PDA

View Full Version : New Mac Pro's soon?




MBX
Jul 22, 2008, 07:31 PM
Do you think there'll be any cpu updates in the next few weeks or none at all until january 09?



Eidorian
Jul 22, 2008, 07:33 PM
Nothing new from Intel on the Xeon front for a little while. Apple doesn't lower prices when processor prices drop either.

noodle654
Jul 22, 2008, 07:41 PM
Do you think there'll be any cpu updates in the next few weeks or none at all until january 09?

I think you are going to have to wait for January.

Tallest Skil
Jul 22, 2008, 07:44 PM
What could they update to?

The soonest we'll see an update is January.

The latest (with Beckton, but that's NOT happening) is in June at WWDC.

You could buy now, or wait. Buy when you need it, though.

Salavat23
Jul 22, 2008, 07:47 PM
Gainstown in January at MacWorld. Period.

The CPU is coming out in September, giving Apple plenty of time to incorporate it into its systems.

CWallace
Jul 23, 2008, 06:02 AM
Do you think there'll be any cpu updates in the next few weeks or none at all until january 09?

Intel has no new 5400-series CPUs planned, so there will be no CPU updates until the transition to Nehalem.

iMacmatician
Jul 23, 2008, 10:37 AM
Gainstown in January at MacWorld. Period.MWSF (and WWDC) isn't for updated Macs. Recall that the Penryn Mac Pros were released the week before MWSF 2008.

That being said I think we will see it around January 2009.

~Shard~
Jul 23, 2008, 10:41 AM
MWSF (and WWDC) isn't for updated Macs.

It has been many times in the past though don't forget. :p ;)

Salavat23
Jul 23, 2008, 10:42 AM
MWSF (and WWDC) isn't for updated Macs. Recall that the Penryn Mac Pros were released the week before MWSF 2008.

That being said I think we will see it around January 2009.

Maybe even earlier.

Gainstown comes out in September. Usually, Apple adapts a cpu a week or two after it is released. Why would they allow the competition to gain an extra 4 months over them in the workstation department?

Tallest Skil
Jul 23, 2008, 10:43 AM
Why would they allow the competition to gain an extra 4 months over them in the workstation department?

Because they let them have two months with Penryn for the Mac Pro and notebooks.

iMacmatician
Jul 23, 2008, 10:47 AM
And don't forget that Apple did not use quad-core CPUs in the Mac Pros until 5 months after the competition, when the 3.0 GHz version came out.

Salavat23
Jul 23, 2008, 11:12 AM
Because they let them have two months with Penryn for the Mac Pro and notebooks.

Apple waited for the 3.2ghz Xeon to come out before they unveiled the Mac Pro. They released the Mac Pro several days after the release of the top-end Penryn CPU.

Apple also waited until the 2.6 mobile penryn before they released the notebooks.

And don't forget that Apple did not use quad-core CPUs in the Mac Pros until 5 months after the competition, when the 3.0 GHz version came out.

Once again, Apple released the Quad Cores after the 3.0 was released. The Xeon quad cores first came out only at a maximum clock speed of 2.66ghz. They did not wait 5 months after the release of the 3.0 quad, as the 3.0 quad was delayed.

It appears that Gainstown will immediately come out at up to 3.2ghz. So we might see a release as early as October.

Umbongo
Jul 23, 2008, 12:16 PM
Apple waited for the 3.2ghz Xeon to come out before they unveiled the Mac Pro. They released the Mac Pro several days after the release of the top-end Penryn CPU.

Apple also waited until the 2.6 mobile penryn before they released the notebooks.

It appears that Gainstown will immediately come out at up to 3.2ghz. So we might see a release as early as October.

It should also be noted that no big vendor (Dell, HP, Lenovo, Fujitsu-Siemens) had workstations available on the official release date of Penryn Xeons. Though some started offering servers with a small selection of penryn processors some time in late november.

Dell began shipping workstations at the end of December and HP's shipping date was the release date of the Mac Pro; 2 months after the new Xeons came out. I'd expect the same again, especially with rumours that Nehalem may be limited at release (aren't all processors? :rolleyes:) and because this isn't just a processor update on older hardware.

nanofrog
Jul 23, 2008, 12:23 PM
It appears that Gainstown will immediately come out at up to 3.2ghz. So we might see a release as early as October.

