Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

slrandall

macrumors 6502
Jun 15, 2011
412
0
Your lab should just buy base level mac minis with the 7200rpm drive upgrade and carry over the monitors and keyboards.

The drive speed helps with writing and reading large files, certainly, but we really need a lot of computational power. We can even skimp a little on RAM, but we need a top-of-the-line CPU.
 

Bubba Satori

Suspended
Feb 15, 2008
4,726
3,756
B'ham
Dear Tim Cook,

Would Apple please offer an affordable i7 tower computer.
One that could be built to order like any other computer.

Thank you.

Regards,

Your fellow Alabamian, Bubba Satori.
 

scottrichardson

macrumors 6502a
Jul 10, 2007
696
268
Ulladulla, NSW Australia
it's such a shame Apple are dropping the Mac Pro... but then, they don't care about it or it's market [discuss]

I don't think they will put 150 W processors in the Mac Pro ever. The wattage is going down if anything.

Yeah I figured as much, but I'd still buy one if it chewed that much juice so long as it was still quiet and cool (not likely).
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G5
Mar 10, 2009
12,202
3,805
WAT? No way a Mac Mini can run Safari, Mail, iTunes, InDesign (with about 15 windows open), Illustrator, Photoshop, Acrobat, Suitcase, Preview, Image Grab, Transport, QuarkXpress, and Remote Desktop Connection without dying.

You are not looking very hard.

The geekbench scores are demonstrative that at 2011 Mac Mini runs circles around a G5 CPU wise.

The G5 maxed out at 16GB of RAM.
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP37

Despite Apple's marketing propaganda tech specs page .... so can the Mac Mini...

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Apple_Mac_mini/DDR3_1333

[ In a year or two that won't be quite so high.... ]

Put a SSD OS/Apps drive in the new Mini and hook one of the 4 drive Thunderbolt external drives to it and ....... yes it probably can run all of that stuff at the same time at least as well as the G5 does. (although you'd need Intel (or fat binary) versions of those programs. ). The mini with SSD + 2.5Ghz + 16GB kit + TB box & cable would run you about $3K though.

Not as well as mid range 2010 Mac Pro could (only need one box and no TB ) but definitely over the G5. It is easier to add 16GB to a Mac Pro with memory DIMMs that aren't tagged with extremely high premium. Likewise it is trivial to add some better storage I/O internally to a Mac Pro without paying a stiff TB early adopter premium also.
 

esquared

macrumors member
Apr 18, 2005
88
3
Waiting for Ivy

I'm not interested in Sandy Bridge, show me the Ivy! A documented 15-20% power increase over the "dirt". I've waited this long, I can wait a bit longer ( I hope).
 

TwitchOSX

macrumors 6502a
May 2, 2002
508
49
Southern Oregon
The drive speed helps with writing and reading large files, certainly, but we really need a lot of computational power. We can even skimp a little on RAM, but we need a top-of-the-line CPU.

Speaking of which... the current Mac Pro mid tower comes with a 7200RPM hard drive. Should I think about getting a 10k RPM drive to replace the one that comes with the computer and put the 7200 in the 2nd bay? I routinely deal with big ass InDesign and Photoshop files.
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G5
Mar 10, 2009
12,202
3,805
It appears there's many more CPUs apple could choose from.. note the different memory speeds also.

Not if they want to sell the next gen Mac Pro at the approximately the same price points ( +/- $100 or so ).

There are the heat issues certainly with the 150W versions but they also cost substantially more. Remember that Apple is going to tack a 30% profit margin on top of what Intel is charging for the processors. Those $1800 processors would flow to customers as two $2,340 processors. That 30% mark up only gets more painful at the Xeon base price goes up.

I don't really think Apple wants to push the Mac Pro prices up into the $8-10K range for the upper tier models. The higher the price, the fewer folks buy them. At some point, that number gets to be too small to fool around with.

Even the 2670's jump to $1552 (over previous gen's with similar model number's $1440 : $112 jump which would be a 145 increase which since Apple only adds $100 increments would be a $200 per processor jump. The upper version would jump from $6199 to $6,599 ).
 

bpeeps

Suspended
May 6, 2011
3,678
4,629
Might as well just wait for Ivy Bridge with how late this SB update is going to be.
 

AidenShaw

macrumors P6
Feb 8, 2003
18,667
4,676
The Peninsula
Needless to say, it'll be nice to run Lion [and the new IDL] on a machine with essentially 32 cores and a cool 64GB of RAM.

...don't count the HyperThreaded cores as real cores - most applications are better off if HyperThreading is disabled.

If you have a workload which has 32 active, computable threads - then it might help.

If you have seldom have more active threads than physical cores - you'll be better off disabling it.

I keep it disabled except on very busy servers that have a lot of tasks running with lots of active threads.
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G5
Mar 10, 2009
12,202
3,805
I'm not interested in Sandy Bridge, show me the Ivy! A documented 15-20% power increase over the "dirt". I've waited this long, I can wait a bit longer ( I hope).

The Ivy Bridge versions of the Xeon processors are at least a year away. The Sandy Bridge Xeon's arriving late likely just means the Ivy Bridge versions slide out just as far into the future. As long as AMD doesn't start to put a huge dent in Intel's Xeon business .... they aren't going to shorten the normal cycle. Getting back to a 12 month cycle is extremely likely "good enough" for them. (since it has slid to over 12 months during the current transition).

Besides, the first half of the "Ivy Brdige " release cycle will have substantially better graphics more so than increases in high throughput CPU "horsepower". In the Mac Pro context, there are PCI-e cards for GPU bumps.
 

iSayuSay

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2011
3,789
906
I really love the MacPro look and design. They are insanely well built, and also ... Expensive!!

For the price, they should include a 27" display, sell it as a whole package, just as Steve's vision.

iMac is nice but it has its own problem. It can be very hot at times due to extreme thinness, and only use mobile GPU in the world of desktop. Aint that awkward?

So please, keep the price but include a 27" display with it and Apple still gain a lot of profit.

Please Tim, if you ever read this :(
 

scottrichardson

macrumors 6502a
Jul 10, 2007
696
268
Ulladulla, NSW Australia
Even the 2670's jump to $1552 (over previous gen's with similar model number's $1440 : $112 jump which would be a 145 increase which since Apple only adds $100 increments would be a $200 per processor jump. The upper version would jump from $6199 to $6,599 ).

LOL I paid around $13k for my Mac Pro 8 core 2.93Ghz 16GB RAM, Radeon 4870 + GeForce 120, 2 x 24" LED Display and 3 hard drives. Im in Australia but I ended up buying the tower from the USA.

While it's paid for itself over dozens of times since 2009, I really can't see myself replacing it until Ivy Bridge XEONS are out.
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G5
Mar 10, 2009
12,202
3,805
Should I think about getting a 10k RPM drive to replace .

Over the next 3 years 10K RPM drives will likely dry up into a very, very, very small niche ( and moving to 2.5" drives which are smaller so easier to spin faster) Those who need performance will choose SSDs. Those who need storage space will RAID 7K drives. Those who need something in the middle will probably get a hybrid.

10K drives try to solve the latency problem by spinning faster. A much better way to solve the latency problem is to not spin at all. If willing to spend the space/energy the other way that is cost effective to just split the work ( as long as 10K drives are priced 2-3x as much. )


Splitting your OS/Apps , scratch , and persistence file storage over three different devices is better than trying to have one drive spin faster to attempt to do all three accesses at the same time.
 

slrandall

macrumors 6502
Jun 15, 2011
412
0
...don't count the HyperThreaded cores as real cores - most applications are better off if HyperThreading is disabled.

If you have a workload which has 32 active, computable threads - then it might help.

If you have seldom have more active threads than physical cores - you'll be better off disabling it.

I keep it disabled except on very busy servers that have a lot of tasks running with lots of active threads.

For all intents and purposes in my work, they are real cores. I also said "essentially".

I've been working the past few months to re-write our IDL programs [we have an older version, 6.1.1] in Java for various reasons - lower-level coding than IDL, Mathematica plug-ins [both computational and visual], the fact that it's a more common language, ease of creating standalone applications, etc. - and have been taking heavy advantage of multi-threading to optimize our code for the "32"-core machine we're about to get.

Thank you for your advice, but we know what we're doing.
 

AidenShaw

macrumors P6
Feb 8, 2003
18,667
4,676
The Peninsula
For all intents and purposes in my work, they are real cores. I also said "essentially".

I've been working the past few months to re-write our IDL programs [we have an older version, 6.1.1] in Java for various reasons - lower-level coding than IDL, Mathematica plug-ins [both computational and visual], the fact that it's a more common language, ease of creating standalone applications, etc. - and have been taking heavy advantage of multi-threading to optimize our code for the "32"-core machine we're about to get.

Thank you for your advice, but we know what we're doing.

OK - if you can keep 32 threads busy most of the time, you'll be happy and possibly see a 20% or so improvement over 16 core. ( http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...-2500k-core-i7-2600k-processors-review-6.html )

If you can only keep 16 or fewer cores busy, you'll probably see some loss in performance with HT enabled.

(This is for the discussion - not implying that you don't already realize this.)
 
Last edited:

blackhand1001

macrumors 68030
Jan 6, 2009
2,599
33
The drive speed helps with writing and reading large files, certainly, but we really need a lot of computational power. We can even skimp a little on RAM, but we need a top-of-the-line CPU.

