How much more expensive will the next Mac Pro be?

[strausd]

I am curious because the new hexacore processors will obviously be better. The other thing is that Apple has always seemed to keep their prices at around the same level when there is an update. I have read many people saying they will go up but I have also read people saying they will stay the same, what do yall think?

[thegoldenmackid]

If the price points go up, it will be minimal. I'm the one that advocates the idea of no price changes.

[rajbonham]

I think the prices will stay the same as well. I also think this week or next week could very well be the refresh dates. Crossing my fingers!

[chaosbunny]

From a marketing view, they can't really go up. Maybe for high end 12 core configurations, but not for base models. That said, I really hope Apple gives us competitive pricing with the low end Mac Pros again. A 2200 - 2500 bucks Mac Pro should be significantly faster than the i7 iMac. The only way they could really achieve that is going 6 core across the entire line with 2-3 2200 - 3000 single 6 core models and 3500+ 12 core models. I really hope for reasonable, value for money prices like with the 2008 Mac Pro.

The company I work for will buy me one once they are released. We need a graphic design workstation to replace a tired G5 for Adobe CS5 and already have a 30" ACD. The dual processor configurations, although still priced quite ok right now, are a waste of mnoney for that kind of work, and the current single processor Mac Pros are daylight robbery. That's why we are waiting, hoping for the best.

[strausd]

How much of a price difference will a dodecacore machine be compared to an octacore?

[Gonk42]

I think prices will be very similar to the existing models. For two reasons.
First, Intel has priced the new 6 core chips close to the prices of the old 4 core chips. Secondly, the 2009 models represented a large price hike over the 2008 models (when considering value for money) and I think this was a one off re-adjustment from trying to sell lots of Mac Pros cheap to accepting that the pro is a relatively niche product and charging a premium for it.

It is all speculation - there are lots of possible scenarios from Apple suddenly deciding to push the Mac Pro again (unlikely) and thus reducing prices to Apple deciding that they have zero interest in the Mac Pro and massively increasing prices so that those who must have it give them a good profit for the small numbers sold.

[xgman]

Unless they offer a dual 6 core at which point the sky is the limit.

[Transporteur]

Unless they offer a dual 6 core at which point the sky is the limit.

What makes you think that?

Here in Europe a 6-core 2.66GHz XEON cost exactly the same as the 4-core 2.66GHz XEON.

Intel did NOT rise the price for their new XEON's, so I really can't imagine why Apple should make the Mac Pro more expensive.

[strausd]

That makes sense. As long as they keep their prices pretty close to what they are now I will probably be able to afford a 12 core machine :)

[knweiss]

Unless they offer a dual 6 core at which point the sky is the limit.
Why no 4-socket Nehalem-EX system with a total of 32 cores (64 if you count Hyper-Threading)? The sky is the limit. :rolleyes:

[xgman]

What makes you think that?



This:

[Umbongo]

This:

http://www.intc.com/pricelist.cfm you can see the price increases are minimal from 4-6 cores

[Transporteur]

This:

Sorry but those prices are pretty much exactly the same you pay for equal clocked 55xx XEON's that are currently used by Apple in the octad Mac Pro.

6-core MP XEON's are NOT more expensive than 4-core MP XEON's, so there is absolutely no justification for any rumours about price increase, at least in terms of CPU's, cause we all know what Apple did with last years MP update.

[gotzero]

There might be some price changes if they add twelve RAM slots (which I am hoping for).

[xgman]

Sorry but those prices are pretty much exactly the same you pay for equal clocked 55xx XEON's that are currently used by Apple in the octad Mac Pro.

6-core MP XEON's are NOT more expensive than 4-core MP XEON's, so there is absolutely no justification for any rumours about price increase, at least in terms of CPU's, cause we all know what Apple did with last years MP update.


I'm referring to the possibility of a 3.3 x6 x2 option which would probably start at $6000 or so.

[Transporteur]

I'm referring to the possibility of a 3.3 x6 x2 option which would probably start at $6000 or so.