Would you have an article, or is it an educated guess? :confused:

The closest I've read so far, was on TGDaily (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34719/113/), and going on near a year old. And searching, so far hasn't yielded more info on clock speed. :(

nanofrog
Jul 23, 2008, 12:30 PM
It should also be noted that no big vendor (Dell, HP, Lenovo, Fujitsu-Siemens) had workstations available on the official release date of Penryn Xeons. Though some started offering servers with a small selection of penryn processors some time in late november.

Dell began shipping workstations at the end of December and HP's shipping date was the release date of the Mac Pro; 2 months after the new Xeons came out. I'd expect the same again, especially with rumours that Nehalem may be limited at release (aren't all processors? :rolleyes:) and because this isn't just a processor update on older hardware.

Usually, there is a time lag from the release date of the CPU to a vendor product. Vendors have to sort out parts suppliers/ chain, retooling, manufacturing, and testing (hopefully). Until it gets sorted, and they can ship, consumers wait. :(

dbam987
Jul 23, 2008, 12:35 PM
This is just a theory of mine. Apple's Mac hardware sales have been on the rise for the past few years. Therefore, Apple might decide that in order to compete for the pole position in computer sales it might need to diversify its Mac lineup and provide people with more options.

One such option I'd like to see is a headless-iMac. I'd very much like to switch my desktop over to a Mac but can't do so just yet with the Mac Pro since it's much more powerful than what I currently need (that will change in the next year or so though, which is why I'm waiting it out). Are there others out there that wish for this as well? I'd also like to see a beefed up Mac Mini sometime soon. That actually would be a cool option to use as an HTPC.

nanofrog
Jul 23, 2008, 12:43 PM
This is just a theory of mine. Apple's Mac hardware sales have been on the rise for the past few years. Therefore, Apple might decide that in order to compete for the pole position in computer sales it might need to diversify its Mac lineup and provide people with more options.

One such option I'd like to see is a headless-iMac. I'd very much like to switch my desktop over to a Mac but can't do so just yet with the Mac Pro since it's much more powerful than what I currently need (that will change in the next year or so though, which is why I'm waiting it out). Are there others out there that wish for this as well? I'd also like to see a beefed up Mac Mini sometime soon. That actually would be a cool option to use as an HTPC.

Nice theory. :) Will Apple actually do something like this? :apple:
Dunno, but more than a few members, me included, would certainly like to see it. :D

~Shard~
Jul 23, 2008, 12:43 PM
One such option I'd like to see is a headless-iMac. ... Are there others out there that wish for this as well?

You must be new here - just do a search through the Forums and you will find that this topic has been discussed ad nauseum. ;)

For the record, I am one of the ones who would love an upgradeable headless mini-tower Mac. I don't need the power of the Mac Pro, and although my iMac is amazing, it would be nice to have the option to swap out the hard drive and video card with ease if I wanted to.

The desire for this type of Mac has lead to all those FrankenMac projects out there. I wouldn't know anything about those though... (hopes no one notices hackintosh pirate avatar) :cool:

darthraige
Jul 23, 2008, 12:48 PM
Definitely January 2009. Can't wait to pick one of them up too. :D

nanofrog
Jul 23, 2008, 01:05 PM
Drooling for Gainestown... Hurry up January! :D

iMacmatician
Jul 23, 2008, 01:21 PM
Would you have an article, or is it an educated guess? :confused:

The closest I've read so far, was on TGDaily (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34719/113/), and going on near a year old. And searching, so far hasn't yielded more info on clock speed. :(I don't know of any article, but generally high-end desktop chips and DP Xeons top out at about the same clock speed. Bloomfield (high-end desktop Nehalem) tops out at 3.2 GHz.

It has been many times in the past though don't forget. :p ;)No regular updates at WWDC 2008, MWSF 2008, WWDC 2007, MWSF 2007, WWDC 2006, MWSF 2006, WWDC 2005, and MWSF 2005 at least.

