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

New Mac Pro only available with single CPU!

WardC

WardC

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Oct 17, 2007
2,727
215
Fort Worth, TX
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.
 
K

Kissaragi

macrumors 68020
Nov 16, 2006
2,340
370
WardC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Has been discussed before, endlessly.
 
phoenixsan

phoenixsan

macrumors 65816
Oct 19, 2012
1,342
2
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.....



:):apple:
 
H

hudson1

macrumors 6502
Jun 12, 2012
437
226
WardC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
P

Photovore

macrumors regular
Dec 28, 2011
116
0
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.
 
wonderspark

wonderspark

macrumors 68040
Feb 4, 2010
3,048
102
Oregon
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.
 
F

Foxdog175

macrumors regular
Apr 3, 2008
148
37
Photovore said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
P

Photovore

macrumors regular
Dec 28, 2011
116
0
Foxdog175 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!

----------
wonderspark said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
M

mcfx

macrumors member
Jul 14, 2013
55
0
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.
 
S

ScottishCaptain

macrumors 6502a
Oct 4, 2008
871
474
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
 
M

mcfx

macrumors member
Jul 14, 2013
55
0
US
ScottishCaptain said:
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
Click to expand...

I have (see my signature) :D
 
Umbongo

Umbongo

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2006
4,934
55
England
mcfx said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JesterJJZ

JesterJJZ

macrumors 68020
Jul 21, 2004
2,443
808
mcfx said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'll pass on both and go for a 24-core dual...
 
jasonvp

jasonvp

macrumors 6502a
Jun 29, 2007
604
0
Northern VA
mcfx said:
I have (see my signature) :D
Click to expand...

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?
 
C

Cubemmal

macrumors 6502a
Jun 13, 2013
824
1
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.
 
C

CausticPuppy

macrumors 68000
May 1, 2012
1,536
68
wonderspark said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
B

beaker7

Cancelled
Mar 16, 2009
920
5,010
Cubemmal said:
So Apple is just correctly following the industry trend.

If software could take advantage it would be fun
Click to expand...


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 ?
 
theSeb

theSeb

macrumors 604
Aug 10, 2010
7,466
1,893
none
beaker7 said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tesselator

Tesselator

macrumors 601
Jan 9, 2008
4,601
6
Japan
Cubemmal said:
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.
Click to expand...

theSeb said:
This is new and interesting information that has not been discussed before.
Click to expand...

I hope that was meant sarcastically, as I've been saying the same thing for what seems like a trillion times already. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom