8-core Intel Xeon now standard??!!

[majorgray]

Googling Mac Pro on google.co.uk reveals an ad from apple, saying

8-core Intel Xeon now standard

Is this a hint at what might be coming soon?

[parakiet]

got a similar add browsing these fora

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6209/afbeelding17m.png (http://img27.imageshack.us/i/afbeelding17m.png/)

[LPZ]

Googling Mac Pro on google.co.uk reveals an ad from apple, saying

8-core Intel Xeon now standard

Is this a hint at what might be coming soon?

Is there an 8-core Xeon? I thought 6-core was next in line.

[Cynicalone]

Probably just their way of saying 4 real cores and 4 virtual cores, so "8 cores standard".

[ildondeigiocchi]

I think this was an advertisement from Apple made on the 2008 Mac Pros when the base system was a 8core 2.8GHZ Mac Pro. You then had the option to choose quadcore if you wanted but 8core was almost standard that is until 09's pulled up.

[Icaras]

I think this was an advertisement from Apple made on the 2008 Mac Pros when the base system was a 8core 2.8GHZ Mac Pro. You then had the option to choose quadcore if you wanted but 8core was almost standard that is until 09's pulled up.

Or it could really be the new Mac Pro, just like last March when right before that huge Mac refresh, there was similar google sightings on one of the European searches.

At least this is what I'm hoping for.

[Techhie]

I think this was an advertisement from Apple made on the 2008 Mac Pros when the base system was a 8core 2.8GHZ Mac Pro. You then had the option to choose quadcore if you wanted but 8core was almost standard that is until 09's pulled up.

Google would not keep that ad in search (or even cache) for this amount of time. I'm putting my bets on a refresh within this or next week.

[Techhie]

Is there an 8-core Xeon? I thought 6-core was next in line.

They could have revamped the line to include 8 core (dual processor) as standard, and only use the new chips in 12-core configs

[Fiete5401]

They could have revamped the line to include 8 core (dual processor) as standard, and only use the new chips in 12-core configs

Let's hope they fix this before: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=795966
My sister is in the market for a new Mac Pro and I hope Apple will fix this issue before using the same architecture in the upcoming version.

[Techhie]

Let's hope they fix this before: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=795966
My sister is in the market for a new Mac Pro and I hope Apple will fix this issue before using the same architecture in the upcoming version.

While we can hope, the problem in the OS/chipset won't be fixed by simply throwing a new chip and microcode into a system. Apple will have to work that out as a separate issue, hopefully before they lose professional clients.

[Dragonforce]

So, now you're forced into buying a DP system for $3k ? :D

[nanofrog]

While we can hope, the problem in the OS/chipset won't be fixed by simply throwing a new chip and microcode into a system. Apple will have to work that out as a separate issue, hopefully before they lose professional clients.
The hardware is fine, as the problem is NOT replicated under Windows. So it's strictly within OS X, which does need to be sorted, and preferably prior to the next model revision. ;) The cat's out of the bag, and if it continues with the next model revision, it will be a black eye for Apple.

So its finally produced adequate motivation for Apple to look into it and find a solution, given some of the recent posts in the linked thread. Of course, officially, they still won't state they made a mistake, and those that have been contacted have been told to keep quiet. :rolleyes:

Better late than never, but I won't be totally convinced until the solution is produced and proven to work properly, given Apple's track record on this, and other recent issues.

[Fiete5401]

While we can hope, the problem in the OS/chipset won't be fixed by simply throwing a new chip and microcode into a system. Apple will have to work that out as a separate issue, hopefully before they lose professional clients.

Yepp, the current situation is ridiculous. You have to give the advice to look out for a 2008 MP. I bet a single developer at Apple HQ could solve that problem within a few days (if not hours) but instead they simply deny the existence of any problem at all.

[Techhie]

Yepp, the current situation is ridiculous. You have to give the advice to look out for a 2008 MP. I bet a single developer at Apple HQ could solve that problem within a few days (if not hours) but instead they simply deny the existence of any problem at all.

Something tells me it is a problem that is not easily fixed, and their hand to choose between either admitting a fault or denial was forced. Being Apple, you can guess which they chose :rolleyes:

[nanofrog]

So, now you're forced into buying a DP system for $3k ? :D
It's possible. :eek: :p

Personally, I'd think the Quad is a good system to keep available, as not all workstation users need more cores (8+ physical), but fewer, faster cores (non-reliant on Turbo Mode, as it could be at full load). It also happens to be less expensive to produce, and if priced right, could increase the systems sold (i.e. users that can't <need based> or won't buy an iMac <i.e. glossy screens or other reasons, though technically capable for their needs>).

[Techhie]

The hardware is fine, as the problem is NOT replicated under Windows. So it's strictly within OS X, which does need to be sorted, and preferably prior to the next model revision. ;) The cat's out of the bag, and if it continues with the next model revision, it will be a black eye for Apple.

So its finally produced adequate motivation for Apple to look into it and find a solution, given some of the recent posts in the linked thread. Of course, officially, they still won't state they made a mistake, and those that have been contacted have been told to keep quiet. :rolleyes:

Better late than never, but I won't be totally convinced until the solution is produced and proven to work properly, given Apple's track record on this, and other recent issues.

Wouldn't you laugh if Apple threw in new Gulftown six-core chips in addition to a dual core chip just to satisfy the 8-core archetype? That would be even funnier than the pricing point for the '09 quad :D

[Fiete5401]

Something tells me it is a problem that is not easily fixed, and their hand to choose between either admitting a fault or denial was forced. Being Apple, you can guess which they chose :rolleyes:

If an advanced user can code a rudimentary fix for the issue I can only hope a well paid Apple developer will be able to do it in a much more professional way. They don't even have to admit a fault. Simply hide a fix in the next xyz-update. ;)

[nanofrog]

Wouldn't you laugh if Apple threw in new Gulftown six-core chips in addition to a dual core chip just to satisfy the 8-core archetype? That would be even funnier than the pricing point for the '09 quad :D
You mean 6 core + 2 core CPU's in one system?

Nah. Never happen, but not because of Apple or any other vendor. ;) It just won't work. None of the dual core Nehalem's have the second QPI to work with the 520 chipset. Otherwise, I wouldn't put it past them. :eek: :p

Calling a Quad (physical) and Octad via the virtual thread count, is something I could see a marketing dept. picking up on though. ;) And given Apple's desire for high margins, the MSRP could be bumped up to $3k for the base Quad, as it could get a USB 3.0 chip to differentiate it from the '09 Quad (though otherwise, it's the same exact system). :apple:

[grue]

Probably just their way of saying 4 real cores and 4 virtual cores, so "8 cores standard".

That's known as false advertising.

[nanofrog]

If an advanced user can code a rudimentary fix for the issue I can only hope a well paid Apple developer will be able to do it in a much more professional way. They don't even have to admit a fault. Simply hide a fix in the next xyz-update. ;)
This is the approach I expect them to take, given the users that have been contacted are being told to keep quiet. ;)

Stall, and admit nothing. Fix only if placed in a position of no way to avoid it any longer. This type of thinking is getting all to common for my taste, and it's not just computers. :eek: Toyota could be viewed the same way, given the recent recalls/issues that actually go back for years when investigated further (according to news articles I've seen the last few days or so). :rolleyes: :mad:

[Techhie]

That's known as false advertising.

No, it's known as deceptive wording. Technically accurate :rolleyes:

[grue]

No, it's known as deceptive wording. Technically accurate :rolleyes:

Disagree. There are four cores in the computer. If I sell someone a holiday to Bermuda and plunk their ass in an IMAX theatre and put on footage of the beach, that's a virtual holiday but I'll still get my ass sued.

[Fiete5401]

Disagree. There are four cores in the computer. If I sell someone a holiday to Bermuda and plunk their ass in an IMAX theatre and put on footage of the beach, that's a virtual holiday but I'll still get my ass sued.

Seems like it's possible to sue someone's ass in Australia. ;)

[Techhie]

Disagree. There are four cores in the computer. If I sell someone a holiday to Bermuda and plunk their ass in an IMAX theatre and put on footage of the beach, that's a virtual holiday but I'll still get my ass sued.

Yes, but that isn't open to interpretation, while physical cores and logical cores are. Saying there are 8 cores is not lying, however underhanded it may seem to the ignorant folks who don't understand the difference.

[nanofrog]

Yes, but that isn't open to interpretation, while physical cores and logical cores are. Saying there are 8 cores is not lying, however underhanded it may seem to the ignorant folks who don't understand the difference.
It would likely differ from country to country, as they each have their own laws regarding such issues. Here in the US, such a statement would be allowed from what I can tell (i.e. other products, and what's been allowed to occur), though unfortunate, just by eliminating the necessary difference - the word virtual or real/physical from the word core. :rolleyes: :(

Here at least, it's "Buyer Beware", as marketing is allowed to go after the uninformed like that.

[Dragonforce]

did you actually notice that both links are not working ?

from 1st post http://store.apple.com/uk/mac-pro
from 2nd post http://store.apple.com/mac_pro

[TennisandMusic]

did you actually notice that both links are not working ?

from 1st post http://store.apple.com/uk/mac-pro
from 2nd post http://store.apple.com/mac_pro

Which implies what exactly? Old?

[Techhie]

Which implies what exactly? Old?

Most likely, however I find it odd that Google would be more than a year behind in their ads.

[J the Ninja]

Remember that little leak thingy that said there would be 32nm quads along with the hexa-cores in the new Xeon lineup? Maybe they are gonna make the line all dual-socket? (Like I've been saying? Remember, I was one of like 3 people who guessed the glass trackpads wouldn't be screens, just trackpads made of glass. :p)

[Techhie]

Remember that little leak thingy that said there would be 32nm quads along with the hexa-cores in the new Xeon lineup? Maybe they are gonna make the line all dual-socket? (Like I've been saying? Remember, I was one of like 3 people who guessed the glass trackpads wouldn't be screens, just trackpads made of glass. :p)

This could be true, however it doesn't seem the move of a profit hungry company to opt for the option that makes them less money, unless they boost the base price.

[rtrt]

a

[majorgray]

did you actually notice that both links are not working ?

from 1st post http://store.apple.com/uk/mac-pro
from 2nd post http://store.apple.com/mac_pro

Similar current ads for the imac 21.5 27 also produce these "dead" links if you cut and paste the link, so I dont think the link being dead in this sense is a reliable indicator that it is old. If you click thru in all cases you land at the appropriate page of the product referenced.

[Techhie]

Similar current ads for the imac 21.5 27 also produce these "dead" links if you cut and paste the link, so I dont think the link being dead in this sense is a reliable indicator that it is old. If you click thru in all cases you land at the appropriate page of the product referenced.

Yes, even the current MP ads in the US behave this way. There is trouble stirring in the MBP forums, my guess is that Apple is planning on a simultaneous refresh:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9240131#post9240131

[nanofrog]

these users who've been told to keep quiet - given how unhappy everyone's been - what's motivating them to keep quiet?

apple has no leverage that i can see - 'keep quiet or we won't fix your MP just everyone else' doesn't seem like it would cut it .....

feels a little odd - or maybe i'm just reading a little too much into it.......
I'm not sure. Maybe a bribe in the form of a gift card or product? :confused:

[Icaras]

Yes, even the current MP ads in the US behave this way. There is trouble stirring in the MBP forums, my guess is that Apple is planning on a simultaneous refresh:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9240131#post9240131


yea I noticed things are heating up there too. I have a feeling Apple will do a "pro" update tactic, with both Macbook pros and Mac Pros refreshing together. Hell, maybe even release alongside them updated ACDs too.

Maybe they have noticed their own neglect to the professional market and this might be the perfect oppurtunity for them to save some face. I don't know. Maybe.

[ildondeigiocchi]

yea I noticed things are heating up there too. I have a feeling Apple will do a "pro" update tactic, with both Macbook pros and Mac Pros refreshing together. Hell, maybe even release alongside them updated ACDs too.

Maybe they have noticed their own neglect to the professional market and this might be the perfect oppurtunity for them to save some face. I don't know. Maybe.

That would be a dream come true. Although I don't think it will happen in February. March seems more likely to me. But with Apple it's always a guessing game.:D

[nanofrog]

yea I noticed things are heating up there too. I have a feeling Apple will do a "pro" update tactic, with both Macbook pros and Mac Pros refreshing together. Hell, maybe even release alongside them updated ACDs too.

Maybe they have noticed their own neglect to the professional market and this might be the perfect oppurtunity for them to save some face. I don't know. Maybe.
Your logic has validity, and something that would make sense IMO as well. But I'm not so sure about the timing, going by the recent past. But it is possible it could happen this month.

That would be a dream come true. Although I don't think it will happen in February. March seems more likely to me. But with Apple it's always a guessing game.:D
March would seem to fit with their past anyway, but with their shift in media events (i.e. no longer participate in MacWorld), it's possible, as now there's no schedule to follow except their own.

Theoretically, it could improve the quality (hardware and software integration) of their products at initial release (i.e. better testing), as it's possible it won't be so rushed to make the announcement and ship.

[iMacmatician]

Yes, even the current MP ads in the US behave this way. There is trouble stirring in the MBP forums, my guess is that Apple is planning on a simultaneous refresh:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9240131#post9240131Add to that the rumor of a Q1 2010 Mac Pro update…

[Techhie]

Has anyone else noticed the unusually large amount of refurbished Mac Pros in the store in past weeks?

[VirtualRain]

It's possible. :eek: :p

Personally, I'd think the Quad is a good system to keep available, as not all workstation users need more cores (8+ physical), but fewer, faster cores (non-reliant on Turbo Mode, as it could be at full load). It also happens to be less expensive to produce, and if priced right, could increase the systems sold (i.e. users that can't <need based> or won't buy an iMac <i.e. glossy screens or other reasons, though technically capable for their needs>).

+1 but what we want and what we get are seldom the same! :rolleyes:

[nanofrog]

+1 but what we want and what we get are seldom the same! :rolleyes:
Quite true. :rolleyes: ;)

[Umbongo]

I wouldn't be surprised to see a move back to the dual quads for under $3,000. A single socket system will only have one 32nm processor available and while they could replace the current processors with 2.8-x4 @45nm, 2.93x4 @45nm and 3.33x6 @ 32 they do have a habit of not doing such obvious things to maintain odd product line images.

The other thing is we don't know why Apple changed things with the 2009 models, or what their view is based on the response to it a year on. One would assume it was all down to the bottom line, but Apple do things for other reasons people don't always comprehend. We don't know what sort of discounts they were getting from 2006-2008 on those $700-$800 processors, or what the margin was on those systems or what Apple's attitude to the Mac Pro's position in their range is. We can assume it is around 50% on the current quad and slightly less on the 8-core, but it may have been an experiment, a bridging gap between iMac and "Mac Pro" or just some weird Apple logic. Jobs also wasn't running things day to day for that period, and we have no idea how involved he was before, was then, or is now.

DP only could make the Mac Pros look like an impressive update too:

Dual 2.66Ghz 32nm quads with 9 or 12 memory slots running at 1,333MHz for $2,799-$2,999 with a $300 discount to drop down to one processor, which would be faster and could be cheaper than the 09 model. Then an option for faster quads or 6-core processors. Hard to really guess even based on the assumption of old pricing because we don't know processor prices points yet.

[nanofrog]

...we don't know processor prices points yet.
I'm waiting for a full list as well, but I'm thinking the 6 core parts will be an option, not standard for (whatever the clock steps used) base models (i.e 4 core SP and 8 & 12 core DP systems).