Well, you should say that then.
Still, the current 2.9x4 x2 also starts at $6000.

Of course the top end machines will be expensive, what do expect? If you want the fastest processors you have to pay for them and the new 56xx chips won't change that. They won't, however, increase the price compared to the current Mac Pro since, as I said, the processors are simply not more expensive.

[strausd]

What makes you think the next MP will have 12 RAM slots? Also, do you think the next MP will have USB 3.0?

[sgunes]

I hope that the delay of the new MacPro will mean that there is more to the upgrade than a 6core-for-4core swap.
With every Tuesday our expectations get higher because we figure out that Apple is actually doing something to improve the MacPro be it USB3 or SATA6 or something else.
I was about to pull the trigger and get a $6000 machine with liquid-cooled and overclocked Gulftown (4.3GHz), 24GB DDR3 1600MHz, Intel G2 160GB HDx2, NVidia GTX480 and GTS 250 (for the hackintosh part) but at the last minute I did not go through as Apple would probably announce an awesome MacPro the second my credit card it charged.
So I am waiting for another couple Tuesdays...:mad:

[ideonode]

I was about to pull the trigger and get a $6000 machine with liquid-cooled and overclocked Gulftown (4.3GHz), 24GB DDR3 1600MHz, Intel G2 160GB HDx2, NVidia GTX480 and GTS 250 (for the hackintosh part) but at the last minute I did not go through as Apple would probably announce an awesome MacPro the second my credit card it charged.

Veering offtopic here, but I'm sure I read somewhere that if you're overclocking, then having more than 6GB of RAM is detrimental. Certainly, various overclocking specialists (e.g. scan) warn against putting 12GB in.

[sgunes]

Veering offtopic here, but I'm sure I read somewhere that if you're overclocking, then having more than 6GB of RAM is detrimental. Certainly, various overclocking specialists (e.g. scan) warn against putting 12GB in.

You can overclock the CPU independent of the memory speed. The i7 980X are "Extreme" versions and therefore multiplier unlocked.
You are right that more ram in general is detrimental for extreme overclocks. Most benchmarkers have just 3 1GB sticks in. In my case, I have to find a happy medium between overclocking and usability (otherwise I would have experimented with LN2 and 6GHz).

[Umbongo]

I hope that the delay of the new MacPro will mean that there is more to the upgrade than a 6core-for-4core swap.
With every Tuesday our expectations get higher because we figure out that Apple is actually doing something to improve the MacPro be it USB3 or SATA6 or something else.
I was about to pull the trigger and get a $6000 machine with liquid-cooled and overclocked Gulftown (4.3GHz), 24GB DDR3 1600MHz, Intel G2 160GB HDx2, NVidia GTX480 and GTS 250 (for the hackintosh part) but at the last minute I did not go through as Apple would probably announce an awesome MacPro the second my credit card it charged.
So I am waiting for another couple Tuesdays...:mad:

The delay likely has nothing to do with the manufacture and specification of the systems and is due to Apple's business strategies and practices.

[sgunes]

The delay likely has nothing to do with the manufacture and specification of the systems and is due to Apple's business strategies and practices.

I hope that you are wrong and my wait was worth it. :(

[strausd]

Do you think a single 6 core machine would out perform a 09 8 core?

[malcolm233391]

I'm fairly confident that an over clocked 980x can outperform an 09 2.26 8 core Mac pro

[strausd]

what about non overclocked?

[sgunes]

what about non overclocked?

Let's figure it out (assuming you are not doing encryption (http://techreport.com/articles.x/18581/10)):
980x: 6 x 3.33 GHz = 19.98 GHz + turbo boost.

Octocore MP: 8 x 2.33 GHz = 18.08 GHz.
Octocore MP: 8 x 2.66 GHz = 21.28 GHz.

So, yes the unoverclocked Gulftown will beat any day the Octocore 2.26 GHz.
It may be too close to call against the 2.66 GHz Xeons.

Overclocked:
980x: 6 x 4 GHz = 24 GHz or even
980x: 6 x 4.3 GHz = 25.8 GHz

Octocore MP: 8 x 2.93 GHz = 23.44 GHz

The only Apple MP model that can beat the overclocked Gulftown would be the dual six-core Xeons.
This does not even take into account that you can run your memory faster than Apple usually does.

[Kpjoslee]

Let's figure it out (assuming you are not doing encryption (http://techreport.com/articles.x/18581/10)):
980x: 6 x 3.33 GHz = 19.98 GHz + turbo boost.

Octocore MP: 8 x 2.33 GHz = 18.08 GHz.
Octocore MP: 8 x 2.66 GHz = 21.28 GHz.

So, yes the unoverclocked Gulftown will beat any day the Octocore 2.26 GHz.
It may be too close to call against the 2.66 GHz Xeons.

Overclocked:
980x: 6 x 4 GHz = 24 GHz or even
980x: 6 x 4.3 GHz = 25.8 GHz

Octocore MP: 8 x 2.93 GHz = 23.44 GHz

The only Apple MP model that can beat the overclocked Gulftown would be the dual six-core Xeons.
This does not even take into account that you can run your memory faster than Apple usually does.

No.....You cannot simply add clockspeeds together and assume which one will outperform another. It really depends on which application you are going to be using.

[Gonk42]

For those interested in overclocked 6-cores, the latest edition of Custom PC reports on their build where they overclocked it to 5GHz. This will probably appear on bit-tech.net some time but I don't think it is up yet.

The Cinebench score was 39,391 (R10)

Personally I use a workstation for stability rather than outright speed, so would avoid overclocking - though this is probably too conservative as a well cooled overclocked chip is probably as stable as a less well cooled chip running at stock frequency.

One advantage a 2x4 core arrangement may have over a 1x6core (apart from the extra two cores) is that it has 6 memory channels vs 3 on the single chip setup.

[alphaod]

Why no 4-socket Nehalem-EX system with a total of 32 cores (64 if you count Hyper-Threading)? The sky is the limit. :rolleyes:

Because not everyone wants a cooling tower to cool their desktops ;)

[sgunes]

No.....You cannot simply add clockspeeds together and assume which one will outperform another. It really depends on which application you are going to be using.

Actually you can.
In my examples the higher clocked 6-core will beat the lower clocked 8-core as it is easier to make use of fewer higher clocked cores than more lower clocked cores (given the same microarchitecture and memory speed) . The few exceptions are Cinebench R10 and other programs that will use every core and thread.

[Hmac]

I think prices on equivalently-positioned machines will go up a couple hundred $$. Apple is moving toward a consumer and mobile sales paradigm. It doesn't appear that they have any intention of trying to penetrate the increasingly rarified atmosphere of high-powered desktops, so I wouldn't look for any sweet deals on Mac Pros or big ACD's.

[Max(IT)]

I'm fairly confident that an over clocked 980x can outperform an 09 2.26 8 core Mac pro

Wtf ... how can you keep talking about overclock when speaking of professional machines ?!? That's well beyond me ...

[nanofrog]

Wtf ... how can you keep talking about overclock when speaking of professional machines ?!? That's well beyond me ...
Perhaps it's that gamers used to OC'ing thier rigs are entering the professional market (i.e. recent graduates), and as independents, see OC'ing these systems as a way to eek out improved performance without the understanding that reliability is even more important than performance. :eek: ;)

[Kpjoslee]

Actually you can.
In my examples the higher clocked 6-core will beat the lower clocked 8-core as it is easier to make use of fewer higher clocked cores than more lower clocked cores (given the same microarchitecture and memory speed) . The few exceptions are Cinebench R10 and other programs that will use every core and thread.

