New Mac Pro release date, rumours and leaked images

[deconstruct60]

Originally Posted by ensee

When Apple showed up at NAB 2011 to show off FCPX they didn't have a booth or anything, did they?

Apple doesn't do conventions anymore. That's all products. No Macworld. No CES. No Mobile World Congress. So no NAB isn't anyway different or a snub at "pros". They don't do them.

They do Apple run "dog and pony show" media effect. It is Apple and any smaller partners they invite on stage, but it is completely their script and their event.

They do convention support. Where Apple helps with partners and vendors who are display their product which leverages Apple hardware in some way. Apple tends to send folks out to look at what everyone else is doing. So there are time to do sit-downs with very large and/or highly selective customers who might also be at conventions in a totally NDA and off the PR record manner.

The FCPX demo at NAB was more of a "one off" event. It is doubtful they would do those on a regular basis. That was more a head's up that those than wanted to buy the current FCP and wanted the "status quo" should buy it now or sign some continuity agreement. There was going to be a change and Apple was making a break.

There was no booth. They fired off the warning shot and largely left folks to make plans on how to adjust. Of course, a surprisingly large number of folks were "shocked" when the old product disappeared.

[Umbongo]

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

Technically Intel's 2010 update was a bit jacked up with respect to Mac Pro and the single package model. The Xeon 3600 series launched with exactly one processor model in it. That is hardly a 'series'. Intel never did release a hgher clocked 4 core model in the 3600 series. The primarily reason why the entry Mac Pro is so close to the iMac now in CPU x86 core performance is purely Intel's quirky product roadmap for the single package models.

Ignoring the part numbers the line transitioned as had been usual for Intel with increased clockspeeds and then the addition of more cores. 2.66x4, 2.93x4, 3.2x4 at launch. Addition of a higher part late 2009 in 3.33x4. Then a shift to 2.8x4, 3.2x4, 3.33x6. Addition of the 3.2x6 option a few months later at a new price point. Then later speed bumps to finish with a 3.2x4, 3.33x6 and 3.46x6 line.

I never saw this as quirky, I'm sort of surprised you do. So they didn't use Westmere to make, for example, a native 3.6GHz 4-core CPU like they have with the E5-1600 line. But then didn't make any native 4-core Westmere CPUs, and the 4-core models they did make are 6-core with 2 disabled and not impressive over their 6-core brethren. I would venture to guess they also saw a major shift in that LGA 1156 was much more popular than LGA 1366 after its launch, and there was no financial motivation to develop a native 4-core Westmere die to get a couple of hundred MHz over what was achievable with Nehalem. I don't recall any outrage that if you paid more you got more cores, I do however know people were critical of the current line up where you get less clockspeed if you want more cores and you get less clockspeed and performance per clock with 6-core CPUs that the consumer line.

The Xeon E3 was launch relatively shortly after Intel's screw up. It is likely some deeply misguided marketing drone screwed up the product line up for a generation (with the notion that the E3's were taking the place of the previous 3000 series. They didn't; it is a new submarket).

The E3 line replaced the Xeon 3400 series, which was the Xeon version of Clarkdale/Lynnfield and replaced the Xeon 3000 series of LGA 775 processors. The timing was due to Intel moving the main consumer line and mobile parts to come before server/workstation/enthusiast, there was obviously going to be some overlap between the top of the consumer and the start of the enthusiast/workstation market as CPU performance isn't the only thing these bring. Why should there be a big gap between an entry Mac Pro and iMac when both have a $330 CPU in them?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

The FCPX demo at NAB was more of a "one off" event. It is doubtful they would do those on a regular basis. That was more a head's up that those than wanted to buy the current FCP and wanted the "status quo" should buy it now or sign some continuity agreement. There was going to be a change and Apple was making a break.

There was no booth. They fired off the warning shot and largely left folks to make plans on how to adjust. Of course, a surprisingly large number of folks were "shocked" when the old product disappeared.

Yeah, was the FCPX event even on the NAB show floor? I always felt that it was an event Apple had around NAB that wasn't actually part of NAB.

[deconstruct60]

Originally Posted by Umbongo

Ignoring the part numbers the line transitioned as had been usual for Intel with increased clockspeeds and then the addition of more cores. 2.66x4, 2.93x4, 3.2x4 at launch.

