2010 Mac Pro motherboard?

[DualShock]

yeah wishful thinking, i know

but would be cool huh?

http://www.evga.com/articles/00537/

[Cindori]

Cool? It makes me horny.

But it's a fact that Mac Pro boards are custom Intel.

Also very likely it will be identical to 2009 but with Microcode support for Gulftown.

[sgunes]

yeah wishful thinking, i know

but would be cool huh?

http://www.evga.com/articles/00537/

The question is: can you hackintosh it?

Look at the Cinebench scores at 4.3 and 5 GHz x 16 physical cores:

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8114/cb11p.jpg

http://www.theinquirer.net/IMG/072/94072/evgacinebench5g-540x540.png?1268757614

[Techhie]

If Apple could give us a logic board with those specs, I would pay the obscene prices they charge. Otherwise, I won't be giving them $1,500 in profit on a computer that costs half that to make.

Hopefully the update actually wows.

[bearcatrp]

The way apple is jacking up prices on mac pro's, I am probably on my last one. Cheaper to build one if you know what your doing. Guess we will see when the new ones come out.

[sgunes]

I am considering buying the Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD7, getting the i7 980X, overclocking to about 4.2 GHz (either air versus water) and Kakewalking (http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=195248) it.
6 cores at 4.2 GHz will give the MacPro 2010 with 12 cores at 3.33 GHz a run for the money in most applications. The savings would be enough to get double the memory, good SSDs and a 30inch monitor.

[Umbongo]

I am considering buying the Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD7, getting the i7 980X, overclocking to about 4.2 GHz (either air versus water) and Kakewalking (http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=195248) it.
6 cores at 4.2 GHz will give the MacPro 2010 with 12 cores at 3.33 GHz a run for the money in most applications. The savings would be enough to get double the memory, good SSDs and a 30inch monitor.

Yeah the 980 and W3680 are really the perfect Workstation processors right now. A very realistic alternative to dual processor systems even for CPU intensive work-flows.

[HighSeasCaptain]

If you could hackintosh that motherboard, I would stop waiting for the 2010 Mac Pros and start building right now.

[nanofrog]

Yeah the 980 and W3680 are really the perfect Workstation processors right now. A very realistic alternative to dual processor systems even for CPU intensive work-flows.
Absolutely. DP workstation's days are numbered, especially once the 8 core CPU's ship.

[deconstruct60]

Cool? It makes me horny.

But it's a fact that Mac Pro boards are custom Intel.

Also very likely it will be identical to 2009 but with Microcode support for Gulftown.

Custom Intel or custom Apple ? To jumpstart the switch to Intel they leveraged Intel but at this point, they are likely doing their own. (hence a small contributor to the higher costs . )

The USB 3.0 addition on this board is a likely candidate for the 2010 Mac Pro. Gigabyte Ethernet , 800 Firewire , etc. all showed up first on a Mac Pro class model. USB 3.0 would just be a continuation of that trendline. Should be more room on the Mac Pro's motherboard to add a USB 3.0 controller (without tossing the Firewire support ) more so than the other Mac platforms. USB 3.0 chips were announced as early as last Spring and out on the market last Fall. It isn't like Apple couldn't have gotten their hands on one a long while back at this point.

Likewise, SATA II (6GB ) would work extremely well on classic Mac Pro workloads more so than most of the other Mac platform workloads. If doesn't require addition board space ( in contrast to USB 3.0 above) then seems like no brainer addition. ( e.g., the disk benchmarks can be cranked up and if hold price relatively constant it is an additional value prop.)


The non fit characteristics is just two fold. One is the double down on each of the memory controller channels ( 12 DIMMS , the more memory add to a channel get a slight decrease in speed. ) and the more than 3 PCI-e slots. This board is larger than an ATX form factor (scroll down on that page to the part where EVGA mentions it won't fit in most cases.) Those are the larger Apple design disconnects.

I guess the 3rd would be overclocking support. Apple isn't out to win any clocking GHz war.

[deconstruct60]

Absolutely. DP workstation's days are numbered, especially once the 8 core CPU's ship.

If dual processor package workstations are currently bought because "time is money" ( getting work done faster allows to make more money) then that isn't likely to change. 16 cores will allow work to get done faster than 8 so worth the price premium.

