Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 23, 2012, 08:14 AM   #1
24Frames
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
New Dell Xeon E5-2667 Review - Mac Pro Soon?

AnandTech Review here http://www.anandtech.com/show/5769/d...new-enterprise

Price is 4450 USD for a single 6-Core CPU with NVidia Quadro 4000 GPU.

For 3D rendering you get a CINEBENCH 11.5 score of around 9, about the same as the current single processor Mac Pro with the BTO X3680 6-Core option. By comparison a 27-inch iMac with the 3.4GHz BTO option has a CINEBENCH score of 6.7, but costs around half the price, add an Mac Mini Server...

It will be very interesting to see what Apple have to offer.
24Frames is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 08:51 AM   #2
Umbongo
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24Frames View Post
AnandTech Review here http://www.anandtech.com/show/5769/d...new-enterprise

Price is 4450 USD for a single 6-Core CPU with NVidia Quadro 4000 GPU.

For 3D rendering you get a CINEBENCH 11.5 score of around 9, about the same as the current single processor Mac Pro with the BTO X3680 6-Core option. By comparison a 27-inch iMac with the 3.4GHz BTO option has a CINEBENCH score of 6.7, but costs around half the price, add an Mac Mini Server...

It will be very interesting to see what Apple have to offer.
Bare in mind that price is because it uses a $1,600 processor which no one wanting a single workstation for themselves would use when the $600 E5-1650 is a much better option. Dell also charge $850 currently to upgrade from their cheapest graphics card to a Quadro 4000. Currently you can get 6-core T3500s for $1,700 with minimal RAM, storage and graphics. I expect them to be $800-$1200 cheaper than Apple's options just as they have been in the past with UP workstations and similar in price, if not more, on the DP models.

Interesting they aren't available until May. Obviously there is a limitation in the supply of E5 Xeons and chipsets.
Umbongo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 03:27 PM   #3
theSeb
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Poole, England
Why is the e5 1650 much better?
__________________
What is Other on my HDD?
Throttling, overheating and Geekbench
theSeb is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 03:33 PM   #4
24Frames
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
It is hard to understand the price difference between the E5-1650 and E5-1660, the tech specs on Intel's website look identical!

Unfortunately there is no E5-16xx 8-Core, which would have made a nice replacement for the Mac Pro Quad-Core BTO X3680 (6-Core)...

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple make the base single processor model a Hex-Core E5-1650 to differentiate the lower end of the Mac Pro line from the top end of the iMac line.

The Dual Processor lines up is easy to guess at if you look at Intels offering, 12-Cores running at around 2.0GHz would replace the current 8-Core model, and 16-Cores again running at around 2.0GHz would replace current 12-Core model.

A Dual Processor 16-Core 2.0GHz for around the same price as the current 12-Core Stock configuration looks likely, performance would be about 20% better due to architecture improvements and additional cores.
24Frames is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 03:34 PM   #5
Umbongo
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by theSeb View Post
Why is the e5 1650 much better?
Because at 3.2GHz it is clocked 10% faster for $1,000 less.

http://ark.intel.com/compare/64601,64589
Umbongo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2012, 04:22 PM   #6
deconstruct60
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24Frames View Post
It is hard to understand the price difference between the E5-1650 and E5-1660, the tech specs on Intel's website look identical!
What are you talking about?

http://ark.intel.com/products/series/63197

Intel® Xeon® Processor E5-1660 (15M Cache, 3.30 GHz, 0.0 GT/s Intel® QPI)
Intel® Xeon® Processor E5-1650 (10M Cache, 3.20 GHz, 0.0 GT/s Intel® QPI )

Last I checked 3.30 is not equal to 3.20. There is a gap in the Turbo mode also ( 3.8 versus 3.9 ). Likewise 15MB is not equal to 10MB .


Quote:
Unfortunately there is no E5-16xx 8-Core, which would have made a nice replacement for the Mac Pro Quad-Core BTO X3680 (6-Core)...
6 core would most likely be a replacement for a 6 core unless you want to throw away GHz. Far more single package users tend to be core capped and chasing after GHz.

Sandy Bridge is a "tock" arch move. Not a tick where more transistors appear because of the shrink.


Quote:
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple make the base single processor model a Hex-Core E5-1650 to differentiate the lower end of the Mac Pro line from the top end of the iMac line.
I'd be deeply surprised because the 1650 is $200-300 more expensve then the entry model it would be replacing. As a price point the 1620 is a much better fit. It has the higher clock rate which most of the core limited folks want at a better price.

The Mac Pro entry price needs to move closer to $2,000 not farther away. That's a death spiral to move the other way toward approximately $3K being an entry point.

The 1620 has 40 PCI-e lanes. The Core i7 has 16. It is about much more than just synthetic L3 cache sized benchmarks that is the substantive difference. Besides the 1620 can turbo in a larger thermal envelope that the i7 in an iMac will.
deconstruct60 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 03:19 AM   #7
CaptainChunk
macrumors 68020
 
CaptainChunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
The Mac Pro entry price needs to move closer to $2,000 not farther away. That's a death spiral to move the other way toward approximately $3K being an entry point.
Agreed. When 3500 series Xeons were still current, the entry-level Mac Pro was a $2,000 machine at best (closer to $1,800 though, if you ask me). The W3530 is a sub-$300 CPU.