You guys are still using g4's, I don't think you need as much cpu power as you think. If you really wanna spend money get the mac mini server with the ssd.

----------

WAT? No way a Mac Mini can run Safari, Mail, iTunes, InDesign (with about 15 windows open), Illustrator, Photoshop, Acrobat, Suitcase, Preview, Image Grab, Transport, QuarkXpress, and Remote Desktop Connection without dying.

You realize even a base mini runs circles around a G5 Heck even the first core 2 duo minis ran circles around a g5. Everything since athlon 64 runs circles around a g5. There were single core 2.1 ghz athlon 64s beating out dual 2.0 ghz g5's in the day.
 

slrandall

macrumors 6502
Jun 15, 2011
412
0
OK - if you can keep 32 threads busy most of the time, you'll be happy and possibly see a 20% or so improvement over 16 core. ( http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...-2500k-core-i7-2600k-processors-review-6.html )

If you can only keep 16 or fewer cores busy, you'll probably see some loss in performance with HT enabled.

(This is for the discussion - not implying that you don't already realize this.)

We're analyzing data being sent back from Cassini [the spacecraft orbiting Saturn], and the way I modified our program was [roughly] to let each flux calculation run on a unique thread. Each hour of data requires 14,400 individual calculations, and we get data in 20-day chunks from our partners at NASA. [Granted, each calculation takes roughly a second. But going from being able to do two at a time to 32 will be absolutely wonderful.] So trust me, we'll be able to occupy 32 threads pretty easily. ;)

You guys are still using g4's, I don't think you need as much cpu power as you think. If you really wanna spend money get the mac mini server with the ssd.

Like I said before, the hard drive is nice for moving and writing large files [which we do need to do]. But trust me, we need the CPU power. With the G4s, our calculations per time period take ~3 days, so we usually run them over the weekend. The current iMacs can do them in about 30 hours, and they've got quad-core i7s.

Speaking of large files though, I can't even begin to describe how amazing Thunderbolt is for backing up our data.
 

firestarter

macrumors 603
Dec 31, 2002
5,506
227
Green and pleasant land
Wow, those are slower. :p

Yes, yes they are.

By keeping the clock rates down they significantly lower the chips power allowing for more cores. The extra cores are an advantage to almost all users. Beyond that the techniques used in the latest processors to give us these high performance chips may limit clock speed. It comes down to how fast the logic can be toggled and remain reliable.

Well I for one am still waiting for this big increase in multi-core capable desktop software.

Sadly, BornAgainMac is quite right. While some very esoteric tasks (some Photoshop filters, some video compression) will work nicely with multiple cores, most desktop software still runs more 'snappily' with fewer faster cores.

Offsetting clock speed for number of cores works fine for server software - a database or web server for example fields thousands of requests, which can easily be doled out between cores (so more slower cores usually = faster). Apple's insistence on building it's higher end desktops with server CPUs is looking less and less sensible though - given this strategy from Intel. For desktop use, the 16xx series are going to be a much much better option than the 26xx option.

So, I do think you're pretty well completely wrong, wizard.

Dear Tim Cook,

Would Apple please offer an affordable i7 tower computer.
One that could be built to order like any other computer.

Thank you.

Regards,

Your fellow Alabamian, Bubba Satori.

THIS.

A high clock speed four core i7 will give optimal results for most desktop software usage, at a much lower price point.

(And I'm an 8-core MacPro owner)
 

Deelron

macrumors regular
Jan 30, 2009
235
113
What I wouldn't give for the low end machine to use a standard i7 instead of a Xeon, generally speaking I want more performance then a Mini, but don't run enough multi-threaded tasks to need the workstation class processor, not to mention I'm not interested in using laptop parts for video performance.
 

EmbraceNext

macrumors member
Aug 17, 2007
75
0
Question for me is: Will USB3 be supported? I know about Thunderbolt but those thinks are damn expensive. USB3 is a really nice speed per $$$.
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,190
386
Indianapolis
Might as well just wait for Ivy Bridge with how late this SB update is going to be.
Ivy Bridge-E might be well into 2013. The Xeon's are more than likely going to be the B3 stepping with the fixed VT-d support. PCI-Express 3.0 appears to still not be certified as well. LGA 2011 feels like a stopgap with so many technologies a work in progress. The performance is there though over Nehalem/Westmere.

...don't count the HyperThreaded cores as real cores - most applications are better off if HyperThreading is disabled.

If you have a workload which has 32 active, computable threads - then it might help.

If you have seldom have more active threads than physical cores - you'll be better off disabling it.

I keep it disabled except on very busy servers that have a lot of tasks running with lots of active threads.
I am still noticing better performance in benchmarks with HT off unless it is Cinebench. Photoshop and games are just as picky. It is usually better off to disable it. Though it looks cool in Task Manager.

