Pro to contain 8-cores at 2.0Ghz with 2GB RAM. Say bye-bye to a 4-core machine. I also expect a new enclosure, but not radically different than what exists now. The current enclosure is a massive heat sink and will probably remain that way.

Oh yeah, and maybe at the same time we'll *finally* see updated iSight-savvy ACD's too.

shawmanus
Aug 17, 2007, 03:45 PM
Interesting deduction. Intel didn't sell 3.0Ghz Clovertowns until recently and even then that was 5 months after Apple was using them....

That could be the case though. Has anyone taken a look at the processor in the 24" to verify?

Problem with 3 ghz clovertowns early on was that it had a TDP of 150W. Most servers/workstations designed (for woodcrest/clovertown) for TDP 120W.

With G0 revision Intel reduced TDP of x5365 to 120W and we see all OEM's adding it to their servers and workstations.

MagnusVonMagnum
Aug 17, 2007, 11:50 PM
You realize that when you shell out 8 bucks to see a movie in the theater, you're watching a 24 fps image, right?

When you turn on a TV set and watch "Lost", you're getting 30 fps.

With one comment, you told me everything I need to know about how twisted and myopic your perspective is. NORMAL PEOPLE do not demand 80fps+ gaming.


With one comment, you've told me you are utterly CLUELESS about gaming and probably computer hardware and maybe even computers in general.

24fps might work fine for film, but it's CONSISTENTLY 24 fps whereas 3D computers games are NEVER EVER consistent in their frame rates unless forced to a given frame rate (and that assumes that internally it's always running at a rate that will not drop below that rate). A given 3D game that averages 80fps will probably drop below 30 fps in very busy areas of the game. This is an indisputable fact. So now you tell me what's going to happen on that same game if you're getting 28 fps and you go into that busy area? It's going to drop to less than 8 fps and become UNPLAYABLE in that area! Gamer or not, that is unacceptable performance and I was talking about CURRENT games (i.e. the ones that numbers were posted for in the reviews). What's going to happen with the games of tomorrow? Next year's games? Etc.? Your 28fps average on that iMac is going to be 8fps average and it will be unplayable without decreasing your rendered resolution, which of course will look like crap on an LCD since it will no longer be in its native resolution. Given you are forced to use a given size LCD with iMacs, you can't even go buy a used CRT if you want to (I'm using one on this PowerMac here and it cost me $30 for a 19" multi-sync used. It works great. Unfortunately, this G4 is not a gaming machine in ANY sense of the word in 2007. At best I can play retro/old games on it or emulated old systems like Mame or C64 or Amiga games).



More importantly, people who actually *need* systems like the Mac Pro generally don't give a crap about how well it plays games. They are too busy using it to make money and/or advance human knowledge.


Now you've painted yourself not only as computer illiterate, but as a games hater to boot. I find it ironic that Mac fanboys are rabid about the things they like, but are totally dismissive about the faults of the Mac lineup when it comes to things they just don't care about. And yet even so, they remain incredibly argumentative, this time arguing about how USELESS their machines are for gaming, yet it's OK because gamers are idiots, morons, waste of skin, etc. apparently in their eyes. But using Garage Band to pretend you're a rock star is FUN! (rolls eyes).

The Mac Pro is nothing special. You can recreate similar hardware in the PC realm. It will cost you something similar, no doubt. It's just hardware. "Need" for it is no doubt subjective to the person in question. If I need to run games on a Mac, then I 'need' a Mac Pro because Apple's other offerings are inadequate for above said reasons.


If they wanted to play games, they would have bought a Windows PC (or perhaps a DS Lite... or something.)


But don't fanboys want everyone to buy Macs? Then why are they so eager to push people back to the world of Windows if they hint they like to game once in awhile? If Apple suddenly supported gaming in a big way, I'd imagine they'd change their tune instantly because ultimately, I believe fanboys are about whatever they believe Apple to be pushing at a given time. If gaming is off Apple's list, it's off the fanboy list as well.


You, my friend, are a gamer. Accept it. Go build a kick-ass toy for yourself, and leave the rest of us alone.


Amazing how you speak for the entire site here as if everyone agrees with your dim view of life and what it means to be a professional. I'm an electronic engineer by trade in my 30's. Does that mean I have to become a jaded old sourpuss?

Like it or not, Cider means that gaming is coming back to the Mac sooner or later and you will probably have a mental breakdown because suddenly these forums will be filled with gamers that you apparently hate so much.


The Mac Pro is a fantastic professional workstation. The fact that you are unhappy that Apple does not make an affordable kick-ass game machine is not our problem, nor does it have anything to do with the discussion of emerging chip technologies for the Mac Pro. Buh-bye.

Who is this "our" you are talking about? I assume you mean "we the Mac fanboys" or something. Honestly, I wish all Mac fanboys would create their own message board site and then they can all sit around and talk about nothing. Ever see the movie Clueless? That's what fanboys remind me of. Like OMG did you see the sexy new case on the new iMac! I could just die!

MagnusVonMagnum
Aug 18, 2007, 12:01 AM
BTW: What's up with all these gamers invading this Pro space? Really pathetic having to wade through their dribble. Don't forget to wipe up after yourselves on your way out the door children. :rolleyes:

I dunno. What's up with all these Mac fanboys being such arrogant condescending intolerable pricks?

Eidorian
Aug 18, 2007, 12:37 AM
BTW: What's up with all these gamers invading this Pro space? Really pathetic having to wade through their dribble. Don't forget to wipe up after yourselves on your way out the door children. :rolleyes:Just because I want to game doesn't mean I want to skimp on the power to work with video. That and actually be able to upgrade my machine...

MagnusVonMagnum
Aug 19, 2007, 03:26 PM
Some here apparently find it hard to believe that so-called 'gamers' do anything else but game. Ironically, I've made 33 games for Windows, some of which are being distributed commercially. I'm sure that's not a "pro" use of a computer, though :rolleyes:

Imagine that, though, someone who makes games likes to also play games. I do all kinds of things with my computers, though, not just gaming. I truly feel sorry for people that have lost their inner child and don't enjoy having fun anymore. I still go to amusement parks at 32 and have no plans to stop going. Being an adult doesn't mean you can't have fun.

kirkbross
Aug 22, 2007, 05:26 PM
Macpro needs a new chassis...time to change...

I like the thick sturdiness of the brushed aluminum chassis... feels substantial and bullet proof...ish.

Maybe they could rework the design a little but it's very functional. Looking back on the old plastic G3/G4s, they were somewhat awkward and kind of lame compared to the G5 and Mac Pro.

Basically I hope they don't go back to a plastic design.

Squonk
Aug 23, 2007, 08:05 AM
I like the thick sturdiness of the brushed aluminum chassis... feels substantial and bullet proof...ish.

Maybe they could rework the design a little but it's very functional. Looking back on the old plastic G3/G4s, they were somewhat awkward and kind of lame compared to the G5 and Mac Pro.

Basically I hope they don't go back to a plastic design.

I doubt they will move back to a plastic design for their pro machine. I cannot imagine what direction they will take when the day comes to revise the MacPro...

macintel4me
Aug 23, 2007, 08:57 AM
I doubt they will move back to a plastic design for their pro machine. I cannot imagine what direction they will take when the day comes to revise the MacPro...
Lots of alum and glass. I love how Leopard's alum and glass UI now match the iMac's look. My bet is the updated MacPro will be essentially a smaller version of what exsits now. Nothing too radical. Maybe it will me the mid-tower everyone is wants. :p

CWallace
Aug 23, 2007, 01:20 PM
Just think how well Apple would be doing if they actually catered slightly to gamers.

They are catering "slightly" to gamers with the Mac Pro right now, but the underlying hardware architecture of the Mac Pro is really not optimized for gamers.

I have an HP xw6400 workstation here at work. It's essentially the same hardware as is in the Mac Pro with two dual-core Xeon processors (for a total of four cores). I can probably put an nVidia 8800 into it, but do I really want to spend $2000 for the underlying hardware to do that, when an i965-based Core2 Extreme Q6600 four-core desktop can be had for about half that?

I have a $2400 xw6400 instead of a $600 dc7700 like my colleagues because I do GIS and imaging work and I need something that can really shovel data inside the machine and out over the network. But I bet with an 8800 in each of our machines, our fps would probably be relatively close - certainly the dc7700 should be "plenty good". And the base machine would be one-fourth the price.

So even if Apple released an 8800 card for the Mac Pro, I am not sure how many people would pay $1000 or more just to be able to use it. I bought a 24" iMac instead of a Mac Pro and a 23" LCD because the Mac Pro was $4000 and the iMac was $2000. I don't need the Mac Pro's power at home, and I wasn't willing to pay twice as much just to get a better video card then the one integrated in the iMac.

I play mostly PC games, anyway, so I can put together a mighty fine PC gaming system for $2000. But since I don't need that kind of gaming power, I don't even need to spend $1000 to get the gaming performance I desire.

Multimedia
Aug 26, 2007, 11:48 AM
my suggestion is unless you need to desparately buy, wait for Nehalem. QuickPath(CSI)+IMC and mature 45nm process would kick harpertown's a**Wait beyond Harpertown in SS? I can't imagine that will be very soon after this first big change to the MP platform could it?

bilbo--baggins
Aug 28, 2007, 03:24 PM
I like the thick sturdiness of the brushed aluminum chassis... feels substantial and bullet proof...ish.

Maybe they could rework the design a little but it's very functional. Looking back on the old plastic G3/G4s, they were somewhat awkward and kind of lame compared to the G5 and Mac Pro.

Basically I hope they don't go back to a plastic design.

I'm looking to replace my PowerMac G5 with a Mac Pro (looks like now is a bad time though with all but the top model being not updated for 12 months) and I'm really think the internal design of the Mac Pro is a huge improvement over the G5. 4 hard drives (it was nuts only fitting 2 in the G5) and I'm sure the extra optical drive bay will come in very handy when Blueray gets going. I've just been looking at the external ports - looks like more firewire/USB. The only thing that's lacking are eSATA ports - but with 4 internal drive bays it's not important for me.

Oh, and by the way, I play games on my Mac. I don't choose my Mac for playing games, but I like to be able to use it for both work and play. I really don't want two separate machines.