Mac Pro to Use Custom Intel CPU? More Details on Mac Mini and Time Capsule

[Michaelgtrusa]

Very much needed.

[iBug2]

To be honest, the only thing I can infer about the custom CPU rumor is the size.

If Apple plans to shrink the size of the Mac Pro, they may need special processors for it in terms of size.

[ARobinson]

I just want thunderbolt on my new ********** 12-Core!!! Not a new mac pro thats better than the old "fastest mac ever" because its newer than the new one.

[cmaier]

Originally Posted by swarmster

ARM is coming!

Originally Posted by keruah

ARM Mac Pro? About time!

LOL. Because what you're really looking for in a Mac Pro is to give up a lot of performance to save some power. (while then giving up the power advantage to run x86 code through a translation layer).

[gramirez2012]

If the AEBS is going to have 6 antennas and better signal strength, then does that mean the Time Capsule will as well? I sold my AEBS this month which had less than ideal signal strength in my home, and I was planning on getting the new Time Capsule when it comes out. I wouldn't want to get a new Time Capsule only to find that I could get better range with the AEBS.

Really curious as to when these will be released.

[WiiDSmoker]

I'm more excited about the new routers than anything else.

[WestonHarvey1]

Originally Posted by wordoflife

Not trying to be a smart one, but what benefits would we get from having iOS run on a router? I mean, how would that even work? Like what's the point?

It's slimmer and it boots faster than OS X. Apple engineers can configure maintain it easier since it's just a standard UNIXy router. It's also easier for Apple to lock down because it is iOS. Maybe it even uses less power, but I'm just guessing on that.

Edit: not to imply Airport Extreme ran OS X, it didn't. But the Apple TV 1 did run a more or less full OS X, and it boots much slower than the new iOS Apple TV 2.

[NAG]

Originally Posted by cmaier

LOL. Because what you're really looking for in a Mac Pro is to give up a lot of performance to save some power. (while then giving up the power advantage to run x86 code through a translation layer).

You're acting like the Mac Pro is a workstation!

It would be nice if all the "omg Apple is switching to ARM" people would think things through a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if an ARM processor shows up in a Mac Pro (wouldn't expect one either) but it would never be the main chip. But yeah, I think the likelihood is very very low (just to reiterate so people don't jump on me, thinking I'm saying the exact opposite of what I'm attempting to say).

Regarding the AEBS and Timecapsule, I'm actually kind of excited about this. The current ones are space heaters and if they also upgrade the drives in them I would seriously consider upgrading.

[AppleScruff1]

Originally Posted by swarmster

ARM is coming!

Originally Posted by keruah

ARM Mac Pro? About time!

Which ARM processor would be capable of running the Mac Pro at a higher level than Sandy Bridge?

[Ferazel]

The custom Mac Pro processor is probably just a custom Sandy Bridge desktop chip that allows for multi-socketed motherboards. I seriously doubt it is as extreme as an entirely new architecture (like ARM).

Or it may just be that Apple is going to release a desktop chip in their single-CPU towers and save quite a bit of cost and upgrade the multi-processors later. The advantage that a Xeon vs. Desktop variant is relatively minor. As I said elsewhere, a bigger speed boost to the system overall would be to include a quality SSD instead of paying to get a very minor speed increase from the CPUs.

[keruah]

Originally Posted by cmaier

LOL. Because what you're really looking for in a Mac Pro is to give up a lot of performance to save some power. (while then giving up the power advantage to run x86 code through a translation layer).

OMG, are you serious? I was joking.

[WestonHarvey1]

Originally Posted by Ferazel

The custom Mac Pro processor is probably just a custom Sandy Bridge desktop chip that allows for multi-socketed motherboards. I seriously doubt it is as extreme as an entirely new architecture (like ARM).

Or maybe it's a really awesome custom Xeon.

[Bafflefish]

Originally Posted by iBug2

To be honest, the only thing I can infer about the custom CPU rumor is the size.

If Apple plans to shrink the size of the Mac Pro, they may need special processors for it in terms of size.

I'm thinking it might just be a modified LGA 1155 Sandy Bridge with 1-2 QPI links. Essentially it's a stop-gap between the desktop and server variants of Sandy Bridge. They could then later allow the higher-end Mac Pros to switch to LGA 2011 for those wanting additional features, such as ECC RAM, etc., while the lower-end Mac Pro(s) could have more of a desktop "flavor" with (ideally) lower pricing to drive greater adoption than what they've likely seen the last few years.

Edit - Or possibly an early-introduction of LGA 1356. Forgot that it's still set to debut as well, given LGA 2011 gets most of the attention.

[Eidorian]

They might just enable the PCIe 3.0 support on Xeon-E3. I will be surprised if anything based on the X79 platform shows up. Maybe it will be an early stepping of Xeon E5.

[justinfreid]

Originally Posted by Duluth Baptist

I'd like to see the Nvidia/Intel graphics comparison as well.

I heard someone mention the possibility of Thunderbolting two Minis together, is this actually an existing or planned procedure? It would be an interesting idea.

