16 Core Mac Pro Late 2011?

[Chris7]

What do the people here speculate will be Apple's offerings for the various Mac Pro's in late 2011, early 2012?

According to the wik on the Sandy Bridge chip here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Sandy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)), an 8-core "MP server" chip will be available late 2011 (the "Sandy Bridge-EX").

Perhaps dual 8-cores (16-core) will be the $3300 Mac Pro, with one native 8-core "Sandy Bridge B2" Mac Pro for $2500?

(I don't know where the Sandy Bridge-EP and -EN would fit in. I don't know much about servers. Do you need "MP server" chips to do what Apple has been doing with it's current dual 4-cores?)

Just pondering,

Thanks

[Salavat23]

Just FYI (in case), MP-Server does not mean Mac Pro server. It means multi-processor server (More than 2). So this does not apply to the Mac Pro in anyway.

The Mac Pro does not, and will not use any MP chips. The Mac Pro will stick to 1P and 2P processors. (Sandybridge-EN in that wikipedia article).

[Chris7]

...The Mac Pro does not, and will not use any MP chips. The Mac Pro will stick to 1P and 2P processors. (Sandybridge-EN in that wikipedia article).Interesting. And why not the Sandy Bridge-EN? Can two of these be "wired" together?

Edit: I meant Sandy Bridge-EP.

[Salavat23]

Interesting. And why not the Sandy Bridge-EN? Can two of these be "wired" together?

You mean EP? Socket 1356 is the replacement for 1366. Since the Mac Pro is on 1366 now, its seems only reasonable that it will go to 1356. Therefore it should be EN, not EP.

[nanofrog]

Just FYI (in case), MP-Server does not mean Mac Pro server. It means multi-processor server (More than 2). So this does not apply to the Mac Pro in anyway.

The Mac Pro does not, and will not use any MP chips. The Mac Pro will stick to 1P and 2P processors. (Sandybridge-EN in that wikipedia article).
Yep.

The EN variants will be the workstation parts (37xx & 57xx parts for SP and DP respectively).

You mean EP? Socket 1356 is the replacement for 1366. Since the Mac Pro is on 1366 now, its seems only reasonable that it will go to 1356. Therefore it should be EN, not EP.
I think he meant is it possible to be used in DP systems if it's the DP versions wired to the correct chipset, which the answer is Yes. ;)

[Chris7]

You mean EP? Socket 1356 is the replacement for 1366. Since the Mac Pro is on 1366 now, its seems only reasonable that it will go to 1356. Therefore it should be EN, not EP.Yes, that's what I meant (EP). Sounds like it will be the Sandy Bridge-EN for single native 8-core Mac Pro.The EN variants will be the workstation parts (37xx & 57xx parts for SP and DP respectively).What do SP and DP refer to? Single processor and dual processor? (I'm new to this stuff).

[Umbongo]

Yes, that's what I meant (EP). Sounds like it will be the Sandy Bridge-EN for single native 8-core Mac Pro.What do SP and DP refer to? Single processor and dual processor? (I'm new to this stuff).

Yep, although Intel use the term uni-processor (UP) rather than single.

[xgman]

Considering how long it is taking for the current 6 core update . . . . . . . :rolleyes:

[nanofrog]

Yes, that's what I meant (EP). Sounds like it will be the Sandy Bridge-EN for single native 8-core Mac Pro.What do SP and DP refer to? Single processor and dual processor? (I'm new to this stuff).
Yes.

Yep, although Intel use the term uni-processor (UP) rather than single.
I know, and I drives me nutz that the industry started with SP (which caught on as an understood term), then Intel switched to using UP. :rolleyes: :eek: :p

SP seems more of a no-brainer IMO, given the confusion I've seen over UP from others. :D

[iMacmatician]

8 and 16 cores, Sandy Bridge-EN, -EP. I wouldn't count out 6 and 12 either.

[Wild-Bill]

Considering how long it is taking for the current 6 core update . . . . . . . :rolleyes:

^ What he said.....

[Chris7]

Yep.

The EN variants will be the workstation parts (37xx & 57xx parts for SP and DP respectively).

I think he meant is it possible to be used in DP systems if it's the DP versions wired to the correct chipset, which the answer is Yes. ;)
Will the good people here please educate me regarding the difference between a "UP Server" chip vs. a non-server chip (such as a "high-end desktop" chip)?

It would seem that "server" means that two or more chips can be "wired together." But "uni-processor" server seems to denote a server server chip that cannot be wired together with another, no?

Perhaps I do not actually know what the word "server" means.

