2007 Harpertown Stoakley-Seaburg Motherboard With New Graphics Cards 8-Core Mac Pro

[RichP]

Originally Posted by psycho bob

Either that or 2.66GHz has just been rounded up to 2.7GHz. Would we not expect at least 2.7GHz quad core in new machines?

And why would we change the nomenclature now? Current MacPros are listed as 2.66, not 2.7.

[Eidorian]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

I'd suspect "2.7" is really 2.666666666 formatted "%f4.1" - the frequency 2.7 doesn't really fit into the 133MHz and 200MHz base clocks that Intel's been using recently.

I was wondering about that as well.

Wouldn't that be 333 MHz and 400 MHz for the Xeon?

[Multimedia]

Post #1113 from page 45

Originally Posted by Topper

I made yet another chart.
This one with prices added.
Let me know if you see any clerical errors.

How quickly we forget our new numbers.

NOTE: The 2.7GHz Dual Core Xeon isn't even on our radar. I agree with Aiden it's likely just a rounding up of the old Woodcusty or less. The cited page doesn't mention dual processors at all.

[psycho bob]

Originally Posted by RichP

And why would we change the nomenclature now? Current MacPros are listed as 2.66, not 2.7.

I don't know but it is very unlikely now that this image is starting to be widely discussed that Apple would leave it up if it was infact a leak.

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by psycho bob

Would we not expect at least 2.7GHz quad core in new machines?

No, a pair of dual cores still makes sense for the entry system. They're quite a bit cheaper, and many people just don't need octo-core.

Actually, a dual-core or quad-core single socket mini-tower is what makes sense for the entry system, but....

[psycho bob]

Originally Posted by Multimedia

Post #1113 from page 45How quickly we forget our new numbers.

NOTE: The 2.7GHz Dual Core Xeon isn't even on our radar. I agree with Aiden it's likely just a rounding up of the old Woodcusty or less. The cited page doesn't mention dual processors at all.

Your table doesn't mention the new upcoming dual core Wolfdale processors but they cited as even having a model in the 2GHz range. I see no reason given a good enough tray price Apple will not do exactly the same as this time and have one model that can be modified which could well mean quad core processors all around.

On a separate NOTE: When I posted about the 2.66 being rounded up my post appeared directly beneath the post which brought the subject up. Upon a refresh Aiden's post appears first. On the next page I'm being quoted and hounded down yet subsequently Aiden has received credit for this logic. Does the site often screw up such posting order because of time zone differences?

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by Eidorian

I was wondering about that as well.

Wouldn't that be 333 MHz and 400 MHz for the Xeon?

Right - and 266 MHz as well...

http://download.intel.com/design/Xeo...s/31335503.pdf

[suneohair]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

No, a pair of dual cores still makes sense for the entry system. They're quite a bit cheaper, and many people just don't need octo-core.

Actually, a dual-core or quad-core single socket mini-tower is what makes sense for the entry system, but....

I am assuming by entry system you mean the lowest model, like the 2.0 now? It wold have to be less than it is now for sure, I mean, if I know a couple of quads would fit into that price point (based on current Woodcrests) yet they are filling it with cheaper duals, that would be pretty annoying to say the least.

If it was the stock system, we have more problems.

[Wild-Bill]

If I was in charge of marketing for Apple, I'd reserve the 1600 FSB quad cores for the most expensive option possible.

If I were a nice guy, I'd make all the configurations quad-core 1600 FSB, and make the lowest option the E5460 with the 80 watt TDP and 1600 FSB coming in at a cool 767 per chip

[Tracer]

At this point I wouldn't even mind an all Harpertown lineup.

The current RAM prices are just too tempting for an entry 8-Core Model (2.66GHZ) @ 2500 Plus ~$1000 for 16GB of Ram.

I just hope the new RAM won't cause me to sell my kidney and left foot.


Tracer

[Pressure]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

I'd suspect "2.7" is really 2.666666666 formatted "%f4.1" - the frequency 2.7 doesn't really fit into the 133MHz and 200MHz base clocks that Intel's been using recently.

Penryn has half step multipliers available, e.g. something like 13.5 x 200Mhz, which would result in a lowly Front Side Bus of 800Mhz.

It's not impossible but not likely either

[Tracer]

Half-Step Multiplier resulting in 200MHZ FSB?

That's not how it works.

Processor Speed = FSB * Multiplier.

The 3.0 GHZ Chips @ 400MHZ FSB would have a multiplier of 7.5.

The reason for half-multipliers is to allow Intel more flexibility when it comes to making chips. If they didn't have the ability to make a half-multiplier then the only options would be 2.4, 2.8, and 3.2 GHZ.

Tracer

[Multimedia]

17 minutes ago AppleInsider posted this:
Apple to fire up Penryn-based Mac Pro

Top will be 3.2 GHz 1600 MHz FSB dual Harpertown as I had predicted earlier.

Including this photograph:

[Kosh66]

The important part of that article is this

Confirming reports filed by the Inquirer earlier this month, people familiar with the matter say the new Mac Pro line lineup will top out with an 8-core configuration that employs two top-of-the-line quad-core "Harpertown" chips. The top-bin Xeons, which offer the faster 1600MHz bus and 12MB of L2 cache, will start trickling in around mid-November at speeds of up to 3.2GHz.

Apple, for its part, is ready to rock-and-roll with the new 45-nm Macs whenever Intel can deliver enough of those top-bin chips to trigger a manufacturing ramp. People familiar with the situation say Apple's end of the hardware is essentially complete, with builds having made their final pass through engineering earlier this fall. Availability now hinges on the Intel's capacity to deliver quantities of the new 45-nm Xeons, they say.

So it sounds like we won't see new Mac Pros until January at MacWorld.

No mention about what the video card options will be, but it's more of an Intel info article.

[Multimedia]

Originally Posted by Kosh66

The important part of that article is . . . So it sounds like we won't see new Mac Pros until January at MacWorld.

No mention about what the video card options will be, but it's more of an Intel info article.

I don't read it that way. I think Apple will start selling them next week and shipping in November. Supply is always a problem at the beginning of a new product cycle. Don't see why this cycle should be any different.

The video card options will be what they will be so why worry?

[AidenShaw]

Apple, for its part, is ready to rock-and-roll with the new 45-nm Macs whenever Intel can deliver enough of those top-bin chips to trigger a manufacturing ramp. People familiar with the situation say Apple's end of the hardware is essentially complete, with builds having made their final pass through engineering earlier this fall. Availability now hinges on the Intel's capacity to deliver quantities of the new 45-nm Xeons, they say.

You can be sure that HP/IBM/Dell and the others are at exactly the same point - designs debugged and manufacturing ready for the chip supply to ramp up.

Originally Posted by Multimedia

I don't read it that way. I think Apple will start selling them next week and shipping in November.

It will be surprising if Apple starts to sell them before the official 12 November announcement date.

Apple could "preview" the systems, of course, since all the other guys have shown the Penryn Harpertown systems at various shows like IDF.

I would predict (risky as it is to make any prediction about how Apple will behave) that Apple won't want anything to share the spotlight with 10.5 - Leopard gets 2 weeks on the home page, then the new Mac Pro comes out on the 12th.

[suneohair]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

You can be sure that HP/IBM/Dell and the others are at exactly the same point - designs debugged and manufacturing ready for the chip supply to ramp up.




It will be surprising if Apple starts to sell them before the official 12 November announcement date.

Apple could "preview" the systems, of course, since all the other guys have shown the Penryn Harpertown systems at various shows like IDF.

I still don't understand why people think we have to wait for this magic date to come. That is the street date. OEMs get parts well before the street date and in many cases start selling machines before the street date. Intel has already announced them, they just are selling to the consumers yet, that is the Nov. 11/12 date.

Not trying to pick a fight or anything. I just see this repeated and there is a lot of historical data to suggest they could start shipping them before that date. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Dell or HP tried to beat them to the bunch and start shipping next week.

[Topper]

Originally Posted by suneohair

I still don't understand why people think we have to wait for this magic date to come.

Speaking only for myself, I was waiting for a Harpertown launch date.
I knew/know that November 12th would probably not be Apple's Mac Pro launch date; therefore, it is not a magical number as such.
Being a prognosticator, November 12th was/is the only date set in stone that I could work with.
I seems highly unlikely to me that the Mac Pro would come out at the same time as Leopard.
That brings me back to November again.
My feeling has been for quite some time now that the new Mac Pro would launch somewhere between November 12th and MWSF.
Being an eternal optimist, I am hoping for it to be somewhere near but not exactly on November 12th.

[Multimedia]

Yes if it's not next week then Tuesday November 13 would be the next likely date to beat all the November 23 Black Friday market noise.

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by suneohair

I still don't understand why people think we have to wait for this magic date to come. That is the street date. OEMs get parts well before the street date and in many cases start selling machines before the street date. Intel has already announced them, they just are selling to the consumers yet, that is the Nov. 11/12 date.

Not trying to pick a fight or anything. I just see this repeated and there is a lot of historical data to suggest they could start shipping them before that date. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Dell or HP tried to beat them to the bunch and start shipping next week.

Please cite some examples of mainstream vendors selling systems with chips before Intel's official announcement of that chip or platform. Other than HP selling some Pentium D systems the weekend before its announcement, I think that you'll have trouble with that. (Scattered appearances of grey-market OEM chips before announcement aren't unheard of, though)

Most (or almost all) follow the pattern of the Yonah announcement - Intel says "it's here", and showcases products from different manufacturers that are available for sale beginning "now". (http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=196&type=expert)

Those OEM sales seem to be restricted by a "first sale date 12 November" clause....

[netdog]

Why do they seem to be talking about a Wolfdale for lower models? As Multi has demonstrated the high end chip costs about the same as the current $4000 Octo Mac Pro, yet they gasp that the new top end machine will be around $4000 LOL. Further, we can have Octos at every price point that we have today. What advantage would a Wolfdale be?

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by Multimedia

Yes if it's not next week then Tuesday November 13 would be the next likely date to beat all the November 23 Black Friday market noise.

That's probably a better prediction than the 12th - Apple would get a news day to itself and not have to share the spotlight with all the systems that were announced on Monday.

[netdog]

Originally Posted by Multimedia

17 minutes ago AppleInsider posted this:
Apple to fire up Penryn-based Mac Pro

Top will be 3.2 GHz 1600 MHz FSB dual Harpertown as I had predicted earlier.

Including this photograph:

Hey Buddy! Congrats! You kept the faith despite not much in the way of decent rumors, and it looks like it is coming true. I'll be over the moon if your prediction is right.

[suneohair]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

Please cite some examples of mainstream vendors selling systems with chips before Intel's official announcement of that chip or platform. Other than HP selling some Pentium D systems the weekend before its announcement, I think that you'll have trouble with that. (Scattered appearances of grey-market OEM chips before announcement aren't unheard of, though)

Most (or almost all) follow the pattern of the Yonah announcement - Intel says "it's here", and showcases products from different manufacturers that are available for sale beginning "now". (http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=196&type=expert)

Those OEM sales seem to be restricted by a "first sale date 12 November" clause....

I don't have dates and names to rattle off. But I do remember reading a few things over the last year. Such as Dell doing Core 2 Duos early. Again, I don't remember exact things. When I pound out these midterms I will get back to you on that

Now, my point here is this, Nov 12 is simply the street date. They will be available for consumers to buy at that point. Intel already said here are the chips.

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by suneohair

I don't have dates and names to rattle off. But I do remember reading a few things over the last year. Such as Dell doing Core 2 Duos early. Again, I don't remember exact things.

Well, let me know when you get a chance to support your story by finding the "few things" you've read over the last year.

I used to work in the workstation division of one of the top Intel vendors, supporting hardware betas and ISVs and the like (look up names like "Deschutes", "Klamath", "Katmai", "Coppermine", "Tualatin"). My experience over those years is as I've described - lots of chips early - but sales started when Intel opened the gates with the announcement.

Originally Posted by suneohair

Now, my point here is this, Nov 12 is simply the street date. They will be available for consumers to buy at that point. Intel already said here are the chips.

Why is it so hard to believe that "street date" refers to both "retail boxes containing the bare CPU" and "retail sales of systems containing the CPU"?

What's the real difference between an Intel Penryn CPU box marked "Do not sell before 12 November" and an HP ProLiant Penryn system box marked "Do not sell before 12 November".