Core count doesn't not equal architecture. The 4 core count was left behind in architecture. There were only Nehalem 4 core count model. There were zero Westmere updates. And no Westmere was not solely a process shrink. It wasn't a major micro architecture change there was some ( AES streaming and some virtualization updates ).

The 3500 series on the at this point relatively ancient 45nm really couldn't be cranked much higher than the 6 core Westmere models which is what should have been done.

That sequence of clock speeds exactly backwards of what the sensible progression should be. The 4 cores should be the fastest and the 6 core trailing behind or equal. Indeed the sequencing now is:

E5 1620 3.6 GHz ( 4 cores )
E5 1650 3.2 GHz ( 6 cores )
E5 1660 3.3 GHz ( 6 cores )

For those looking for single threaded drag racing solutions the 1620 would gap all of the iMac and mini solutions. Even likely the upcoming Haswell upgrades for those two in the Fall.

I never saw this as quirky, I'm sort of surprised you do.

Not sure why.....

So they didn't use Westmere to make, for example, a native 3.6GHz 4-core CPU like they have with the E5-1600 line. But then didn't make any native 4-core Westmere CPUs, and the 4-core models they did make are 6-core with 2 disabled and not impressive over their 6-core brethren.

Because a 45nm die with 2 cores switched off is cheaper to produce in volume than a 32nm die with 2 cores switched if the wafers are the same size? Not really.

I would venture to guess they also saw a major shift in that LGA 1156 was much more popular than LGA 1366 after its launch,

Maybe, just maybe if the 32nm facility to filled to capacity doing mainstream design perhaps. If there is a too few items to crank out on 45 and 32nm has capacity problems but otherwise now.

More likely it was a designer resource constraint and some folks pulled off jumpstarting a real 3600 line to get the E3 line cranked up.

The sockets aren't more popular as much as the far lower TDP points that the E3 line brings to market. Up until then Intel had tried to fill the "lower power" server CPU market by just completely gutting the clock speed. That isn't as effective as something that is just designed to run sub-90W in the first place.

I don't recall any outrage that if you paid more you got more cores, I do however know people were critical of the current line up where you get less clockspeed if you want more cores and you get less clockspeed and performance per clock with 6-core CPUs that the consumer line.

From the clueless "just more GHz" crowd? Probably so.

For round numbers lets say the memory bandwidth coming out of the package is 200 GB/s.

If each core needs 30 GB/s at 3GHz and 40 at 4GHz then a 4 core model ( 4 x 40 => 160 ) will fit better at higher speeds than a 6 core model ( 6 x 40 => 240 ).

I can see way folks not paying any attention at architecture would complain. The higher GHz has more crotch grabbing bragging rights. It doesn't necessarily lead to increased performance.

The E3 line replaced the Xeon 3400 series, which was the Xeon version of Clarkdale/Lynnfield and replaced the Xeon 3000 series of LGA 775 processors.

If skip back past the 3600 and 3500 where it was merged up. During 2010 there was a gap. E3 didn't appear to 2011. But yes elements of the 3400 line up came after the 3500 series shipped. There was two usages of the 3000 indicators to outline really different line ups. Sort of how the Core i7 is substantive muddled now. In a Mac Pro context though those "desktop" variants were never used.

Why should there be a big gap between an entry Mac Pro and iMac when both have a $330 CPU in them?

I didn't say big gap; just gapped.

If the Mac Pro's processor is not burdened by an iGPU there should be some gap. If there are enough extra transistors so that have substantially higher I/O bandwidth ( 40 lanes versus 16 in current set up and about twice the memory throughput. )

[deconstruct60]

Originally Posted by goMac

Yeah, was the FCPX event even on the NAB show floor? I always felt that it was an event Apple had around NAB that wasn't actually part of NAB.

No. Apple "hi jacked" some special interst group's session.

" ... The rumors were true. Apple did take over the on-stage portion of this year's Final Cut Pro User Group SuperMeet and used the venue to present the next version of Final Cut Pro. ... "
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/12/...x-at-nab-2011/


Again one of the instances of Apple scripted, Apple controlled events....


".... Companies have long used sponsored presentation time at the event to unveil new products, introduce new technologies, and to show the assembled video professionals their wares. This year’s presenters included Blackmagic, Autodesk, Canon, AJA, and other heavy hitters in the industry, but Apple has (if the story pans out) tossed them all out on their ears in order to use the event to announce the next version of FCP.

SuperMeet isn’t talking publicly about the change, but an Avid spokesperson told ProVideoCoaltion.com that SuperMeet unilaterally canceled Avid’s sponsorship at the event, reportedly because, “Apple doesn’t want anyone to have stage time but them.” ... "
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic..._nab_supermeet

this probably in part motivated the huge FUD campaigns launched after the event and at the FCPX launch by some of the other players that got squeezed out. Not that they were going to anyway, but the stoking the hype furnace too much only tends to have have bigger blowback.

20/20 hindsight they should have saved some of the time to trott some of the other folks on stage to talk about how they were going to work on future intergration projects and how Apple was going to move to a greater degree of letting 3rd parties fill in the pieces. Alas no, it was more slick demo than "meat".

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by derbothaus

Snippy snippy.

Ah-ha! I knew it!!!

You're really Ally Mcbeal in disguise pretending to be derbothaus!

[derbothaus]

^^ Man, I wish I got that reference. Never watched that show.

[calaverasgrande]

Originally Posted by Tesselator

I hear Apple trying to have more stuff assembled in the USA - which might be a problem as the federal gov is trying hard to squelch manufacturing in the USA

I'm sorry, but everything else you said kind of doesnt make sense in the context of this statement. Why would the govt not want Apple to return manufacturing to the US?

[Lancer]

Originally Posted by jorgefilemon

i want the mac pro fanless!, is that even possible?

Probably not, I wouldn't want them to go back to liquid cooling, too many issues from what I read. But with the growth in SSD and Apple using Fusion maybe they can make it so the HDD fans shut down when not needed making the whole MacPro run a lot quitter than it does today. I had a G5 and it was like a jet sometimes. My new 27" iMac to a lot quitter, most of the noise if from the external HDDs and I don't think I've heard the internal fan yet and right now it's running just over 1200rpm.

[maxosx]

Mac Pro?

It's all a mirage.

Other than vaporware & lip service, it seems that Apple is avoiding taking a stand.

Just for fun, I touched the case of mine today, yep it's real.

Proves there is such a thing, but it may be the last

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by calaverasgrande

Why would the govt not want Apple to return manufacturing to the US?

Well, the answer to that is really off topic here. Some will yell "conspiracy theory" and others more versed in the recent and relevant legislation will likely either cry or just shrug their shoulders. But I'll leave it to each person to investigate and inform themselves if they're so inclined. Use google and ask the same exact question there that you just asked me here - for starters.
.

[PowerPCMacMan]

Same here.. I never liked their business practices as most were too secretive and sneaky at best.. Love Apple's machines, both PPC and Intel

I love Apple products but I hate their business practices.[/QUOTE]

[muziksculp]

Interesting to note that Apple is not very secretive when it comes to iPhones, and iPads. I think they already have a release date for the iPhone 5S this summer, I think June or something around there.

It would be wise if they said something about the approximate release date of the next gen. Mac Pro's .

I agree, their secretive policy, and business practice when it comes to Pro products, which include their Pro.Applications is very annoying indeed. i.e. where is Logic Pro X ? when will it be released ? complete mystery at this point.

So far all we can do is wait, wait, and wait... , wait..... .....

[eawmp1]

Originally Posted by muziksculp

Interesting to note that Apple is not very secretive when it comes to iPhones, and iPads. I think they already have a release date for the iPhone 5S this summer, I think June or something around there.

It would be wise if they said something about the approximate release date of the next gen. Mac Pro's .

I agree, their secretive policy, and business practice when it comes to Pro products, which include their Pro.Applications is very annoying indeed. i.e. where is Logic Pro X ? when will it be released ? complete mystery at this point.

So far all we can do is wait, wait, and wait... , wait..... .....

Osborne effect.

As for iPad/iPhone - different market driven by stiff competition and frequent upgrades. The need to have the next great thing trumps the Osborne effect. Also, Apple still manufactures the last generation iPhone as its cheaper offering. MacPro is small fries in terms of sales and announcing a specific release date would stop what paltry sales they already have.

[BDM STUDIOS NL]

Originally Posted by maxosx

mac pro?

It's all a mirage.

Other than vaporware & lip service, it seems that apple is avoiding taking a stand.

Just for fun, i touched the case of mine today, yep it's real.

Proves there is such a thing, but it may be the last

nuff said!!!

[jeanlain]

Originally Posted by muziksculp

Interesting to note that Apple is not very secretive when it comes to iPhones, and iPads.

Yes they are. If you heard anything about the future of iDevices, it's only rumors/leaks, because much more people are interested in them (including competitors).

[deconstruct60]

Originally Posted by muziksculp

Interesting to note that Apple is not very secretive when it comes to iPhones, and iPads.

Apple is very secretive. Their suppliers are not. For whatever reason most of these "lowest bid" Asian contractors don't get fired no matter how leaky they are. It likely because some of these parts are being multiple sourced and it is harder to track down the supplier responsible and even harder the blabbermouth employee inside that company.

In contrast the production runs for Macs are much smaller. Fewer contractors and more single sourced ones who "see" significantly unique parts early.

I think they already have a release date for the iPhone 5S this summer, I think June or something around there.

No. "Analysts" have pegged a date. Production would might start in June but there likely is at least 1-1.5 months of production run up before launch. It is kind of hard to hide 10's of millions of iPhones.

Apple probably has communicated a "start production" date to their contract assembly folks but that doesn't peg a launch date for customers.

It would be wise if they said something about the approximate release date of the next gen. Mac Pro's .

Chuckle they already did last June.... sometime in 2013.

I agree, their secretive policy, and business practice when it comes to Pro products, which include their Pro.Applications is very annoying indeed.

It is only annoying because folks constantly try to "swim upstream" of what the policy actually is. They don't announce future products. That can simply mean you do an evaluation on the products after they are announced. In short, you deal with what you have in front of you.

So far all we can do is wait, wait, and wait... , wait..... .....

LOL. Not really. If you have the current product you can just use it. If absolutely need something newer than the "older" product have then buy it. If not keep working and save up for when you do need to pull the trigger.

Who the heck buys products sight unseen for critical business functions??????????????? Seriously.

----------

Originally Posted by eawmp1

Osborne effect.

As for iPad/iPhone - different market driven by stiff competition and frequent upgrades.

Osborne effect is very real on the iPhone/iPad also. When there was a gap between the June/July timeframe to September there was a drop off in iPhone buys. Granted there is a huge difference in market growth rates though ( Workstations vs. mobile devices ).


The iPods are clearly on a cycle where folks defer in late Q2 early Q3. Apple has to subsidize those sales with "back to school" bundles to keep them from stalling even more.

Apple likes to move to dates around somewhat because if they are too predictable folks will just inference the same results as if explicitly invoked the effect.

The problem for the Mac Pro is that there is a huge vacuum which often gets filled with just nonsense. They do need to be a bit more predictable than they are now. That doesn't mean naming specific target dates but it would mean being far more consistent.

[thermodynamic]

Originally Posted by Tesselator

Well, the answer to that is really off topic here. Some will yell "conspiracy theory" and others more versed in the recent and relevant legislation will likely either cry or just shrug their shoulders. But I'll leave it to each person to investigate and inform themselves if they're so inclined. Use google and ask the same exact question there that you just asked me here - for starters.
.

I would always ascribe others to do research, but those who do not give their own reasons are tantamount to playing games as well.

And the simple reason behind manufacturing offshoring is for companies to show "higher profit" to Wall Street by using lower cost labor, while not letting product prices go down - since (decades ago) it was claimed such actions would lead to lower prices for customers... the problem is, one runs out of customers who earn enough money to keep things afloat... you might want to look up the amount of corporate welfare given out to prop up the "free market", also noting this neat little bill that was shot down:

http://www.ontheissues.org/SenateVote/Party_2005-63.htm

(So we're paying companies to offshore jobs and some in government don't want the handouts to stop... and the fewer jobs we have here means less tax revenue. Ditto for when wages remain stagnant or fall... so eventually we add to the deficit, whose interest rate keeps folding back into what is owed, while giving handouts to corporations ditching this country. Cool, huh?)

[goMac]

Originally Posted by muziksculp

It would be wise if they said something about the approximate release date of the next gen. Mac Pro's .

They already did. Late this year.

Compare that to the iPhone, in which they've made no statement.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by thermodynamic

I would always ascribe others to do research, but those who do not give their own reasons are tantamount to playing games as well.

Sure that's OK. It's not illegal to play games however you wish to define "playing games" - nor is it devious, unethical, or rude.

And the simple reason behind manufacturing offshoring is...

Says you.

...we're paying companies to offshore jobs...

Yup, that's the facts.