Apple's software baby, the TV industry standard NLE "Final Cut Studio 3" suite, includes a transcoding application called "Compressor." I believe that Compressor can be set up for "distributive processing" over multiple computers (effectively utilizing small supercomputers). Would a "UP Server" chip work for this? Seems this would require a "MP Server," but I donno.

Any help appreciated. Just curious, as usual.

-Chris

[Hellhammer]

8-core chips will likely cost as much as current 6-cores do so add 1000-2000$ to your prices to make them possible. 6-core may become the base model though.

Why isn't anyone talking about Westmere-EX? Come on, I know you want 40 cores and 80 threads. It wouldn't cost you more than 20-30 000$, not that big deal :D (Just joking, I know Apple won't use them)

[knucles]

8-core chips will likely cost as much as current 6-cores do so add 1000-2000$ to your prices to make them possible. 6-core may become the base model though.

Why isn't anyone talking about Westmere-EX? Come on, I know you want 40 cores and 80 threads. It wouldn't cost you more than 20-30 000$, not that big deal :D (Just joking, I know Apple won't use them)

Do you think the 6 westmere will become the 2499 model?

That would be nice....

[Hellhammer]

Do you think the 6 westmere will became the 2499 model?

That would be nice....

I meant 6-core Sandy Bridge may be found in the 2499$ Mac Pro. It's just my guess, we have no idea on the price yet. The base Mac Pro has used sub 300$ CPUs during the Nehalem micro-architecture so if there is 6-core for less than 300$, then I can't see why Apple wouldn't use it

[chaosbunny]

6-core in the base model seems likely, given that there might be another one and a half years until the next Mac Pro update. Followed by 8-core etc. etc. I'm curios how long it will take until most software will really benefit from all these cores.

I wonder if the development until 2020+ will really be as many cores as possible, I don't know, somewhere more and more cores might start to become ineffective, just like with the ghz wall. What else would be there to improve next? I mean, 10 years ago everybody talked about 10 ghz chips in 2010, and look what we have now. Maybe in 10 years we will read predictions of 64 or 128 core machines from now and laugh about it just like we laugh about the predictions of 2001.

For the next 5 years I'll be happy with my '10 Quad, just played a little Starcraft 2 on Ultra settings while ripping some of my dvds - oh and CS5 programs open almost instantly.

[iMacmatician]

And then in late 2012 we could see 24 cores and 48 threads. That's assuming Ivy Bridge-EP uses the highest core count planned (http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/4602/image9a574c7adad3.jpg) for Ivy Bridge CPUs (which we don't know, since Ivy Bridge-EX-B and -EX-A are above it).

[scottsjack]

16 Core Mac Pro Late 2011?

Really who care? My guess is very few. Many of us would be better served by cuad or hexacore processors in the 3.6 to 4.0GHz range. Since clock speed still rules I'd rather have fewer faster cores than more slower ones in the $3,000 to $4,000 Mac Pro range.

[knucles]

I meant 6-core Sandy Bridge may be found in the 2499$ Mac Pro. It's just my guess, we have no idea on the price yet. The base Mac Pro has used sub 300$ CPUs during the Nehalem micro-architecture so if there is 6-core for less than 300$, then I can't see why Apple wouldn't use it

Anyway it would be a 2,4 ghz Hex right? or a newer model at 3,33 ghz?

Asking because i am seriously considering de 2010 hex...

[nanofrog]

Will the good people here please educate me regarding the difference between a "UP Server" chip vs. a non-server chip (such as a "high-end desktop" chip)?

It would seem that "server" means that two or more chips can be "wired together." But "uni-processor" server seems to denote a server server chip that cannot be wired together with another, no?

Perhaps I do not actually know what the word "server" means.
UP = SP = Uni/Single Processor (the UP term is more recent).

A server isn't really based on the chip, as you can get server software to run on desktop chips. Laptops have been used as web servers afterall.

But between the UP Xeon and High End Desktop parts (same socket and clock speed), the only difference is the Xeon has ECC capability Enabled (the circuits are actually present on the High End Desktop parts, but are Disabled at the factory). They use the same chipset as well (X58).

The DP versions however, have an additional QPI (Quick Path Interconnect) that is used to connect to another DP processor and the chipset. The chipset is different as a result, as it requires 2x QPI channels as well (5520, not to be confused with the E5520 CPU).

Would a "UP Server" chip work for this? Seems this would require a "MP Server," but I donno.
Assuming the software actually does this, then Yes, a UP/SP processor would work. The connections would be between different computers which would be via some form of networking, not internally as would be the case for a DP processor configuration.

The core count issues with applications are internal to the core counts available in the processor/s, as many are either unable to multi-thread (i.e. word processor), haven't done it for say financial reasons (assuming it can be done), or have limited it to a fixed core count (i.e. may run 4x cores per CPU, which means that those with Hex or Dodeca systems can't utilize 2x cores per CPU).

[strausd]

Since it took Apple so long to get 12-cores, my guess is 2012.

[WardC]

Intel already makes 8-core processors, they are the 7000 series. There is a quad processor board out that you can buy from Super Micro that will take four 8-core Xeon 7500 series processors for a total of 32 cores. The board also takes up to 512GB of RAM. You can check it out here:

http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon7000/7500/X8QB6.cfm?SAS=Y

By the way, that's 32 RAM slots using 16GB DIMMs to get the 512GB of RAM!

[seek3r]

Intel already makes 8-core processors, they are the 7000 series. There is a quad processor board out that you can buy from Super Micro that will take four 8-core Xeon 7500 series processors for a total of 32 cores. The board also takes up to 512GB of RAM. You can check it out here:

http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon7000/7500/X8QB6.cfm?SAS=Y

By the way, that's 32 RAM slots using 16GB DIMMs to get the 512GB of RAM!
I was going to say, in certain segments not so uncommon already.

The Dell system I used for my work at the Supercomputing conference last year was made up of quad socket 6-core AMD blades (24 cores/blade). I believe UColorado who's partnering with Dell/AMD for the competition this year will probably have quad socket *12* cores (48 cores/blade).

[Hellhammer]

Anyway it would be a 2,4 ghz Hex right? or a newer model at 3,33 ghz?

Asking because i am seriously considering de 2010 hex...

Zero info about the details so I can't say. My guess is ~2.6GHz but it's based on nothing

[WardC]

Let me post again to this thread. There are multicore 8-core Xeons already in existence (7000 series), but they are Nehalem-based.

There will be 8-core Sandy Bridge processors for 1P and 2P machines by Q3 or Q4 2011. The max clock will be 3.4GHz with a turbo boost of 3.8GHz. They will have a 20MB L3 cache and support up to 1600MHz memory. This is the next step for the Mac Pro, I think.

[CaoCao]

Intel is coming out with a 10 core Westmere chip :eek: what will Ivy Bridge hold?

[qbert]

All this talk about 16 cores and developers (including Apple) are still struggling to make use of the 8 cores that have been available for a long while now... I just don't see 8 core chips selling to but a niche market so expect prices on a 16 core Mac Pro to be astronomical.

I believe bigger, cheaper solid state drives will be the big deal in 2011.

Hopefully developers will start catching up with the hardware, but I'm not holding my breath...

[Chris7]

...A server isn't really based on the chip, as you can get server software to run on desktop chips. Laptops have been used as web servers afterall.

But between the UP Xeon and High End Desktop parts (same socket and clock speed), the only difference is the Xeon has ECC capability Enabled (the circuits are actually present on the High End Desktop parts, but are Disabled at the factory). They use the same chipset as well (X58).

The DP versions however, have an additional QPI (Quick Path Interconnect) that is used to connect to another DP processor and the chipset. The chipset is different as a result, as it requires 2x QPI channels as well (5520, not to be confused with the E5520 CPU).

Assuming the software actually does this, then Yes, a UP/SP processor would work. The connections would be between different computers which would be via some form of networking, not internally as would be the case for a DP processor configuration...

Thanks. Does the Mac Pro always use server processors on thier single processor models?

If so, Apple will be in an odd place in Q1 of 2011. The 4-core non-server Sandy Bridge (Core i7-2600 series) will be sitting proudly in PC's, with the pressure on Apple to put them in their i-Mac's.

But if Mac Pro's only use server chips, this would mean Apple would have to stick with the 4-core Nehalem/Westmere as the base model on the Mac Pro, at least until the Sandy Bridge-EN server chip arrives Q4 of 2011. But this would mean the chip in the i-Mac would outperform the Mac Pro, and of course Apple would not let this happen.

I would suggest Apple will either delay putting the Sandy Bridge Core i7 in the iMac until the Sandy Bridge-EN arrives, or put the 4-core Sandy Bridge Core i7 in the iMacs and make the 6-core Nehalem chip their base model until the 6-core server EN-Sandy Bridge is released in Q4 of 2011.

I'm pretty green regarding chips, and I wonder what do the people here think?

[knucles]

Thanks. Does the Mac Pro always use server processors on thier single processor models?