The number of "class war" folks ( I'm a power user so need 'big iron' ... where additional cores aren't really making money anyway. ) will certainly drop.

Likewise folks doing mostly single task , largely single thread jobs. Those folks are on the "bigger GHz" road. Max GHz isn't found in more cores; just more workload done per unit time.

[Nostromo]

If Apple could give us a logic board with those specs, I would pay the obscene prices they charge. Otherwise, I won't be giving them $1,500 in profit on a computer that costs half that to make.

Hopefully the update actually wows.

The way apple is jacking up prices on mac pro's, I am probably on my last one. Cheaper to build one if you know what your doing. Guess we will see when the new ones come out.

I hope we'll be getting serious workstations at a fair price, not some pretty gimmick upgrade with jacked up prices.

I want to buy a MacPro but I won't let Apple rob me.

[InfoSecmgr]

If Apple could give us a logic board with those specs, I would pay the obscene prices they charge. Otherwise, I won't be giving them $1,500 in profit on a computer that costs half that to make.

Hopefully the update actually wows.

Tigerdirect wants $1099 for the new 6 core i7's alone.

[Techhie]

Tigerdirect wants $1099 for the new 6 core i7's alone.

Yes, but not all 6-core Xeons will be at that price point. I was referencing the current SP boxes, and the ridiculous profit margins Apple collects on each one they sell.

[Gonk42]

I guess one reason Apple has not rushed to bring out the new Pro with dual six core chips is that with 12 cores and 24 threads the lack of RAM slots will be even more of an issue than it is with the 2009 model. But with the present layout there isn't really any room to extend to six slots per processor.

The 5600 series Xeons can run two DIMMs per channel at full speed (unlike the 5500 series) so having less than six RAM slots per processor looks stingy. (Having said that, Apple restricts the RAM speed anyway.)

[hajime]

Shall we call such computer MacRumors Pro 2010?

[xgman]

The USB 3.0 addition on this board is a likely candidate for the 2010 Mac Pro.

Not likely before Intel has support for it on it's own chipset.

[nanofrog]

Custom Intel or custom Apple ? To jumpstart the switch to Intel they leveraged Intel but at this point, they are likely doing their own. (hence a small contributor to the higher costs . )
Apple doesn't design or manufacture their own gear though (they do produce the industrial design and a spec sheet). But the actual circuit design is ODM'ed by another company (Hon Hai Precision does the majority of it, but they've used Intel for the MP boards in the past).

The USB 3.0 addition on this board is a likely candidate for the 2010 Mac Pro.
As the pin count is higher than the USB 2.0 chips, they're not drop-in replacements. So it would require new PCB's which would increase the cost. Sticking with the existing boards and providing a firmware update would be the most cost effective solution. Intel intentionally designs their parts for this (1 board functions with a single architecture that spans 2yrs - Tock + following Tick cycle).

For a previous example in the Mac Pro lineup, take a look at the '06 and '07 systems. Same board, just newer CPU's were available.

Likewise, SATA II (6GB ) would work extremely well on classic Mac Pro workloads more so than most of the other Mac platform workloads. If doesn't require addition board space ( in contrast to USB 3.0 above) then seems like no brainer addition. ( e.g., the disk benchmarks can be cranked up and if hold price relatively constant it is an additional value prop.)
The chipsets carry over from the '09 models, so 6.0Gb/s SATA isn't supported (X58/5520; SP and DP systems respectively). So it would also require a new board for an additional chip (likely a 2 port part).

If dual processor package workstations are currently bought because "time is money" ( getting work done faster allows to make more money) then that isn't likely to change. 16 cores will allow work to get done faster than 8 so worth the price premium.
The comment is based on 2 specific facts.

1. Intel's roadmap is pushing cores per CPU, and the pricing is out of bounds for workstation use (they're filling the requests for servers/clusters with high core counts - it's all about efficiency).

2. Software is behind for the most part. There are a few applications that can use beyond 8 cores, but it's rare (simulations for example), and usually isn't available for OS X.

[Lord Blackadder]

If you could hackintosh that motherboard, I would stop waiting for the 2010 Mac Pros and start building right now.

Hell, if you could Hackintosh that motherboard, you'd have your hands on a 2015 Mac Pro. :rolleyes:

[Nostromo]

Shall we call such computer MacRumors Pro 2010?

:D

[DualShock]

Hell, if you could Hackintosh that motherboard, you'd have your hands on a 2015 Mac Pro. :rolleyes:

HAHAHAHA

[HighSeasCaptain]

Hell, if you could Hackintosh that motherboard, you'd have your hands on a 2015 Mac Pro. :rolleyes:

How sad how true that is :(

[AZREOSpecialist]

So when we were on the PowerPC platform, everyone blamed Motorola and IBM for the lack of updates. Now what is Apple's excuse?

[hajime]

Since it is not known when the new Mac Pro will be available, I am interested in building a DP Hackintosh. Has anybody succeed in building one without hacking? I hope to get a list of components that are guaranteed to work. Thanks.

[voyagerd]

Once that motherboard, the X5680s, and the GTX 480s become available, I'll have a tough time waiting for a Mac Pro. Being able to easily overclock is just too fun to pass up!

[deconstruct60]

Apple doesn't design or manufacture their own gear though (they do produce the industrial design and a spec sheet). But the actual circuit design is ODM'ed by another company (Hon Hai Precision does the majority of it, but they've used Intel for the MP boards in the past).


That's pretty sad if Apple can't even lay out a circuit board with in house personnel. That whole "designed in Cupertino" on the box is a grossly superficial statement of situation if so. I know they go to outside vendors for production. I can see them going to same or similar folks to create prototype boards. However, if they can't even do the ECAD design and simulation for the boards and are just picking parts out of parts bin/catalog and saying don't use the cheap ones .... WTF. How is that designed in Cupertino ?

OK. if you are saying they are committed to using the exact same board for two years in a row. Then yeah no new stuff. However, this EVGA board is new. They managed to do it and not go bankrupt. In those other years if nothing outside of the core chipset needed changing they the could keep the same board for two years. But this isn't much different than when transitioning from FW400 to FW800. That isn't in the core chipset.

Apple could use the NEC solution just like 90% of the boards you can walk into a decent motherboard store and see. Perhaps, they don't like committing to longer term to follows on to that.

USB 2.0 and 3.0 pins out differences seem likely to be least of change worries. 3.0 is substantially faster. Not sure how the trace lines are going to work at substantially faster speeds. I would be surprised if 3.0 didn't not force layout changes. I assumed there would be differences. I didn't assume that had to use the exact same board for 2 years. I figured the run-rate Apple has on Mac Pros is high enough to pay for the PCB board R&D inside of a year. If it really takes two years..... then that is surprising.

Likewise even the NEC solution has problems tapped into the single PCI-e slot it is in now if push it real hard. If later designs have a 3.0 solutions hooked into two different PCI-e channels you'd be able to get more aggregate throughput out of the machine. [ Same as when had two independent FW800 channels versus the current designs which crumble back to FW400 once plug a complicated FW network. Likewise why boards with serious Gb Ethernet have two independent controllers. Plugging several 2.0 or 1.0 USB devices into a 3.0 controller is going to have impact on throughput. ] If trying to deliver box with top end cross section I/O bandwidth may not want to be dependent just on core 3.0 even when it does arrive.


Just because the socket and support chipset are the same doesn't necessarily mean have to freeze the entire layout of the rest of the motherboard.

If the motherboard is frozen for two years there are ZERO reason not to deploy right now.










The comment is based on 2 specific facts.

1. Intel's roadmap is pushing cores per CPU, and the pricing is out of bounds for workstation use (they're filling the requests for servers/clusters with high core counts - it's all about efficiency).



A significant percentage of Mac Pros are deployed as severs.

Over half of the "new" Gulftown Xeons lineup are 4 core models.
Likewise Intel has now speed bumped the rest of the 3500 line used in the single processor package models.

The price range line up is approximately exactly the same (for the parts Apple is likely to use) as it was last year. Apple can add a few models at the top of the line with 6 cores that those folks probably can leverage. There is no need for or requirement that Apple deploy 6 cores across the board.



2. Software is behind for the most part. There are a few applications that can use beyond 8 cores, but it's rare (simulations for example), and usually isn't available for OS X.


The is fewer major "making money" software titles in daily use on the upper end of the Mac Pro spectrum that cannot leverage additional horsepower than there is on the lower levels.

It also depends upon what the user does. If the user serially interacts with applications it is hard to keep workload up. However, if a single user interacts with several programs at once ( start long operation in one, then move to another , eventually cycle back to the first. rinse and repeat ), then can easily get a workload that is higher than what any single one application can do. (Certainly much easier to do when focus multiple users onto a single box. )


It doesn't make sense to sweep in the folks who buy iMacs into the pool of folks talking about when in a Mac Pro discussion. Few relative to the overall Mac OS X market is not as material as few in the submarket of those spending over $2,500 on a computer. Those folks are likely paying more for their software. If paying lots more for your software and it can't keep up.... it is not the hardware where you should question where throwing money at.

Finally, the software doesn't go more than 8 because more than 8 isn't commonly deployed. The GCD starts folks in the direction of not hard coding caps into the software. Even those not leveraging GCD will increase their software caps if the deployed machines start to appear in reasonable numbers with more than 8. If injecting hard coded caps no reason to set it higher than what exists.

[deconstruct60]

The 5600 series Xeons can run two DIMMs per channel at full speed (unlike the 5500 series) so having less than six RAM slots per processor looks stingy. (Having said that, Apple restricts the RAM speed anyway.)

Not sure if those reports mean can run two at 1333MHz (as opposed to being able to just do it as speeds below that ) or you inncur no memory speed hits with two ( or three ) DIMMS per channel. I think it is the first from the several I've read. Not sure how Intel could not take some hit switching between DIMMs (unless they were required installed in pairs and always set up to talk to two. ) If have point to detailed info that says otherwise that would be cool, because haven't found one yet.

Apple is likely going to stick with 1066MHz so that 1333Mhz is moot. (The new 5600 adds support for lower voltage memory, so it isn't Apple alone who is trying to fit into tighter thermal envelopes. ) Again this is indicative that they tweaked the timing/voltage tolerances on the controllers, not that changed the multi DIMMs on channel implications.


Assuming there is not speed hit in dual DIMMs...

The expedient solution would be to make the box about an 1-1.5 inches wider and redo the daughterboard with the extra two slots.

The problem is that the single CPU package version seems likely to stick with the 3500 series ( since it got speed bumped across the line-up that Apple was using. ). Only if they flip to 5600 for both single and double package versions would the new design be leveraged across the line.

I'm not sure they will do that. They obviously didn't go with the "extra wide" container back in the 3500/5500 era.

[deconstruct60]

Not likely before Intel has support for it on it's own chipset.

To roll it in across the whole product line, I agree won't be until in the chipset.

However, the MacPro motherboard has some wiggle room. If they wanted to do a "swap out", just drop the discrete USB controller where the Firewire chip is now. Isn't like Apple hasn't demonstrated before how they are itching to toss Firewire. The NEC USB 3.0 chip hooks to PCI-e just like the firewire controller does. It isn't that large of a board change and they've kicked FW to curb too. (I think it is premature to do that, but firewire isn't in the Intel core chipsets either. ) It isn't like the Mac Pro board is as hard pressed for space or extra PCI-e lanes.

I would guess though that the "villagers" would come out in force with pitchforks , torches and tar if Apple dropped Firewire off the Mac Pro willy nilly like that though. Not recommending that they do it. It is just illustrative that you can add stuff to a full sized board that isn't on the chipset.


Likewise, Intel's update rate on their server class support chips is slower than the mainstream support chipsets. If going to wait until in the support chips, the MBP and iMac might see USB 3.0 before the Mac Pro did. (depending upon timing... the non server versions might come out unaligned with the MBP/iMac releases and get delayed). If that happened, that's goofy.

However, that would give Apple a good excuse to kick Apple support for USB 3.0 drivers to be kicked out into the future. If had Mac OS X support for discrete USB 3.0 chips and Intel's 3.0 implementation less likely that USB 3.0 PCI-e cards (when arrive) will have some flakey 3rd party driver.

[nanofrog]

That's pretty sad if Apple can't even lay out a circuit board with in house personnel. That whole "designed in Cupertino" on the box is a grossly superficial statement of situation if so. I know they go to outside vendors for production. I can see them going to same or similar folks to create prototype boards. However, if they can't even do the ECAD design and simulation for the boards and are just picking parts out of parts bin/catalog and saying don't use the cheap ones .... WTF. How is that designed in Cupertino ?
I doubt they even issue a true BOM, since they're not producing the schematic, let alone the PCB work. Just a short list in a spec sheet (HRS), such as the CPU socket (which dictates the chipset), and the rest is left up to the ODM.

It seems that the industrial design aspect is enough for them to put the "Designed in Cupertino" on the label. :rolleyes:

OK. if you are saying they are committed to using the exact same board for two years in a row. Then yeah no new stuff. However, this EVGA board is new. They managed to do it and not go bankrupt. In those other years if nothing outside of the core chipset needed changing they the could keep the same board for two years. But this isn't much different than when transitioning from FW400 to FW800. That isn't in the core chipset.
That's EVGA though, and I'd be surprised if Apple is willing to spend that much for a board (remeber, Apple charges ~$800USD for a board that has equivalentish <save PCIe slots available on DP boards> for less than half that). BTW, that EVGA board is HUGE (15" x 13.6").

Also, keep in mind, that Apple's sales numbers of the MP's aren't that high (low production volume compared to similar systems by other vendors). It's doable if they still did the hardware development, but it would force them to reduce their margins to keep the MSRP to a level potential buyers would go for it. At some point, there is such a thing as too expensive, despite the marketing,... Especially if the purchase is corporate, as the accounting dept. is likely to have already calculated a purchase limit (they're all about money in my experience, not what system is percieved as the best choice, no matter the reason - that's their job).

Apple could use the NEC solution just like 90% of the boards you can walk into a decent motherboard store and see. Perhaps, they don't like committing to longer term to follows on to that.
I presume you're talking about USB 3.0 chips. Assumin this is the case, there's 2 providers I'm aware of; NEC and Marvell.

USB 2.0 and 3.0 pins out differences seem likely to be least of change worries. 3.0 is substantially faster. Not sure how the trace lines are going to work at substantially faster speeds. I would be surprised if 3.0 didn't not force layout changes. I assumed there would be differences. I didn't assume that had to use the exact same board for 2 years. I figured the run-rate Apple has on Mac Pros is high enough to pay for the PCB board R&D inside of a year. If it really takes two years..... then that is surprising.
Let's ignore the technical aspects of USB 3.0 for the moment. In simple terms, the reason they want to use the same board for 2 years is purely financial. That's one of the reasons Intel's using the current Tock - Tick cycles (2yr socket and chipset lifecycle). It's possible to do redesigns each year to allow for newer tech, but it's more expensive (and even fractions of pennies matter, as once you multiply by production quantities, it results in some real numbers that the business side looks very hard at).

They most likely don't want to justify the expense of a re-design (even though it's more of a modification) to include USB 3.0 and SATA 6.0Gb/s parts. The PCB work isn't exactly inexpensive, and their contracts with the ODM may interfere with this as well (I've no idea of the specifics, particularly production quantities and delivery dates). It's possible they could surprise us, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Then there's a bit on the technical side. Given the PCIe interface issue with existing USB 3.0 chips, it's immature, and would cause hesitation for those looking to sell solid performance rather than specs. Other workstation and server systems are likely to forgo such parts right now, until this issue is solved (matures).

At least that's how we would have looked at it at HP when I was still there.

Just because the socket and support chipset are the same doesn't necessarily mean have to freeze the entire layout of the rest of the motherboard.
No, it's not forced. But there's other considerations to be taken into account as mentioned above. It's not as simple as you might think.

I can't remember the number of times I've seen good ideas shot down before it ever had the chance to become a prototype based on financials alone.

If the motherboard is frozen for two years there are ZERO reason not to deploy right now.
They may not want it to interfere with the launch of other products (detracts attention, and could be seen as a potential for reducing sales). Then there's other issues such as resources, logistics,... to be considered as well. They run rather lean with their personnel resources as I understand it.

A significant percentage of Mac Pros are deployed as severs.
Where are you getting this? :confused:

I ask, as I've never seen a breakdown, but going by the market they're aimed at, is workstation use. The available software that can take advantage of such systems seems to bear that out IMO.

The price range line up is approximately exactly the same (for the parts Apple is likely to use) as it was last year. Apple can add a few models at the top of the line with 6 cores that those folks probably can leverage. There is no need for or requirement that Apple deploy 6 cores across the board.
I wasn't expecting hex core CPU's accross the board, as there's only 1x SP hex core currently available (W3680), and not all of the DP parts available are hex core either. Some are still Quad core (32nm though).

The is fewer major "making money" software titles in daily use on the upper end of the Mac Pro spectrum that cannot leverage additional horsepower than there is on the lower levels.
They'd have to be developed to do so however. For example, Photoshop as well as other Adobe apps still can't use all the avialable cores (i.e. multi-threading is usually only 2 cores as I understand it).

It also depends upon what the user does.
Of course it does. But there's also a dependency on the capabilities of the specific software as well.

For example, I can't force my software to use more cores than it can handle, but I can attempt to run multiple instances if the workflow will allow it.

Finally, the software doesn't go more than 8 because more than 8 isn't commonly deployed. The GCD starts folks in the direction of not hard coding caps into the software. Even those not leveraging GCD will increase their software caps if the deployed machines start to appear in reasonable numbers with more than 8. If injecting hard coded caps no reason to set it higher than what exists.
To me, what matters is what the software does. If it could utilize more than a Quad core system, then it should be able to scale. It's up to the developer of course, but users would be able to take advantage of it if they already own such a system, or might be willing to budget the funds for a new system to improve profitability over a fixed period of time.

The development schedules aren't typically as rapid as consumer applications either, and that has an influence as to what features are available and when and thusly how it affects users. Ultimately, software follows hardware. There's just no way around this. :(

[Gonk42]

I'm no longer in the market for a Mac Pro having purchased a refurbished Dell T5500 at a bargain price after Apple's huge price hike on the 09 models, so
I'm a bit of an interloper on this forum.

But I'm puzzled about Apple's delay on the '10 model. On the 15th March Dell released a new BIOS for the T5500 which is to upgrade it to accept 5600 series chips so I presume that these will be a simple slot in.

So Apple could have released an upgrade of processor very simply and presumably quickly. So why haven't they? Either they're not getting the
supplies from Intel that quickly or they are planning a more substantial upgrade than just a processor change.

[Pressure]

Yes, but not all 6-core Xeons will be at that price point. I was referencing the current SP boxes, and the ridiculous profit margins Apple collects on each one they sell.

You are right. The cheapest DP-capable 6-core Xeon 5600 series (http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?series=47915) processor is only $996. Much cheaper ;)

The only 6-core UP Xeon 3600 series (http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?series=48311) processor is the Xeon 3680 that goes for $999.

I will, however, agree that the current Mac Pro is ridiculously priced for what you get. Especially the 8-core version as the newly released Xeon E5620 (2.40Ghz) is only $378.

[netkas]

If you could hackintosh that motherboard, I would stop waiting for the 2010 Mac Pros and start building right now.

it should be easy ;)

[gfiz]

So when we were on the PowerPC platform, everyone blamed Motorola and IBM for the lack of updates. Now what is Apple's excuse?

I still blame Motorola and IBM...:p

[sgunes]

it should be easy ;)

I looked into Dual-Socket Hackintoshes and I saw only a couple of posts on InsanelyMac about (mostly partial) success with various Supermicro boards.

I guess you are the real "netkas" and I would love for you to take the EVGA board and hackintosh it.

We may be able to arrange for paypal donations for that.

[voyagerd]

it should be easy ;)

I am really glad to see you on this thread. I've been planning to get a Mac Pro, but building a computer with a dual socket SLI motherboard just sounds too fun to pass up!

[urza]

The new EVGA http://news.softpedia.com/news/EVGA-Dual-Socket-LGA-2011-Motherboard-Pictured-229069.shtml

with dual LGA2011 socket ..would be my dream for Hackintosh.

[Tutor]

The new EVGA http://news.softpedia.com/news/EVGA-Dual-Socket-LGA-2011-Motherboard-Pictured-229069.shtml

with dual LGA2011 socket ..would be my dream for Hackintosh.

Mine too, especially with tip top 10 core IBridges.