Next-Generation Mac Pro to Receive Temporary Exclusive of Six-Core 'Gulftown' Processor?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/14/next-generation-mac-pro-to-receive-temporary-exclusive-of-six-core-gulftown-processor/)

Hardmac reports (http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009/10/15/future-mac-pro-apple-to-enjoy-short-term-exclusive-use-of-future-xeon-cpu) that an early 2010 revision to Apple's Mac Pro may see the inclusion of Intel's forthcoming six-core "Gulftown" processor as a temporary exclusive prior to the full mass release of the processor in the second quarter of 2010.This Xeon is an evolution of those already powering Mac Pro 2009 with some new features:

- 6 cores and 12 threads for each CPU.
- 12 MB of shared cache instead of 8 MB today.
- 32-nm engraving vs. 45 nm today.
- Power consumption of future hexacore Xeon 32 nm will be slightly lower than the one of current quad core Xeon engraved at 45 nm.The report's source also indicates that the Mac Pro will see the addition of 10 Gbit Ethernet connectivity and support for 8 GB and 16 GB RAM modules, pushing total RAM capacity to an astounding 128 GB.

Hardmac is unsure whether use of the Gulftown processor, to be branded Intel Core i9 and be part of Intel's Xeon 5600-series, would extend to the entry-level Mac Pro model or whether Apple will continue to use lower-level quad-core processors in those machines.

It is not unusual for Apple to receive early access to Intel's latest processor for use in the Mac Pro, with the most recent instance being the current generation (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/05/apple-gets-nehalem-early-h264-and-vmware-performance-boosts/), which received Nehalem processors prior to them even having been announced by Intel.

Article Link: Next-Generation Mac Pro to Receive Temporary Exclusive of Six-Core 'Gulftown' Processor? (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/14/next-generation-mac-pro-to-receive-temporary-exclusive-of-six-core-gulftown-processor/)

[thegoldenmackid]

Nothing new, just when is the release date.

[zedsdead]

I was really looking at the new iMac (if it goes Quad-Core with Clarksfield), but a Gulftown 6-Core Mac Pro sounds far more enticing (and far more expensive).

[macfan881]

in the words of peter griffin, Holy Crap!

[Maserati7200]

*jaw drops* sounds amazing!!!! :eek:

[Eidorian]

Nothing new, just when is the release date.I was about to say the same thing.

We've know about Gulftown for some time and get snapshots of CPU-Z. Under the Xeon name you might see other variants beyond an Extreme consumer offering at US$999.

[Wotan31]

Nothing new, just when is the release date.
x2 nothing new, been on intel's road map for a while now. I just want to know which day I can buy one.

[Rocketman]

Those MacPro specs will make Intel's Core i9 look great! What applications will they use to demo this processing power?

4K theatrical video composition anyone? Play on how many screens? TV station in one box?

Light peak debugging?

Rocketman

Now I ask this simple question. Will they offer this in dual processor or also in quad processor? 24 cores.

[fruitpunch.ben]

That sounds amazing!
I'd love to be able to afford a mac pro and 30 inch cinema display, but the student budget won't stretch that far! :(
So looks like i'll have to wait for the new iMac which will hopefully be out soon because I want something faster to use than my PowerBook G4! :cool:

[Sun Baked]

Seems the 10GB ethernet is long past due, sort of expected this years ago on the Mac Pro line.

Especially since their ethernet vendor of choice at the time (Broadcom) had it soo long ago.

Guess this was one of the foot dragging Apple episodes.

[Fwink!]

This rumor comes, of course, on the very day I finally break down and order a 2.66 refurb. It's not a bad thing, I would only crap my pants if they released something very soon that was that much better & cheaper. So no worries. :)

I wonder if these 6 core processors are backwards compatible, for some (way off in the future) upgrade?

[Full of Win]

This time Apple...update the freakin' case.

[MattInOz]

I guess this machine will see the first LightPeak connectors as well.

[Full of Win]

I guess this machine will see the first LightPeak connectors as well.
Don't hold your breath.

[Michael73]

Here's the thing...take a look at my sig, I've got an '08 MP and I certainly don't feel like it's even peaked yet. SL put us in a good place for developers to take advantage of the hardware for 2010 and 2011 where we'll see programs that can finally take advantage of our 4 and 8 core variants as well as our high(er) end graphics cards.

Everyone knows Apple already charges crazy premiums for RAM and while 8GB RAM sticks are out in the wild they're OUTRAGEOUSLY expensive so I can only imagine the markup Apple will slap on them. 16GB...I didn't know they were out there yet.

I guess while all this is very interesting and certainly nothing here is really new, such gratuitous hardware specs seem pointless until there's something that can take advantage of the current gen or even the rev prior's hardware architecture.

[matthew.russo]

This new mac pro sounds as exciting as urinating in public :)

But seriously, that will definitely have some punch... Pro workstations like this are just blazing awesome!

[fef714]

This time Apple...update the freakin' case.

When you have a Mac Pro, the last thing you care about is the case (even tho I personally like it)

[jhead]

Sounds like a bundle of serious grundle of fun ... would a bonus if the majority of non-apple apps would start utilizing this audacious capacity.

[DoFoT9]

Now I ask this simple question. Will they offer this in dual processor or also in quad processor? 24 cores.
*drool*



Light peak debugging?

Rocketman


I guess this machine will see the first LightPeak connectors as well.

Don't hold your breath.

you never know. apple did develop the thing. i legitimately think that they might include it.

[Eriamjh1138@DAN]

6 in the Mac Pro. How about 4 in the iMac?

[mdriftmeyer]

If this becomes true, including the RAM it will be my next purchase. I'm hoping the SLI option is in there for x16 on 2 GPU cards and thus have one beast for OpenCL coding.

[skyline r34]

I'm so glad that I hold off on buying other Mac Pro, time to clean off the old 2008 3.2GHz 8-Core and put it up for sale before these new Mac Pro arrive, been putting away cash every month sense I bought my current Mac Pro back in February of 2008 and i got $7,600 saved but some of that will goto my Apple's LED 30 inch when ever that may be but for now i'm going to keep on saving up until these new Mac Pro are released and sale my current Mac Pro can't wait.

[DoFoT9]

6 in the Mac Pro. How about 4 in the iMac?

i wish! apple isnt going to put desktop CPUs in the iMac, and mobile quads are just silly. so they will take the stupidest option and leave dual core in there :rolleyes: (for now)

[Peace]

Those MacPro specs will make Intel's Core i9 look great! What applications will they use to demo this processing power?

4K theatrical video composition anyone? Play on how many screens? TV station in one box?

Light peak debugging?

Rocketman

Now I ask this simple question. Will they offer this in dual processor or also in quad processor? 24 cores.

I think it's a 6-core processor so if you had dual 6-core it would be 12 cores.

The current one is dual quad core. 8 cores in all.

[DoFoT9]

I think it's a 6-core processor so if you had dual 6-core it would be 12 cores.

The current one is dual quad core. 8 cores in all.

is he talking HT cores?

[pimentoLoaf]

Will we finally see neato-keano glowing purple cooling fluid in the Mac? :p

Of course, when Apple puts in 16 cores, Apple will innovate using refurbished shuttle heat-shield tiles for the case, which of course will eliminate the need for any liquid cooling.

[Rocketman]

Stated support for 16 GB RAM that is not yet price practical, checks one of the boxes I had. Forward leaning memory support. 2 years from now you will be glad when the cost drops to 1/3 of release price. 10G Ethernet is about the same protocol as Light Peak. So buyers of this system will be crash test dummies in several ways as compared to buyers at 2Q2010, but anybody who can benefit immediately from about double the overall compute capacity will have a rapid break even, on the order of 3-6 months on the hardware cost at typical Apple premium prices.

This will allow the software developers to have the first truly 10.6 and Grand Central and other new feature sets box. They don't really say, but one wonders how many graphics cards this will take as "co-processors".

I think the most expensive Mac ever was around $8000 each base price. The new MacPro, inflation adjusted, is dirt cheap.

Rocketman

[Joe The Dragon]

so now the mac pro can start at $3000 with a carp video card

[daneoni]

128GB of RAM...now that folks is what you call saturation!

[Fwink!]

so now the mac pro can start at $3000 with a carp video card

Sort of why I bought a refurb now, waiting another 6-8 months for a refurb of whatever comes out next would really kill me semi-pro productivity.

I'll go all out on something brand spanking new when my business allows it, and an iMac isn't going to cut it.

[theapplefreak]

I'm wondering...
Would the 6 core be better than the Quad Core nehalem they have right now?

[krye]

What's the point? Nothing uses the 8 cores that my Mac has now. Seems like all you get is bragging rites.

[wetrix]

Don't knock carp video cards. I'm happy with mine. It's so soothing.

[tofagerl]

I suggest that everyone here who thinks that their machines aren't being used to their fullest immediately sell them and get cheaper machines more tailored to their needs.
Complaining that further upgrades are unnecessary because you can't utilize 8 CPUs with your porn-surfing and iMovie isn't really called for. And yes, I*am being a little facetious.

[rhb]

What's the point? Nothing uses the 8 cores that my Mac has now. Seems like all you get is bragging rites.

Logic does. And I could sure use the extra firepower.

[jaw04005]

This time Apple...update the freakin' case.

What does Johnny Ive do these days? They haven’t really changed a case design in ages.

[wally21]

x2 nothing new, been on intel's road map for a while now. I just want to know which day I can buy one.

well, that's what this news/rumor gets at. It looks like you might be able to get one some time in January or maybe apple will release it for Macworld in Feb... so, nothing too specific yet but things are getting a little clearer.

[Michael73]

What's the point? Nothing uses the 8 cores that my Mac has now. Seems like all you get is bragging rites.

In thinking about this more, I'm correcting my earlier statement and in the process also yours...OS X and associated programs can't use 8 cores BUT running multiple virtual machines could. So, using VMWare Fusion I run XP which I can assign 2 cores and some RAM. I imagine I could also simultaneously run Win 7 and some Linux machines assigning each 2-4 cores and some RAM. While no ONE OS or program could max out this architecture, multiple virtual machines certainly could.

[casik]

Daaang... I want one...

[DoFoT9]

What does Johnny Ive do these days? They haven’t really changed a case design in ages. I guess they’ve ran out of ideas.

maybe they feel that its the best possible design heat dissipation wise and cost wise? for them to design, test, build and implement a new case wouldnt be cheap i daresay.

[mikes70mustang]

I guess this machine will see the first LightPeak connectors as well.

I was wondering when fiber would make it into the home. It being used for most mass data transfer now. All the cool stuff and fast speeds you get from the cable company, thank fiber optic for that. I cant wait for it all to exponentially faster, since its basically software limited now.

[tooz]

128GB of RAM.... would you even need a SSD:p

[DoFoT9]

I was wondering when fiber would make it into the home. It being used for most mass data transfer now. All the cool stuff and fast speeds you get from the cable company, thank fiber optic for that. I cant wait for it all to exponentially faster, since its basically software limited now.

hate to be australia. :( we are pretty much 15-20years away from FTTH. :mad:

[jaw04005]

is he talking HT cores?

From what I understand no. It’s 6 real cores, 6 “fake” HT cores. So, we’d assume Apple would use two of these in one machine, making it 12 real cores with 12 “fake” HT cores, 24 cores total (in Activity Monitor).

[Andy348]

Where do they get these names???

"Nehalem" or "Gulftown"?? I'd like to open up these Mac Pros and see if those processors really look like a gulf town!:)

[Umbongo]

Where do they get these names???

"Nehalem" or "Gulftown"?? I'd like to open up these Mac Pros and see if those processors really look like a gulf town!:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_codenames

[mikes70mustang]

Where do they get these names???

"Nehalem" or "Gulftown"?? I'd like to open up these Mac Pros and see if those processors really look like a gulf town!:)

Be careful with those. Get too rough and the levee will break.

[crobi]

but but where is the new iMac?

no news since october first

[jaw04005]

maybe they feel that its the best possible design heat dissipation wise and cost wise? for them to design, test, build and implement a new case wouldnt be cheap i daresay.

It’s never bothered them to come up with a new chassis before for any of their products. In the G3/G4 era, we were changing chassis all the time. They’ve had this particular case around since 2003. While it’s still a great case, it’s a little odd that they haven’t updated it.

This is the same company that used to swap the color palette out every other revision just for the hell of it.

They’ve been coasting on the 2003-2004 era designs (aluminum PowerBook, Mac mini, Power Mac G5, iMac G5) now for years just slightly updating them when necessary (unibody, aluminum iMac). When you’re talking six years of the same basic case design, the wow factor wears off.

Of course, it’s 100x better than what their PC counterparts are offering. Heh. Maybe they think what’s the point?

[brubeast]

6 in the Mac Pro. How about 4 in the iMac?

No, Apple's more concerned about making the iMac even thinner, cause it's too hard to scoot across a desk as it is now. Why add things like more power when you could say "even thinner" in the ad? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that the Radeon 4850 or equivalent will magically disappear in the new thinner iMac.

As for the Mac Pro, why does Apple insist on the Xeon processor? The Core i7 920 2.66 GHz costs $270, yet they force us to pay 2.5 grand for a rig with with a horrible nVidia card? This has gotten ridiculous.

I have been dreaming about a Hackintosh; they have pushed me over the edge. I will be just fine spending $1200 for a Hack Pro with an i7 920 o/c'd to 3.6Ghz, 12 gigs of RAM, and a GeForce 260. This rig will beat the $3500 8-cores in most tasks, and be almost as fast in multicore rendering tasks, since it'll be running at such a high clock speed.

I recommend the rest of you look into a similar solution until Mac Pro prices come down by at least 33%, and/or they stop forcing us to buy server processors we really don't need.

[Umbongo]

As for the Mac Pro, why does Apple insist on the Xeon processor? The Core i7 920 2.66 GHz costs $270, yet they force us to pay 2.5 grand for a rig with with a horrible nVidia card? This has gotten ridiculous.

They have to use Xeon processors because that is required for ECC memory, which is required by many sources for Workstation purchases. The Xeons used in the single processor Mac Pros (3500 series) are the same price as Core i7s at the same clock speed. Apple aren't charging more because they are paying more than they would for Core i7 processors.

[YoGramMamma]

What's the point? Nothing uses the 8 cores that my Mac has now. Seems like all you get is bragging rites.

For the most part, MOST users will get nothing but bragging rights. BUt then again, the people buying up these mac Pros generally are video/gfx pros - like myself - and therefore use apps that would utilize them all.

Prime example being 3D apps. Sure not the most widely used apps on the planet, but the app i use now, CInema 4D uses every single core to its 100% max to render frames from preview and for final output. Its takes your workspace, say 1280x720 pixels, and on a dual core machine, chops it in half, givin the workload for the top part of the image to one processor, and the bottom half of the image to the other. On a 4 core its split up in 4 parts and each part works simultaneously. On an 8 core, so forth Etc. On a 12 core machine, especially one with a pretty fast clock on a 32nm chip, it'd blaze through what takes my dual core macbook pro at 2.8GHz 2 minutes to render, in theoretically, about 45 seconds. THats some significant time savings. This grows exponentially when you're rendering out a 3d animation as you're saving crazy amounts of time for every frame, 24 or 30 times every second, for several seconds. THe more cores the merrier.

there's also the Compressor encoding app. Adobe after effects. Logic Pro. Various third party encoding apps and a slew of other 3D and motion graphics apps.

However, OpenCL should change this game up pretty significantly. I'm excited to see about that.

[brubeast]

Hahaha, wow, on top of offering Xeon's exclusively, you can't even build a Mac Pro with a workstation graphics card? I just had to check to see if that was really true.

So let me get this straight, you HAVE to pay for workstation processors and motherboards, but there is no option for workstation graphics?

Obviously they just wanted to raise the prices on their Mac Pros, and found a strategy that allowed them to do so. I paid $1700 for a dual proc. G4 back in 2002; now there is nothing for less than $2500. That is intentional.

[puckhead193]

that's some serious power...Question is how much?

[Wotan31]

What does Johnny Ive do these days? They haven’t really changed a case design in ages.
Why the heck do you want a different case design? :confused: The current one looks nice and works great. Change simply for the sake of change is idiotic. Why exactly do you want them to change it?

[Wotan31]

Obviously they just wanted to raise the prices on their Mac Pros, and found a strategy that allowed them to do so. I paid $1700 for a dual proc. G4 back in 2002; now there is nothing for less than $2500. That is intentional.
LMAO you do realize that 2002 was almost EIGHT years ago, yes? You see there's this thing called "inflation". Ah, nevermind, you're probably too young to understand.

[born4sky]

What about MacBook pro processors

[Bubba Satori]

LMAO you do realize that 2002 was almost EIGHT years ago, yes? You see there's this thing called "inflation". Gas was $1.31 a gallon in 2002. Ah, nevermind, you're probably too young to understand.

No, it's called a giant hole in your product lineup. Apple's least expensive quad core computer is $2,499. With 3GB memory and an Nivida 130GT. LOL

[Umbongo]

Hahaha, wow, on top of offering Xeon's exclusively, you can't even build a Mac Pro with a workstation graphics card? I just had to check to see if that was really true.

So let me get this straight, you HAVE to pay for workstation processors and motherboards, but there is no option for workstation graphics?

Obviously they just wanted to raise the prices on their Mac Pros, and found a strategy that allowed them to do so. I paid $1700 for a dual proc. G4 back in 2002; now there is nothing for less than $2500. That is intentional.

Workstation graphics cards don't offer the driver/software benefits under OS X like they do on Windows, so there is little interest in them. The Mac is hardly a high end 3D content creation platform anyway. You can get a Quadro FX 4800 that will work in OS X and windows, and of course can install whatever you want in there anyway. It performs worse than the GTX 285 in OS X.

Apple's pricing on the single socket Mac Pro is high to position it between the iMac and dual socket Mac Pro. The dual socket Mac Pro has a similar mark up to what other companies have had for years.

[*LTD*]

Not sure why the case design would need chaning. It looks great and the innards are well-organized.

[deconstruct60]

you never know. apple did develop the thing. i legitimately think that they might include it.

http://techresearch.intel.com/articles/None/1813.htm

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/


Apple specified constraints on the solution. That is not the same as developing it. Neither has Intel put this in front of a standards body either.
They are trying to stick some aspect of it in front of the USB body but this isn't necessarily the right standard.

Apple (and Intel) could ship something before reaching a significant consensus from the industry, but long term that may end up hurting as much as helping.

Remember, for this to be useful and widespread it has to be someone other than Apple and Intel that has working offerings. There were some vendors who said Firewire was cool too .... until they have been drifting away. ( maybe for this. )


Some of Light Peak seems half baked (e.g, USB like power over the same cable. ) Frankly have trouble with the Light Peak distance claims ( 100 meters) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Peak and providing power over those kinds of distances. Which either gets you short distance with power Light Peak and pure optical Light Peak or dropping of some of the "yeah and that too" claims.

Likewise all the of multi/demultiplexing of putting random stuff out of the lab on the same wire.


Mac Pro with USB 3 might be more likely. Or that Apple is going to by-pass it (like eSATA).

[Umbongo]

Why the heck do you want a different case design? :confused: The current one looks nice and works great. Change simply for the sake of change is idiotic. Why exactly do you want them to change it?

People like change. Though a new case isn't going to sell Mac Pros. Apple probably keep it the same on the exterior so that multiple generations of Apple workstations can coexist in an aesthetically pleasing enviroment :rolleyes:. It seems that the case size limited Apple from offering 12 DIMM slots like other high end dual socket workstations have though. I'd like to see it changed for that reason.

[CrunchyPickle]

But the real question is, how many more calories will that burn? Can I now order the fries guilt free?

[Cougarcat]

Wake me up when Apple gets first dibs on a top-of-the-line graphics card. Now that would be exciting.

[MisterK]

Incredibly excited for this. The wife and I (both Art Directors) agreed to get the next Mac Pro released. I was afraid Apple might do a March release again. Now I'm excited for Adobe CS5 to come out. Hopefully they use all the power available. Maybe stick a couple SSDs, Maxing out the RAM would be ridiculous but I might do it just to say I did.

4yr old MBP at home (and newer mac mini). Unfortunately another PC at work... again. Vista really is horrible. I had to restart twice, today. One time it took me 22 minutes. Then my typing kicked into french keyboard on its own.

A need a fat bastard of a Mac at home to compensate for work's dreadful computer nightmares.

[Umbongo]

Incredibly excited for this. The wife and I (both Art Directors) agreed to get the next Mac Pro released. I was afraid Apple might do a March release again.

I wouldn't get too excited based on this rumour. Even if it is correct it doesn't mean a January or February release.

[powers74]

Oh well, I think my June-shipped Octopus will hold me for a few years. In tech you're always behind the curve.

[wizard]

In thinking about this more, I'm correcting my earlier statement and in the process also yours...OS X and associated programs can't use 8 cores BUT running multiple virtual machines could.

I'm not sure if you understand computers here, OS/X uses all the cores and Snow Leopard just takes that farther. SL is very efficent at using all the cores in the machine via it's thread pool technology. That being GCD.

Now how individual apps leverage these cores is very much a question of how the app is coded and it's ability to be parallelized. Even at this early moment in time, relative to SL, there are many programs that use every core in a Mac.

So, using VMWare Fusion I run XP which I can assign 2 cores and some RAM. I imagine I could also simultaneously run Win 7 and some Linux machines assigning each 2-4 cores and some RAM.

There is little doubt that virtualization is helped by multiple cores. That is a good thing as it enables productivity in a way that hasn't been possible in the past.

The problem I have is that you imply that is the only use for multiple cores which is bull crap. It is very easy on todays Macs to bring them to a crawl due to lack of resources.

While no ONE OS or program could max out this architecture, multiple virtual machines certainly could.
obviously you have no idea what modern power users do with their machines.


Dave

[uwbadger]

What's the point? Nothing uses the 8 cores that my Mac has now. Seems like all you get is bragging rites.

Just because you don't need it, don't assume that nobody else does. Where I work, 8 and 16-core workstations are routinely used for compiling large codes. As for actually running those codes, our next big computer will have 1.6 million cores and 1.6 petabytes of RAM. :D

[deconstruct60]

When you’re talking six years of the same basic case design, the wow factor wears off.


Besides the Paris "that's hot" Hilton crowd who buys a computer primarily for the "wow" factor? Unless the case is better in some way what is the point in changing it. You get in a car and the gas pedal is on the right and brake pedal on the left. It has 4 wheels and two headlights.

Just what should the outside of the case do differently???

The last update on the Mac Pro tweaked the CPU daughterboard layout. That made the RAID card easier to install ( without unscrewing lots of stuff.). How much easier is it suppose to get to swap the hard drives in/out?


That mode they were in when just slapped colors on stuff. That was pure fluff , not wow. At least wow in "provides user" utility dimension. And it increases costs because now have increased logistics ( do we have enough purple in stock today...)

Similar on unibody. More rigidity so can cut bigger hole for bigger trackpad and other benefits.

[TheAshMan]

I would like to meet the person who can afford a 16 GB DIMM for their computer. Probably only Steve Jobs and Bill Gates (he could BC to Win 7).

[Howardchief]

obviously you have no idea what modern power users do with their machines.


Dave

Well I know I don't. What would you do with 128 gb of ram?

[Rocketman]

Just because you don't need it, don't assume that nobody else does. Where I work, 8 and 16-core workstations are routinely used for compiling large codes. As for actually running those codes, our next big computer will have 1.6 million cores and 1.6 petabytes of RAM. :D

You're going to need a bigger computer.

Rocketman

[Brien]

If the new Xserve adopts these things too, I'm in.

[Ptyger]

Hell, I'd buy one of these. And not just for my occasional WoW habit. I'm getting into upper-division courses for a major in Statistics. I know that I could leverage those cores to make my analyses faster, thus increasing my own efficiency.

My advisor, in fact, recommended that I purchase a powerful workstation before I start grad school for the same reason.

[deconstruct60]

I'm wondering...
Would the 6 core be better than the Quad Core nehalem they have right now?

Depends.

If you are doing stuff that only takes/needs 4, looks like you get a bigger cache which can help some.

If you are doing something with 4 that saturates the 3 memory controller channels then probably not. You will have two more, somewhat starved cores. You may get increase with some batch jobs that now manage to saturate the 3 memory channels when couldn't before.



Unclear though if Intel is going to offer a cheaper model though for just single processor package ( 36xx ) for this though. Suspect Apple won't sell without both processor slots filled. More than likely they are very happy with the better margins with the less expensive chip in the single processor package models.

[philbeeney]

This time Apple...update the freakin' case.

What does Johnny Ive do these days? They haven’t really changed a case design in ages.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Mac Pro case. It's unique and everybody knows it's a Mac. It's only the internals that need revising every time an update is required.

[primalman]

so now the mac pro can start at $3000 with a carp video card

What do fish have to do with the video card?

[iGod 2.0]

OH...MY...GOD!!:eek:

[Bryan Bowler]

In today's day and age, who on earth could use 128GB of RAM?

Bryan

[AidenShaw]

In today's day and age, who on earth could use 128GB of RAM?

Bryan

Do you realize that Dell's large tower dual Xeon workstation (T7500) supports 192 GiB today?

It's nice that some future Apple will support 2/3 the memory of today's Dells.

http://www.dell.com/us/en/enterprise/desktops/workstation-precision-t7500/pd.aspx?refid=workstation-precision-t7500&s=biz&cs=555

ps: the 192 GiB option is only $107K additional ;)

pps: if 192 GiB isn't enough, Dell (and HP/IBM/...) also have 24-core servers with 256 GiB support - or even 32-core 512 GiB systems.

[Thex1138]

6 cores!
That rocks!

[Exponent]

In today's day and age, who on earth could use 128GB of RAM?

Bryan


That would be me.

When I'm verifying a chip's geometry before sending it off to the foundry.

Or when running metal fill, and/or other "Design-For-Manufacturing" compute jobs.

Or when I'm running device physics simulation code.

Or when I'm running design optimization programs.

Or when I'm doing all of those at the same time.

You need to get out more, dude!

[gugy]

128 gig of RAM, holly crap! :eek:

wow, I have now 10 gig of RAM and I thought I was hot sh•t! :D

I am really looking for this machine. I hope Apple will not charge and astronomical premium for it. And I will probably just put 20 gigs of RAM. :(

Also please Apple bring some new 30" ACDs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

[deconstruct60]

In today's day and age, who on earth could use 128GB of RAM?


The same folks who were using 128 GB of RAM 5-10 years ago on leading edge supercomputers. Only now it sits by their desk and they don't have to share or submit batch jobs. :-)

If modeling a car crash or the weather or the ocean(s) or "the earth" then 100 GB isn't an usually large finite element mesh. The finer the mesh , the better the data but the more memory it consumes. Stuff similar to the verticle markets the tesla is targeted at (http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla_computing_solutions.html )
Although, Mac OS X hasn't been a historical prime target for that kind of software.


Nvidia has mentioned the intent to make Fermi powered cards for the Mac OS. Can't think of a better host for that card than a Mac Pro. You really will have a supercomputer (from several years ago) sitting by your desk in that case.



If you are thinking in terms of loading some set of files off of disk (photoshop ) , that's a bit unlikely. Slightly more likely to get some database with enough feeds to keep that that much memory feed, but that too is possible.

There are folks though that will drop $20-30K on a workstation. Usually though because that means don't have to spend $20-30K on renting time on a bigger machine.

[MorphingDragon]

If this becomes true, including the RAM it will be my next purchase. I'm hoping the SLI option is in there for x16 on 2 GPU cards and thus have one beast for OpenCL coding.

I'm going to make myself very clear on this,

NO and as long as Intel is being childish we wont have nVidia chipsets for a long time. AND ATi is kicking ass ATM.

[Justinf79]

Will these 6-core CPUs run in a 2009 quad-core MP?

[MorphingDragon]

Will these 6-core CPUs run in a 2009 quad-core MP?

Probably, if its the same socket type you may have a chance.

[Eidorian]

Probably not, if its the same socket type you may have a chance.Gulftown is on Socket B and would only require a firmware update.

[AidenShaw]

I'm going to make myself very clear on this,

NO and as long as Intel is being childish we wont have nVidia chipsets for a long time. AND ATi is kicking ass ATM.

But Nvidia makes graphics cards (and CUDA GPUs) for PCIe. Having an Nvidia chipset isn't necessary.

[AidenShaw]

Gulftown is on Socket B and would only require a firmware update.

...and will the Apple that won't do an EFI64 firmware update to support Snow Leopard x64 across its line update the maxi-tower firmware so that you can buy CPUs from Newegg?

Biggest LOL of the week.

[MorphingDragon]

But Nvidia makes graphics cards (and CUDA GPUs) for PCIe. Having an Nvidia chipset isn't necessary.

His Keyword was SLI.

...and will the Apple that won't do an EFI64 firmware update to support Snow Leopard x64 across its line update the maxi-tower firmware so that you can buy CPUs from Newegg?

Biggest LOL of the week.

I dunno, you could upgrade the CPUs in the 2008 Mac Pros.

[Eidorian]

...and will the Apple that won't do an EFI64 firmware update to support Snow Leopard x64 across its line update the maxi-tower firmware so that you can buy CPUs from Newegg?

Biggest LOL of the week.Why would Apple do that when they can just sell you a new Mac Pro? :rolleyes:

[Fwink!]

Gulftown is on Socket B and would only require a firmware update.

It would be nice to know a current machine can be upgraded later. And who are these ultra users who require a supercomputer? Whoa, like super geniuses in their labs.

BTW, long time forum reader, not a lot of posts.

[MorphingDragon]

Why would Apple do that when they can just sell you a new Mac Pro? :rolleyes:

ROM HACK!!!

[LEStudios]

That sounds amazing!
I'd love to be able to afford a mac pro and 30 inch cinema display, but the student budget won't stretch that far! :(
So looks like i'll have to wait for the new iMac which will hopefully be out soon because I want something faster to use than my PowerBook G4! :cool:

PowerBook G4? :eek:

Time for you to get one of those credit card applications in front of the student center! :cool:

[ngdesign]

This time Apple...update the freakin' case.

I rather they keep the same case to keep the apple store tourists and mac-user-wanna-be out of the shop so i can get a decent service.

[LEStudios]

128 gig of RAM, holly crap! :eek:

wow, I have now 10 gig of RAM and I thought I was hot sh•t! :D

I am really looking for this machine. I hope Apple will not charge and astronomical premium for it. And I will probably just put 20 gigs of RAM. :(

Also please Apple bring some new 30" ACDs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

Yeah 1st Quarter of 2010 be perfect for 30" Cinema LED Display! :D

[johnhw]

12-core Mac Pro want!
128GB Mac Pro want!
20k Mac Pro don't want!

[SeaFox]

I guess this machine will see the first LightPeak connectors as well.

Don't hold your breath.
Yup. Lightpeak is at this point a technology demonstration. It's nowhere close to production if they're having to modify existing motherboards to show it off.

Will we finally see neato-keano glowing purple cooling fluid in the Mac? :p

Of course, when Apple puts in 16 cores, Apple will innovate using refurbished shuttle heat-shield tiles for the case, which of course will eliminate the need for any liquid cooling.
Did you actually read that comment before you posted it? How do shuttle heat shield computer cases protect the CPU from overheating. :rolleyes:

If anything it will hold the heat inside the case and make the issue worse.

They have to use Xeon processors because that is required for ECC memory, which is required by many sources for Workstation purchases. The Xeons used in the single processor Mac Pros (3500 series) are the same price as Core i7s at the same clock speed. Apple aren't charging more because they are paying more than they would for Core i7 processors.
No, they're just charging more to the end-user who may not need an ECC memory workstation. This is what's wrong with the Macintosh lineup. There is a market of people called "enthusiasts" who want to be able to upgrade their computer themselves, add expansion cards, extra hard drives or even a second optical drive, etc and the Mac Pro is the only Apple computer that lets them do this. These people don't need special server processors or RAM or the restrictions on upgrading those components bring.

LMAO you do realize that 2002 was almost EIGHT years ago, yes? You see there's this thing called "inflation". Ah, nevermind, you're probably too young to understand.
I built a Core i7 tower with 6GB RAM six months ago for less than $1000. How fast do you think inflation goes?

And in case you're about to give the classic Apple fanboi response; no, I didn't buy "really cheap low-quality parts".

What do fish have to do with the video card?
If we're talking about Apple's video card selections: They both stink now compared to when they were brand new

/me bows

[MattInOz]

http://techresearch.intel.com/articles/None/1813.htm

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/


Apple specified constraints on the solution. That is not the same as developing it. Neither has Intel put this in front of a standards body either.
They are trying to stick some aspect of it in front of the USB body but this isn't necessarily the right standard.

Apple (and Intel) could ship something before reaching a significant consensus from the industry, but long term that may end up hurting as much as helping.

Remember, for this to be useful and widespread it has to be someone other than Apple and Intel that has working offerings. There were some vendors who said Firewire was cool too .... until they have been drifting away. ( maybe for this. )


Some of Light Peak seems half baked (e.g, USB like power over the same cable. ) Frankly have trouble with the Light Peak distance claims ( 100 meters) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Peak and providing power over those kinds of distances. Which either gets you short distance with power Light Peak and pure optical Light Peak or dropping of some of the "yeah and that too" claims.

Likewise all the of multi/demultiplexing of putting random stuff out of the lab on the same wire.


Mac Pro with USB 3 might be more likely. Or that Apple is going to by-pass it (like eSATA).

Apple could bypass USB3...
It's seems the Intel side of Light peak came out of the sidelined usb3 optical spec. Free of USB it could then take on board ideas it couldn't before.

Also thinking it adds to the work of UWB which also able to carry lots of data stream types sort of natively but with light as the carrier not radio.

The problem is it's all very short on details.
Yup. Lightpeak is at this point a technology demonstration. It's nowhere close to production if they're having to modify existing motherboards to show it off.

The Mac pro is intel's tech demo machine of choice.

[Full of Win]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Mac Pro case. It's unique and everybody knows it's a Mac. It's only the internals that need revising every time an update is required.

Its getting old. There is nothing wrong with a refresh now and again.

[mdriftmeyer]

For the most part, MOST users will get nothing but bragging rights. BUt then again, the people buying up these mac Pros generally are video/gfx pros - like myself - and therefore use apps that would utilize them all.

Prime example being 3D apps. Sure not the most widely used apps on the planet, but the app i use now, CInema 4D uses every single core to its 100% max to render frames from preview and for final output. Its takes your workspace, say 1280x720 pixels, and on a dual core machine, chops it in half, givin the workload for the top part of the image to one processor, and the bottom half of the image to the other. On a 4 core its split up in 4 parts and each part works simultaneously. On an 8 core, so forth Etc. On a 12 core machine, especially one with a pretty fast clock on a 32nm chip, it'd blaze through what takes my dual core macbook pro at 2.8GHz 2 minutes to render, in theoretically, about 45 seconds. THats some significant time savings. This grows exponentially when you're rendering out a 3d animation as you're saving crazy amounts of time for every frame, 24 or 30 times every second, for several seconds. THe more cores the merrier.

there's also the Compressor encoding app. Adobe after effects. Logic Pro. Various third party encoding apps and a slew of other 3D and motion graphics apps.

However, OpenCL should change this game up pretty significantly. I'm excited to see about that.

This system will make a compelling reason for ANSYS, Pro/Engineer and others to make a Mac native Port.

[Dr.Pants]

This announcement makes Apple's Mac Pro line sound top-notch, ergo I wouldn't expect any price drops at all. Personally, I think that its a justification for people who really enjoy having the most top-of-the-line system at all times get lured into Apple's product segment. Sure, they can OC, but at the same time.... ZERG-OH-MY-GAWD, SIX CORES.

I think that Intel has to benefit from this as well - hence the early release only on Intel firmware (EFI, if I am not mistaken). New Mac Pros might be Intel's version of a "public beta", where any defects that occur on large scales can be targeted and eliminated from the production line later on.

There might also be a firmware update to something completely different, maybe UEFI? Doubtful, but Apple is a part of the UEFI group, so not out-of-the-question. Which would mean incompatibility of all older cards with the new stuff Apple has to roll out.

And there could be a warrentee update, as well.... (Processor removal + sticker to check if that is the case).

But I'm also looking forward to its performance as well, despite my large doubts; maybe SATA won't be rarefied this time around. But it still remains that a "temporary exclusive" might not be the best thing in the world

[Eidorian]

I think that Intel has to benefit from this as well - hence the early release only on Intel firmware (EFI, if I am not mistaken). New Mac Pros might be Intel's version of a "public beta", where any defects that occur on large scales can be targeted and eliminated from the production line later on. IIRC, aren't these the first 32nm chips to be mass produced? I could be wrong.Arrandale and Clarkdale are 32nm Westmere architecture as well.

[mabaker]

Brand New Gulftown Mac Pro! Now with cutting edge Gulftown Intel processors and the fastest graphic card Nvidia has to offer - the 7300SE (Underlocked Edition)! Starting @ $3299.

Get your own now!

[Dr.Pants]

Arrandale and Clarkdale are 32nm Westmere architecture as well.

Thank you - earlier statement corrected.

[MorphingDragon]

Arrandale and Clarkdale are 32nm Westmere architecture as well.

Theres so many internal codenames for intel its ridiculous.

[Macminiintel]

Hahaha, wow, on top of offering Xeon's exclusively, you can't even build a Mac Pro with a workstation graphics card? I just had to check to see if that was really true.

You can, NVIDIA do their Quaddro series of graphics cards for the Mac pro, ideal for 3D rendering, and video exporting etc.

[DoFoT9]

http://techresearch.intel.com/articles/None/1813.htm

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/


Apple specified constraints on the solution. That is not the same as developing it. Neither has Intel put this in front of a standards body either.
They are trying to stick some aspect of it in front of the USB body but this isn't necessarily the right standard.
i thought they proposed the idea to Intel and they did what they did? i didnt mean develop, sorry - wrong word.

Apple (and Intel) could ship something before reaching a significant consensus from the industry, but long term that may end up hurting as much as helping.
i was under the impression that it it was all ready to go.. or did they recently just test it?

Remember, for this to be useful and widespread it has to be someone other than Apple and Intel that has working offerings. There were some vendors who said Firewire was cool too .... until they have been drifting away. ( maybe for this. )
why cant intel do it? not big enough? people wont see it as an "intel" thing to do because all the do is make CPUs?

Some of Light Peak seems half baked (e.g, USB like power over the same cable. ) Frankly have trouble with the Light Peak distance claims ( 100 meters) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Peak and providing power over those kinds of distances. Which either gets you short distance with power Light Peak and pure optical Light Peak or dropping of some of the "yeah and that too" claims.
i have not yet been educated on the workings of LightPeak, but the concept seems great. incorporating everything into the one.. seems ok to me.


Mac Pro with USB 3 might be more likely. Or that Apple is going to by-pass it (like eSATA).
but USB is so clunky... im not that keen on it its so unreliable.

[mBox]

Nothing new, just when is the release date.Im not buying another MacPro for work (we have a dozen) until I figure why these things dont shut down properly without having to hold down the power button :P Plus the fact that the video card options are still at ProSumer level.

[deconstruct60]

No, they're just charging more to the end-user who may not need an ECC memory workstation.

Users don't need mechanisms to protect them from errors? Really? Maybe the drive vendors should shave some costs by removing ECC off the hard drives too.

Memory isn't flaky. Gee...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10370026-264.html

With folks using many GB of memory, ECC should be a defacto feature for everyone.

[danielwsmithee]

So by the summer of 2010 we will have:


12-core/6-core 'Gulftown' Mac Pro
4-core 'Clarksfield' iMac
2-core 'Arrandale' mini
4-core 'Clarksfield' MacBook Pro
2-core 'Arrandale' MacBook

2-core 'ARM-9 Cortex' Tablets???


Man ... I want the whole list ... well I guess I'll skip the MacBook.

[MorphingDragon]

So by the summer of 2010 we will have:


12-core/6-core 'Gulftown' Mac Pro
4-core 'Clarksfield' iMac
2-core 'Arrandale' mini
4-core 'Clarksfield' MacBook Pro
2-core 'Arrandale' MacBook

2-core 'ARM-9 Cortex' Tablets???


Talk about a pipe dream.

[Chaszmyr]

I don't like this news, personally. I currently have an 8-core processor and no need for additional cores. If I buy a new computer, I'd have to decide between needlessly upgrading to 12 cores or shamefully downgrading to (a perfectly adequate) 6 cores. :mad:

[danielwsmithee]

I don't like this news, personally. I currently have an 8-core processor and no need for additional cores. If I buy a new computer, I'd have to decide between needlessly upgrading to 12 cores or shamefully downgrading to (a perfectly adequate) 6 cores. :mad:Why would you buy a new computer then. Seriously your 8-core MP should be good for at least 3-5 years. By then you will be choosing between 16 or 32 cores.

[BTW]

A Mac Pro with 12 cores is awesome. Now, it needs the software to make it go bang.

I'd like to see Apple take a break from building 10.7 and focus on making their OSX core apps better. I'm talking both client and server side. It is all about the apps that make OSX nicer to deal with than Windows. As an example: make a Pro version of Mail and bundle it with iWorks X (calendar/address book/mail). On the OSX Server side solicit feature enhancements for the server apps and run with them. Intro some cloud computing services to challenge Amazon and Google. I'd like to see the recently acquired mapping software company's product in every aspect of OSX like the dictionary.

Apple's hardware is cool but make the software even better and don't rush to build new major version of OSX. Slow down as Snow Leopard has a good foundation. Those 12 cores will make good use of grand central with the right powerful apps. :)

[sarahbau]

His Keyword was SLI.
True, but he mentioned SLI because for some reason he seemed to think SLI was required for OpenCL to utilize multiple GPUs, which it isn't. People with current generation Mac Pros with 4 graphics cards, and even MacBook Pros with 9600M GT and 9400M can already use all devices simultaneously for OpenCL.

[tirerim]

LMAO you do realize that 2002 was almost EIGHT years ago, yes? You see there's this thing called "inflation". Ah, nevermind, you're probably too young to understand.

Yeah, there is -- and given the inflation rate since then, $1700 in 2002 dollars is equivalent to about $2020 in 2008 dollars. (Don't have data for this year, yet, but trust me, the inflation rate has been pretty low so far.) That's still well shy of $2500.

[Amdahl]

LMAO you do realize that 2002 was almost EIGHT years ago, yes? You see there's this thing called "inflation". Ah, nevermind, you're probably too young to understand.

Well, you see, 12 months ago, we started a new thing. Called "deflation." It's why houses are 50% off, jobs are harder to find, pay isn't rising, cars are cheaper, every state in the nation has record drops in tax revenue, food is cheaper, and Colorado is lowering their minimum wage next year.

[oddgit]

i wonder if Apple will update the EFI on the pros so you can shut off Hyperthreading. Some applications, especially 3d apps which take full advantage of cores up to their license limit actually suffer performance wise with it enabled. Especially MentalRay. Sadly, when i called Apple when i was ready to buy a MacPro, i asked about disabling Hyperthreading, they looked in to it and recommended me to not buy a MacPro because there is no way to turn it off.
Though 12 cores with Renderman would rock!

[deconstruct60]

Yeah, there is -- and given the inflation rate since then, $1700 in 2002 dollars is equivalent to about $2020 in 2008 dollars. (Don't have data for this year, yet, but trust me, the inflation rate has been pretty low so far.) That's still well shy of $2500.

But are you also well short of the same functionality also?
In 2002 you could put 4 disk drives with provided sleds? digital audio?
The bottom end PowerMac lacked a L3 cache.
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP78
Fewer populated memory slots in default config. (either just one or two in 2002 versus 3 now. )
Bigger power supply now .
Three fewer USB sockets.
Three more CPU cores.



I think all that aluminum of the newer model probably costs a few more dollars.

Is that $500... probably not but does close the gap a bit more.

In the move from the 2009 Pro single quads from the 2008 single quads Apple slid in a more afforable processor 35xx and didn't really drop the price from the price year. It is a juicy target if pointing at them probably juicing the margins a bit.

[Full of Win]

Well, you see, 12 months ago, we started a new thing. Called "deflation." It's why houses are 50% off, jobs are harder to find, pay isn't rising, cars are cheaper, every state in the nation has record drops in tax revenue, food is cheaper, and Colorado is lowering their minimum wage next year.
To be fair, pegging computer prices since 2002 to inflation or deflation relative to other indicators is hard to do since there is so much variability that people can cherry pick specifications to make whatever point they want to.

[Bonte]

Its getting old. There is nothing wrong with a refresh now and again.

I wouldn't count on it, we need a big case and the metal design is perfect. The pro models are stackable so a redesign would make them un-stackable, smaller would limit the possibility's and moving to plastic is a big step back. I believe this is the perfect design for workstations, we don't need colors and a design-statement beyond the current case that is to this day practically unmatched on the PC-side.

[jaw04005]

Why the heck do you want a different case design? :confused: The current one looks nice and works great. Change simply for the sake of change is idiotic. Why exactly do you want them to change it?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Mac Pro case. It's unique and everybody knows it's a Mac. It's only the internals that need revising every time an update is required.

It’s funny because both of you act like Apple couldn’t come up with something better.

I for one would like their next case to be lighter, shorter in height (the current case won’t fit under your average size desk), insulate sound better, move the power supply back to the bottom so you don’t have the power cord dangling in with all your other cords, SD card slot in the front, another row of USB 2.0 connectors, etc.

I also think the handles needing protection while be transported is somewhat of a design flaw, and they should reinforce the handles on the next case (maybe it’ll be built using a unibody process, wouldn’t that be wild — of course that’s not really feasible).

But whatever, this thread is about Gulftown.

[hiimamac]

I'm wondering...
Would the 6 core be better than the Quad Core nehalem they have right now?

PLEASE APPLE give us the $999 headless 8 core, non ecc DDR, dvi/hdmi out, even no BR i7 mid range. PLEASE.

Thank you brry much.

[iBug2]

It’s funny because both of you act like Apple couldn’t come up with something better.

I for one would like their next case to be lighter, shorter in height (the current case won’t fit under your average size desk), insulate sound better, move the power supply back to the bottom so you don’t have the power cord dangling in with all your other cords, SD card slot in the front, another row of USB 2.0 connectors, etc.

I also think the handles needing protection while be transported is somewhat of a design flaw, and they should reinforce the handles on the next case (maybe it’ll be built using a unibody process, wouldn’t that be wild — of course that’s not really feasible).

But whatever, this thread is about Gulftown.

I honestly don't need a new case. I carried my Mac Pro in a suitcase through 7 moves from temporary places to others, with no protection whatsoever inside the suitcase, and none of the components got damaged. I even carried the mac pro in the same suitcase through 2 flights. Still no damage to components. The case is awesome in terms of protection and durability.

The inside design is great as well. I doubt they can make this case any shorter in height, unless they just remove the handles. The inside is as compact as it gets. I'd love the power supply down there as well but if this design is better for cooling process I'd rather have this.

[Chaszmyr]

PLEASE APPLE give us the $999 headless 8 core, non ecc DDR, dvi/hdmi out, even no BR i7 mid range. PLEASE.

Thank you brry much.

You can build a hackintosh with those specs for that price, but even if for some reason Apple were so inclined to put such a machine on the market, I can almost guarantee it would cost more than $999. Apple is still charging an insane $800 for a dual core 2ghz computer that doesn't even come with a keyboard or mouse.

[deconstruct60]

i was under the impression that it it was all ready to go.. or did they recently just test it?


there is a difference between demos working in the lab and shipping, "user proof" solutions.

All the quotes are shipping in 2010. If it was going to be in the first half of 2010 they'd probably say that. Especially if it was going to be in the first quarter of 2010. Typically when vendors say "some time next year" they mean second half. Now they could be keeping this as a super-duper Stevo surprise.

Back in 2007 folks though that USB 3.0 would have a fiber optic component

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/09/intel-announces-demonstrates-usb-3-0.ars

They've managed to squeeze 5Gb/s on copper apparently. Had to shrink the maximum length though.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10362246-264.html




why cant intel do it? not big enough? people wont see it as an "intel" thing to do because all the do is make CPUs?


Who wants to buy a component from a single source?????????
If Intel is the sole supplier of Light Peak transciever you seriously think they are going to be cost competitive? What Apple did do when Intel's integrated solutions sucked? They dumped them because there was a second viable supplier. Why isn't there USB 3 out now? In part, because the industry didn't want Intel as the sole USB 3 supplier. Don't think the industry would be any happier with Light Peak if it is sole supplier.


Apple needs Intel pushing it because I suspect they don't want to get into a pissing match with Intel over this and USB 3. If Intel is behind both perhaps can let the market sort it out.

Sure Intel could do a proprietary thing as a defacto standard.

One aspect of the standard process is to get all the folks with patent libraries to show up and lay claim to what they think might be theirs. Better to find out someone is going to sue before ship 4 million units and are libel for damages on all of them.





i have not yet been educated on the workings of Light Peak, but the concept seems great. incorporating everything into the one.. seems ok to me.


I think folks are reading wrong outcomes into Light Peak. There are still going to be USB sockets on your computers. No way Light Peak is going to be as inexpensive for peripheral vendors to add as USB 2.0 is. It is also a humongous waste to use a 10 Gb/s link to connect a mouse or keyboard to a computer. That's insane. Maybe several years down the road, but for the short term.... no way.


If you have a docking port where you need to connect the laptop to an external display/USB/ethernet/etc. with one connector... great solution.
Hooking just one of those to the computer/laptop... that's a waste.
That is like the phone company running fiber to your house just to run POTS voice traffic. What the phone company has done with 10Gb/s optics is aggregate many phone calls onto one wire. So there will likely be aggregation devices for Light Peak too ( until it reaches the $0.50 to implement stage).

For example, a monitor might have a speaker, webcam, microphone, keyboard, plugs which is aggregates and send back to the computer on one wire. That's very Apple , we don't like jumbles of wires, kind of solution.

Light Peak smells alot like the "next generation" USB that was talked about originally that was going to leverage fiber optics.




but USB is so clunky... im not that keen on it its so unreliable.


What was/is coming with USB 3.0 is another socket.

Also go back to the news.com link above. These demos used USB like connectors.


Personally think Intel is eventually going to eventually spin Light Peak as USB 3.5 or USB 4.0

[star-fish]

This rumor comes, of course, on the very day I finally break down and order a 2.66 refurb. It's not a bad thing, I would only crap my pants if they released something very soon that was that much better & cheaper. So no worries. :)


It might be a bad thing if the price of similar spec'd Pros drop as a result (particularly from authorised resellers and their refurbs).

[MacApple21]

Finally, I've been waiting about a year now, Gulftown here we come (hopefully).
There is one but though, what will it cost? will it be at the same price level as the current 2.93 Quad, or are we going to see a price hike :eek:

[deconstruct60]

I for one would like their next case to be lighter, shorter in height (the current case won’t fit under your average size desk), insulate sound better, move the power supply back to the bottom so you don’t have the power cord dangling in with all your other cords, SD card slot in the front, another row of USB 2.0 connectors, etc.


Power supplies generate heat. The CPUs are also major radiators. Putting them both in the bottom makes for a denser concentration of heat. That will mean you need to push more air faster.... which leads to more noise.

Shorter, unless aimed at tossing the handles, can also compress the diameter of the fans. Again smaller diameter fans with constant heat dissipation requirements means the blow harder.

Another row of USB connectors? How many USB headers you think are on the motherboard. Bigger motherboard makes it taller.

Reinforces handles are going to make it lighter/cheaper?

Just pointing out there are numerous conflicting goals represented in that design. It is easy to either pick one aspect to change (and ignore the related elements impacting) or just ignore certain constraints (if dump slots or handles can make it shorter much easier).


There are going to be minor cosmetic changes. New ports, maybe a SD slot. If you look very carefully all the revisions of the design have minor differences. ... but the overall design is primarily going to be the same until someone can point out a major flaw.

[mdriftmeyer]

True, but he mentioned SLI because for some reason he seemed to think SLI was required for OpenCL to utilize multiple GPUs, which it isn't. People with current generation Mac Pros with 4 graphics cards, and even MacBook Pros with 9600M GT and 9400M can already use all devices simultaneously for OpenCL.

I want OpenGL 3.2 with x16 pipes in SLI mode along with OpenCL. It's nearly 2010 and Apple still has never pulled SLI at x16 bandwidth off with 2 double wide GPUs. [they've never pulled off SLI period]

More to the point, I want to have Firestream and AMD 5870 GPU options, along with Nvidia Tesla options.

So far the lack of OpenGL 3 which is designed to work in tandem with OpenCL is a serious hit.

http://developer.amd.com/GPU/ATISTREAMSDKBETAPROGRAM/Pages/default.aspx

[MorphingDragon]

I want OpenGL 3.2 with x16 pipes in SLI mode along with OpenCL. It's nearly 2010 and Apple still has never pulled SLI at x16 bandwidth off with 2 double wide GPUs. [they've never pulled off SLI period]

More to the point, I want to have Firestream and AMD 5870 GPU options, along with Nvidia Tesla options.

So far the lack of OpenGL 3 which is designed to work in tandem with OpenCL is a serious hit.

No SLI remember, the only people left in the Chipset market now is AMD and Intel. Best you could hope for is CrossfireX. (ATi HD 5XXX series is kicking some serious green ass) This is one of the Reasons I secretly hope that Apple changes to AMD. If Intel wants to believe it or not the Binary CPU is becoming irrelevant.

[Marx55]

Great, but only when the cores turn off AUTOMATICALLY when not in use. Is that posible? BTW, what is the TDP of the new processor? Thanks.

[MorphingDragon]

Great, but only when the cores turn off AUTOMATICALLY when not in use. Is that posible? BTW, what is the TDP of the new processor? Thanks.

AMD Phenom can do it, I know that much.

[tempusfugit]

I don't like this news, personally. I currently have an 8-core processor and no need for additional cores. If I buy a new computer, I'd have to decide between needlessly upgrading to 12 cores or shamefully downgrading to (a perfectly adequate) 6 cores. :mad:


If you don't need any more cores, you don't need a new computer.

most idiotic problem ever solved.

[DoFoT9]

there is a difference between demos working in the lab and shipping, "user proof" solutions.
oh of course there is, the news article that i read was more leaning towards the fact that it was ready to go. clearly they were uninformed.

All the quotes are shipping in 2010. If it was going to be in the first half of 2010 they'd probably say that. Especially if it was going to be in the first quarter of 2010. Typically when vendors say "some time next year" they mean second half. Now they could be keeping this as a super-duper Stevo surprise.
well you never know really. look at the access that apple has had to intel components (e.g.extreme CPUs for iMacs, xeon CPUs for MP). apple did propose the idea to intel so maybe it was a contractual agreement?

Back in 2007 folks though that USB 3.0 would have a fiber optic component

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/09/intel-announces-demonstrates-usb-3-0.ars

They've managed to squeeze 5Gb/s on copper apparently. Had to shrink the maximum length though.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10362246-264.html
education articles. some of the things coming out of USB are quite interesting, esp the part about fibre integration.

Who wants to buy a component from a single source?????????
If Intel is the sole supplier of Light Peak transciever you seriously think they are going to be cost competitive? What Apple did do when Intel's integrated solutions sucked? They dumped them because there was a second viable supplier. Why isn't there USB 3 out now? In part, because the industry didn't want Intel as the sole USB 3 supplier. Don't think the industry would be any happier with Light Peak if it is sole supplier.
hmmm good point. the concept of LightPeak is quite good, but i guess the implementation of it wont let it "peak", so to speak ;)


Apple needs Intel pushing it because I suspect they don't want to get into a pissing match with Intel over this and USB 3. If Intel is behind both perhaps can let the market sort it out.

Sure Intel could do a proprietary thing as a defacto standard.

One aspect of the standard process is to get all the folks with patent libraries to show up and lay claim to what they think might be theirs. Better to find out someone is going to sue before ship 4 million units and are libel for damages on all of them.
haha that really is a pissing match. so its a big pile of fail, i dont care. i just want the standard out for us to use!!

all we have to do is look at firewire and see the signs, the price was higher, there were lots of "conditions" etc..but it still caught on pretty well!




I think folks are reading wrong outcomes into Light Peak. There are still going to be USB sockets on your computers. No way Light Peak is going to be as inexpensive for peripheral vendors to add as USB 2.0 is. It is also a humongous waste to use a 10 Gb/s link to connect a mouse or keyboard to a computer. That's insane. Maybe several years down the road, but for the short term.... no way.
oh of course not! noway will that happen yet. i just want the bloody thing on the computer so that i can use it.

in the 1st article you linked, it shows a max of 10GB/s (currently), it also has a 'router' like device, i can imagine that it wouldnt be that hard to max out that 10gb/s connection (thats only 1.25GB/s). a HD camera, number of external HDDs, monitor, network etc might stress it at times.


If you have a docking port where you need to connect the laptop to an external display/USB/ethernet/etc. with one connector... great solution.
completely agree. that would be really nice! no need to plug in 5 cables.
Hooking just one of those to the computer/laptop... that's a waste.
for the meantime it will just be one, it will be expensive and clunky and not many people will happen. i hope that intel/apple/whoever can market it and get a nice variety of products to use with it.
That is like the phone company running fiber to your house just to run POTS voice traffic. What the phone company has done with 10Gb/s optics is aggregate many phone calls onto one wire. So there will likely be aggregation devices for Light Peak too ( until it reaches the $0.50 to implement stage).
which i imagine is quite a while away. light peak has the potential to take over all ports pretty much, will that happen though is the main question

For example, a monitor might have a speaker, webcam, microphone, keyboard, plugs which is aggregates and send back to the computer on one wire. That's very Apple , we don't like jumbles of wires, kind of solution.
that would be very nice. imagine one cable to replace networking, external drives, monitors etcetc. if only it could give power too (to power monitors etc)

Light Peak smells alot like the "next generation" USB that was talked about originally that was going to leverage fiber optics.
it does, and i hope it fills the void.



What was/is coming with USB 3.0 is another socket.

Also go back to the news.com link above. These demos used USB like connectors.
a seperate USB socket? i thought it was going to stay the same to allow backwards compatibility?


Personally think Intel is eventually going to eventually spin Light Peak as USB 3.5 or USB 4.0

you reckon? they will use the concepts of Light Peak and incorporate it into USB4? might be ok i guess.

what is LightPeak like with CPU usage? does it still reply on the CPU or does it have its own controller like FW? if you are copying at 10gb/s thats going to tax the CPU a fair bit i imagine.

sorry for the vague reply, im pretty busy this week.

[Shivetya]

This time Apple...update the freakin' case.

yes please... boat anchor

[pmjoe]

hexacore? I just got used to saying quad core. :D

[mags631]

You can build a hackintosh with those specs for that price, but even if for some reason Apple were so inclined to put such a machine on the market, I can almost guarantee it would cost more than $999. Apple is still charging an insane $800 for a dual core 2ghz computer that doesn't even come with a keyboard or mouse.

There is a clue in its name -- "Mini". There is definitely a premium for these kind of form factors. You can build a similarly spec'd Dell studio w/o bluetooth and with Intel X3100 video for... ta-da... $699.

The Mini is the most misunderstood computer... :-)

[DoFoT9]

There is a clue in its name -- "Mini". There is definitely a premium for these kind of form factors. You can build a similarly spec'd Dell studio w/o bluetooth and with Intel X3100 video for... ta-da... $699.

The Mini is the most misunderstood computer... :-)

and i personally could build an equivalent powered computer for $300.. big woop we all know that they rip us off.

but yea you're right the mini is pretty misunderstood, its tiny and classy! thus the expense.

[acearchie]

...support for 8 GB and 16 GB RAM modules, pushing total RAM capacity to a massive 128GB...

Well thats unfair since my current Nahalem Mac Pro only officially supports 8GB...

[DoFoT9]

Well thats unfair since my current Nahalem Mac Pro only officially supports 8GB...

about time they got rid of the silly "limits".

[SeaFox]

The Mac pro is intel's tech demo machine of choice.

So what?
You honestly think the use of a Mac Pro had nothing to do with this being an Apple co-engineered technology. :rolleyes:They used a modified Mac Pro motherboard to demonstrate the technology just as a base and grafted the parts they needed on for the demonstration. The fact they don't even have a prototype motherboard with the technology included by design proves it's not coming in anytime soon.

I'm not knocking the tech itself. Looks pretty cool. Just the people on here going "OMG it will be on teh new Mac Pro n 2010!" who are missing more than a couple steps in the process of drawing board to finished, commercially viable product.

Users don't need mechanisms to protect them from errors? Really?
What percentage of home PC's today use ECC RAM?

I thought so.

I don't see the world's computing grinding to a halt from bad memory. Mostly bad software,


Memory isn't flaky. Gee...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10370026-264.html

With folks using many GB of memory, ECC should be a defacto feature for everyone.
Lets take those Google figures with a grain of salt.

How many GB of RAM? This story is about an entire data center.
This is a data center, that figure is for computers running 24/7/365.I've already seen that story, BTW. If you're going to link to that article, try a site where people know a little bit more (http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/10/06/1732211/Google-Finds-DRAM-Errors-More-Common-Than-Believed) about what they're talking about. Not Cnet and their "journalists".

[skate71290]

This new mac pro sounds as exciting as urinating in public :)

But seriously, that will definitely have some punch... Pro workstations like this are just blazing awesome!

lol laughed a lot at the first line... 16GB RAM (presume DDR3) and 6 Core processors.... just beyond reality what could the RAM and processors be used for... 128GB RAM and 4 6 Core processors... any money on it Safari could still crash and iTunes would lag with extremely large libraries lol... then again if someone gave me a machine like this i would probably die of happiness lol

[DoFoT9]

[LIST]
What percentage of home PC's today use ECC RAM?

I thought so.

I don't see the world's computing grinding to a halt from bad memory. Mostly bad software,


as i have learnt from others on MR, ECC RAM is beyond useless and is probably only really needed by about 0.000001% of the population (that's not an exaggeration).

[Fwink!]

It might be a bad thing if the price of similar spec'd Pros drop as a result (particularly from authorised resellers and their refurbs).

They are still selling Xeon macpros for just a tad less than retail. Typically the price will drop $50-$100 when something new comes out. Also, refurbs of new models don't show up for about 6 months.

I would expect these new models to be slightly more expensive than the current models at entry. $2899 for a base and $5400 for a top of the line. Apple just doesn't get the idea of bang for buck pricing, there's always that Apple premium. I almost went the hackentosh way, but didn't want the risk or hassle for a primary project machine. I need a warranty out the door, and the assurance of compatibility for 5+ years.

[haravikk]

This time Apple...update the freakin' case.
Why? I still love the case, I had one of the original dual processor G5's in its awesome case. I mean really, where do you go after an armoured behemoth like the current case? You'd have to start slapping deflective armour plates and caterpillar tracks on to really prove its war-machine status.

I mean, I nearly dropped my MacPro on my foot, I had visions of the rest of my life with only one functioning leg.

In regards to this specific news...eh, 10gbps ethernet I kind of expected in the 2009 MacPros, so I'm a bit disappointed it has taken this long to be honest. As for six-core processors...why? I thought 8-core was on the horizon? What I would like to see most is for them to somehow make room for eight internal hard-drives, perhaps by losing an internal optical bay as these days we have all-in-one drives anyway, and I don't think people that properly use dual optical bays are in the majority? If it's a big deal then convert it to two slimline optical bays instead. Whenever I need to copy disks I copy to the hard-drive first, I've never trusted CD to CD copying. People who need to burn multiple disks at a time likely use those fancy CD writer array things anyway.

And add a longer iPass cable so it's easier to install third-party RAID cards, or get a motherboard with built-in RAID, considering a ton of the people who buy MacPros could probably take advantage of it.

Not that any of this affects me just now, my "Early 2008" MacPro will have to continue to do for me, as I don't have the income for more shiny, shiny computing hardware for the moment. :)

[iZac]

This time Apple...update the freakin' case.

Although it is slightly long in the tooth, I LOVE the G5 case, its so understated and functional. The polar opposite of that crappy MDD G4 case. Im dubious of a redesign, since it will probably be inferior to the current design. I'd love to be wrong though!

Although a massive brick of aluminium thats actually an integrated heat sink would be an interesting idea ... and weigh a ton.

[*LTD*]

Not that any of this affects me just now, my "Early 2008" MacPro will have to continue to do for me, as I don't have the income for more shiny, shiny computing hardware for the moment. :)

My question would be: How would a 2 x 3.2ghz Quad-Core Xeons, 10gb DDR2 800mhz ECC RAM, 4 x 750gb hard-drives (striped), NVidia GeForce 8800GT (512mb) not be enough for a long time to come?

[Shivetya]

My question would be: How would a 2 x 3.2ghz Quad-Core Xeons, 10gb DDR2 800mhz ECC RAM, 4 x 750gb hard-drives (striped), NVidia GeForce 8800GT (512mb) not be enough for a long time to come?

That is like asking an owner of a 911GT3 who drives only the road why.

Somethings don't make sense.

[andylyon]

Its getting old. There is nothing wrong with a refresh now and again.

To be fair I don't think everyone does know it's a Mac. To everyday people who aren't into computers as much as a lot on this board they wouldn't give it a second look never mind know it's a Mac.

AnDy

[LEStudios]

A Dual Six-Core Mac Pro with 128GB Memory! I will put four 1TB OCZ SSD in if cost isn't a issue to make this the fastest Mac Pro ever! :D

[DoFoT9]

A Dual Six-Core Mac Pro with 128GB Memory! I will put four 1TB OCZ SSD in if cost isn't a issue to make this the fastest Mac Pro ever! :D

in RAID0 :eek: then the bottleneck wouldnt be the HDDs for once!

[twoodcc]

aw man. now this would be a smoking machine! 10 gigabit ethernet!? but where will we be able to take advantage of that? and 128 GB of RAM! wow

[AidenShaw]

No SLI remember, the only people left in the Chipset market now is AMD and Intel. Best you could hope for is CrossfireX.

I think that you are simply wrong here, please check your facts.

Intel X58 and P55 motherboards (for example the Asus P6T6 (http://usa.asus.com/Product.aspx?P_ID=WqMFKNkS6ZjDLx4S)) support dual, triple or even quad SLI. Up to quad CUDA is also supported (one Quadro plus three Teslas).


Here's an Nvidia link to SLI-qualified Intel motherboards...

http://www.slizone.com/object/slizone_build_mobo.html

[SimonTheSoundMa]

Logic does. And I could sure use the extra firepower.
If you haven’t got a Mac Pro then fair enough. If you have already, look at buying hardware accelerators.

[Umbongo]

as i have learnt from others on MR, ECC RAM is beyond useless and is probably only really needed by about 0.000001% of the population (that's not an exaggeration).

Your number would mean only 300 Americans need ECC memory which is definatly an exaggeration ;).

ECC is vital for many computational uses. Probably less so on a Mac Pro as they seem to be mostly used for digital content creation but there are still systems being used for mathematics and sciences. The fact is cosmic rays do flip bits and flipped bits can cause unexpected errors or results. While these can be overcome by paying a small fee for ECC memory then companies will.

Unless they come up with some amazing shielding system for memory modules then ECC is here to stay and becomes even more important as we move to larger arrays and capacities.

[Palestrina]

That's great, Apple. Why no BluRay?

[Schizoid]

HEXACORE! that's brilliant.
Two of those and I'll have a DODECACORE MAC!!

[DoFoT9]

Your number would mean only 300 Americans need ECC memory which is definatly an exaggeration ;).
300 american organisations then? it is most certainly not an exaggeration, there may be people that THINK they need it but in reality there are only a few military uses for it (or maybe for anal retentive ones haha).

ECC is vital for many computational uses. Probably less so on a Mac Pro as they seem to be mostly used for digital content creation but there are still systems being used for mathematics and sciences. The fact is cosmic rays do flip bits and flipped bits can cause unexpected errors or results. While these can be overcome by paying a small fee for ECC memory then companies will.

Unless they come up with some amazing shielding system for memory modules then ECC is here to stay and becomes even more important as we move to larger arrays and capacities.

im well aware of the cosmic rays. im also aware that they only hit earth every what.. 1,000 years or so?? most probably even less then that, so its hardly an issue.

and a small fee for ECC memory? a 667MHz 4GB pack costs $490 Aus. the equivalent 'normal' RAM costs $100 Aus at most. small fee? if you have hundreds of servers then that will pretty much double your costs when trying to prevent the unlikely.

i am off to bed, will be back in the morning to debate more ;)

[ericinboston]

It would be interesting to poll all the contributors on this thread:

Do you *personally* buy the Mac Pro line...or does your company pay for it?

I think the Mac Pros have great specs (compared to what Apple also offers), but I find it hard to believe individual people (not companies) go out and dump $3000+ on a personal computer. Again, I'm not talking about if you own a home business or if you work at a company...what does Johnny use his Pro for at home?...why does Johnny feel he needs a Pro? It's not web surfing or iTunes or dvd burning or email or iPhoto... The only thing I can think of that comes close to NEEDING Mac Pro power is audio/video authoring/creating/rendering/mastering.

So how 'bout it? How many of you on this thread actually buy a new Pro every few years (or more often) for personal use...and why?

-Eric

[Mintin8]

Hopefully they include a new graphics card to avoid bottlenecking (Ati 5870)

[gnasher729]

im well aware of the cosmic rays. im also aware that they only hit earth every what.. 1,000 years or so?? most probably even less then that, so its hardly an issue.

and a small fee for ECC memory? a 667MHz 4GB pack costs $490 Aus. the equivalent 'normal' RAM costs $100 Aus at most. small fee? if you have hundreds of servers then that will pretty much double your costs when trying to prevent the unlikely.

Someone with access to the Google server farms wrote a paper about that, and the number of errors they found are quite significant. More like thousands, not one every thousand years. Have a look at the last few weeks on slashdot.

BTW from Wikipedia: "Cosmic rays constitute a fraction of the annual radiation exposure of human beings on earth. For example, the average radiation exposure in Australia is 0.3 mSv due to cosmic rays, out of a total of 2.3 mSv." That's about 0.01% of the lethal dose that hits you every year, not "one hitting earth every thousand years" (3000 mSv = "50% die within 30 days").

[KindredMAC]

When you have a Mac Pro, the last thing you care about is the case (even tho I personally like it)

Totally beg to differ.

The fact they are using the PowerMac G5 case still is down and out RETARDED. Yes I used the word "retarded"... sue me... I don't care anymore.

If you are a Designer/Artist of any sorts AND an avid fan of Apple and their designs for the last decade or two, you should be outraged that Apple has given all of us the proverbial middle finger and focused on getting more soccer moms and teenie boppers as their "customer base".

Apple has made the Mac Pro so out of touch in price point that it is hard to get IT departments to justify a base $3000 purchase when all they see are iMacs everywhere with dual core Intels Inside™ for $2000.

Why can the iMac and iPods get a face lift EVERY YEAR, the laptops every couple years and the Mac Pro still looks like a giant cheese grater I can pick up at the kitchen supply story? It is pure laziness with a little sprinkle of FU to the people who kept Apple in business before the Sacred Ascension of the Great iPod.

And YES I am mad as hell..... but I'm just going to have to keep taking it in the @ss anyways because it's Apple.

[*LTD*]

It would be interesting to poll all the contributors on this thread:

Do you *personally* buy the Mac Pro line...or does your company pay for it?

I think the Mac Pros have great specs (compared to what Apple also offers), but I find it hard to believe individual people (not companies) go out and dump $3000+ on a personal computer. Again, I'm not talking about if you own a home business or if you work at a company...what does Johnny use his Pro for at home?...why does Johnny feel he needs a Pro? It's not web surfing or iTunes or dvd burning or email or iPhoto... The only thing I can think of that comes close to NEEDING Mac Pro power is audio/video authoring/creating/rendering/mastering.

So how 'bout it? How many of you on this thread actually buy a new Pro every few years (or more often) for personal use...and why?

-Eric

If you're a "Pro" you wouldn't be paying for it out of pocket. In most cases it can also be written off, too, if you can demonstrate it's for work/business/home-as-regular-business-establishment use.

Seems quite a few users around here are not "Pro", but rather hobbyists obsessed with basement bragging rights, and so tears are the inevitable result when Apple releases an expensive machine.

[jonnysods]

Oh great, now my quad Nehalem MP is outdated. :D

[Umbongo]

300 american organisations then? it is most certainly not an exaggeration, there may be people that THINK they need it but in reality there are only a few military uses for it (or maybe for anal retentive ones haha).

im well aware of the cosmic rays. im also aware that they only hit earth every what.. 1,000 years or so?? most probably even less then that, so its hardly an issue.

and a small fee for ECC memory? a 667MHz 4GB pack costs $490 Aus. the equivalent 'normal' RAM costs $100 Aus at most. small fee? if you have hundreds of servers then that will pretty much double your costs when trying to prevent the unlikely.

i am off to bed, will be back in the morning to debate more ;)

Well that is pricing in a small market. US, UK and European prices have the addition of ECC as a small percentage of the overall cost on such systems (not just hardware). It may be expensive for an individual over non ECC, but you have that choice. The Mac Pro doesn't require ECC for example.

The idea that the only area where easily preventing random errors is miltary use in the world we live in today seems very narrowminded to me. Google and the Univeristy of Toronto did a study that found 8% of Google's DIMMs suffered from memory errors over the two years of study looking at most of Google's systems. There are plenty of other published studies by companies on the error rates of their systems. The don't have a vested interest in promoting something that costs them money yet offers no benefit.

Without ECC you cannot easily detect, correct or prevent further memory errors, be they soft or hard errors.

[jonnysods]

It would be interesting to poll all the contributors on this thread:

Do you *personally* buy the Mac Pro line...or does your company pay for it?

I think the Mac Pros have great specs (compared to what Apple also offers), but I find it hard to believe individual people (not companies) go out and dump $3000+ on a personal computer. Again, I'm not talking about if you own a home business or if you work at a company...what does Johnny use his Pro for at home?...why does Johnny feel he needs a Pro? It's not web surfing or iTunes or dvd burning or email or iPhoto... The only thing I can think of that comes close to NEEDING Mac Pro power is audio/video authoring/creating/rendering/mastering.

So how 'bout it? How many of you on this thread actually buy a new Pro every few years (or more often) for personal use...and why?

-Eric

I've read on these forums a few times that guys buy them for gaming on windows, which is just crazy. I'm not a big fan of PC's but for $3K+ you could get a rig that destroys an MP for gaming, and still have money left over to go out and buy dinner.

I use mine for my business - it was a toss up between an iMac and an MP but I knew that the MP has more staying power and upgradability (if I ever get the guts to try to put in a higher clocking CPU).

[Umbongo]

If you're a "Pro" you wouldn't be paying for it out of pocket. In most cases it can also be written off, too, if you can demonstrate it's for work/business/home-as-regular-business-establishment use.

Seems quite a few users around here are not "Pro", but rather hobbyists obsessed with basement bragging rights, and so tears are the inevitable result when Apple releases an expensive machine.

This has been the case since the switch to Intel. But let us consider that OS X is being shoved in enthusiasts faces by tech commentators, the tech media and Apple themselves. Apple do not cater to the enthusiast yet they are being marketed to. You also have a large number who are getting Mac laptops, but when it comes to complimenting it with, or replacing an old, desktop the choice is poor.

[Lesser Evets]

If this is true, it's cool. Not that cool though.

The speed of a 2006 MacPro is still quite good. Usually in 3 or 4 years Mac would jump enough to make the older models close to ancient crud, but advances these days aren't bringing about any must-have innovation. (Unless you are a hard core gamer or maybe CGI employee)

Unless Apple/industry make function that requires such engineering and speed, the newer computers are just quaint upgrades side from a sliver of professionals who need them.

If the tablet rumors are true, Apple has finally realized there is a huge space in the market for low end computing--99% of computing going on in the world. Our needs are now far more modest than the high end processors allow.

[cumanzor]

is he talking HT cores?

No, he means two physical 6-core CPUs, for a total of 12 physical cores, and 24 threads if Hyper Threading is in use.

[zorinlynx]

Meanwhile, the laptops and desktops are languishing with last generation tech.

Who really cares about the Mac Pro? (Disclaimer: I own a 2006 Mac Pro). The market of this machine is incredibly small; I think it would benefit Apple a lot more if they had early access to Core i7 and such so they can make their iMacs and laptops the FASTEST machines around before anyone else.

[eastcoastsurfer]

It would be interesting to poll all the contributors on this thread:

Do you *personally* buy the Mac Pro line...or does your company pay for it?

I think the Mac Pros have great specs (compared to what Apple also offers), but I find it hard to believe individual people (not companies) go out and dump $3000+ on a personal computer. Again, I'm not talking about if you own a home business or if you work at a company...what does Johnny use his Pro for at home?...why does Johnny feel he needs a Pro? It's not web surfing or iTunes or dvd burning or email or iPhoto... The only thing I can think of that comes close to NEEDING Mac Pro power is audio/video authoring/creating/rendering/mastering.

So how 'bout it? How many of you on this thread actually buy a new Pro every few years (or more often) for personal use...and why?

-Eric

I would never buy a MP. They are nice, but expensive niche machines. Most tasks don't require anything near that kind of power. Even people who think they need that power can often get away with less. The problem is that technology moves so quickly that it's often most price/performance efficient to buy a new $1k computer each year than it is to ever spend $3k on a single computer.

[TraceyS/FL]

Well i want one.... i imagine it would be powerful enough for me for a LONNNNGGGGGG time!

My Dad has a Feb 07 entry MP and it rocks, so i can't imagine more, but would like to try to use as much as i can of one :D

And while the case is old, it's still nice and clean and doesn't LOOK like it is that old. But heck, by the time i could ever afford on.... i'm sure there will multiple cases they have used. :p

[nick9191]

Don't change the case. Everyone wanted them to update the MBP case, they did, and what a cockup that turned out to be. If it aint broken don't fix it.

The current case is 6 years old, and I hope it looks the same in another 6 years.

[Rocketman]

We just got a consumer priced HD camera for around $279. It saves H.264, Integer (little endian) files to .MOV at 1280x720 and a minute is about 172 MB. That's consumer level HD content in your hand. People are going to want to edit these into movie compositions. That needs I/O and processing, and reasonable software. I believe iMovie is fine for this and of course FCP will do it easily. If this is the "new consumer" standard and need, which was the pro level only a year or two ago, wait a week. Consumers will have 4K video at 60fps on their belt buckle and will want to save their entire life experience or something. Light Peak 1.0 is fine for your portable capture device. Light Peak 2.0 will be needed for pro and group activities sooner than you think.

Rocketman

Saved the first movie over USB 1.1 just to see. Looking forward to USB3 RSN. :)

[killmoms]

I have ignored all previous 7 pages of this thread to say: I don't care about the CPU in the Mac Pro, just get me a damn graphics card option that lets me hook up two mini DisplayPort screens without needing two graphics cards. This rumored machine had better come with that forthcoming Radeon 5870 that has 6 mini DisplayPort plugs on it.

[Umbongo]

I have ignored all previous 7 pages of this thread to say: I don't care about the CPU in the Mac Pro, just get me a damn graphics card option that lets me hook up two mini DisplayPort screens without needing two graphics cards. This rumored machine had better come with that forthcoming Radeon 5870 that has 6 mini DisplayPort plugs on it.

They still need dual-link DVI until they get a working adapter to power 30" displays flawlessly from mini DP.

[rhb]

If you haven’t got a Mac Pro then fair enough. If you have already, look at buying hardware accelerators.

I don't yet -- have been waiting for the next gen of Mac Pro. My issue is this; 6 or 8 cores (or 12, or whatever) is fantastic, but... the 4Gb RAM limit (per app) is driving me nuts on my work machine. And a lot of other people as well, if these boards are any indication. We really need the app devs (including Apple) to step up to 64 bit, or these amazing RAM capacities (128Gb!!) will be largely wasted on us. I don't need to run 48 simultaneous apps; I need to take full advantage of physical memory (with one app) to do my work. So the question becomes, invest in more cores w/out more app RAM space, or keep waiting... ? :confused:

[zorinlynx]

They still need dual-link DVI until they get a working adapter to power 30" displays flawlessly from mini DP.

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB571Z/A

Sadly it's expensive at $99, but it does exist.

[zorinlynx]

It would be interesting to poll all the contributors on this thread:

Do you *personally* buy the Mac Pro line...or does your company pay for it?

I think the Mac Pros have great specs (compared to what Apple also offers), but I find it hard to believe individual people (not companies) go out and dump $3000+ on a personal computer. Again, I'm not talking about if you own a home business or if you work at a company...what does Johnny use his Pro for at home?...why does Johnny feel he needs a Pro? It's not web surfing or iTunes or dvd burning or email or iPhoto... The only thing I can think of that comes close to NEEDING Mac Pro power is audio/video authoring/creating/rendering/mastering.

So how 'bout it? How many of you on this thread actually buy a new Pro every few years (or more often) for personal use...and why?

-Eric

I bought one in 2006 in a fit of "I'm tired of having crappy computers!" rage.

I must say it was a great decision because it still feels fast as hell today and likely has a few more years of life in it before it needs upgrading.

However, I'd likely not repeat that choice. I was doing well fiscally back then, not so much anymore, and the MP is just way too expensive.

[Umbongo]

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB571Z/A

Sadly it's expensive at $99, but it does exist.

Read the reviews. The focus of my point was "flawlessly". My bad on not making that more obvious.

[powers74]

I suggest that everyone here who thinks that their machines aren't being used to their fullest immediately sell them and get cheaper machines more tailored to their needs.
Complaining that further upgrades are unnecessary because you can't utilize 8 CPUs with your porn-surfing and iMovie isn't really called for. And yes, I*am being a little facetious.


I think the point people are trying to make is O-GL & GCD aren't utilized by software vendors yet, so what's the point of even more cores. I know I'm in that situation as I do a decent amount of 3D and am curious to see how it will improve both building & rendering speeds. But it is nice to be able to have eight p0rnoze open at the same time.

[Rocketman]

I bought one in 2006 in a fit of "I'm tired of having crappy computers!" rage.

I must say it was a great decision because it still feels fast as hell today and likely has a few more years of life in it before it needs upgrading.

However, I'd likely not repeat that choice. I was doing well fiscally back then, not so much anymore, and the MP is just way too expensive.

It sounds to me like as compared to your typical computer upgrade cycle, you are getting far more life out of one computer than you used to get out of two or more. That sounds capital smart to me, and the lack of a sense of "slowing down" seems to be a visceral benefit that actually outweighs the price discussion entirely.

Right?

Rocketman

[PeterQVenkman]

What's the point? Nothing uses the 8 cores that my Mac has now. Seems like all you get is bragging rites.

I would use every drop of the power in 3d rendering.

If they had a dual 6 core machine (12 cores total) and it had hyper threading, I would see 24 little boxes rendering out my image in Cinema 4d.

I'll take that any day.


Of course, while I'm dreaming, I'll also take the $5 billion dollars this computer will cost to buy. :eek:

[PeterQVenkman]

I think the point people are trying to make is O-GL & GCD aren't utilized by software vendors yet, so what's the point of even more cores. I know I'm in that situation as I do a decent amount of 3D and am curious to see how it will improve both building & rendering speeds. But it is nice to be able to have eight p0rnoze open at the same time.

If your 3d program is programmed well, you'll see large benefits in rendering. That's the most obvious difference to us users.

Other tasks are starting to be multi-threaded. Maya, for example, now has a multithreaded fluids solver. More cores = less waiting for such an intensive (and cool looking) process.

[haravikk]

My question would be: How would a 2 x 3.2ghz Quad-Core Xeons, 10gb DDR2 800mhz ECC RAM, 4 x 750gb hard-drives (striped), NVidia GeForce 8800GT (512mb) not be enough for a long time to come?
I do a lot of programming on big projects (can take hours to compile from scratch), as well as 3d rendering. Granted, the bulk of my time is wasted on web-browsing, e-mail, and fooling around, but when I /do/ push my computer shaving off a few hours can be a pretty big selling point for me.

I'll be interested to see what graphics cards these new machines will be shipping with. I really do hope Apple finally gets off their ass and starts pushing for a lot more options in that regard, and tries to stay closer to the bleeding-edge. I know that's not the point of MacPros, but with OpenCL now GPUs are gonna be increasingly important, and I do use my machine for gaming from time-to-time (though I have a console for bulk of my video gaming).

[guzhogi]

Don't change the case. Everyone wanted them to update the MBP case, they did, and what a cockup that turned out to be. If it aint broken don't fix it.

The current case is 6 years old, and I hope it looks the same in another 6 years.

Unfortunately, a lot of people in these forums get bored really easily and seem (that's SEEM) to only care about how things look & not under the hood stuff. If it doesn't look entirely different w/ every new release, what's the point?

But for those of us who actually care about the guts & substance of an update, kudos!

[Eidorian]

AMD Phenom can do it, I know that much.The original Phenom could but the feature was removed from Phenom II. It's either all idle, half, or full speed now much like Core 2.

Threads would hop around from a full speed core to an idle one and the processor wouldn't ramp up core speeds quickly enough.

Nehalem/Westmere seems to handle the throttling and idle just fine. Windows 7 also features Core Parking so threads will stick to a certain core when its at full speed instead of the chance of bouncing to an idle one.

[mags631]

and i personally could build an equivalent powered computer for $300.. big woop we all know that they rip us off.

I don't think so... and I'd love to build a Mini for $300.

[ericinboston]

It sounds to me like as compared to your typical computer upgrade cycle, you are getting far more life out of one computer than you used to get out of two or more. That sounds capital smart to me, and the lack of a sense of "slowing down" seems to be a visceral benefit that actually outweighs the price discussion entirely.

Right?

Rocketman

Well, in his defense...we don't know exactly what he paid for the Pro (maybe he got upgrades/options on it) nor do we know what he had for computers in the past (and were they Macs or pcs and what were the specs?) nor do we know what he was using the old computers for as well as the Pro (diehard video editing or simply websurfing)...nor do we know a lot of other questions.

Me? I have a Mini that I bought new in August 2007 right after the refresh...I rarely use it but it runs ok performance wise...the same performance as 2+ years ago for things like web surfing and iPhoto. But I've ALWAYS had a tendency to buy new Windows PCs every 3-5 years. Not because they suck or break or are slow, but it is VERY affordable to buy a new $550 box (no monitor needed for me) every 3-5 years that come with options/performance that outweighs me taking the time/money/effort of simply upgrading my old box...AND... I am also not the average PC user...most PC users I know hold onto their boxes for 5-8 years...yes, that is not a typo. I'm more of a technologist who is always looking for the performance gains and technology improvements (like eSata, faster buses, faster ram speeds, etc.) rather than most personal computers (mac and pc alike) who just want the box to work as long as possible without spending any more money....I do a lot of audio work (and some video) as well which always benefits from faster technology as the years go by.

Contrary to belief, people buy new/replacement machines (mac and pc) all the time for dozens of reasons...and I would bet that one of the top reasons (albeit they wait longer than me) is they feel the old machine is just...well...old...buying a new one is going to be cutting edge, come with a warranty, have a new OS that has new features, etc. etc. They then take the old computer and give it to the kids or make it a 2nd computer (a lot more these days thanks to LCD monitors making everything nice and small). I'm actually in the process of helping a co-worker buy a new Windows box after his 7-year old one finally died (actually just the drive but he wants something entirely new and obviously much more recent technology). My last 3 Windows pcs were purchased for $600 each without a monitor which totals $1800...all total, the 3 pcs gave me just over 10 years of use. All 3 were of course not bleeding edge but the most recent included: Intel Quad chip, 3gig ram, 500GB SATA drive, 1 dvd/cd drive, ATI video card, 6 USB ports, 1 Firewire. For $600 and my usage, that's a great performance/price ratio. So 10 years ago, I don't think it would have been wise for me to plunk down $2500+ for a super high end PC because a)technology would have changed significantly in 10 years on many fronts and b)I would have spent about $700 more for the super duper computer.

Again, everyone uses a machine differently...and thus thinks differently about how often to replace. People also have budgets. :)

-Eric

[KaneBaker]

When you have a Mac Pro, the last thing you care about is the case (even tho I personally like it)

This review finds the case rather significant.
I love the case for it's quality and usability.
Still wish for a smaller version for peeps that don't need to max it out.

http://depixelator.com/2009/03/16/macpro-case-55/

[gunraidan]

LMAO you do realize that 2002 was almost EIGHT years ago, yes? You see there's this thing called "inflation". Ah, nevermind, you're probably too young to understand.

Nice to see that you've done your homework. (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)

It would be worth a little over $2,000 today.

[Bartman01]

It would be interesting to poll all the contributors on this thread:

Do you *personally* buy the Mac Pro line...or does your company pay for it?

I think the Mac Pros have great specs (compared to what Apple also offers), but I find it hard to believe individual people (not companies) go out and dump $3000+ on a personal computer. Again, I'm not talking about if you own a home business or if you work at a company...what does Johnny use his Pro for at home?...why does Johnny feel he needs a Pro? It's not web surfing or iTunes or dvd burning or email or iPhoto... The only thing I can think of that comes close to NEEDING Mac Pro power is audio/video authoring/creating/rendering/mastering.

So how 'bout it? How many of you on this thread actually buy a new Pro every few years (or more often) for personal use...and why?

-Eric

Need loads of memory (more than 4-8GB)?
Need multiple internal hard drives?
Need the ability to run multiple external monitors (like say 2-3 LCD's + a TV).
Need to add a normal PCI expansion card?

If you need any of the above and you want to run OSX (without dealing with Hackintosh issues), then the only option is a Mac Pro.

[TheBritishBloke]

What would you do with 128 gb of ram?

Run about 5 VM's constantly with 18GB of ram on each :D

[iBeard]

A low end 6-core, high end 12-core Mac Pro line would be sweet!

[Concorde Rules]

It would be interesting to poll all the contributors on this thread:

Do you *personally* buy the Mac Pro line...or does your company pay for it?

I think the Mac Pros have great specs (compared to what Apple also offers), but I find it hard to believe individual people (not companies) go out and dump $3000+ on a personal computer. Again, I'm not talking about if you own a home business or if you work at a company...what does Johnny use his Pro for at home?...why does Johnny feel he needs a Pro? It's not web surfing or iTunes or dvd burning or email or iPhoto... The only thing I can think of that comes close to NEEDING Mac Pro power is audio/video authoring/creating/rendering/mastering.

So how 'bout it? How many of you on this thread actually buy a new Pro every few years (or more often) for personal use...and why?

-Eric


MP in sig for Lightroom (which maxes the cores), CAD and sometimes video work.


300Gb Veloci soon to be a 256Gb SSD for boot, apps and windows with 3Tb storage.

Only change I'd like is more internal HDs and drop the price 10%.

[sarahbau]

Need loads of memory (more than 4-8GB)?
Need multiple internal hard drives?
Need the ability to run multiple external monitors (like say 2-3 LCD's + a TV).
Need to add a normal PCI expansion card?

If you need any of the above and you want to run OSX (without dealing with Hackintosh issues), then the only option is a Mac Pro.

That's exactly what made my get my Mac Pro (Early 2008 quad 2.8). I had a dual 450 G4 before, and had been waiting for a long time for that elusive ~$1500 midrange option (which was always there until the Mac Pro) to appear. People seem to think that hoping for a sub $2000 Mac Pro is ridiculous, but even the G5 had a $1500 option (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g5/stats/powermac_g5_1.8_2.html) once the G4 line was completely withdrawn. I needed the expandability of a Mac Pro, but I didn't need Xeons. I mostly just wanted a headless Mac that had room for multiple drives and could use multiple monitors.

I had a PC that I used for WoW since it wasn't so hot on the G4. I turned that into a hackintosh and used that for over a year as I waited for the midrange option that I was sure was right around the corner. Finally I couldn't wait any more. I was tired of not having a real Mac that I could use without hacked drivers, having to worry about updates breaking everything, etc.

I still think it's ridiculous that Apple doesn't offer a midrange headless option. There is nearly a $2000 gap between the mini and the low end Mac Pro, with the mini being too limited in expansion and the Mac Pro being overkill for most people. The iMac might be fine for a lot of people, but it's extremely limited in expansion. Some people say Apple doesn't do it because it would eat into the iMac's sales, but I think the real reason is because Apple didn't want to have an affordable computer that could go as long as the G4s due to expandability (I used my dual 450 for about 7 years). They'd rather have people buying new machines more often.

[eastcoastsurfer]

Well, in his defense...we don't know exactly what he paid for the Pro (maybe he got upgrades/options on it) nor do we know what he had for computers in the past (and were they Macs or pcs and what were the specs?) nor do we know what he was using the old computers for as well as the Pro (diehard video editing or simply websurfing)...nor do we know a lot of other questions.

Me? I have a Mini that I bought new in August 2007 right after the refresh...I rarely use it but it runs ok performance wise...the same performance as 2+ years ago for things like web surfing and iPhoto. But I've ALWAYS had a tendency to buy new Windows PCs every 3-5 years. Not because they suck or break or are slow, but it is VERY affordable to buy a new $550 box (no monitor needed for me) every 3-5 years that come with options/performance that outweighs me taking the time/money/effort of simply upgrading my old box...AND... I am also not the average PC user...most PC users I know hold onto their boxes for 5-8 years...yes, that is not a typo. I'm more of a technologist who is always looking for the performance gains and technology improvements (like eSata, faster buses, faster ram speeds, etc.) rather than most personal computers (mac and pc alike) who just want the box to work as long as possible without spending any more money....I do a lot of audio work (and some video) as well which always benefits from faster technology as the years go by.

Contrary to belief, people buy new/replacement machines (mac and pc) all the time for dozens of reasons...and I would bet that one of the top reasons (albeit they wait longer than me) is they feel the old machine is just...well...old...buying a new one is going to be cutting edge, come with a warranty, have a new OS that has new features, etc. etc. They then take the old computer and give it to the kids or make it a 2nd computer (a lot more these days thanks to LCD monitors making everything nice and small). I'm actually in the process of helping a co-worker buy a new Windows box after his 7-year old one finally died (actually just the drive but he wants something entirely new and obviously much more recent technology). My last 3 Windows pcs were purchased for $600 each without a monitor which totals $1800...all total, the 3 pcs gave me just over 10 years of use. All 3 were of course not bleeding edge but the most recent included: Intel Quad chip, 3gig ram, 500GB SATA drive, 1 dvd/cd drive, ATI video card, 6 USB ports, 1 Firewire. For $600 and my usage, that's a great performance/price ratio. So 10 years ago, I don't think it would have been wise for me to plunk down $2500+ for a super high end PC because a)technology would have changed significantly in 10 years on many fronts and b)I would have spent about $700 more for the super duper computer.

Again, everyone uses a machine differently...and thus thinks differently about how often to replace. People also have budgets. :)

-Eric

Most people have made this connection because it works for very many people. IIRC, a long time ago John Carmack (iD fame) was asked what workstations they used at iD. He said they didn't use workstations. It just made more sense to buy a new computer every year than to spend that much up front. You simply ended up with more features and better average performance over the time period by buying a new $600-$1000 computer every year or two. If you need the power of a MP right now, then by all means buy it, but don't think you're future proofing yourself by spending $3k on a machine.

[MacFly123]

This time Apple...update the freakin' case.

A new design would be nice this time. I was expecting one last time. I have been waiting for this update for a while now. I also want a 30"+ LED Cinema Display update. I will be buying a new decked out Mac Pro with Dual LED Cinema Displays, and I want bigger than the 24 inchers.

Also, LIGHT PEAK!!! PLEASE APPLE!!! :D

Another MAJOR plus would be FCS with Cocoa, 64 bit, UI updates, and Open CL support. WOW, I would be so satisfied if I could have these things! :)

Oh, and update Apple TV and everything to support iTunes Extras and open it up to us normal people already! :cool:

[MorphingDragon]

The original Phenom could but the feature was removed from Phenom II. It's either all idle, half, or full speed now much like Core 2.

Threads would hop around from a full speed core to an idle one and the processor wouldn't ramp up core speeds quickly enough.

Nehalem/Westmere seems to handle the throttling and idle just fine. Windows 7 also features Core Parking so threads will stick to a certain core when its at full speed instead of the chance of bouncing to an idle one.

Ah, good ol' thread juggling.

If I had to say Conventional Computing fails anywhere in particular it has to be the nature of threads.

[Anonymous Freak]

Now I ask this simple question. Will they offer this in dual processor or also in quad processor? 24 cores.

Gulftown is scheduled to be used on Socket 1366; which is high-end single-socket and dual-socket only. Quad-socket is going to be a different socket; but quad-socket is also getting an eight core processor, "Beckton" so four sockets will be 32 cores, 64 threads.

is he talking HT cores?

No. The current 'Nehalem' chips have four physical cores each, eight total threads via HyperThreading. Gulftown is 6/12. So the dual-socket systems now have eight physical cores, 16 virtual; and Gulftown dual-socket systems will have 12 physical cores, 24 virtual.

I wonder if these 6 core processors are backwards compatible, for some (way off in the future) upgrade?

Supposedly, Gulftown is 100% backward compatible with X58/5520 chipsets used by Bloomfield/Gainestown now. So yes, you should be able to throw a Gulftown in a board made for Socket 1366 i7 now; or two of them into a Xeon 5500-series board, such as the Mac Pro. (Just like with the original Mac Pro, which could take "Clovertown" quad-core processors, even though it only launched with dual-core "Woodcrest".)

If this becomes true, including the RAM it will be my next purchase. I'm hoping the SLI option is in there for x16 on 2 GPU cards and thus have one beast for OpenCL coding.

While I don't know about the Mac Pro, or even OS X; on the Windows side, you can use nVidia's "CUDA" (OpenCL-like programming interface,) with multiple video cards even on a motherboard that doesn't support SLI. The "GPGPU" programming doesn't care if the card can be used for graphics, it only cares if the GPU is physically present. I would hope that OS X is similarly agnostic. It would just see that you have multiple GPUs, and use them.

P.S. Sorry if others already answered these, I didn't read the whole thread.

[PeterQVenkman]

The only thing I can think of that comes close to NEEDING Mac Pro power is audio/video authoring/creating/rendering/mastering.

So how 'bout it? How many of you on this thread actually buy a new Pro every few years (or more often) for personal use...and why?

-Eric

My company buys me a pro/tower for office use whenever we upgrade. I want to buy another one to replace my old busted G5 for the work I do at home.

I do all the things you describe above plus 3d. The Mac Pro Xeon I use at work is literally 4 times faster at rendering than my MacBook Pro at home, plus it has 4 times as much ram!

Of course, my MacBook Pro is twice as fast as the G5 I had, so things are getting faster overall. :)

[AidenShaw]

Need to add a normal PCI expansion card?

Nope, can't do - it has no PCI slots.

[Terminal.app]

Gulftown will make Safari much snappier.

[DoFoT9]

Someone with access to the Google server farms wrote a paper about that, and the number of errors they found are quite significant. More like thousands, not one every thousand years. Have a look at the last few weeks on slashdot.

BTW from Wikipedia: "Cosmic rays constitute a fraction of the annual radiation exposure of human beings on earth. For example, the average radiation exposure in Australia is 0.3 mSv due to cosmic rays, out of a total of 2.3 mSv." That's about 0.01% of the lethal dose that hits you every year, not "one hitting earth every thousand years" (3000 mSv = "50% die within 30 days").
thats all good and all. but the odds of a bit flip actually happening are not very high at all, and thats what i was referring to. sure we are getting radiation and stuff but naah bit flips arent going to occur from it.

btw, in that slashdot article a few people agree with my POV over the likeness of bit-flips actually occurring. :)

Well that is pricing in a small market. US, UK and European prices have the addition of ECC as a small percentage of the overall cost on such systems (not just hardware). It may be expensive for an individual over non ECC, but you have that choice. The Mac Pro doesn't require ECC for example.
i wouldnt call australia a small market. we have server farms here too you know :p

but yea i agree the MP doesnt really need ECC RAM, not that it would drop the prices that much (it is apple remember lol)

The idea that the only area where easily preventing random errors is miltary use in the world we live in today seems very narrowminded to me. Google and the Univeristy of Toronto did a study that found 8% of Google's DIMMs suffered from memory errors over the two years of study looking at most of Google's systems. There are plenty of other published studies by companies on the error rates of their systems. The don't have a vested interest in promoting something that costs them money yet offers no benefit.
8%? pretty significant. can you back it up? can i read the article? what percent was from computational errors? what percent was from failing sticks? i would also like to see what percent was from cosmic rays :rolleyes:

Without ECC you cannot easily detect, correct or prevent further memory errors, be they soft or hard errors.
i have never been that familiar with how it actually works. i would love to learn. soft errors being made from bad code? hard errors being external sources/failing hardware?

No, he means two physical 6-core CPUs, for a total of 12 physical cores, and 24 threads if Hyper Threading is in use.
yes that is what i meant. 24 cores under HT.

I don't think so... and I'd love to build a Mini for $300.
i meant an equivalent mini-like computer in terms of power. $300 would cover that.

No. The current 'Nehalem' chips have four physical cores each, eight total threads via HyperThreading. Gulftown is 6/12. So the dual-socket systems now have eight physical cores, 16 virtual; and Gulftown dual-socket systems will have 12 physical cores, 24 virtual.
tahts what i was referring to, 24 threads (which are all thanks to HT).

i would rather not have HT turned on.


While I don't know about the Mac Pro, or even OS X; on the Windows side, you can use nVidia's "CUDA" (OpenCL-like programming interface,) with multiple video cards even on a motherboard that doesn't support SLI. The "GPGPU" programming doesn't care if the card can be used for graphics, it only cares if the GPU is physically present. I would hope that OS X is similarly agnostic. It would just see that you have multiple GPUs, and use them.

P.S. Sorry if others already answered these, I didn't read the whole thread.

AFAIK that is the same view from OSX, if the GPU is there and is supported by OpenCL then it will be used. i have yet to see benchmarks of video conversions/system benchmarks etc comparing leopard to SL but i imagine it would be a very nice increase.

[blackhand1001]

LMAO you do realize that 2002 was almost EIGHT years ago, yes? You see there's this thing called "inflation". Ah, nevermind, you're probably too young to understand.

That would make since except that computer prices have year after year decreased and have been pretty much immune to the effects of inflation.

[AidenShaw]

thats all good and all. but the odds of a bit flip actually happening are not very high at all, and thats what i was referring to. sure we are getting radiation and stuff but naah bit flips arent going to occur from it.

It depends if you like your files/data or not.

I have two racks of dual-quad Xeon 5500 ProLiant systems - 8 3.0GHz cores, 16 GiB per system.

With about 50 systems running, I get a random bit-flip about once per week. The HP error logging is superb - the front panel of the machine has an orange LED that lights for each of the DIMMs that has had a correctable error. (I track the logs to distinguish between the random error and a bad DIMM. If one DIMM gets several errors in a week, it's replacement time.)

Are you comfortable with the "odds" being that your system will corrupt data or files once per year? Not "might"... "Will"!

I'm not.

[DoFoT9]

It depends if you like your files/data or not.

I have two racks of dual-quad Xeon 5500 ProLiant systems - 8 3.0GHz cores, 16 GiB per system.
impressive ;) i am extremely jealous. what do the servers do?

With about 50 systems running, I get a random bit-flip about once per week. The HP error logging is superb - the front panel of the machine has an orange LED that lights for each of the DIMMs that has had a correctable error. (I track the logs to distinguish between the random error and a bad DIMM. If one DIMM gets several errors in a week, it's replacement time.)

Are you comfortable with the "odds" being that your system will corrupt data or files once per year? Not "might"... "Will"!

I'm not.

how many errors of those are caused by cosmic radiation?

the modules that repeatedly get errors are clearly dying, so that rules out the radiation. the point im trying to make is that the cosmic radiation will not effect your systems. and if it does happen then your unlucky.

i understand that there will be hard errors, im not denying that at all! id be an idiot if i said they dont exist. :rolleyes:

[Rocketman]

impressive ;) i am extremely jealous. what do the servers do?
Collect dust.

[DoFoT9]

Collect dust.

well thats a given haha.

i was hoping for a more specific answer, video converting? mathematical calculations? etcetc

[AidenShaw]

impressive ;) i am extremely jealous. what do the servers do?

Mostly VM simulations of "cloud computing" apps.


how many errors of those are caused by cosmic radiation?

I don't know (or care). With a few hundred DIMMs, I expect a low rate of random single bit errors. As long as I have ECC memory, these errors are only noise entries in my error logs.


the modules that repeatedly get errors are clearly dying, so that rules out the radiation. the point im trying to make is that the cosmic radiation will not effect your systems. and if it does happen then your unlucky.

No, the point is that *any* error, for any reason, that corrupts the database destroys months of work. Even worse - you may not know that months of work have been destroyed if you don't have ECC.

When the PowerMac "super computer" was built at Virginia Tech, there was a big gloat on the Mac web. Unfortunately (for the people at VT), it was unusable at first because the first generation XServes did not have ECC memory. Running more than a thousand servers without ECC was not viable.

That facility was not usable until the second generation XServes with ECC memory came out.

[MorphingDragon]

Gulftown is scheduled to be used on Socket 1366; which is high-end single-socket and dual-socket only. Quad-socket is going to be a different socket; but quad-socket is also getting an eight core processor, "Beckton" so four sockets will be 32 cores, 64 threads.



No. The current 'Nehalem' chips have four physical cores each, eight total threads via HyperThreading. Gulftown is 6/12. So the dual-socket systems now have eight physical cores, 16 virtual; and Gulftown dual-socket systems will have 12 physical cores, 24 virtual.



Supposedly, Gulftown is 100% backward compatible with X58/5520 chipsets used by Bloomfield/Gainestown now. So yes, you should be able to throw a Gulftown in a board made for Socket 1366 i7 now; or two of them into a Xeon 5500-series board, such as the Mac Pro. (Just like with the original Mac Pro, which could take "Clovertown" quad-core processors, even though it only launched with dual-core "Woodcrest".)



While I don't know about the Mac Pro, or even OS X; on the Windows side, you can use nVidia's "CUDA" (OpenCL-like programming interface,) with multiple video cards even on a motherboard that doesn't support SLI. The "GPGPU" programming doesn't care if the card can be used for graphics, it only cares if the GPU is physically present. I would hope that OS X is similarly agnostic. It would just see that you have multiple GPUs, and use them.

P.S. Sorry if others already answered these, I didn't read the whole thread.

I still think Shanghai holds up pretty well considering they have standard threading. I still think its funny, Intel ditched HyperThreading and NetBurst in a hurry. Now they bring it back as the next big thing since sliced bread.

[harlinator]

I have been dreaming about a Hackintosh; they have pushed me over the edge. I will be just fine spending $1200 for a Hack Pro with an i7 920 o/c'd to 3.6Ghz, 12 gigs of RAM, and a GeForce 260. This rig will beat the $3500 8-cores in most tasks, and be almost as fast in multicore rendering tasks, since it'll be running at such a high clock speed.

I recommend the rest of you look into a similar solution until Mac Pro prices come down by at least 33%, and/or they stop forcing us to buy server processors we really don't need.
I'd recommend NOT listening to this guy because he KNOWS NOTHING about why people own Macs!
Running OS X on anything other than a Mac is illegal and when you have a problem (in which you will have very very many) you get NO support so what are you really saving? Plus, a Mac has a higher resale value than any PC out there so don't listen to this wrong information... it's misleading people away from the TRUE Mac experience! True elegance and user friendliness!
And you save what... $800.00? I don't know, but I make money with my Macs and to buy some hackinspoodge is just another way to go broke... because the machine is broke he he!
The new 6 core sounds really nice... and they are getting you ready for the new 64 bit applications (that PC's have been promising for how long now?) so get ready for the first computer to go fully 64 bit throughout!
And do it with elegance and intuitiveness!;);)

[DoFoT9]

Mostly VM simulations of "cloud computing" apps.
ahh awsome. that requires quite a bit of power no doubt.

I don't know (or care). With a few hundred DIMMs, I expect a low rate of random single bit errors. As long as I have ECC memory, these errors are only noise entries in my error logs.
backs up my point then. if you arent worried about cosmic radiation effecting your servers then it doesnt pose a threat, otherwise you would be educated about it and all that.


No, the point is that *any* error, for any reason, that corrupts the database destroys months of work. Even worse - you may not know that months of work have been destroyed if you don't have ECC.
that's your point, which i am well aware of :) memory errors can be disastrous i know that.

When the PowerMac "super computer" was built at Virginia Tech, there was a big gloat on the Mac web. Unfortunately (for the people at VT), it was unusable at first because the first generation XServes did not have ECC memory. Running more than a thousand servers without ECC was not viable.

That facility was not usable until the second generation XServes with ECC memory came out.

for servers that large it would be pretty important, but for MPs? hardly worth it.

[sarahbau]

backs up my point then. if you arent worried about cosmic radiation effecting your servers then it doesnt pose a threat, otherwise you would be educated about it and all that.

for servers that large it would be pretty important, but for MPs? hardly worth it.
I'm sorry, but you are starting to sound quite uneducated on this topic. Anyone who depends on the accuracy of their data would benefit from ECC, or more accurately, would risk losing time, money, and data by NOT using ECC memory. Just because you don't need it, it doesn't mean others don't. Just because someone doesn't know what percentage of errors are caused by cosmic rays, it doesn't mean they aren't educated about it. It doesn't really matter how many errors are caused by them. There are multiple causes of errors, and cosmic rays are probably the biggest source of them. From your posts I gather that you think cosmic rays are either imaginary, or not an issue.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_random_access_memory#Errors_and_error_correction):
Research has shown that the majority of one-off ("soft") errors in DRAM chips occur as a result of background radiation, chiefly neutrons from cosmic ray secondaries which may change the contents of one or more memory cells, or interfere with the circuitry used to read/write them.

Also from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays#Effect_on_electronics):
Cosmic rays have sufficient energy to alter the states of elements in electronic integrated circuits, causing transient errors to occur, such as corrupted data in memory, or incorrect behavior of a CPU. This has been a problem in high-altitude electronics, such as in satellites, but as transistors become smaller it is becoming an increasing concern in ground-level equipment as well. To alleviate this problem, Intel has proposed a cosmic ray detector which could be integrated into future high-density microprocessors, allowing the processor to repeat the last command following a cosmic ray event.

[PK21]

Wow!

If Apple made a quad 6 core beastie, giving 24 cores in total, wouldn't this be able to compete at some level with the Cray CX1? Not an expert in these matters, but would you expect comparable performance?

Just a thought....... an Apple Supercomputer!! Nice :)

[MacOSXV]

There's always been a little battle between hardware makers and software writers.

Sort of like "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours."

That was easy, now you go first ... no, you go first ... no, you go first ... no, you go first ...

My main apps are Adobe Photoshop, et al. Last time I checked, Photoshop still only utilizes 2 cores max. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. So, when they get around to changing that, will the limit be 4 cores?

And how much memory will it be capable of accessing?

Want to use more RAM than you're supposed to?

I've got a suggestion: if you have a G5, with lots of RAM (8GB+), but Photoshop can only use 2GB ... set up a 2GB RamDisk and select it as your first scratch disk.

http://www.mparrot.net/

Sure, there are occasional volatility issues, but usually after I let the machine sleep, Photoshop left open, wake it and PS won't save anything. Easy workaround: no sleepy, save often.

Have a nice day.

This was good for me ... was it good for you? (first post)

[DoFoT9]

I'm sorry, but you are starting to sound quite uneducated on this topic. Anyone who depends on the accuracy of their data would benefit from ECC, or more accurately, would risk losing time, money, and data by NOT using ECC memory.
i am uneducated in this topic as i have no idea of ECC RAM works and figures out the errors, ill admit to that (i.e. the detailed stuff). i but i most certainly not uneducated on the importance of needing 100% accurate data, data backups, data integrity and all of that. assuming i know nothing about this topic based on two/three of my replies is silly of you ;)

as i have said to other people, i am NOT talking about ECC as a whole! i am simply referring to the low probability of cosmic radiation doing a bit-flip on the memory modules (and you already know my position on this)

Just because you don't need it, it doesn't mean others don't.
i dont need it yet :rolleyes: why would i need ECC RAM in a laptop or desktop computer? thats just silly! i am, however, studying to become a network administrator - so you know, ECC is a pretty big thing.

Just because someone doesn't know what percentage of errors are caused by cosmic rays, it doesn't mean they aren't educated about it.
i never said that, my arguement was that if he wasnt aware of the percentage of errors then it didnt pose a threat to the integrity of the RAM.

It doesn't really matter how many errors are caused by them.
why not? as somebody who manages servers/data/EVERYTHING of a business the network administrator NEEDS to be educated in this issue and be aware of the problem, because maybe there can be a fix to it - or they can be made aware when a big radiation blast is going to occur and save data or whatnot.

There are multiple causes of errors, and cosmic rays are probably the biggest source of them.
probably? you base your opinion on uneducated results. please link me to a page where it shows cosmic radiation causes the most errors.

From your posts I gather that you think cosmic rays are either imaginary, or not an issue.
FINALLY! we are on the same page ;)

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_random_access_memory#Errors_and_error_correction):
DRAM chips?? i thought we were talking about ECC chips. still not that sure whether to trust it or not.


Also from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays#Effect_on_electronics):
nothing important lol. the cosmic ray detector seems pretty cool.


sorry to be so upfront. whilst i see where you are coming from, i am trying to show you my view.

[AidenShaw]

i dont need it yet :rolleyes: why would i need ECC RAM in a laptop or desktop computer? thats just silly!

It's not silly, at all.

ECC typically does two things:
If a read (usually for 64-bits of data) contains a single bit error, ECC will correct the error, return good data to the CPU, and flag the error for the error logs
If a read gets two or more bits in error, the ECC controller will raise a fatal hardware exception


What this means is that those cosmic ray hits are ignored, the single bit error is fixed.

However, if there's a real error (2 bits or more), it's BSOD or kernel panic time.

The BSOD on Windows basically says "Fatal memory error, address XXXX". Do a little checking to figure out which DIMM that is and replace the DIMM.

Without ECC, maybe the 2 bit error wasn't noticed, may some results are wrong, maybe some file (or even the whole filesystem) is corrupted, maybe the system justs acts weird, or maybe it crashes.

Look around at the number of times people ask about strange system problems, and the response is "have you tested your memory?".

With ECC, you don't have that worry. Either the memory is fine, or the system is constantly failing with the memory error BSOD.

Unfortunately, no laptops and few desktop chipsets support ECC memory - so there's not much to argue about.

If I were to build a new system today, I'd use the Xeon 3500 instead of the Core i7 so that I could use ECC memory.

So, in my mind, the more important reason for ECC is not to protect from cosmic rays - it's to never have to wonder if some problem is due to a failing DIMM.

[Umbongo]

DRAM chips?? i thought we were talking about ECC chips. still not that sure whether to trust it or not.

DRAM is the memory chip type used on current computer memory modules. ECC is a feature present on the modules.

There seems to be more attention being paid to the cosmic ray part than needs to be. I think I was the one who brought it up, but really I intended to just reference external, unpredictable outside forces that can cause errors in memory (ever present radiation). The memory manufacturers do all they can, but it isn't an exact science. Modern production techniques have reduced the effects of these external forces, but as memory sizes grow by large amounts the errors are still something to be concerned about. You just have no idea what bit in which DIMM in which system will get flipped. Because it is so random you need to use whatever methods you can to protect against it if it has the potential to cause issue. It's just insurance. It also reports and can correct hard errors.

The result is that Intel and AMD provide it as part of their platform. Intel don't require ECC memory on their single and dual socket workstation and server platforms anymore (as of 2009), but memory manufaturers don't really cater to those who don't want it. So 4GB non-ECC dimms are expensive, 8GB and 16GB don't exist and you can't get Registered memory ("needed" for high overall capacity) without ECC because there is no market for it. The cost is negliable for most companies and as an individual you have the choice so the issue is really just something that is accepted: You get ECC memory on most workstations and all servers.

[Bafflefish]

No SLI remember, the only people left in the Chipset market now is AMD and Intel. Best you could hope for is CrossfireX. (ATi HD 5XXX series is kicking some serious green ass) This is one of the Reasons I secretly hope that Apple changes to AMD. If Intel wants to believe it or not the Binary CPU is becoming irrelevant.
Actually, Apple/Intel could work on getting SLI on the Mac Pros. SLI isn't only available to nVidia-made chipsets. nVidia also licenses it out for other platforms (the X58 chipset for socket 1366 i7s and the P55 chipset for socket 1156 i5's/i7's both have SLI support due to nVidia licensing, and both are Intel-made chipsets). You would simply have to see Apple and Intel work on incorporating SLI support, and have Apple license it from nVidia.

And as the market is now, why would you want to see Apple change to AMD? While the top of the line Phenom X4s are competitive with the top Core 2 Quads, Intel's i7/Nehalem-based processors are generally quite a bit faster than anything AMD can provide, and that doesn't appear to be changing soon. If iMacs do get switched over to using Clarksfield-based i7s, you should see a pretty decent performance increase over the current Core 2s.

And yeah, the Radeon 5*** series is pretty awesome. Given the power management changes and such, here's hoping we can see at least the 5850 make it over to be an upgrade option on the next iMacs.

Edit - Woops, realized people answered this already :P (well, part of it)

[Bafflefish]

I still think Shanghai holds up pretty well considering they have standard threading. I still think its funny, Intel ditched HyperThreading and NetBurst in a hurry. Now they bring it back as the next big thing since sliced bread.

Well, Netburst had a *lot* of issues. Remember, it was a time when the main focus in advertising and selling new CPUs were how fast they could go. This is why, for awhile, you saw Motorola (now Freescale) trying to ramp up the speed of the PowerPC chips as quickly as they could, and why it was such a big issue when it took them so long to get to the 500 Mhz mark on the G4 (if I recall correctly).

Intel thus created the Netburst architecture because it was intended to scale to very high speeds (10+ Ghz). They envisioned it lasting them for several years. However, what resulted was that the P4s would get very hot, and within a couple of years they realized that Netburst's days were numbered. The P4's early problems were partly the result of RDRAM, and the high expense that resulted from it. Performance was also somewhat lack luster in the very early chips. However, Intel was more than happy to just chirp along by advertising how fast the P4s could go.

Hyperthreading kinda got dragged down for a couple of reasons, but primarily because it was released at a time when not a lot of applications were multi-threaded. As a result, due to the extra power consumption incurred, it was generally viewed as not being worth the benefit of having.

AMD released their highly-successful 64-bit processors. While there's no doubt that in reality moving to a 64-bit processor had relatively little impact in terms of performance, the fact it could be marketed as such was huge. It also didn't help that, due to no small part that AMD integrated a memory controller, the Athlon 64s easily outperformed the top-model P4s, and word of mouth quickly spread about how much Intel's P4s "sucked".

The reason Intel "ditched" Hyperthreading was that the Core series was derived from the Pentium-M, which itself was an enhanced Pentium III (and the Core 2 series was a much greater expansion upon the Core series). Hyperthreading was never a part of the Pentium III, and it didn't make much sense to put it into the Pentium-M (as it was designed for optimal performance and power consumption). The Core series, expanding upon the Pentium-M, thus didn't incorporate it.

Remember though, Nehalem has been in development for some time, and Hyperthreading is a part of it, so it should be fairly clear that Intel never really ditched it.

And now that many more apps are multi-threaded, you can now actually see a decent benefit from having it enabled, and it isn't the "minor occasional performance increase with larger power consumption hog" that it once was.

:)

Edit - When I said that moving to a 64-bit processor didn't result in much performance from being 64-bits, I should have clarified it as consumer-side. It did make a nice difference in the server and supercomputer markets.

[mdriftmeyer]

Actually, Apple/Intel could work on getting SLI on the Mac Pros. SLI isn't only available to nVidia-made chipsets. nVidia also licenses it out for other platforms (the X58 chipset for socket 1366 i7s and the P55 chipset for socket 1156 i5's/i7's both have SLI support due to nVidia licensing, and both are Intel-made chipsets). You would simply have to see Apple and Intel work on incorporating SLI support, and have Apple license it from nVidia.

And as the market is now, why would you want to see Apple change to AMD? While the top of the line Phenom X4s are competitive with the top Core 2 Quads, Intel's i7/Nehalem-based processors are generally quite a bit faster than anything AMD can provide, and that doesn't appear to be changing soon. If iMacs do get switched over to using Clarksfield-based i7s, you should see a pretty decent performance increase over the current Core 2s.

And yeah, the Radeon 5*** series is pretty awesome. Given the power management changes and such, here's hoping we can see at least the 5850 make it over to be an upgrade option on the next iMacs.

Edit - Woops, realized people answered this already :P (well, part of it)

SLI also has nothing to do with the legal situation with Intel about whether or not Nvidia will continue with SLI.

The chipset on the motherboard dealing with networking, the upper and lower bridge set is what deals with their lawsuit and Intel not extending a license to Nvidia to roll their own for 3rd party motherboards.

SLI is what Nvidia licenses to Intel.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1249876351744.html

[DoFoT9]

sorry for the late reply, been busy :p

It's not silly, at all.
for consumers i meant. sorry. but seriously. why would i or the other hundreds of thousands of people that use computers need them? more money for nothing really.

ECC typically does two things:
If a read (usually for 64-bits of data) contains a single bit error, ECC will correct the error, return good data to the CPU, and flag the error for the error logs
If a read gets two or more bits in error, the ECC controller will raise a fatal hardware exception


What this means is that those cosmic ray hits are ignored, the single bit error is fixed.

However, if there's a real error (2 bits or more), it's BSOD or kernel panic time.
can it not fix the error? CRC/hamming etc cannot fix these?


Look around at the number of times people ask about strange system problems, and the response is "have you tested your memory?".
that just seems a standard response, much like "run the OSX install disc hardware check".


Unfortunately, no laptops and few desktop chipsets support ECC memory - so there's not much to argue about.
and for good reason. there is no need for a casual user to have it. if you want the ECC compatibility (which are meant mainly for server implementations) then you have to pay the extra cash for that feature.

If I were to build a new system today, I'd use the Xeon 3500 instead of the Core i7 so that I could use ECC memory.
there is nothing stopping you from doing that at all, would you really need it but? i guess being in the networking/admin area you might need it.

So, in my mind, the more important reason for ECC is not to protect from cosmic rays - it's to never have to wonder if some problem is due to a failing DIMM.
which is where your head should rightfully be sitting IMO. as i have always been saying, there is no need to worry about something that hardly exists/doesnt pose a threat.

DRAM is the memory chip type used on current computer memory modules. ECC is a feature present on the modules.
what about FB-DIMM haha :p

There seems to be more attention being paid to the cosmic ray part than needs to be. I think I was the one who brought it up, but really I intended to just reference external, unpredictable outside forces that can cause errors in memory (ever present radiation). The memory manufacturers do all they can, but it isn't an exact science. Modern production techniques have reduced the effects of these external forces, but as memory sizes grow by large amounts the errors are still something to be concerned about. You just have no idea what bit in which DIMM in which system will get flipped. Because it is so random you need to use whatever methods you can to protect against it if it has the potential to cause issue. It's just insurance. It also reports and can correct hard errors.
it would be very hard to track where the bits are flipped (would also be slow too). some sort of table could be kept on a HDD but that would be SO slow checking all the time (just a random idea).

[xbjllb]

That's great, Apple. Why no BluRay?

Previously, it was because Apple took great pride in being so far ahead of the curve, it was so far behind the curve for today's pro content creators as to be almost useless.

However, the market demands it and Blu-ray is almost here on Apple, after having been dragged to the absolute brink, kicking and screaming, by pro content creators, not a small base of highest-end Apple users.

Apple, Inc. is many things; suicidal is not one of them (anymore.) However, to cover up their lagging in the market, Blu-ray won't be leaked any more than it has been, so they can make a big deal out of it. Like every other cutting-edge technology they're eventually forced to implement against their will.

:apple:

[MorphingDragon]

Actually, Apple/Intel could work on getting SLI on the Mac Pros. SLI isn't only available to nVidia-made chipsets. nVidia also licenses it out for other platforms (the X58 chipset for socket 1366 i7s and the P55 chipset for socket 1156 i5's/i7's both have SLI support due to nVidia licensing, and both are Intel-made chipsets). You would simply have to see Apple and Intel work on incorporating SLI support, and have Apple license it from nVidia.

And this little pout is going to bring an end to that. nVidia can just not renew their license when the time comes. Plus Custom Chips might not be a part of the license. (Cuz apple sure as hell dont run off the mill Chipsets)

And as the market is now, why would you want to see Apple change to AMD? While the top of the line Phenom X4s are competitive with the top Core 2 Quads, Intel's i7/Nehalem-based processors are generally quite a bit faster than anything AMD can provide, and that doesn't appear to be changing soon. If iMacs do get switched over to using Clarksfield-based i7s, you should see a pretty decent performance increase over the current Core 2s.

A, Vantage scores means jack ****. Synthetic results are no where near a clear indication for real life performance.

B, Apple? Change over from Core2Duo? Are you on crack?.. (Oh Wait :D)

And yeah, the Radeon 5*** series is pretty awesome. Given the power management changes and such, here's hoping we can see at least the 5850 make it over to be an upgrade option on the next iMacs.

Edit - Woops, realized people answered this already :P (well, part of it)

Even if the G300 series are "better", the performance better justify the price tag that we know were getting.

[diamond.g]

what about FB-DIMM haha :p

Is there ECC RAM that isn't buffered?

[Umbongo]

Is there ECC RAM that isn't buffered?

Yes, Apple only support unbuffered ECC on the 2009 Mac Pros.

[Dr.Pants]

I think the people who conceived the FB-DIMM for DDR2 decided against making one for DDR3...

[Umbongo]

I think the people who conceived the FB-DIMM for DDR2 decided against making one for DDR3...

It is unclear at this point whether the Xeon 7500 series (Beckton / Nehalem-EX / Xeon MP) will be using DDR3 FB-DIMMs or not.

[diamond.g]

Yes, Apple only support unbuffered ECC on the 2009 Mac Pros.
Right, that is due to Intel making FB-DIMM needed (potentially) in the MP configurations only.

[AidenShaw]

Right, that is due to Intel making FB-DIMM needed (potentially) in the MP configurations only.

A memory system designed for them can support more FB-DIMMs than other types of RAM - which is why they show up in servers. (The buffering makes them more stable when many DIMM slots are on a single controller.)

[theLastBeatle]

It's not silly, at all.

ECC typically does two things:
If a read (usually for 64-bits of data) contains a single bit error, ECC will correct the error, return good data to the CPU, and flag the error for the error logs
If a read gets two or more bits in error, the ECC controller will raise a fatal hardware exception


What this means is that those cosmic ray hits are ignored, the single bit error is fixed.


Wha? cosmic rays causing computer issues? How the hell am i suppose to trouble shoot that. Maybe thats whats up with my computer. Leave it to AidenShaw to point out the finer details.

Thanks AidenShaw, your posts are always informative.

[gugucom]

Supposedly, Gulftown is 100% backward compatible with X58/5520 chipsets used by Bloomfield/Gainestown now. So yes, you should be able to throw a Gulftown in a board made for Socket 1366 i7 now; or two of them into a Xeon 5500-series board, such as the Mac Pro. (Just like with the original Mac Pro, which could take "Clovertown" quad-core processors, even though it only launched with dual-core "Woodcrest".)

You do forget some small but significant facts. Woodcrest and Clovertown used the same 65nm manufacturing process. 2009 Nehalems used 45nm and the 2010 Gulftown will have the Westmere 32nm process. When a die shrink occurred in the past (Xeon 5300 to 5400) new micro code was required and Apple did not issue EFI updates to enable the new code on old machines. So it isn't sufficient to just look at the socket but other points have to be considered. The new micro code will not only be necessitated by the die shrink but also by the recognition of bigger RAM capacities. The memory management resides in the CPU now and upgrades will have to be accomodated by new micro code. I'm no expert on that point but it sounds plausible to me.

A second point to look for is the chipset. I doubt that a tenfold increase in the PCIe to Ethernet bridge will be done on the same chipset. So the southbridge may change as well. The Gulftowns may be flexible enough to work with different chipsets but I would not put it past Apple to use this as an artificial compatibility disruptor.

Some body already pointed out that Apple in known history have never upgraded the firmware to give better after sales service and upgrade potential. Quite contrary they introduced very dodgy hardware solutions to stop people from upgrading. One prominent example for this is the use of lidless CPUs in the 2009 octads. The second is the lack of clamp less sockets in the same machine. Particularly the lack of clamps is a brain fart beyond imagination. CPU clamps have been standard since pre Pentium days. The lack of clamps turns any CPU related service task into a 2000$ Russian roulette game. The smalles reversal of the downstroke when you push the heat sink down will see the CPU come out of the socket because it is already stuck to the thermal grease. If you do a minor rotation you mismatch the CPU and the socket angle and one of the 1366 little blade springs in the socket can get damaged. Next you have a fatal short circuit and your glorious 6-core CPU plus logic board (or CPU tray) is up in smoke.

[wallybee]

I have a pending order for 4 Mac Pro units from my apple reseller and it has been almost a month since I placed the order. :mad:

Can't wait till they start shipping the new Mac Pro - I hope it is soon!!!

[Quad SLi 295]

wouldn't be holding your breath. It should have been announced at the WWDC, but all the world got was a phone, that as it turns out doesn't function all that well as a phone.

Jordan

[xbjllb]

wouldn't be holding your breath. It should have been announced at the WWDC, but all the world got was a phone, that as it turns out doesn't function all that well as a phone.

Jordan

Ha! There IS a God, and as it turns out, he's NOT Steve Willie Wonka Jobs after all.

:apple:

[Torster]

but all the world got was a phone...

Maybe this site would be better suited being called iPhoneRumors?

Noticed that almost nothing on the front page is anything except iPhone and iPad...

Tor

[Macdude2010]

It got it!

[wreckshop]

4yr old MBP at home (and newer mac mini). Unfortunately another PC at work... again. Vista really is horrible. I had to restart twice, today. One time it took me 22 minutes. Then my typing kicked into french keyboard on its own.

Took you 22 minutes to restart Vista? That's some serious PEBKAC right there.