I would suggest Apple will either delay putting the Sandy Bridge Core i7 in the iMac until the Sandy Bridge-EN arrives, or put the 4-core Sandy Bridge Core i7 in the iMacs and make the 6-core Nehalem chip their base model until the 6-core server EN-Sandy Bridge is released in Q4 of 2011.



i wish, but i don't see a 1200dollar price decrease on the entry level mac pro....

but they could use a cheaper westmere hex....

[nanofrog]

Thanks. Does the Mac Pro always use server processors on thier single processor models?
Historically speaking, Yes. But it's been a result of what's available to them, and it had to be cost effective (may not translate into cost effective for the user).

Read on... ;)

If so, Apple will be in an odd place in Q1 of 2011. The 4-core non-server Sandy Bridge (Core i7-2600 series) will be sitting proudly in PC's, with the pressure on Apple to put them in their i-Mac's.
What you have to remember, is Intel has changed how they break down their lineup to deal with the changing market (technical reasons as well, as they've moved to increasing core counts instead of frequency).

Since 2009 (Nehalem), there's a consumer, high end enthusiast, and enterprise segment. Ultimately, this generates 3x sockets (LGA1156, LGA1366, and the LGA1567, which is the last to release). They're used for the consumer (i3, i5, and some i7 parts), enthusiast/SP Xeon (some i7 = i7-9xx, and the SP Xeons), and Mulit Processor Xeons (75xx series) respectively.

This breakdown is continuing (sockets are meant to run for 2x years), and seems to continue on yet, given the available information released so far (the actual sockets will change as needed, but retain the same 3x count/breakdown).

What this all means, is there's a divergence in the enterprise market, specifically the workstation. The SP parts have merged with the enthusiast parts. The only difference, is the ECC circuits are enabled in the Xeon variants, and disabled in the i7-9xx parts (but the circuits are still there, and the quantity pricing from Intel is the same for identical clock speeds).

If you must have more cores than an SP part can contain, you have to go with either a DP (2 sockets) or MP board (4 sockets).

What we're going to see in general, the workstation will primarily go to SP chips, as the software is well behind the hardware generally speaking (i.e. 8 cores on one die). Given the roadmaps, it appears 2013 will be the deciding year at the latest if Apple will continue with the MP or not (LightPeak plays into this, as an iMac with LP could be used as a replacement system for software development).

Now whether or not Apple will follow suit (move to the new SP processors as other vendors will), is uncertain IMO, given the cost increases resulting from Intel (no competition in the high end performance segment of enterprise parts) and Apple's idea of an acceptable margin (currently seems to be 40%). The costs have gotten high enough they've already run off most of the enthusiasts, and the independent pros are having a tough time of it (going by the various posts on MR). As per large customers (those that buy in quantity), I'm not sure if there's enough of them for Apple to continue the MP for much longer.

Apple's greed could get the better of them here, but afterall, they've gravitated to a device company already. So they may have already decided to milk it for what they can get out of it, and bail when it ceases to be profitable (i.e. sales slump to the point they can't maintain the margins currently obtained).

But if Mac Pro's only use server chips, this would mean Apple would have to stick with the 4-core Nehalem/Westmere as the base model on the Mac Pro, at least until the Sandy Bridge-EN server chip arrives Q4 of 2011. But this would mean the chip in the i-Mac would outperform the Mac Pro, and of course Apple would not let this happen.

I would suggest Apple will either delay putting the Sandy Bridge Core i7 in the iMac until the Sandy Bridge-EN arrives, or put the 4-core Sandy Bridge Core i7 in the iMacs and make the 6-core Nehalem chip their base model until the 6-core server EN-Sandy Bridge is released in Q4 of 2011.
They won't have a choice. The LGA1155 parts are consumer units, not suitable for a workstation. But they are suitable for an iMac or Mini (the main benefit for consumer Sandy Bridge is a built-in graphics processor, which Apple won't want). It's not aimed at graphics performance, but low cost systems (i.e. budget boxes that are selling like mad in developing countries such as China).

Apple will have to wait for the LGA2011 parts for the next MP, assuming they plan to produce it (seriously, not sure what will happen, as they won't break down the desktop sales by model and make it public).

[VirtualRain]

All this talk about 16 cores and developers (including Apple) are still struggling to make use of the 8 cores that have been available for a long while now... I just don't see 8 core chips selling to but a niche market so expect prices on a 16 core Mac Pro to be astronomical.

I believe bigger, cheaper solid state drives will be the big deal in 2011.

Hopefully developers will start catching up with the hardware, but I'm not holding my breath...

+1 on the software sadly lagging the hardware and SSDs being a major area of focus for workstation users in the near term.

With respect to future CPUs... I'm surprised there's been no discussion of a possible switch to AMD. Apple could even buy AMD for chump change if they wanted tighter control and/or better margins on Macs. :)

[nanofrog]

With respect to future CPUs... I'm surprised there's been no discussion of a possible switch to AMD. Apple could even buy AMD for chump change if they wanted tighter control and/or better margins on Macs. :)
It's possible, but there's quite a performance difference between the CPU offerings. But you've a point on the control aspect.

I'm also unsure about the viability from a financial POV (debt problems, and they're still trying to go fabless as I understand it), so there's likely overhead and debt Apple likely won't want to incur/have to deal with IMO.

[Chris7]

...If you must have more cores than an SP part can contain, you have to go with either a DP (2 sockets) or MP board (4 sockets)...
...Given the roadmaps, it appears 2013 will be the deciding year at the latest if Apple will continue with the MP or not (LightPeak plays into this, as an iMac with LP could be used as a replacement system for software development).
...As per large customers (those that buy in quantity), I'm not sure if there's enough of them for Apple to continue the MP for much longer.
...Apple will have to wait for the LGA2011 parts for the next MP, assuming they plan to produce it (seriously, not sure what will happen...
nanofrog,
Are you using the acronym "MP" to refer to both "multi-processor server chip" and "Mac Pro?" A little confused here, as I don't know which is which. Very interested in what you are saying...

[Transporteur]

nanofrog,
Are you using the acronym "MP" to refer to both "multi-processor server chip" and "Mac Pro?" A little confused here, as I don't know which is which. Very interested in what you are saying...

First MP is multi processor, the following "MP"s are Mac Pros. ;)

[iMacmatician]

Intel is coming out with a 10 core Westmere chip :eek: what will Ivy Bridge hold?Up to 12 cores according to plans.

[WardC]

The i7 980x machines run faster than the W3680 machines, and they are both six-core 3.33GHz chips. The reason: error checking on the part of the Xeon slows down the speed slightly.

[Hellhammer]

The i7 980x machines run faster than the W3680 machines, and they are both six-core 3.33GHz chips. The reason: error checking on the part of the Xeon slows down the speed slightly.

If you're concerned about that, you can replace your RAM with non-ECC RAM and that problem should be solved.

[WardC]

It's not really that big of an issue, it's about a 460 point difference on Geekbench (comparing the new 2.93GHz iMac to the Quad-Core 2.93GHz Mac Pro), about 10450 to 10910

[Chris7]

...Given the roadmaps, it appears 2013 will be the deciding year at the latest if Apple will continue with the MP or not (LightPeak plays into this, as an iMac with LP could be used as a replacement system for software development).
...As per large customers (those that buy in quantity), I'm not sure if there's enough of them for Apple to continue the MP for much longer.
...Apple will have to wait for the LGA2011 parts for the next MP, assuming they plan to produce it (seriously, not sure what will happen, as they won't break down the desktop sales by model and make it public).
A couple questions for the people here...

If speculations are that the Mac Pro may no longer exist, what would replace it? (I'm assuming either the Sandy Bridge or the Haswell would be the reason to discontinue the Mac Pro?)

Intel sells the 6-core UP Xeon W3680 currently offered for as upgrade for the Mac Pro for $999. Intel sells the the standard 4-core W3530 found on the base model Mac Pro for $294 (please correct me if I got my numbers wrong).
What might Intel's price be for the 6-core in a year? Would production of this chip discontinue once the Sandy Bridge version is offered?

[DCfilms]

I'm thinking of upgrading my old power pc mac to a mac pro.

Is there any news on this thread's topic - just wondering if this is actually a bad time to update - is a big change looming?

Cheers :confused:

[Hellhammer]

I'm thinking of upgrading my old power pc mac to a mac pro.

Is there any news on this thread's topic - just wondering if this is actually a bad time to update - is a big change looming?

Cheers :confused:

An update is still at least 6 months away

[DCfilms]

An update is still at least 6 months away

Thanks for replying Hellhammer. That's a long wait, but i'd be prepared to do it if the changes were to be as big as that from power pc -to- Intel (i got caught out by that one.

[Hellhammer]

Thanks for replying Hellhammer. That's a long wait, but i'd be prepared to do it if the changes were to be as big as that from power pc -to- Intel (i got caught out by that one.

Very unlikely. Sandy Bridge is just another microarchitecture. According to early benchmarks, it seems to provide ~15% clock for clock improvement so nothing revolutionary. If high-end MP goes 16-core, then it will be a nice bump for the high-end. What MP are you looking at?

[DCfilms]

just the Nehalem is all i can afford, so if the Sandy Bridge will be only for the top end then its out of my league.

Glad to hear there's nor an imminent PPC -to- intel kind of change that'll make any new kit i buy now virtually redundant.

[Hellhammer]

just the Nehalem is all i can afford, so if the Sandy Bridge will be only for the top end then its out of my league.

Glad to hear there's nor an imminent PPC -to- intel kind of change that'll make any new kit i buy now virtually redundant.

Sandy Bridge will be used in lower-end as well but the gains may be more marginal (depends whether 6-core is cheap enough for low-end etc).

I doubt you're going to see an update as huge as PPC -> Intel because of Intel's tick-tock thingy. It's the best for Intel to deliver relatively small bumps in performance because people will still buy them. Plus, sooner than later the technology used in current processors will be overtaken by something faster (IIRC 8nm is as small as it can get unless Intel has figured out something)

[ugru]

16 Core Mac Pro Late 2011?

Really who care? My guess is very few. Many of us would be better served by cuad or hexacore processors in the 3.6 to 4.0GHz range. Since clock speed still rules I'd rather have fewer faster cores than more slower ones in the $3,000 to $4,000 Mac Pro range.

I second this...

[Chris7]

(Please kindly let me know if it is against forum etiquette to post on an old thread).


Just saw a link (http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4215673/Rumor-mill--Intel-to-roll-22-nm)saying the 22nm Ivy Bridge may replace the Sandy Bridge late 2011, and I have a few questions...

Looking at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge), it seems some numbers have changed for the upcoming server processors. I assume the next Mac Pro will use the Xeon E5. Looks like the 8 core and 6 core "Socket LGA 2011" will be Models 46xx, 26xx; and the 4 core and 2 core "Socket LGA 1356" will be models 24xx (I don't know what any of this means, BTW:)).

If I may ask...

1) Which chip(s) is Apple likely to use for the late 2011 early 2012 update MP?

2) I see 32 nm Xeon E5 on Wik. Is it possible Intel will release a 22nm "Ivy Versions" instead (The Ivy Bridge is said to be about 20% faster per clock cycle, but I don't know if this means the lower standard clock cycles on the 8 core, as on the 2010 "upgrade")?

3) Does it matter?
(My understanding is that, for practical multicore use, there has not been much performance improvement in the 8 core MP since early 2008. But I would LOVE to be wrong).


"Standard" graphics cards have moved way ahead of where they were 3 years ago. I need a Mac Pro now-ish for video, but a trusted (RAID) hard drive manufacture advised me to wait for "Thunderbolt." By the time Photoshop CS5 won't run on my early 2008 MBP, it's time to upgrade. And neither the MBP nor the iMac will work for my purposes. (Plus I HATE the iMac).

[Umbongo]

If I may ask...

1) Which chip(s) is Apple likely to use for the late 2011 early 2012 update MP?


http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1141141


2) I see 32 nm Xeon E5 on Wik. Is it possible Intel will release a 22nm "Ivy Versions" instead (The Ivy Bridge is said to be about 20% faster per clock cycle, but I don't know if this means the lower standard clock cycles on the 8 core, as on the 2010 "upgrade")?

No. They will release Ivy Bridge Xeons some time after Sandy Bridge Xeons. Probably around 12 months later.

3) Does it matter?
(My understanding is that, for practical multicore use, there has not been much performance improvement in the 8 core MP since early 2008. But I would LOVE to be wrong).

"Standard" graphics cards have moved way ahead of where they were 3 years ago. I need a Mac Pro now-ish for video, but a trusted (RAID) hard drive manufacture advised me to wait for "Thunderbolt." By the time Photoshop CS5 won't run on my early 2008 MBP, it's time to upgrade. And neither the MBP nor the iMac will work for my purposes. (Plus I HATE the iMac).

That depends entirely on your usage and how you value your time. There isn't a catch-all answer.

[Hexley]

Sandy Bridge based Quad-Core Xeon-E3 processors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors#Sandy_Bridge_based_Xeons) have shipped already for the 1P servers.

The Xeon E5 processors (http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2011/2011020803_Details_on_Intel_Xeon_E5_product_families.html) with 4, 6 & 8 cores for 1-2P servers will ship Q4 2011. These are the Xeon processors we can all expect Apple to include in the 2011 models.

Apple is known to have a head start on any Intel technology so it would not be surprising if they will ship the 2011 Mac Pro by the time OS X Lion has gone gold in September.

[DeeEss]

I don't care for more cores. 6 is plenty with software around these days. Crank up the clock speed and RAM amounts please.

[philipma1957]

I don't care for more cores. 6 is plenty with software around these days. Crank up the clock speed and RAM amounts please.

yeah My 6 core 3.2 w3670 is fast .

I can't help but wonder how a 6 core sandy bridge cpu lets say a 3.6 hex would be able to do. drop in a few yet to be built intel 600gb sataIII ssds along with 4 low cost 16gb sticks of ram (also not low cost as of today) and watch that machine fly. This machine may exist in less then 18 months at a non killer price.


the killer is the ram at 850 a stick

http://cgi.ebay.com/Dell-T610-16GB-Memory-Module-DDR3-PC3-8500R-RAM-Samsung-/230618160585?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35b1e9ddc9#ht_3496wt_1141

[Chris7]

Thanks for the info, Umbongo and Hexley.

-Chris

[Chris7]

Questions I just posted answered here. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1141141)

[ranbo]

[QUOTE=chaosbunny;11095246]6-core in the base model seems likely, given that there might be another one and a half years until the next Mac Pro update. Followed by 8-core etc. etc. I'm curios how long it will take until most software will really benefit from all these cores.

I wonder if the development until 2020+ will really be as many cores as possible, I don't know, somewhere more and more cores might start to become ineffective, just like with the ghz wall. What else would be there to improve next? I mean, 10 years ago everybody talked about 10 ghz chips in 2010, and look what we have now. Maybe in 10 years we will read predictions of 64 or 128 core machines from now and laugh about it just like we laugh about the predictions of 2001.]

My guess is that the industry will get better at utilizing the power of massively parallel processing such as that obtained from GPUs. For those doing "bitcoin mining", for example, people found that they could get 200 units of work done per second using a GPU compared to 6 using a good multi-core CPU. The challenge is figuring out how to get the code to utilize that power.

[AMDGAMER]

When does it end? 100 cores? LOL

but seriously 16 cores sounds like a powerhouse

[macbook pro i5]

I'm betting on a 16 core mac pro although it will be interesting to see if it has sandy bridge architecture

[deconstruct60]

You mean EP? Socket 1356 is the replacement for 1366. Since the Mac Pro is on 1366 now, its seems only reasonable that it will go to 1356. Therefore it should be EN, not EP.

No it is not reasonable. The E5 Xeon place the PCI-e controller inside the CPU package. The '-EN' series looses PCI-e lanes from what it could have ( among some other things. ). Additionally, it is going to arrive later.

There are "uniprocessor" versions of the E5 ( 1600 ) that fit the 2011 socket (socket R)

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2011/2011020803_Details_on_Intel_Xeon_E5_product_families.html

If Apple selected the some 1600 versions (replacement for the 3500 & 3600 series in current ) and 2600 ( replace for the 5600 series in current) that would be the natural line up.

The only reason to slide updates to 2012 to wait for the 2400 series would be that the prices on the 1600 and 2600 didn't closely match those of the (3500 & 3600) and 5600 options. Instead of '3' and '5' it is '1' and '2' as leading prefixes. Otherwise, it is a loosing choice because the 2400 series has the following properties:

i. it comes out much later.
ii. fewer high speed PCI-e lanes. (*)
iii. Mismatch to the 4 DIMM slot design. (**)
iv. lower memory bandwith because still stuck at 3 memory controllers when have increased cores and internal throughput. ( lower top end throughput on heavy workloads).


I think the 2400 Xeon is aimed at sub $2,000 "mini-tower" workstations and sub $1,500 servers. Systems where shaving costs to keep the price down. However, so is the 1600 and it comes out sooner. [guessing but suspect the 1600's will have higher clock rate and the 2400's will be slower but allow for dual packages with mild bandwidth problems (only QPI link for both processor and southbridge traffic) in similar system price zones. )

* -- Apple could "get by" with fewer lanes since only going to have around 4 slots. However, current designs use a switch. It would be better to get rid of the switch. 4 slots with 100% throughput.


** -- if Apple sticks with the horizontal daughtercard design for the CPU/Memory sockets then 4 is all have room for unless case gets a bump in width. While Apple probably won't go multiple DIMMs per channel ( 2400 shaves the limit to cut costs). Peak memory bandwidth is better if go 'wide' ( as opposed to 'deep' )

[deconstruct60]

What do the people here speculate will be Apple's offerings for the various Mac Pro's in late 2011, early 2012?


"Single Package " Mac Pro with E5 1600 series in it. 3 models: 4 core , 6 core, 8 core

[ Hopefully, Mac Pro product managers grow some balls and take back the lower end of $2,000 price range and put the 4 core model at the $2,099 price point. Or even $2,199 (where the optional i7 Mac is.)

but the 8 core model will be even higher priced than the current hex. ]

"Dual Package " Mac Pro with E6 2600 series in it. Depends upon Intel's pricing. If there is a 2600 with 6 cores that matches the 5620 4 core price then starts at 6. However, I suspect Intel will likely push prices up again by $20-80 so Apple will likely select a 4 core model. Wouldn't be suprised if this too went 4 , 6 , 8 core (in pairs) for a "good , better , best" line-up.

4 PCI-e v3.0 slots
4 DIMM slots ( per CPU package )

slightly shorter ( but deeper/wider ) case and two drive sleds on the front ( tossing the optical drive from the configs. )

There is will be a "server" variant which could use those two drive sleds to run the system.

Mainstream Video cards ( with just plain mini-display port ). [ whatever was 'current' for AMD line-up back in April-June timeframe that fits the Mac Pro power supply/dissipation envelope. ]

[Jack40]

When new Mac Pro is expected to be realeased?

[blunti]

When new Mac Pro is expected to be realeased?

there's been some rumor about a possible late july/early august release but tbh nobody knows...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[derbothaus]

there's been some rumor about a possible late july/early august release but tbh nobody knows...


That can be said for every month from here on out. The rumor about the special Apple Intel chip thing has thrown timetable's into a panic. Otherwise (if they don't phase the Pro out) I would expect by no later than Q1 2012.

[xgman]

there's been some rumor about a possible late july/early august release but tbh nobody knows...






That rumor sure has grown cold. ice cold.

[Chris7]

... "Dual Package " Mac Pro with E6 2600 series in it. Depends upon Intel's pricing. If there is a 2600 with 6 cores that matches the 5620 4 core price then starts at 6. However, I suspect Intel will likely push prices up again by $20-80 so Apple will likely select a 4 core model. Wouldn't be suprised if this too went 4 , 6 , 8 core (in pairs) for a "good , better , best" line-up...slightly shorter ( but deeper/wider ) case and two drive sleds on the front ( tossing the optical drive from the configs. ... Say, deconstruct... IIRC, you know something about NLE's. What effect do you think Apple's leaving the pro market with Final Cut X will have on the next gen of Mac Pro's?

(Hopefully the good moderators here will not kick me off for my assumption that Apple is done with pro NLE's. It's just the only way I can make sense of a $400 program with NO WAY to export to color grading suites. I think Apple knew they were about to either leave the market gracefully, or get squeezed out. Premiere Pro was getting too fluid/stable and Avid Media Composer was getting too affordable.)

I thought Apple kept FCP primarily to sell overpriced Mac Pro's. Fair enough, it looked like this was similar to the way Avid used to require outrageously overpriced propitiatory basic and necessary hardware -- Avid still has their own hardware, but it looks like it's mainly for graphics acceleration...

Anyroads, again my question is (assuming there's an ounce of truth to my assumptions about what Apple did with FCP X), will this make way for affordable Mac Pros? A Mac Pro Mini?

Last question: At this point, I just want a 6 core Mac Pro. What do the people here wager I might pay for it late 2011/early 2012.

(It's common curtacy to respond when someone answers one's questions. I'm going to be out for a while and may not be able to do so. But I'll be watching this thread. The people here's knowledge and speculations are appreciated.)

Back to work and no time to re-read this.. please kindly look past my typos.

[Dnix]

I'm waiting on the 16-core Mac Pro with a 10 meg pipe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRhGPVYRsOY).

[apolloa]

If Apple do change the MacBook Pro line at the end of the year and change it's design dropping the ODD etc, then I would fully expect a new design Mac Pro too. Apple would change the Pro lineup at the same time?

But if they do drop the ODD in the laptops, what does that mean for the Mac Pro re-design? ODD or no ODD? It's now gone from one desktop mac already..

[nanofrog]

If Apple do change the MacBook Pro line at the end of the year and change it's design dropping the ODD etc, then I would fully expect a new design Mac Pro too. Apple would change the Pro lineup at the same time?

But if they do drop the ODD in the laptops, what does that mean for the Mac Pro re-design? ODD or no ODD? It's now gone from one desktop mac already..
Hopefully, they'll have enough sense to keep it in this particular market, so users can actually install software they already own (i.e. shipped on an optical disk, not a download).