In your examples, 2.8 dual core will always have to be twice as fast as 2.8 single core, but that is not the case is it? Also, adding clockspeeds together is COMPLETELY WRONG way to estimate performance. 6 core vs 8 core is far more complex to assume as it heavily depends on how the application is able to utilize multiple threads.

[wisty]

In your examples, 2.8 dual core will always have to be twice as fast as 2.8 single core, but that is not the case is it? Also, adding clockspeeds together is COMPLETELY WRONG way to estimate performance. 6 core vs 8 core is far more complex to assume as it heavily depends on how the application is able to utilize multiple threads.

It's like saying your Ferrari can out-pull a team of draft horses. It's wrong, but conservatively wrong.

It's ignoring the reliability of EEC RAM though.

[sgunes]

In your examples, 2.8 dual core will always have to be twice as fast as 2.8 single core, but that is not the case is it? Also, adding clockspeeds together is COMPLETELY WRONG way to estimate performance. 6 core vs 8 core is far more complex to assume as it heavily depends on how the application is able to utilize multiple threads.

If you re-read my post you see that I mentioned programs like Cinebench that will use every core and I mentioned that you have to have the same microarchitecture, memory speed and other factors identical to make it a fair comparison. We had this discussion here multiple times before regarding more GHz versus more cores.
In general you are better off (once you are over 2 cores) to have fewer faster cores than more slower cores. So a 4 core 4GHz machine will be faster than an 8 core 2GHz machine except for pure rendering when they maybe equal.
My point was that an overclocked Gulftown hackintosh will only be beat by the fastest 12-core MP 2010. Until we have all in hand and can benchmark them it is an assumption. What we have right now are Cinebench scores for overclocked and regular Gulftown (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/03/11/intel-core-i7-980x-extreme-edition-review/4).

[nanofrog]

If you re-read my post you see that I mentioned programs like Cinebench that will use every core and I mentioned that you have to have the same microarchitecture, memory speed and other factors identical to make it a fair comparison. We had this discussion here multiple times before regarding more GHz versus more cores.
In general you are better off (once you are over 2 cores) to have fewer faster cores than more slower cores. So a 4 core 4GHz machine will be faster than an 8 core 2GHz machine except for pure rendering when they maybe equal.
My point was that an overclocked Gulftown hackintosh will only be beat by the fastest 12-core MP 2010. Until we have all in hand and can benchmark them it is an assumption. What we have right now are Cinebench scores for overclocked and regular Gulftown (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/03/11/intel-core-i7-980x-extreme-edition-review/4).
But you're talking about a benchmark program, which isn't real world results. Most software can't take advantage of all the cores, even if it is multi-threaded. There's a little that can, and rendering tends to be where you find it (for common usages by MR members).

There's other applications that can as well, but it's usually in server or scientific areas for workstation use (typically for simulations). In general, it's rare though, as software always lags behind the hardware.

Just look at Adobe's offerings. Multi-threading usually means 2 cores currently. Now if you can multi-task, you can run multiple instances at the same time, and use the system's power, but it's hard to do as I understand it.

[Max(IT)]

Perhaps it's that gamers used to OC'ing thier rigs are entering the professional market (i.e. recent graduates), and as independents, see OC'ing these systems as a way to eek out improved performance without the understanding that reliability is even more important than performance. :eek: ;)

you could be right

[RubbishBBspeed]

Hopefully not much more, I'm already getting stick for it taking so long, if it arrives with a price increase then I think I'll be asked to resign (not joking). But if it doesn't come by the end of June then it wouldn't matter I won't getting one.

[Wild-Bill]

I hope they release the damn thing soon.

I probably won't buy it, but I'm interested in getting my hands on an HD5870 for my Early 2008........ that is, if they offer the card. Knowing Apple, the video card options will probably suck.

[Techhie]

I hope they release the damn thing soon.

I probably won't buy it, but I'm interested in getting my hands on an HD5870 for my Early 2008........

I will probably look for a good price on an '08 or '09 octad with AppleCare, so I can spend the rest of the money on more important things (like food other than ramen :D)