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 Aug 13, 2013, 04:53 PM   #1
WardC
macrumors 68020
 
WardC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Send a message via AIM to WardC
New Mac Pro only available with single CPU!

I just realized this...in their video on the website, it shows the 'processor' and explains that there are 12-core options, but they are only referring to a single-CPU Ivy Bridge chip. From what it looks like...Apple will not be offering a dual-CPU model.

12-core single chip will be the top option.

Looks like Apple dropped the ball on this one.
__________________
iMac 27" 3.4GHz i7 SSD 16GB RAM
MacBook Pro 15-inch 2.6GHz i7 256GB SSD/ 16GB RAM
iPhone 5 White 64GB
Thinking about Apple...
WardC is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 05:04 PM   #2
Kissaragi
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post
I just realized this...in their video on the website, it shows the 'processor' and explains that there are 12-core options, but they are only referring to a single-CPU Ivy Bridge chip. From what it looks like...Apple will not be offering a dual-CPU model.

12-core single chip will be the top option.

Looks like Apple dropped the ball on this one.
Has been discussed before, endlessly.
Kissaragi is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 05:05 PM   #3
phoenixsan
macrumors 65816
 
phoenixsan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
If that is confirmed.....

and come to reality, more motives then for holding me about buying a new Pro. But I can see the reasoning in this, because design constraints and such.....



__________________
Mac Pro 2012 3.06 Westmere version, 12 Core 64 GB RAM, 4 TB , iPhone 5 (black), Moto G 8 GB (black)
phoenixsan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 05:08 PM   #4
hudson1
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post
I just realized this...in their video on the website, it shows the 'processor' and explains that there are 12-core options, but they are only referring to a single-CPU Ivy Bridge chip. From what it looks like...Apple will not be offering a dual-CPU model.

12-core single chip will be the top option.

Looks like Apple dropped the ball on this one.
If you think the trend is toward offloading tasks to the GPU then I suppose you might call it a three-processor machine. As has been just mentioned, it's been endlessly discussed but the real power of this computer won't be known until it's released and thoroughly tested.
hudson1 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 07:41 PM   #5
Photovore
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
It's also not entirely inconceivable that they may, a year later, offer a stretch tube chassis with an extra CPU and maybe an extra SSD ... though pretty unlikely, I think.
Photovore is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 07:46 PM   #6
wonderspark
macrumors 68030
 
wonderspark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Denver, CO
I want a fatter tube, not really a taller tube. It already looks like it will be easily knocked over, and a fatter tube would be more stable while providing more space for additional parts.
__________________
Wait a second... So you're telling me anything that happens in the sky is legal, and there's a giant crime-blimp flying around this place? I don't know how I missed that.
wonderspark is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 07:49 PM   #7
d-m-a-x
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Triangle would have been waaaayyy cooler
d-m-a-x is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 07:50 PM   #8
wonderspark
macrumors 68030
 
wonderspark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Denver, CO
"They have a fight, Triangle wins, Triangle Man..."
__________________
Wait a second... So you're telling me anything that happens in the sky is legal, and there's a giant crime-blimp flying around this place? I don't know how I missed that.
wonderspark is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 07:53 PM   #9
Foxdog175
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Photovore View Post
It's also not entirely inconceivable that they may, a year later, offer a stretch tube chassis with an extra CPU and maybe an extra SSD ... though pretty unlikely, I think.
That's not Apple's style. They'd rather you throw them another 6 grand for a new Mac Pro than offer a CPU expansion. They're probably delaying this feature just as an incentive to buy the next (taller) Mac Pro.
Foxdog175 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2013, 09:45 PM   #10
Photovore
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxdog175 View Post
That's not Apple's style. They'd rather you throw them another 6 grand for a new Mac Pro than offer a CPU expansion. They're probably delaying this feature just as an incentive to buy the next (taller) Mac Pro.
Apologies if my meaning was unclear, but I think that what you are saying is exactly what I meant to say: wait a year or two and then offer the higher-capability chassis. A "stretch limousine" after you just bought the previous model of limousine.

Thankfully, these puppies tend to have a good resale value!

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderspark View Post
I want a fatter tube, not really a taller tube. It already looks like it will be easily knocked over, and a fatter tube would be more stable while providing more space for additional parts.
Yes, there you go. A taller tube would 1) be easier to knock over and 2) only offer the same cooling as the lesser-TDP model (unless they put a squirrel-cage fan on top!). A fat one would be better. So, a "puffed tube" rather than a "stretched tube".