MWSF and WWDC 2006 featured significantly overhauled Macs due to the Intel transition (except for the case). MWSF 2005 featured the NEW Mac mini.

Macs were updated the week before MWSF 2008 and WWDC 2007. The end of January 2005 saw a Mac update.

zmttoxics
Jul 23, 2008, 01:52 PM
What could they update to?

The soonest we'll see an update is January.

The latest (with Beckton, but that's NOT happening) is in June at WWDC.

You could buy now, or wait. Buy when you need it, though.

I think you should just copy paste that for every one of these lame threads. :D

Tallest Skil
Jul 23, 2008, 01:56 PM
I think you should just copy paste that for every one of these lame threads. :D

I think that that (If you need it now, buy it now. If you can wait, do.) needs to be at the top of the Buyer's Guide forum in 96 pt. Myriad Pro Semibold.

Not as a sticky, just at the top of the page before the New Thread button.

zmttoxics
Jul 23, 2008, 02:06 PM
I think that that (If you need it now, buy it now. If you can wait, do.) needs to be at the top of the Buyer's Guide forum in 96 pt. Myriad Pro Semibold.

Not as a sticky, just at the top of the page before the New Thread button.

Agreed.

I think you and me could get along, especially with that VG Cats avatar. :D

nanofrog
Jul 23, 2008, 02:08 PM
I don't know of any article, but generally high-end desktop chips and DP Xeons top out at about the same clock speed. Bloomfield (high-end desktop Nehalem) tops out at 3.2 GHz.

I would speculate the low end to be 2.67 GHz, and top out at 3.2 GHz, as you suspect. Similar range to current clock speeds. I keep searching for something concrete though. :)

iMacmatician
Jul 23, 2008, 02:15 PM
I would speculate the low end to be 2.67 GHz, and top out at 3.2 GHz, as you suspect. Similar range to current clock speeds. I keep searching for something concrete though. :)2.67/2.93/3.2 GHz (http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/18/intels-3-2ghz-quad-core-bloomfield-gaming-cpu-to-hit-for-999/).

nanofrog
Jul 23, 2008, 02:19 PM
Yup. :D
2.93 GHz ~= 3.0 GHz :cool:
Kill off the 2.83 GHz :eek: ;)

Voltaic
Jul 23, 2008, 02:26 PM
Do you think there'll be any cpu updates in the next few weeks or none at all until january 09?

I think it is sad Apple has lowered our expectations to this level. After making us wait 18 months to revise the Mac Pro I am sure a year seems fast for a refresh. Apple used to refresh every 6 to 9 months, better yet slowly drop the prices after a several months.

Having said that, I am hoping a new lower cost mini tower is in the cards. Since Apple is no longer discounting the tower I can not justify the expense but every 3-4 years, versus every 2 years which is what I would prefer.

Salavat23
Jul 23, 2008, 08:03 PM
Would you have an article, or is it an educated guess? :confused:

The closest I've read so far, was on TGDaily (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34719/113/), and going on near a year old. And searching, so far hasn't yielded more info on clock speed. :(

Wikipedia has many references confirming that a 2.66ghz, 2.93ghz, and a 3.2ghz version of Bloomfield will be available.

m1stake
Jul 23, 2008, 10:09 PM
The bus is 133Mhz, so the speeds will be multiples of that.

133Mhz x 20 = 2.66Ghz

Apparently they also overclock WELL because the multiplier is so high. Even "FSB" overclocking (Adding to the 133) should product great results because of the high multiplier.

QCassidy352
Jul 23, 2008, 10:17 PM
It has been many times in the past though don't forget. :p ;)

yes, but only when there are substantial changes. No processor updates at major expos.

There's no reason to think we won't see new ones until January if the chips are available sooner. When the next generation of xeons arrives (or rather, when 3.2+ ghz next gen chips arrive), there will be new mac pros.

Firefly2002
Jul 23, 2008, 10:43 PM
The bus is 133Mhz, so the speeds will be multiples of that.

133Mhz x 20 = 2.66Ghz

Apparently they also overclock WELL because the multiplier is so high. Even "FSB" overclocking (Adding to the 133) should product great results because of the high multiplier.

Erm.... fairly certain the current MBP bus runs at 1.6 GHz, not 133 MHz... meaning it's 400 MHz quad pumped.

If we only had 533 MHz buses, there'd be a serious bandwidth constraint problem. Even the Pentium 4 C benefited from the increase from 533 to 800 MHz.

I think it is sad Apple has lowered our expectations to this level. After making us wait 18 months to revise the Mac Pro I am sure a year seems fast for a refresh. Apple used to refresh every 6 to 9 months, better yet slowly drop the prices after a several months.

Having said that, I am hoping a new lower cost mini tower is in the cards. Since Apple is no longer discounting the tower I can not justify the expense but every 3-4 years, versus every 2 years which is what I would prefer.

It's not quite Apple's fault if there are no new suitable CPUs for them to put out.. and the mid-priced tower isn't happening, though I agree, it should.

Eidorian
Jul 23, 2008, 10:46 PM
Erm.... fairly certain the current MBP bus runs at 1.6 GHz, not 133 MHz... meaning it's 400 MHz quad pumped. 133 MHz under Nehalem and the QPI. This is a Mac Pro discussion as well. ;)

The MacBook Pro current runs under an 800 MHz FSB (4 * 200 MHz). Under Montevina it's 1066 MHz ( 4 * 266 MHz)

The Mac Pro is 1600 MHz though.

m1stake
Jul 23, 2008, 11:33 PM
133 MHz under Nehalem and the QPI. This is a Mac Pro discussion as well. ;)

The MacBook Pro current runs under an 800 MHz FSB (4 * 200 MHz). Under Montevina it's 1066 MHz ( 4 * 266 MHz)

The Mac Pro is 1600 MHz though.

I love you.

nanofrog
Jul 23, 2008, 11:53 PM
Knock that off! :p

I'd seen the Bloomfield specs, just looking for something solid on Gainestown. Not just rely on my math. Expectations destroyed a few times. :eek: :(

Firefly2002
Jul 23, 2008, 11:55 PM
133 MHz under Nehalem and the QPI. This is a Mac Pro discussion as well. ;)

The MacBook Pro current runs under an 800 MHz FSB (4 * 200 MHz). Under Montevina it's 1066 MHz ( 4 * 266 MHz)

The Mac Pro is 1600 MHz though.

Bleh, meant MP.. had MBP on my mind lately.

Yeah, the MBP is running at 800 MHz, and the Mac Pro is running 1.6 GHz... what is this about Nehalem running a 133 MHz bus...?

Morriss
Jul 24, 2008, 02:27 AM
I'm also looking to get a new Mac Pro within the next few months. In real world practice, just how much of a difference will we see between the current Mac Pro's and the next version? Also, if the case is to be redesigned, be prepared for v.1 issues (fan/heat problems, noise, etc.).

edesignuk
Jul 24, 2008, 02:45 AM
I'm also looking to get a new Mac Pro within the next few months. In real world practice, just how much of a difference will we see between the current Mac Pro's and the next version? Also, if the case is to be redesigned, be prepared for v.1 issues (fan/heat problems, noise, etc.).It *should* be pretty significant.

That said, the current ones are no slouch, and will only get even better/faster with Snow Leopard if promises of multi-core optimisation are delivered upon. If you need a machine now, I can't imagine you'll be disappointed or looking to upgrade for at least a couple of years. Which depending on your point of view might be a good thing, the next MP and it's architecture will be brand brand brand-spanking new, totally different, rev A syndrome is highly likely.

Morriss
Jul 24, 2008, 05:29 AM
It *should* be pretty significant.


Well then, maybe it would be worth it to wait. I assume price points will be similar to the current price structure. I guess I'll wait until Sept. to see if we are closer to a release date.

iMacmatician
Jul 24, 2008, 08:45 AM
Knock that off! :p

I'd seen the Bloomfield specs, just looking for something solid on Gainestown. Not just rely on my math. Expectations destroyed a few times. :eek: :(Bloomfield ≈ Gainestown.

Whatever specs you see for the high-end desktop processor are likely to be the specs you see for Gainestown.

Bleh, meant MP.. had MBP on my mind lately.

Yeah, the MBP is running at 800 MHz, and the Mac Pro is running 1.6 GHz... what is this about Nehalem running a 133 MHz bus...?133 MHz is the reference clock for all components in the processor. The QuickPath clock is either 2.4 GHz (133 MHz x 18) or 3.2 GHz (133 MHz x 24).

nanofrog
Jul 24, 2008, 12:46 PM
Bloomfield ≈ Gainestown.

Whatever specs you see for the high-end desktop processor are likely to be the specs you see for Gainestown.

This is what I was assuming, but just curious about confirmation. :)
Thanks. :cool:

Umbongo
Jul 24, 2008, 12:53 PM
Bloomfield ≈ Gainestown.

Whatever specs you see for the high-end desktop processor are likely to be the specs you see for Gainestown.

133 MHz is the reference clock for all components in the processor. The QuickPath clock is either 2.4 GHz (133 MHz x 18) or 3.2 GHz (133 MHz x 24).

From what I've seen it isn't 133 but rather 133.4 not that it makes much difference. We should see Apple offer similar speeds to those available currently at 2.8GHz, 3.06GHz and 3.2GHz eitherway.

m1stake
Jul 24, 2008, 01:18 PM
All from a CPU-Z Anandtech shot:

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3326&p=2

Apparently the bus is a straight 133, if you trust CPU-Z (Which you should!). Not sure what the "rated" FSB is in this case, but that may be CPU-Z saying "IDK WTF THIS IS, I WANT TO GO BACK TO FSB PLZ" or something similar.

iMacmatician
Jul 24, 2008, 02:08 PM
From what I've seen it isn't 133 but rather 133.4 not that it makes much difference. We should see Apple offer similar speeds to those available currently at 2.8GHz, 3.06GHz and 3.2GHz eitherway.I was rounding to 3 significant figures. But I didn't know that it was actually 133.4 MHz, I thought it was 133.333... MHz. I seem to recall my iBook G4's clock speed as 1333.2 MHz too.

All from a CPU-Z Anandtech shot:

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3326&p=2

Apparently the bus is a straight 133, if you trust CPU-Z (Which you should!). Not sure what the "rated" FSB is in this case, but that may be CPU-Z saying "IDK WTF THIS IS, I WANT TO GO BACK TO FSB PLZ" or something similar.The 133 MHz is multiplied by 18 or 24 to get the rated "FSB."

Existing FSBs do the same thing, they are multiplied by 4 to get the effective FSB clock ("quad-pumped").

m1stake
Jul 24, 2008, 04:21 PM
133 x 4 is 532. Ear infections + lack of sleep caused by ear infections do not raise my ability level in math.

t0mat0
Sep 17, 2008, 10:52 AM
The X5492 quad-core Xeon 3.4GHz coming to a Mac Pro near you? (Till they sort out Nehalem (Core i7) and Gainestown...)

Tallest Skil
Sep 17, 2008, 10:56 AM
The X5492 quad-core Xeon 3.4GHz coming to a Mac Pro near you? (Till they sort out Nehalem (Core i7) and Gainestown...)

Nope. They won't update before the Nehalem update.

Purple Puppy
Sep 17, 2008, 10:28 PM
133 x 4 is 532. Ear infections + lack of sleep caused by ear infections do not raise my ability level in math.

Everyone knows that in computer speak, 133 = 133.33333... and 266 = 266.666666... etc

Anyway, about Nehalem processor bus interfaces, they are using Quickpath, which is a rather different technology altogether. Quickpath will replace the Front Side Bus. And the best thing is, its speeds are around 4.8GT/s (gigatransfers per second) to 6.4GT/s.
The initial Nehalem implementation uses a 20-bit wide 25.6 GB/s link (as reported in the Intel Nehalem Speech on IDF). This 25.6 GB/s link provides exactly double the amount of theoretical bandwidth as Intel's 1600 MHz FSB used in the X48 chipset.

The fact that the CPU clock speeds are multiples of 133 is irrelevant.