Question for me is: Will USB3 be supported? I know about Thunderbolt but those thinks are damn expensive. USB3 is a really nice speed per $$$.
There is no controller for USB 3.0 on the Patsburg PCH.
 

DESNOS

macrumors 6502
Aug 24, 2011
374
1
How about an Alienware running at 4.1ghz?

Just to add to the discussion: A G5 is a dual, or quad core CPU. The current xeons go up to 8 cores, and thanks to TurboBoost, have a higher clock speed than the G5 while running on just 4 cores (The G5's limit), then there are the 8 added virtual cores provided by hyperthreading. None of this is related in any way to ghz, yet clearly shows how the xeons would dominate a G5, even clocked lower (which is actually more of a minimum clock speed rather than anything concrete). There are many more subtle differences that result in performance increases, but these are the ones that anyone who has ever tried to educate themselves should know about, as they are features Intel openly advertises...
 

Nostromo

macrumors 65816
Dec 26, 2009
1,358
2
Deep Space
Headless iMac please.

Or super-mini?

As for me, I prefer a workstation.

May Apple drop those underperforming, overpriced entry-level models!

These insane Intel prices is because they don't have any competition. When the MacPro was released, AMD had server processor in Intels class = Intel sold Xeons for 300 dollar.

ARM announced its 64 bit CPU for late 2012 release. Lets hope that will force Intel to stop have 95% profit on each CPU.

Intel and Apple both can charge high prices right now. At the moment, consumers are in the tunnel, and there's no light ahead.

Sorry but I don't see them dropping their 'pro' desktops just like they won't drop their 'pro' notebooks.

Consumer:
Macbook Air
Mac Mini
iMac

Professional
Macbook Pro
Mac Pro

Actually I'd go as far as to say the 13" Macbook Pro should be a consumer model or wiped off the lineup.

The Mac Pro isn't going anywhere. It's the only high end option for Mac users, and Apple has such a strong foot hold on the creative industry that they would be doing themselves a massive disservice by dropping the Mac Pro. I just don't see it happening. I really don't. I expect them to do something with the enclosure to make it more appealing to drive up sales, and I expect that they would be getting special pricing from Intel to keep the costs down compared to the prices listed in the OP.

Agree. These "MacPro on the red list of dying species" threads are usually a symptom of too much weed and too little sleep.

But I insist on a fairer deal on the Mac Pro. Apple has lowered prices on many of its products (the iMac being very competitive). The MacPro is the only Apple product that is overpriced.

Well, iMac buyers won't buy cinema displays, Mac Pro buyers may (not me, though). So, giving more bang for the buck in the entry level model may entice more people to buy a Mac Pro - and an Apple display (which equally has very high profit margins).
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G5
Mar 10, 2009
12,202
3,805
There is no controller for USB 3.0 on the Patsburg PCH.

There is no USB 3.0 controller on the i7 oriented x79 branded PCH either and yet all of these motherboards, including Intel's, have USB 3.0 included.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/lga-2011-idf_4.html

if Intel's reference board for the Xeon E5 (socket 2011 ) also had a USB 3.0 component in the design then whatever Apple tweaked to get to their design would also likely have it.

The primary reason for it to be missing would be Apple laziness and/or desire to kick the can down the road for the required software development required ( xHCI driver framework).

Microsoft has been working on native USB 3.0 support in Windows 8 for a long time.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/08/22/building-robust-usb-3-0-support.aspx . In 2012, USB 3.0 is going mainstream. So it is not surprising that the new PC designs being introduced at Q4 of 2011 are mostly on board with that trend.


It is not something Apple can just wake up some morning after Intel did all the work after weaving it into the core chipset. Getting the xHCI bugs worked out on the Mac Pro would make deployment to the rest of the Mac line up go smoother.

It is going to be pretty lame when the vast majority of the upcoming "ultrabooks" have USB 3.0 (even with the highly limited space/battery requirements) and the Mac Pro doesn't. Really lame.

The key source of how lame it is lies in the fact that the Xeon motherboards are on a two year design cycle. By not planning to add USB 3.0 at the end of 2011 would mean that it would be at best late 2013 till the Mac Pro got USB 3.0. That's ridiculous in the context it is currently almost uniformly deployed on new > $1,000 computers that are not old design retreads. That would demonstrate that Apple has its head deeper planted in the sand with that kind of move. Or perhaps Apple is going to wait until Lion's successor ships to finally step out of the reality distortion field and acknowledge that USB 3.0 has deep traction.

For the other Mac designs.... sure there are board space constraints that hinder it being added until it is weaved into the core chipset. The Mac Pro doesn't have those limitations. They also have shorter motherboard design lifecycles. It is simplier to addd USB 3.0 than jury-rig some Thunderboard solution to a Mac Pro.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.