Do you mean in order to network them or to have them share a processing load? I think fiber networks may still be better for grid computing: http://www.apple.com/science/hardwar...computing.html.

[theSeb]

Originally Posted by keruah

ARM Mac Pro? About time!

Huh? Using what ARM processor exactly? 50 of them? Did you miss that it's a chip from Intel? ARM <> Intel

[theSeb]

Originally Posted by keruah

OMG, are you serious? I was joking.

Oh. Never mind then.

[miografico]

Originally Posted by Bafflefish

I'm thinking it might just be a modified LGA 1155 Sandy Bridge with 1-2 QPI links. Essentially it's a stop-gap between the desktop and server variants of Sandy Bridge. They could then later allow the higher-end Mac Pros to switch to LGA 2011 for those wanting additional features, such as ECC RAM, etc., while the lower-end Mac Pro(s) could have more of a desktop "flavor" with (ideally) lower pricing to drive greater adoption than what they've likely seen the last few years.

Edit - Or possibly an early-introduction of LGA 1356. Forgot that it's still set to debut as well, given LGA 2011 gets most of the attention.

That would be interesting, but I don't believe they want a tower option to ever be an option for their regular consumers. It's fairly obvious the iMac will continue to be their, "desktop" for the average consumer, the Mini for their low end consumer and the Pro for workstations.

I am all for choices I just don't see it happening.

[theSeb]

Originally Posted by Bafflefish

I'm thinking it might just be a modified LGA 1155 Sandy Bridge with 1-2 QPI links. Essentially it's a stop-gap between the desktop and server variants of Sandy Bridge. They could then later allow the higher-end Mac Pros to switch to LGA 2011 for those wanting additional features, such as ECC RAM, etc., while the lower-end Mac Pro(s) could have more of a desktop "flavor" with (ideally) lower pricing to drive greater adoption than what they've likely seen the last few years.

Edit - Or possibly an early-introduction of LGA 1356. Forgot that it's still set to debut as well, given LGA 2011 gets most of the attention.

So what you're saying is that this will be the headless mini mac pro that I've been pestering Steve for? let's start a new rumour!

[iBug2]

Originally Posted by Bafflefish

I'm thinking it might just be a modified LGA 1155 Sandy Bridge with 1-2 QPI links. Essentially it's a stop-gap between the desktop and server variants of Sandy Bridge. They could then later allow the higher-end Mac Pros to switch to LGA 2011 for those wanting additional features, such as ECC RAM, etc., while the lower-end Mac Pro(s) could have more of a desktop "flavor" with (ideally) lower pricing to drive greater adoption than what they've likely seen the last few years.

Edit - Or possibly an early-introduction of LGA 1356. Forgot that it's still set to debut as well, given LGA 2011 gets most of the attention.

Possible and many would welcome such change. Because you'd get the same performance for less money. ECC RAM is really overkill for most workstation work.

[kdimitt]

Originally Posted by gkarris

Ha, ha, remember that version IGA outperformed the nVidia in lower graphics mode?

Has someone posted the benchmarks yet on the actual MBP's comparing the Core 2 Duo with nVidia verses the Intel SB's?

Are there current benchmarks that compare the C2D with nVidia graphics vs. the combine Intel SB?

I know little about graphics so I hope someone can explain the comparisons between the two. Wouldn't taking a step back in graphics for the sake of integration be stupid?

Simple question, if the mini has the new Sandy Bridge processor (graphics combined) will there be less graphical power then the intel's with the nVidia chip?

Hope for an honest and straightforward answer, I would really like to be informed not harassed.

[Bafflefish]

Originally Posted by Eidorian

They might just enable the PCIe 3.0 support on Xeon-E3. I will be surprised if anything based on the X79 platform shows up. Maybe it will be an early stepping of Xeon E5.

That could be, but I don't know of any multi-socket Xeon-E3 boards? If they exist, then I could see that.

Originally Posted by miografico

That would be interesting, but I don't believe they want a tower option to ever be an option for their regular consumers. It's fairly obvious the iMac will continue to be their, "desktop" for the average consumer, the Mini for their low end consumer and the Pro for workstations.

I am all for choices I just don't see it happening.

Well, remember that up until the Intel change, Apple regularly offered Power Macs in the $1500- $1800 range. Granted, their high-end iMacs now slot into this price range, but I could definitely see Apple looking to offer at least one Mac Pro in a lower price category than the current $2500 model.

Originally Posted by iBug2

Possible and many would welcome such change. Because you'd get the same performance for less money. ECC RAM is really overkill for most workstation work.

Exactly. I can see ECC RAM for the top-end Mac Pros, but it doesn't make much sense for entry-model workstations. The same goes for some of the other features present.

[hugodrax]

Originally Posted by iBug2

Possible and many would welcome such change. Because you'd get the same performance for less money. ECC RAM is really overkill for most workstation work.

Ecc ram is not overkill for a workstation, but for a regular desktop then yes.

But the Mac pro is a workstation.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Lets hope Mini does get those crappy Intel graphics.

[Skika]

I never understood what are the benefits of MacPro being smaller