We do need additional information to really go any further though, as it's all speculation, educated or not. ;)

[DoFoT9]

It's possible. :eek: :p

Personally, I'd think the Quad is a good system to keep available, as not all workstation users need more cores (8+ physical), but fewer, faster cores (non-reliant on Turbo Mode, as it could be at full load). It also happens to be less expensive to produce, and if priced right, could increase the systems sold (i.e. users that can't <need based> or won't buy an iMac <i.e. glossy screens or other reasons, though technically capable for their needs>).

apple would be stupid to drop the quad core machine. im sure that there are a ton of people who still purchase the quad cores - those that want the same power as the i7 imacs but want to have the expandability etc.

[nanofrog]

apple would be stupid to drop the quad core machine. im sure that there are a ton of people who still purchase the quad cores - those that want the same power as the i7 imacs but want to have the expandability etc.
There's quite a bit of widely used professional software that can't use more than 4 cores. Some such as PhotoShop, can currently only utlize 2. This will change over time, but it will be awhile IMO, which would translate into at least one generation of computer later.

Same thing with memory bandwidth.

So decisions will have to really focus on specfic use, as those that have purchased or considered purchasing the '09's discovered. Cost considerations have become more prominent whether it's an individual pro or corporate entity, and will be an even greater factor in which machine is the most viable solution IMO, as budgets have been tightened (i.e. including how/what to upgrade, such as going for additional RAM and/or RAID vs. higher clock speeds for the CPU's to obtain the greatest overall performance value). ;)

[DoFoT9]

There's quite a bit of widely used professional software that can't use more than 4 cores. Some such as PhotoShop, can currently only utlize 2. This will change over time, but it will be awhile IMO, which would translate into at least one generation of computer later.

Same thing with memory bandwidth.

So decisions will have to really focus on specfic use, as those that have purchased or considered purchasing the '09's discovered. Cost considerations have become more prominent whether it's an individual pro or corporate entity, and will be an even greater factor in which machine is the most viable solution IMO, as budgets have been tightened (i.e. including how/what to upgrade, such as going for additional RAM and/or RAID vs. higher clock speeds for the CPU's to obtain the greatest overall performance value). ;)

in a lot of cases it would be wise for users to purchase the higher clocked quad core machines. the saved money could be put into other things of course.

do you think apple would do that? add the highest spec'd new intel xeon chip of the lowest core count...?

[nanofrog]

in a lot of cases it would be wise for users to purchase the higher clocked quad core machines. the saved money could be put into other things of course.
There are plenty of reasons to go for as high a clock as possible, but I meant in terms of balancing the budget (ultimately fixed at some set figure) with both the clock, core count, and upgrades.

If the use requires additional RAM and RAID for performance (i.e. needed to keep the workflow going), that has to be figured into the total cost of the system, and if it's such upgrades vs. higher clock, such upgrades would offer more performance than a few MHz (multiples of 133MHz, but you get the idea).

do you think apple would do that? add the highest spec'd new intel xeon chip of the lowest core count...?
I'm not sure I'm understanding you here. They already offer the W3580 in the '09 Quads, which is the fastest in that family (SP Xeon line; 3.33GHz).

If Apple decides to actually return some value to the systems, they'd increase the clock speed for the base Quad, and offer it for less than the current system prices. But I don't see that happening, as it would mean lower margins, and Intel's not likely to drop the prices either. It would also mean that any left over '09's would need to be further discounted to move them out as well (I'm thinking a USB 3.0 chip could be used to differentiate the models, as it's possible to use a drop in replacement = no PCB changes required).

In any event, lower prices would be welcome by users, but it doesn't seem realistic to me. But ultimately, I want to see a full parts list of the Gulftown parts to get an idea of what we could actually see (including their pricing structure).

[DoFoT9]

There are plenty of reasons to go for as high a clock as possible, but I meant in terms of balancing the budget (ultimately fixed at some set figure) with both the clock, core count, and upgrades.

If the use requires additional RAM and RAID for performance (i.e. needed to keep the workflow going), that has to be figured into the total cost of the system, and if it's such upgrades vs. higher clock, such upgrades would offer more performance than a few MHz (multiples of 133MHz, but you get the idea).
additional RAM + storage might indicate that video/audio production is being used, therefore the higher powered (i.e. more GHz) computers would be ideal, over more cores. in some scenarios anyway.


I'm not sure I'm understanding you here. They already offer the W3580 in the '09 Quads, which is the fastest in that family (SP Xeon line; 3.33GHz).
what i mean is that i hope the new 2010 mac pros keep the same single processor configuration with the highest frequency. im sure that there is a fairly big market for these single processor machines - otherwise apple would have dumped it ages ago!

If Apple decides to actually return some value to the systems, they'd increase the clock speed for the base Quad, and offer it for less than the current system prices. But I don't see that happening, as it would mean lower margins, and Intel's not likely to drop the prices either. It would also mean that any left over '09's would need to be further discounted to move them out as well (I'm thinking a USB 3.0 chip could be used to differentiate the models, as it's possible to use a drop in replacement = no PCB changes required).
0% chance of that happening, the price drops that is. hopefully apple will give the users that need the multicore machines a higher frequency. 2.26GHz octo core is a bit of a flop IMO.

In any event, lower prices would be welcome by users, but it doesn't seem realistic to me. But ultimately, I want to see a full parts list of the Gulftown parts to get an idea of what we could actually see (including their pricing structure).
would be great to see the pricing. let us know when they come out!

how you been btw?

[nanofrog]

additional RAM + storage might indicate that video/audio production is being used, therefore the higher powered (i.e. more GHz) computers would be ideal, over more cores. in some scenarios anyway.
You're missing my point. Ideally, YES, you want it all. :eek: :p

But there are users with budgets that can't handle that given what I've seen posted recently (particularly with those wanting Quads), and have to strike a compromise. Instead of going for that few additional points in the muliplier (which translates in to x*133MHz to produce a higher clocked part), could be better spent by improving the system bottlenecks. Which will translate to a much higher benefit in terms of real world performance than if the higher clocked system running less RAM and single drives were chosen.

what i mean is that i hope the new 2010 mac pros keep the same single processor configuration with the highest frequency. im sure that there is a fairly big market for these single processor machines - otherwise apple would have dumped it ages ago!
Ah. I'm not so sure (base Quad = higher clock), as Apple likes to keep their processor options low compared to other vendors. So I don't expect 3x clock speed choices with each model (SP and DP versions as we do now).

Then you also have to consider the CPU selections offered are based on Intel's parts positioning (cost per clock offerings available).

So it's more realistic we'd only see 1 - 2 Quads (I'm not so sure they'd keep to 3x here to reduce the parts bins), 2x Octads (i.e. toss the 2.26), and a single Gulftown option.

0% chance of that happening, the price drops that is. hopefully apple will give the users that need the multicore machines a higher frequency. 2.26GHz octo core is a bit of a flop IMO.
Performance wise, the 2.26GHz DP would seem to be a flop, but ultimately CPU pricing from Intel will dictate what Apple offers.

[DoFoT9]

You're missing my point. Ideally, YES, you want it all. :eek: :p
ha! well of course you want it all! but with given budgets your options diminish quickly. leading too the compromise scenario you briefly stated below.

But there are users with budgets that can't handle that given what I've seen posted recently (particularly with those wanting Quads), and have to strike a compromise. Instead of going for that few additional points in the muliplier (which translates in to x*133MHz to produce a higher clocked part), could be better spent by improving the system bottlenecks. Which will translate to a much higher benefit in terms of real world performance than if the higher clocked system running less RAM and single drives were chosen.
a very wise move.


Ah. I'm not so sure (base Quad = higher clock), as Apple likes to keep their processor options low compared to other vendors. So I don't expect 3x clock speed choices with each model (SP and DP versions as we do now).
no i dont expect 3 lots of the speed choices either. having 1 (or 2)x quad core (or hexacore if they are indeed released) on offer and then 2x dual quad cores (or dual hexacores) would make sense. id be happy with that.

Then you also have to consider the CPU selections offered are based on Intel's parts positioning (cost per clock offerings available).
oh, totally! apple have a slight influence on what intel produces i daresay, probably with frequencies and that - not really with the rest of the specs. you know how influential apple can be ;)

So it's more realistic we'd only see 1 - 2 Quads (I'm not so sure they'd keep to 3x here to reduce the parts bins), 2x Octads (i.e. toss the 2.26), and a single Gulftown option.
i would agree with that and be happy with that. leaves room for all parties basically.

Performance wise, the 2.26GHz DP would seem to be a flop, but ultimately CPU pricing from Intel will dictate what Apple offers.
+30% of course hehe. im just not really comfortable with such a low powered octo core. as has been said there are still many many single core applications, they would run pathetically slow.

[nanofrog]

oh, totally! apple have a slight influence on what intel produces i daresay, probably with frequencies and that - not really with the rest of the specs. you know how influential apple can be ;)
Yes and no. Intel certainly listens, but Apple's requests wouldn't be the cheif decision criteria.

Generally speaking, it's the enterprise market, of which Apple is actually a small player. Higher core counts, higher efficiency (performance/Watt and so on). The desktops are trickled down from these (i.e. fewer cores per CPU), but the basic architecture does follow, such as QPI, power managment features, virtualization,... Frequencies are a result of technical reasons, such as architecture capabilities to produce stable parts and part yields (binning).

+30% of course hehe. im just not really comfortable with such a low powered octo core. as has been said there are still many many single core applications, they would run pathetically slow.
It gave a cost concious Octad model.

Again however, such decisions need to be based on use, and if another model isn't in the budget (higher clock), a compromise must be struck (i.e. look at the single and multi-threaded workloads in terms of time spent).

[DoFoT9]

Yes and no. Intel certainly listens, but Apple's requests wouldn't be the cheif decision criteria.

Generally speaking, it's the enterprise market, of which Apple is actually a small player. Higher core counts, higher efficiency (performance/Watt and so on). The desktops are trickled down from these (i.e. fewer cores per CPU), but the basic architecture does follow, such as QPI, power managment features, virtualization,... Frequencies are a result of technical reasons, such as architecture capabilities to produce stable parts and part yields (binning).
intel and other CPU designing companies (IBM ;)) would be designing for the enterprise market mainly? and from that the general desktops CPUs come around. or do the general population bring in a bigger profit margin compared to enterprise?


It gave a cost concious Octad model.

Again however, such decisions need to be based on use, and if another model isn't in the budget (higher clock), a compromise must be struck (i.e. look at the single and multi-threaded workloads in terms of time spent).
single threaded would be more at a guess. multi-threaded and multi-cored applications are slowly coming about, and are becoming more optimised, however we are still years away from all software becoming like that. CPU frequency still plays a big role in CPU development. maybe we will end up going back to 1GHz CPUs - but have 128, 256, 512 cores etc. that would be cool. imagine activity monitor!!! :p

ps check your email :)

[ildondeigiocchi]

The Apple Store is down.... Fingers crossed :D

[DoFoT9]

The Apple Store is down.... Fingers crossed :D

MPs + MBPs in the one day? idk...

[ildondeigiocchi]

MPs + MBPs in the one day? idk...

I don't think Apple will go out and release other macs in a few weeks time... seems unlikely. Plus in my opinion Mac Pros need an overhaul more than the MBPs do. Their GPUS are 3 years old for christ sake. LOL :D

[DoFoT9]

Wirelessly posted (nokia e63: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaE63-1/100.21.110; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)

MPs + MBPs in the one day? idk...

I don't think Apple will go out and release other macs in a few weeks time... seems unlikely. Plus in my opinion Mac Pros need an overhaul more than the MBPs do. Their GPUS are 3 years old for christ sake. LOL :D

good point there. There has been a lot of hype around both machines, so who knows maybe both will see upgrades!

would be nice to have a good high end ati card for the mp. And a case redesign. Usb3.0? Probs not. Ah Well..

[parakiet]

The Apple Store is down.... Fingers crossed :D

lets al enjoy our phantasmagoria while it lasts

[ildondeigiocchi]

lets al enjoy our phantasmagoria while it lasts

LOL... It's amazing how happy I get when the Apple store goes down.:D

[parakiet]

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/1595/afbeelding18.png (http://img714.imageshack.us/i/afbeelding18.png/)
just 2sec ago
they are messing with my mind :-/

[Icaras]

LOL... It's amazing how happy I get when the Apple store goes down.:D

And it's amazing how sad I get when it reopens with nothing new. Big sigh. :(

[Dragonforce]

Good, so my 2009 Mac Pro is still the recent model for a few more days :D
I don't really care about the 2010 Mac Pro, but I really want its graphics card (Ati 5xxx, anyone? :))

[nanofrog]

intel and other CPU designing companies (IBM ;)) would be designing for the enterprise market mainly? and from that the general desktops CPUs come around. or do the general population bring in a bigger profit margin compared to enterprise?
No, the enterprise market generates more profits.

Think of it this way. How many individual consumers buy more than one system at a time? ;) :p

single threaded would be more at a guess. multi-threaded and multi-cored applications are slowly coming about, and are becoming more optimised, however we are still years away from all software becoming like that. CPU frequency still plays a big role in CPU development. maybe we will end up going back to 1GHz CPUs - but have 128, 256, 512 cores etc. that would be cool. imagine activity monitor!!! :p
Most software is single threaded right now, and would best benefit from higher clocks. But for those that also use multi-threaded applications, they can find themselves in a situation they have to compromise the solution to use it with both (ulitmately budget based).

[DoFoT9]

No, the enterprise market generates more profits.

Think of it this way. How many individual consumers buy more than one system at a time? ;) :p
point proven!!! :D ;)

Most software is single threaded right now, and would best benefit from higher clocks. But for those that also use multi-threaded applications, they can find themselves in a situation they have to compromise the solution to use it with both (ulitmately budget based).
oh. really? most is single threaded? meaning that only one thread from the application can execute at one time? i thought heaps more would be multi-threaded, and less multi-cored. guess i was wrongs :(

[nanofrog]

oh. really? most is single threaded? meaning that only one thread from the application can execute at one time? i thought heaps more would be multi-threaded, and less multi-cored. guess i was wrongs :(
The software development has always been behind the hardware, and the time lag is getting worse it seems.

Quad core CPU's have been around for 3yrs, and most is still single threaded. Some of it can't be multi-threaded (i.e reliant on user input, such as word processing), but the rest has been waiting on others to create standards and API environments available to them (i.e. OS support provided in SDK's, and OS's have been expecting code developers to create their own in the past). It's a lot of work, and it all seems like a "let's see who can blink first" type of scenario where everyone was waiting/expecting/hoping someone else would do the hard part. :rolleyes: So there's been a notable delay over and above the usual product cycles involved.

[Techhie]

Speaking of the 2008 model, I suggest someone jump on this before it's gone:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Mac-Pro-Early-2008-2-8GHz-Quad-Core-Xeon-4GB-RAM_W0QQitemZ110492760511QQcmdZViewItemQQptZApple_Desktops?hash=item19b9e1b9bf

[student_trap]

I think this was an advertisement from Apple made on the 2008 Mac Pros when the base system was a 8core 2.8GHZ Mac Pro. You then had the option to choose quadcore if you wanted but 8core was almost standard that is until 09's pulled up.

it was. this was the phrase they used in their marketing blurb (alongside octo core tower of power :eek:)

[ildondeigiocchi]

it was. this was the phrase they used in their marketing blurb (alongside octo core tower of power :eek:)

I knew it. In that case though Google really has to get more recent with their ads. :D

[Techhie]

Speaking of the 2008 model, I suggest someone jump on this before it's gone:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Mac-Pro-Early-2008-2-8GHz-Quad-Core-Xeon-4GB-RAM_W0QQitemZ110492760511QQcmdZViewItemQQptZApple_Desktops?hash=item19b9e1b9bf

Well, I managed to jump on it before some other lucky soul got it. $1,800 for a 2008 2.8 GHz octad, wondering if I'll be tempted to sell it for profit when the '10s come out, it will all depend on the hardware involved, I guess...:rolleyes:

[nanofrog]

Well, I managed to jump on it before some other lucky soul got it. $1,800 for a 2008 2.8 GHz octad, wondering if I'll be tempted to sell it for profit when the '10s come out, it will all depend on the hardware involved, I guess...:rolleyes:
It's a good machine, and will do what you need. So there's no real reason to try and sell it to get a 2010 model IMO.

I don't think the cost of a 2010 would suit you anyway, given previous posts and PM's. ;) :p

[Techhie]

It's a good machine, and will do what you need. So there's no real reason to try and sell it to get a 2010 model IMO.

I don't think the cost of a 2010 would suit you anyway, given previous posts and PM's. ;) :p

I don't know which guy you are thinking of, but I'm pretty sure we've never exchanged PM's :rolleyes:

The only problem with the machine is the GT 120 he threw in, and I need the machine to do graphics and photography work on two 30" displays. I would go the GTX 285 route, but I refuse to pay $450 for a mediocre graphics card. I have to take into consideration I still have RAM and SSD upgrades to work into the budget, through everything is unsure because I haven't decided to keep the machine or sell it :p

[nanofrog]

...sure we've never exchanged PM's :rolleyes:
Though we had. :o :p

The only problem with the machine is the GT 120 he threw in, and I need the machine to do graphics and photography work on two 30" displays. I would go the GTX 285 route, but I refuse to pay $450 for a mediocre graphics card. I have to take into consideration I still have RAM and SSD upgrades to work into the budget, through everything is unsure because I haven't decided to keep the machine or sell it :p
Fortunately, such upgrades would be transferrable though, including the RAM. :)

BTW, why not a 4870?
You could even use a PC version if you're willing to deal with flashing or injectors.

[Techhie]

Though we had. :o :p


Fortunately, such upgrades would be transferable though, including the RAM. :)

BTW, why not a 4870?
You could even use a PC version if you're willing to deal with flashing or injectors.

Not sure how 800 MHz FB-DIMMs could go into a '10 MP without throttling the system? The 4870 is nice, however I want to have room to expend with another (yes, I know) 30" display if I want it, without buying a $100 adapter. Besides, everyone is telling me to wait until the Radeon 5xxx series comes out, and $350 is still a bit much to spend on an outdated middle-of-the-road GPU.

About the flashed models, I dealt with that a few years back in my Hackintosh days, and have the kext-shaped battle scars to prove it. I'm trying to avoid unnecessary complications, and it seems like that would be a likely source of them.

[DoFoT9]

Not sure how 800 MHz FB-DIMMs could go into a '10 MP without throttling the system? The 4870 is nice, however I want to have room to expend with another (yes, I know) 30" display if I want it, without buying a $100 adapter. Besides, everyone is telling me to wait until the Radeon 5xxx series comes out, and $350 is still a bit much to spend on an outdated middle-of-the-road GPU.
i agree. wait it out.

About the flashed models, I dealt with that a few years back in my Hackintosh days, and have the kext-shaped battle scars to prove it. I'm trying to avoid unnecessary complications, and it seems like that would be a likely source of them.
how many sides does a kext have :confused: :rolleyes: :p

i have thus far had no problems with kexts and my hack (for GPU based stuff anyway). research and ye shall be rewarded. :D

[nanofrog]

Not sure how 800 MHz FB-DIMMs could go into a '10 MP without throttling the system? The 4870 is nice, however I want to have room to expend with another (yes, I know) 30" display if I want it, without buying a $100 adapter. Besides, everyone is telling me to wait until the Radeon 5xxx series comes out, and $350 is still a bit much to spend on an outdated middle-of-the-road GPU.
I was thinking you picked up an '09. Been a long day.

But since it is an '08, no the RAM won't transfer. But you still have a really good machine.

About the flashed models, I dealt with that a few years back in my Hackintosh days, and have the kext-shaped battle scars to prove it. I'm trying to avoid unnecessary complications, and it seems like that would be a likely source of them.
Kext files aren't a problem with the 4870, as they're natively in OS X. It's getting a card that has a ROM capable of containing the EFI code that's the hard part (assuming the flash method is used).

Once it's done successfully, they don't have any issues from what's been posted. It's the 4890's that require a little more work with OS X updates.

[Techhie]

i have thus far had no problems with kexts and my hack (for GPU based stuff anyway). research and ye shall be rewarded. :D

Yes, But I come from an age where there was no easy-click solution to enable QE/CI, and my hands were buried in elbow deep in white lego blocks (the shape of kexts, btw :p). I don't want to have to do that sort of tinkering again, especially considering one of the main reasons I'm running vanilla hardware is for simplicity. If I wanted to go down that road, there would be an i7-extreme box sitting on my floor :D

[nanofrog]

i agree. wait it out.
In theory I'd agree, but IIRC, Techie has a rather tight budget (at current pricing, a base Quad was the only MP that would fit), and I don't see the '09's being less expensive than the existing models. If I've gotten this one confused with another member, sorry Techie.

That's going to be a problem, even if the system can be afforded due to upgrades.

So to me, its best to keep the '08 and just put in the necessary upgrades. It will work quite well (it's not a Pentium vs. Nehalem scenario by any means :p), and do so for less money overall (system was cheaper, which leaves more available for the upgrades). It could even allow for an upgrade that would have had to wait for additional funds (which may happen anyway - Techie would need to sort that, and offer information if he wishes). ;)

[Techhie]

It could even allow for an upgrade that would have had to wait for additional funds (which may happen anyway - Techhie would need to sort that, and offer information if he wishes). ;)

Yeah, but my main thing is buying and selling with the help of Craigslist, I could easily get ~$500 profit out of this machine. Even though it's not exactly a slouch, dumping all of my money into upgrades for a two year old model seems kind of iffy. I know the '10 will most likely be priced at por above the current structure, but that also means a decline in value of older machines, this one included. With the gained profit, I could buy an '09 octad (hopefully not the lame duck 2.26 GHz) or '10 "hexad?", to future-proof myself further.

You never know how Apple is going to treat you as your box ages, and that especially worries me because the one I bought has no remaining AppleCare.

[DoFoT9]

Yes, But I come from an age where there was no easy-click solution to enable QE/CI, and my hands were buried in elbow deep in white lego blocks (the shape of kexts, btw :p). I don't want to have to do that sort of tinkering again, especially considering one of the main reasons I'm running vanilla hardware is for simplicity. If I wanted to go down that road, there would be an i7-extreme box sitting on my floor :D
stability also? i guess your line of work would require that too. the "real" thing suits best i guess then.

lego blocks? i love playing lego! :D

In theory I'd agree, but IIRC, Techie has a rather tight budget (at current pricing, a base Quad was the only MP that would fit), and I don't see the '09's being less expensive than the existing models. If I've gotten this one confused with another member, sorry Techie.

That's going to be a problem, even if the system can be afforded due to upgrades.

So to me, its best to keep the '08 and just put in the necessary upgrades. It will work quite well (it's not a Pentium vs. Nehalem scenario by any means :p), and do so for less money overall (system was cheaper, which leaves more available for the upgrades). It could even allow for an upgrade that would have had to wait for additional funds (which may happen anyway - Techie would need to sort that, and offer information if he wishes). ;)

i see your point there. the '08 is great value and by no means any slug. it might indeed be better to go the '08 and then cough up the saved money for the GPU, HDD space etc.

what about the fact that when the 10 MPs come out, the '09s will lose a bit of value, and (hopefully) the '08s will too. even if its $100, when it comes to money it might be a saviour.

[nanofrog]

Yeah, but my main thing is buying and selling with the help of Craigslist, I could easily get ~$500 profit out of this machine.
I'm not saying you can't, as they're highly desired machines right now, as they're a much better value than the '09 systems, and they're not popping up left and right either as a result IMO.

What I'm concerned about however, is the fact that you take that $500 and add it to what you already had, will probably get you a system, but nothing much left (if anything) for upgrades.


Even though it's not exactly a slouch, dumping all of my money into upgrades for a two year old model seems kind of iffy. I know the '10 will most likely be priced at por above the current structure, but that also means a decline in value of older machines, this one included. With the gained profit, I could buy an '09 octad (hopefully not the lame duck 2.26 GHz) or '10 "hexad?", to future-proof myself further.
Keep in mind though:
1. The '08 uses EFI64 firmware = you'll still be able to upgrade graphics cards and OS X once it goes purely to K64 (a big deal IMO).
2. Better Value, given the increase in MSRP for the '09's (and will follow with the 2010's). Remember, the 3.2GHz '08 Octad beats the 2.26GHz '09 in both single and multi-threaded applications (using Cinebench results), yet it's the same price now via the refurb store ($3299 for either machine right now).
3. Software is quite a bit behind hardware development, and will be awhile before it catches up with your machine. Long enough you'd have gotten a new machine anyway IMO, given professional software development schedules.

This all means that the '08's will still be desirable systems for awhile yet IMO. Past the release of the 2010's for sure. ;)

You never know how Apple is going to treat you as your box ages, and that especially worries me because the one I bought has no remaining AppleCare.
A valid concern, and is why the refurb store is the ideal place to buy a previous system IMO, as you can get full Apple Care as well as extend it (which is highly recommended, given the repair costs associated with MP's).

[Techhie]

A valid concern, and is why the refurb store is the ideal place to buy a previous system IMO, as you can get full Apple Care as well as extend it (which is highly recommended, given the repair costs associated with MP's).

This alone is the main factor prompting me to sell, I don't want to be responsible for a logic board replacement bill :o

That said, there is nothing stopping me from fishing around for another '08 being $500 richer, especially if the prices will go down a bit with the '10 introduction. Even using the machine without some sort of warranty will eat away at my peace of mind until I sell it anyway.

[nanofrog]

i see your point there. the '08 is great value and by no means any slug. it might indeed be better to go the '08 and then cough up the saved money for the GPU, HDD space etc.
This is where the better value aspect kicks in, as the saved funds can offset some of the upgrade costs (as the upgrade components will be on par no matter if it's an '08, '09, or '10 - there can be some variance due to the RAM market and adapters in certain situations).

what about the fact that when the 10 MPs come out, the '09s will lose a bit of value, and (hopefully) the '08s will too. even if its $100, when it comes to money it might be a saviour.
The '09 systems may not drop that much though, as it's possible to use the same board,... and just update the firmware. I also expect the '08's to hold their value given the recent price increases aren't going to disappear (as in little to no drop at all for '08's).

I'd think they'd add on USB 3.0 (same component package so there's no need for any PCB re-work) to help differentiate the models. There's even a good chance some of the same CPU P/N's currently used could carry over (i.e. Quad and Octad systems). This is idea is currently based on the fact that a full parts list hasn't been disclosed yet for the 36xx and 56xx lines, so I've no idea of the clocks, core counts, or pricing offered.

Hex parts I expect to be CTO upgrades, and will be meant for the top end only ( = expensive).

This alone is the main factor prompting me to sell, I don't want to be responsible for a logic board replacement bill :o
Understandable, and a choice you have to make. There have been some that have had failures, but I don't think the % is high. But the data (posts on MR) is annecdotal at best.

That said, there is nothing stopping me from fishing around for another '08 being $500 richer, especially if the prices will go down a bit with the '10 introduction. Even using the machine without some sort of warranty will eat away at my peace of mind until I sell it anyway.
If you do sell, wait to see the 2010 models first (specs and pricing), as you might end up hurting yourself.

BTW, what exactly are you going to do with it?
(I ask, as I'm not sure you could use more than what an Octad offers, no matter if it's an '08, 09, or '10, in terms of multi-threaded software, since very little can actually use that many cores, let alone 12 physical cores in a DP Xeon 56xx system).

[DoFoT9]

I'd think they'd add on USB 3.0 (same component package so there's no need for any PCB re-work) to help differentiate the models.
current advantages of USB3.0, if they were to be offered in 10 MPs... ->backups might be a bit faster :p most people would have internal drives rather then externals.

There's even a good chance some of the same CPU P/N's currently used could carry over (i.e. Quad and Octad systems). This is idea is currently based on the fact that a full parts list hasn't been disclosed yet for the 36xx and 56xx lines, so I've no idea of the clocks, core counts, or pricing offered.
and until we know that its hard to estimate the final prices/configurations. do we have a set date?

Hex parts I expect to be CTO upgrades, and will be meant for the top end only ( = expensive).
they are HT enabled i guess? 12 core/24 thread MP would be overkill in this particular situation ;)


If you do sell, wait to see the 2010 models first (specs and pricing), as you might end up hurting yourself.
totally agreed there, i say wait for the time being.

BTW, what exactly are you going to do with it?
i am also curious, for recommendations its essential :0

[Techhie]

BTW, what exactly are you going to do with it?
(I ask, as I'm not sure you could use more than what an Octad offers, no matter if it's an '08, 09, or '10, in terms of multi-threaded software, since very little can actually use that many cores, let alone 12 physical cores in a DP Xeon 56xx system).

I work mostly in single threaded software, so the benefits of the newer hyperthreaded CPUs aren't as prevalent to me on a day to day basis. Selling this model would not only alleviate the AppleCare concern from me but also tame my inner enthusiast (admittedly one of the reasons I have a MP to being with :rolleyes:)

I think I may manipulate some '08s around until I get one with AppleCare, and wait out the update to gain perspective of Apple's direction with the market.

[nanofrog]

current advantages of USB3.0, if they were to be offered in 10 MPs... ->backups might be a bit faster :p most people would have internal drives rather then externals.
I'd love to see eSATA, but that can't happen on the existing boards. A PCIe card would be the only solution that wouldn't require PCB work. But if they do actually produce new boards, they could address a few of the other issues as well, namely the DIMM slots (more than 4 per CPU).

and until we know that its hard to estimate the final prices/configurations. do we have a set date?
Sort of. March 2010 is the scheduled release date for Gulftown given by Intel, but no additional details (exact date, and so far, not a full part list/breakdown either). I keep hoping that will be released shortly, as it usually shows about a month or so in advance of the official release date. But "March" could mean the last day of the month. :rolleyes: :p

they are HT enabled i guess? 12 core/24 thread MP would be overkill in this particular situation ;)
Personally, I prefer to look at the real core figure, not virtual, which are supposed to be 50% of a real core (but it's less in real world terms due to latency from swapping data from one app to another to one core).

I work mostly in single threaded software, so the benefits of the newer hyperthreaded CPUs aren't as prevalent to me on a day to day basis. Selling this model would not only alleviate the AppleCare concern from me but also tame my inner enthusiast (admittedly one of the reasons I have a MP to being with :rolleyes:)
Then you'd be best served with a higher clocked system. A faster Quad and the right upgrades would best suit your needs from what you're indicating, especially if you're on a tight budget.

But ultimately, check to see how the current systems compare to the '08 Octads (as the same money or even less can get you more performance, even with more cores in respect to the '09's), and whatever performance data comes out from reviews of the 2010's when they reach user's hands.

I think I may manipulate some '08s around until I get one with AppleCare, and wait out the update to gain perspective of Apple's direction with the market.
This may not be a bad idea. It can set your mind at ease in regards to having to pay for a hardware failure out of pocket.

Having any system right now can get you working and buy you some time to wait and compare the systems, but peace of mind is important too, so may be a worth while prospect.

[Techhie]

Having any system right now can get you working and buy you some time to wait and compare the systems, but peace of mind is important too, so may be a worth while prospect.

And it will let me make use of the pile of hard drives in my closet :rolleyes:

Any suggestions as far as SSDs go? I'm looking for speed here, not capacity. I don't need anything over 80GB, but something that will cut the biggest bottleneck my system has (will have)

[DoFoT9]

Wirelessly posted (nokia e63: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaE63-1/100.21.110; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)


Having any system right now can get you working and buy you some time to wait and compare the systems, but peace of mind is important too, so may be a worth while prospect.

And it will let me make use of the pile of hard drives in my closet :rolleyes:

Any suggestions as far as SSDs go? I'm looking for speed here, not capacity. I don't need anything over 80GB, but something that will cut the biggest bottleneck my system has (will have)

raid0 two 80gb SSDs I guess. That would give amazing performance! :) but then you get into raid cards etc, which are quite costly.

Unless you opt for software raid.

[Techhie]

Wirelessly posted (nokia e63: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaE63-1/100.21.110; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)



Unless you opt for software raid.

Don't say that! I've seen nanofrog rant about softRAID bottlenecks on the standard SATA controller, hopefully just one as a boot drive will be a cheap way to speed up the system.

[DoFoT9]

Wirelessly posted (nokia e63: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaE63-1/100.21.110; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)

Wirelessly posted (nokia e63: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaE63-1/100.21.110; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)



Unless you opt for software raid.

Don't say that! I've seen nanofrog rant about softRAID bottlenecks on the standard SATA controller, hopefully just one as a boot drive will be a cheap way to speed up the system.

speeds of around 200MB/s seem possible with a good SSDs, even higher but they do cost.

But yes, nano is quite picky ;)

[nanofrog]

And it will let me make use of the pile of hard drives in my closet :rolleyes:

Any suggestions as far as SSDs go? I'm looking for speed here, not capacity. I don't need anything over 80GB, but something that will cut the biggest bottleneck my system has (will have)
I'd say Intel Postville (G2 models), or maybe OCZ's latest, such as the Vertex 2 or Colossus. It's worth researching them thoroughly, including various forums (where you can discover potential issues the vendor won't ever mention).

Don't say that! I've seen nanofrog rant about softRAID bottlenecks on the standard SATA controller, hopefully just one as a boot drive will be a cheap way to speed up the system.
It's not a rant, but many want to run a sofware stripe of SSD's, and maybe mechanical drives as well (those SSD's are capable of ~250MB/s reads IIRC). Then they discover the hard way, there's a throughput limit in the ICH of ~660MB/s.

So I try to make people aware of that fact, as they're assuming that each SATA port has all the bandwidth available per SATA spec. That's not the case, and neither Intel or the system vendor will tell you this.

A RAID card gets you around this, especially with a stripe set consisting of more than 2x SSD's, as the data is transferred over the PCIe bus. But it comes with a higher price tag. Always a compromise... :rolleyes: :D :p

But yes, nano is quite picky ;)
It's not about being picky, it's to do with the throughput limitations, and the complaints seen from users attempting to run multiple drives (SSD in a stripe set or mechanical drives simultaneously with SSD's), and hitting a wall, when they know that they should be getting notably higher throughputs.

There's been other situations as well, and usually related to some specific OS/boot requirement.

[Techhie]

It's not a rant, but many want to run a sofware stripe of SSD's, and maybe mechanical drives as well (those SSD's are capable of ~250MB/s reads IIRC). Then they discover the hard way, there's a throughput limit in the ICH of ~660MB/s.

So I try to make people aware of that fact, as they're assuming that each SATA port has all the bandwidth available per SATA spec. That's not the case, and neither Intel or the system vendor will tell you this.

A RAID card gets you around this, especially with a stripe set consisting of more than 2x SSD's, as the data is transferred over the PCIe bus. But it comes with a higher price tag. Always a compromise... :rolleyes: :D :p



I'm looking for a relatively inexpensive solution with the SSD boot drive, and can't justify dropping the coin for a dedicated PCIe RAID card. It would be nice, but tthe only reason I'm willing to go for a SSD is because of the drop in prices on the 80 GB models and my option to transfer it over to a new box if need be.

[DoFoT9]

woopsi, missed this post ;)
I'd love to see eSATA, but that can't happen on the existing boards. A PCIe card would be the only solution that wouldn't require PCB work. But if they do actually produce new boards, they could address a few of the other issues as well, namely the DIMM slots (more than 4 per CPU).
eSATA hits 300MB/s max, which is guess is enough for singluar drives or even mechanical striped drives but anything other then that it seems a bit silly.

what about FW3200? is that due out anytime soon?

more DIMMs would really be nice though!

Sort of. March 2010 is the scheduled release date for Gulftown given by Intel, but no additional details (exact date, and so far, not a full part list/breakdown either). I keep hoping that will be released shortly, as it usually shows about a month or so in advance of the official release date. But "March" could mean the last day of the month. :rolleyes: :p
ohh i see. any money they might put it back another month or so :p

Personally, I prefer to look at the real core figure, not virtual, which are supposed to be 50% of a real core (but it's less in real world terms due to latency from swapping data from one app to another to one core).
understandable for situations where you are only running one main application using 100% of the CPU. but if you have about 4 applications using 100% of the CPU then i think HT is quite beneficial.



It's not about being picky, it's to do with the throughput limitations, and the complaints seen from users attempting to run multiple drives (SSD in a stripe set or mechanical drives simultaneously with SSD's), and hitting a wall, when they know that they should be getting notably higher throughputs.

There's been other situations as well, and usually related to some specific OS/boot requirement.
totally true and no argument with limitations and the use of RAID cards, i cant really see techhie using more then the limitations of the ICH in this particular instance. also given the fact of funds and whatnot i think it might be the best situation to go with software based.

[nanofrog]

I'm looking for a relatively inexpensive solution with the SSD boot drive, and can't justify dropping the coin for a dedicated PCIe RAID card. It would be nice, but tthe only reason I'm willing to go for a SSD is because of the drop in prices on the 80 GB models and my option to transfer it over to a new box if need be.
You might be misunderstanding me.

For a single SSD, you only need to attach it to the logic board, so there's no card needed, and it saves money as well. It's only when you want to run SSD in RAID (i.e. stripe set), that the card makes sense to get around the throttling issue in the ICH.

eSATA hits 300MB/s max, which is guess is enough for singluar drives or even mechanical striped drives but anything other then that it seems a bit silly.
The theoretical max is 375MB/s, but it won't reach that in the real world. ~270MB/s is all it can actually achieve for SATA 3.0Gb/s. Obviously it's increased (doubled) with SATA 6.0Gb/s, but so far, that's not possible on MP's logic boards. A PCIe card is the only way with existing systems, and it appears that will also be the case for the 2010 models, as they use the same ICH as in the current models.

I see eSATA as an inexpensive connection for backups that still offers better performance than USB, FW400/800, or even 1G Ethernet. Especially when RAID is used in the internal HDD bays. PM enclosures can give you up to 5 drives per eSATA port, so a single port could provide up to 10TB in backup capacity (with current largest capacity drives).

what about FW3200? is that due out anytime soon?
Late 2010 is the last I've seen.

understandable for situations where you are only running one main application using 100% of the CPU. but if you have about 4 applications using 100% of the CPU then i think HT is quite beneficial.
HT is good for running mulitple applications where it uses less than 50% of a core. Anything more, you'd be better off with physical cores, assuming such instances are common.

totally true and no argument with limitations and the use of RAID cards, i cant really see techhie using more then the limitations of the ICH in this particular instance. also given the fact of funds and whatnot i think it might be the best situation to go with software based.
He does NOT need a RAID card for a single SSD for an OS/application disk.

If he wanted to make a stripe set however, it may make sense if theres more than 2x SSD's in the set, or perhaps in a mixed mode environment (SSD + HDD used in a simultaneous access scenario). It would get down to the specifics.

[Techhie]

Another small question, what is the behavior of two graphics cards in OS X? I'm trying to decide between a Radeon 4870 (in addition to the already running GT 120 to support 2x 30" monitors) and a GTX 285. I plan to boot into Windows for the occasional game and stay in OS X the majority of the time, but I'm unsure how these two cards will interact while running simultaneously.

[nanofrog]

Another small question, what is the behavior of two graphics cards in OS X? I'm trying to decide between a Radeon 4870 (in addition to the already running GT 120 to support 2x 30" monitors) and a GTX 285. I plan to boot into Windows for the occasional game and stay in OS X the majority of the time, but I'm unsure how these two cards will interact while running simultaneously.
It's not a problem under OS X.

On the Windows side, Vista would be a problem (multiple cards needed to have GPU's from the same maker), but Win7 is fine with mixing nVidia and ATI.

[Techhie]

It's not a problem under OS X.

On the Windows side, Vista would be a problem (multiple cards needed to have GPU's from the same maker), but Win7 is fine with mixing nVidia and ATI.

I figured as much, but I don't know how the system will treat them when gaming (on either OS). I've heard that it differentiates in Windows, so does this mean I will only have gaming oomph on the monitor I have plugged into the 4870 or do the OS' use the collective power of all GPUs during a game?

[nanofrog]

I figured as much, but I don't know how the system will treat them when gaming (on either OS). I've heard that it differentiates in Windows, so does this mean I will only have gaming oomph on the monitor I have plugged into the 4870 or do the OS' use the collective power of all GPUs during a game?
I'm not certain, but it seems to me that cards from different makers would want to operate independently (unlike Crossfire or SLI, which use the same GPU maker's parts and some other means to get them to work together).

So I'd expect the faster card to be noticable, unless you turn the settings down to something the lower performance card can do.

It it's not going to work, you'd want to place both monitors on one card.

[Techhie]

So I'd expect the faster card to be noticable, unless you turn the settings down to something the lower performance card can do.

It it's not going to work, you'd want to place both monitors on one card.

Yeah, it's just such a shame that a one-card solution leaves me with

8800 GT

A $100 dual-link MDP adapter on the anemic GT120

The $450 GTX 285, which is soon to be outdated with another old and overpriced Mac Pro card

*Sigh, why can't Apple support the people who like 30" monitors? :rolleyes: Never mind the fact that the people who would buy them would usually have no problem forking over for the GTX 285 :o

I'm 17 and can't afford to pay an Apple tax for decent performance :(

[nanofrog]

Yeah, it's just such a shame that a one-card solution leaves me with

8800 GT

A $100 dual-link MDP adapter on the anemic GT120

The $450 GTX 285, which is soon to be outdated with another old and overpriced Mac Pro card

*Sigh, why can't Apple support the people who like 30" monitors? :rolleyes: Never mind the fact that the people who would buy them would usually have no problem forking over for the GTX 285 :o

I'm 17 and can't afford to pay an Apple tax for decent performance :(
I'd wait for the 2010's, as I really do expect a 5xxx ATI card. Get a PC version, and flash it. The ROM's certainly going to be available somewhere shortly after someone gets their hands on an Apple version.

If you don't want to deal with flashing a card, it might push the 4870 down on Apple's site, and some may even pop up on Craig's List and/or eBay.

Up to you, but it doesn't sound critical you must have a solution this instant, and waiting is in your wallet's best interest. :D :p

[DoFoT9]

For a single SSD, you only need to attach it to the logic board, so there's no card needed, and it saves money as well. It's only when you want to run SSD in RAID (i.e. stripe set), that the card makes sense to get around the throttling issue in the ICH.
makes sense, but not entirely needed. im sure that the max speed of the ICH (did you say around 600MB/s?) would be plenty fast enough for the OPs situation ;)

The theoretical max is 375MB/s, but it won't reach that in the real world. ~270MB/s is all it can actually achieve for SATA 3.0Gb/s. Obviously it's increased (doubled) with SATA 6.0Gb/s, but so far, that's not possible on MP's logic boards. A PCIe card is the only way with existing systems, and it appears that will also be the case for the 2010 models, as they use the same ICH as in the current models.
ahh i see. am i correct in assuming that the fastest PCIe slots on a MP are 16GB/s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_Express)? just making sure that we arent going to go any faster then the logic board can take ;)

I see eSATA as an inexpensive connection for backups that still offers better performance than USB, FW400/800, or even 1G Ethernet. Especially when RAID is used in the internal HDD bays. PM enclosures can give you up to 5 drives per eSATA port, so a single port could provide up to 10TB in backup capacity (with current largest capacity drives).
youve got me! i might save up for one of these said enclosures. i hope they dont cost too much! eSATA cables can be pretty long too right? too bad my iMac doesnt have eSata! i will have to put one in my hack ;)

Late 2010 is the last I've seen.
gah how frustrating! dont try to keep up or anything FW...

HT is good for running mulitple applications where it uses less than 50% of a core. Anything more, you'd be better off with physical cores, assuming such instances are common.
LESS than 50%? right, didnt know that.

He does NOT need a RAID card for a single SSD for an OS/application disk.

If he wanted to make a stripe set however, it may make sense if theres more than 2x SSD's in the set, or perhaps in a mixed mode environment (SSD + HDD used in a simultaneous access scenario). It would get down to the specifics.

he most def does not need a RAID card!! how does the speed get calculated in a mixed mode environment (MME for easy reference).

[nanofrog]

makes sense, but not entirely needed. I'm sure that the max speed of the ICH (did you say around 600MB/s?) would be plenty fast enough for the OPs situation ;)
It's ~660MB/s (approx 110MB/s per drive), of which there are 6x SATA ports in a 4 + 2 configuration on the ICH parts. As Techie only wants to run 1x SSD, the logic board is absolutely FINE. :D

You're skimming to quickly and missing the big stuff. :eek: :p

ahh i see. am i correct in assuming that the fastest PCIe slots on a MP are 16GB/s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_Express)? just making sure that we aren't going to go any faster then the logic board can take ;)
No. The '08 and '09 systems use PCIe v 2.0 (500MB/s per lane) for the 16x lane slots, which can provide 8GB/s max. But they differ on the 4x lane slots, as the '08's are PCIe v 1.1 (250MB/s per lane). The '09's use PCIe 2.0 for all 4 slots.

But ultimately, it will depend on how much bandwidth is available from PCIe to the CPU. It's different architecture between the '08 and '09 systems, and neither can handle all the slots running at full bandwidth (18 - 20GB/s). It's a design compromise, and they may not all need to access the CPU anyway (i.e. Crossfire or SLI).

PCIe v 3.0 is capable of 1.0GB/s per lane, but isn't even finished with validation, as the final specification isn't due until Q2 2010. So it's going to be a little while. I'd expect it about March 2011 or so (new Intel CPU architecture, and PCIe 3.0 would be present in the accompanying chipset/s).

you've got me! i might save up for one of these said enclosures. i hope they dont cost too much! eSATA cables can be pretty long too right? too bad my iMac doesn't have eSata! i will have to put one in my hack ;)
SATA spec:
1.0 m = passive signals (no electronics between the eSATA port and drives in the enclosure to amplify the signals, which = Port Multiplier board)
2.0 m = active signals (Port Multiplier board between the card and drives)

RAID cards are actually passive. eSATA cards alone are passive. It's the use of a Port Multiplier enclosure that can allow you to use 2.0 m cables. Otherwise, it's 1.0 m.

LESS than 50%? right, didn't know that.
50% theoretical, but it doesn't take into account the controller section in the CPU has to switch processes back and forth (2 separate threads), which adds latency, and slows you down.

he most def does not need a RAID card!! how does the speed get calculated in a mixed mode environment (MME for easy reference).
It's going to depend on usage. But assuming simultaneous access (all drives going at the same time), it's the throughput speeds of each disk added up for a max throughput scenario. So if you're looking at averages, and have
SSD = 250MB/s
4x HDD = 85MB/s each (340MB/s total, likely via a stripe set)
1x ODD = 60MB/s (likely not simultaneous in most cases, so it's up to the user as to consider this or not)

Grand total = 650MB/s (basically right at the limit of what the ICH can handle maxed out).