Or, a smoothed triangle, as above. That would be cool!
Photovore is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 12:46 AM   #11
mcfx
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: US
I prefer the 12-core single CPU vs 12-core dual CPU anytime. There's more efficiency: less power consumption -> less heat & noise, no more cache and memory latency over the QPI.
__________________
Mac Pro Mid 2010 12-Core 3.46GHz, 48GB RAM, 512GB Apple SSD iPhone 4S 64GB Black iPod touch 32GB Black
mcfx is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 12:54 AM   #12
ScottishCaptain
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
I can't wait until someone upgrades a 2010 or 2012 Mac Pro to dual 12 core processors (24 cores/48 threads).

I just wanna watch the New Mac Pro zealots squirm when they realize their new form factor will never be that powerful now or in the future.

-SC
__________________
2010 Mac Pro (MacPro5,1), 2*2.93ghz, 64GB, 4x2TB, Apple RAID Card, 5970 GPU, 2xSD, Eizo CG276W
ScottishCaptain is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 12:58 AM   #13
mcfx
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottishCaptain View Post
I can't wait until someone upgrades a 2010 or 2012 Mac Pro to dual 12 core processors (24 cores/48 threads).

I just wanna watch the New Mac Pro zealots squirm when they realize their new form factor will never be that powerful now or in the future.

-SC
I have (see my signature)
__________________
Mac Pro Mid 2010 12-Core 3.46GHz, 48GB RAM, 512GB Apple SSD iPhone 4S 64GB Black iPod touch 32GB Black
mcfx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 01:43 AM   #14
Umbongo
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcfx View Post
I prefer the 12-core single CPU vs 12-core dual CPU anytime. There's more efficiency: less power consumption -> less heat & noise, no more cache and memory latency over the QPI.
All things being equal sure, but the reality is two 3.5GHz 6-cores vs one 2.7GHz 12-core. I'd take the extra 30% clockspeed for a workstation when the extra power usage is 0.1 kWh and we've had to deal with the other issues for a decade and it's been fine. 16 cores at 2.6GHz will likely also be the same sort of price as a single 12-core solution.

Obviously not an option with the new Mac Pro, but I can't see too many clamoring for a single 12-core in the PC workstation market.
Umbongo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 03:21 AM   #15
JesterJJZ
macrumors 68000
 
JesterJJZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcfx View Post
I prefer the 12-core single CPU vs 12-core dual CPU anytime. There's more efficiency: less power consumption -> less heat & noise, no more cache and memory latency over the QPI.
I'll pass on both and go for a 24-core dual...
__________________
jesterpictures.com theoryiseverything.com jarek.com
Shoot for the Impossible...Then do it
MacPro 12core, 64GB, GTX680, 30" ACD, 23" ACD -- 15" MBP 2.6 i7, Anti-Glare, 16GB, 240GB SSD + 1TB
JesterJJZ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 07:07 AM   #16
jasonvp
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Northern VA
Send a message via AIM to jasonvp
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcfx View Post
I have (see my signature)
No you haven't. If you read his post carefully, he mentioned upgrading a 5,1 to a dual 12-core (ie, 24-core). That won't be possible without tearing the logic board completely out of the case and replacing it with something new.

And at that point, why not just build a Hack?
jasonvp is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 07:12 AM   #17
Cubemmal
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Now he realizes two graphics + CPU equals three, and a triangle has three sides ...

By all reports the Mach kernel they have struggles with more cores, I remember reading an article how it doesn't scale well. Linux solved this problem back in the 90's but Apple is still behind the game. Did they ever really fix that? Don't know.

Regardless Intel also struggles to add cores without significantly jacking the price. Xeon's are crazy expensive, it's cheaper to add parallelization through GPU's rather than CPU's which the industry has recognized. The idea these days is to find ways to put your code on the massively parallel and cheaper GPU. Even in supercomputing they are utilizing more GPU horsepower than CPU.

So Apple is just correctly following the industry trend. If software could take advantage it would be fun to put some more GPU out in a thunderbolt cage. That would be interesting because the bandwidth should be adequate for pure compute tasks.
Cubemmal is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 07:16 AM   #18
theSeb
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Poole, England
This is new and interesting information that has not been discussed before.
__________________
What is Other on my HDD?
Throttling, overheating and Geekbench
theSeb is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 07:34 AM   #19
CausticPuppy
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderspark View Post
I want a fatter tube, not really a taller tube. It already looks like it will be easily knocked over, and a fatter tube would be more stable while providing more space for additional parts.
Actually, for a dual-processor machine they should use a dual-tube configuration. Essentially fuse two tubes side by side. That way it would look like a jet pack.
__________________
2011 Mac Mini Server, 16 GB RAM, 256GB Crucial M4 SSD, 500GB HDD + 3TB NAS
Haswell rMBP 13" - i7/512GB
Mac Mini 1.83GHz Core2Duo, 3GB RAM, 60GB SSD
iPad Air/iPhone5S
CausticPuppy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 08:10 AM   #20
JesterJJZ
macrumors 68000
 
JesterJJZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by CausticPuppy View Post
Actually, for a dual-processor machine they should use a dual-tube configuration. Essentially fuse two tubes side by side. That way it would look like a jet pack.
Add some hard drive bays and pci slots and I'm sold.
__________________
jesterpictures.com theoryiseverything.com jarek.com
Shoot for the Impossible...Then do it
MacPro 12core, 64GB, GTX680, 30" ACD, 23" ACD -- 15" MBP 2.6 i7, Anti-Glare, 16GB, 240GB SSD + 1TB
JesterJJZ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 08:15 AM   #21
WMD
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Florida, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottishCaptain View Post
I can't wait until someone upgrades a 2010 or 2012 Mac Pro to dual 12 core processors (24 cores/48 threads).
Intel won't be making any 12-core CPUs that the current Mac Pro will support. They may not even be the same socket.
WMD is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 08:17 AM   #22
beaker7
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubemmal View Post
So Apple is just correctly following the industry trend.

If software could take advantage it would be fun

Yep. GPU compute would be great if software could take advantage of it.

And it had a usable amount of memory.

Maybe in the second or third generation tube. iTubeS ?
beaker7 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 08:36 AM   #23
theSeb
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Poole, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaker7 View Post
Yep. GPU compute would be great if software could take advantage of it.

And it had a usable amount of memory.

Maybe in the second or third generation tube. iTubeS ?
The key to this, I think, is making GPU power available to applications without the developers having to do something special. In other words, this should be something that the compiler can do, by analysing and optimising the code.
__________________
What is Other on my HDD?
Throttling, overheating and Geekbench
theSeb is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 09:16 AM   #24
Tesselator
macrumors 601
 
Tesselator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubemmal View Post
Now he realizes two graphics + CPU equals three, and a triangle has three sides ...

By all reports the Mach kernel they have struggles with more cores, I remember reading an article how it doesn't scale well. Linux solved this problem back in the 90's but Apple is still behind the game. Did they ever really fix that? Don't know.

Regardless Intel also struggles to add cores without significantly jacking the price. Xeon's are crazy expensive, it's cheaper to add parallelization through GPU's rather than CPU's which the industry has recognized. The idea these days is to find ways to put your code on the massively parallel and cheaper GPU. Even in supercomputing they are utilizing more GPU horsepower than CPU.

So Apple is just correctly following the industry trend. If software could take advantage it would be fun to put some more GPU out in a thunderbolt cage. That would be interesting because the bandwidth should be adequate for pure compute tasks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theSeb View Post
This is new and interesting information that has not been discussed before.
I hope that was meant sarcastically, as I've been saying the same thing for what seems like a trillion times already.
Tesselator is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2013, 09:20 AM   #25
theSeb
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Poole, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
I hope that was meant sarcastically, as I've been saying the same thing for what seems like a trillion times already.
96% of my posts here are sarcastic.
__________________
What is Other on my HDD?
Throttling, overheating and Geekbench
theSeb 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
Mac Pro 2010 single to dual CPU upgrade nebc100 Mac Pro 10 Sep 7, 2013 11:46 AM
Mac Pro 5,1: Single cpu = Single socket? zopiro Mac Pro 5 Oct 28, 2012 05:37 PM
Does Mac Pro 2009 Dual CPU heatsinks fit on Mac Pro 2010 Dual CPU board ? Spacedust Mac Pro 2 Sep 9, 2012 02:45 PM
How do you identify Dual-CPU PowerMac G4's from Single-CPU models? LOLZpersonok PowerPC Macs 12 Aug 15, 2012 05:32 AM
4.1 Dual socket cpu-tray in single cpu Mac Pro? Zurec Mac Pro 1 Jul 17, 2012 06:41 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:02 AM.

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

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