The last reasonably priced base Mac Pro was the 2008 8-core. It was a lot of computer for $2,799. At the time it was new, it had $1,400 worth of CPUs in it.
__________________
MP 8x2.8GHz, 16GB RAM, flashed 8800GT; Early '08
15" MBP 2.6GHz, 4GB RAM; Early '08 (RIP)
13" MBP 2.3GHz, 8GB RAM; Early '11
CaptainChunk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 01:16 PM   #8
derbothaus
macrumors 601
 
derbothaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainChunk View Post
Agreed. When 3500 series Xeons were still current, the entry-level Mac Pro was a $2,000 machine at best (closer to $1,800 though, if you ask me). The W3530 is a sub-$300 CPU.

The last reasonably priced base Mac Pro was the 2008 8-core. It was a lot of computer for $2,799. At the time it was new, it had $1,400 worth of CPUs in it.
What I paid for the hex was 125.00 cheaper than HP and Dell in 2010 when it was current. So I didn't feel like it was too un-reasonably priced. I know what Xeon's/ X58 cost. The Pro's are fairly competitive at time of release. It is 6 months later that they start loosing value.
__________________
Mac Pro W3680, GTX 680, 12GB DDR3, SSD; MBP, 2.6GHz Core i7, 16GB DDR3, SSD; Eizo fs2333
derbothaus is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 02:15 PM   #9
CaptainChunk
macrumors 68020
 
CaptainChunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by derbothaus View Post
What I paid for the hex was 125.00 cheaper than HP and Dell in 2010 when it was current. So I didn't feel like it was too un-reasonably priced. I know what Xeon's/ X58 cost. The Pro's are fairly competitive at time of release. It is 6 months later that they start loosing value.
Right, but there was a much larger margin on the base quad-core, even at release. It wasn't until you got to the SP hex and and dual-processor machines that they achieved relative price parity with similar workstations from HP and Dell.
__________________
MP 8x2.8GHz, 16GB RAM, flashed 8800GT; Early '08
15" MBP 2.6GHz, 4GB RAM; Early '08 (RIP)
13" MBP 2.3GHz, 8GB RAM; Early '11
CaptainChunk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 02:46 PM   #10
derbothaus
macrumors 601
 
derbothaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainChunk View Post
Right, but there was a much larger margin on the base quad-core, even at release. It wasn't until you got to the SP hex and and dual-processor machines that they achieved relative price parity with similar workstations from HP and Dell.
Fully.
__________________
Mac Pro W3680, GTX 680, 12GB DDR3, SSD; MBP, 2.6GHz Core i7, 16GB DDR3, SSD; Eizo fs2333
derbothaus is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 03:15 PM   #11
24Frames
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
HP and Dell both have 3 years parts, 3 years labor, and 3 years onsite service (3/3/3) standard warranty. Even with Apple Care you don't get that.

Apple are no doubt using Mac Pros for their developers workstations, and given the size of Apple they could probably keep producing them just for their internal use!
24Frames is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 03:39 PM   #12
CaptainChunk
macrumors 68020
 
CaptainChunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24Frames View Post
HP and Dell both have 3 years parts, 3 years labor, and 3 years onsite service (3/3/3) standard warranty. Even with Apple Care you don't get that.

Apple are no doubt using Mac Pros for their developers workstations, and given the size of Apple they could probably keep producing them just for their internal use!
Actually, AppleCare will cover on-site repairs on desktop computers. They did for me a couple years ago. But I did have to call a 3rd-party AASP (Apple referred me to one) to get one out to my office because I don't think the retail store "Geniuses" actually make house calls.

You just don't get 3/3/3 for free with Apple.
__________________
MP 8x2.8GHz, 16GB RAM, flashed 8800GT; Early '08
15" MBP 2.6GHz, 4GB RAM; Early '08 (RIP)
13" MBP 2.3GHz, 8GB RAM; Early '11
CaptainChunk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2012, 06:12 AM   #13
24Frames
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
One thing that is very hard to understand regarding just about all the PC vendors is that they make it so complicated to find out about and even buy their products.

Take Dell for example. Say you want to look at their workstations. Their is no link from the homepage to the webpage www.dell.com/precision. All the links take you to the shop. If you do manage to find the product page (google is probably essential for this!) the next challenge is to find the buy button! HP is a similar experience.

In contrast go to Apple's home page, click on Mac, a nice big button at the top of the page and your their, all the Mac models, one more click and you are on the product. Want to buy one, click the buy button. Specifying a BTO is just as simple.

And they wonder why Apple is so successful!
24Frames is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPad Mini: iPad mini with retina display vs dell venue pro 8 review Freyqq iPad 7 Feb 11, 2014 07:53 AM
Artic Pro application Xeon 3680 Mac pro Marcosmg Mac Pro 9 Nov 7, 2013 06:53 AM
Inel Xeon 5400 on MAC Pro 1,1 reasonchik Mac Pro 11 Sep 4, 2012 09:58 PM
Mac Pro 4.1 @ Xeon W3570 - Temperatures Zurec Mac Pro 5 Jul 10, 2012 08:41 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:46 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC