The CPU is not the only expensive part in it...
Actually the ECC ram is expensive as hell too.
The ecc ram isn't that much anymore.
The CPU is not the only expensive part in it...
Actually the ECC ram is expensive as hell too.
[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]
Image
Apple is preparing to release new "Mid 2011" Mac Pro models, according to 9 to 5 Mac who cites internal Apple documents reportedly mentioning options ranging from six to sixteen processor cores. According to the source, Apple has begun putting together product manuals for the new Mac Pros, which are said to begin shipping in late July or early August.The late July/early August timeframe for the new Mac Pro release was first reported over the weekend by CNET's Brian Tong, whose sources had previously accurately pinpointed the latest iMac release within a small window six weeks ahead of time.
The primary question surrounding a Mac Pro release within the rumored timeframe is just which processors Apple will be using. A 16-core configuration would almost certainly come as a pair of 8-core processors, and 8-core Sandy Bridge processors of the server class used in the Mac Pro line aren't scheduled to appear until the fourth quarter of this year as Intel's Xeon E5 line. While Apple has been known to receive early access to Intel processors in the past, it seems ambitious to suppose that Apple would have that much advance access to be able to ship new Mac Pros by early August given Intel's production plans.
One intriguing report from M.I.C gadget surfacing last weekend claimed that Apple will be using a "unique CPU" in the new Mac Pros. Intel has in the past provided custom processors for Apple, pushing out a specially-designed mobile chip for the original MacBook Air back in 2008. M.I.C gadget does not, however, have a track record for Apple hardware records, so the reliability of the claim is unknown.
Article Link: New Mac Pros With Up to 16 Cores Coming in Late July/Early August?
It's all about Angry Birds, and other minutia.
starting at $5,999 or so i assume?
i mean, does anyone even buy the 12 core? why put any effort into a 16 core instead of something else?
There is market for such high-end computers. If you make your living with your computer with e.g. video editing, then having the fastest possible machine can easily pay itself back in no time. You don't want to spend your precious work hours waiting for the computer to complete tasks, you want to minimize that time so there will be more time left for the actual work.
Sure, the market isn't as big as iPad's market but there are still buyers.
i see your point, but is 16 (even 12) cores necessary though? what actually needs 16 cores that 8 can't handle?
i see your point, but is 16 (even 12) cores necessary though? what actually needs 16 cores that 8 can't handle?
i see your point, but is 16 (even 12) cores necessary though? what actually needs 16 cores that 8 can't handle?
If you have 8 and 16-core machines running at same clock speed with equal micro-architectures, the 16-core will be twice as fast as the 8-core if the software is able to take advantage of all 16 cores. If you use your machine for work, that is a huge performance increase and can potentially increase productivity by the same amount, which means more money.
fair enough, i mean, i just figured that there was some sort of cap somewhere that would deem the 16 cores unnecessary, i.e. a cap within the amount of time it takes to do a simple task. i can see it being different for some scientific programming in that it may require such core power but my thought is something like: if you are working in photoshop with an 8-core processor and it reacts instantly, wouldn't it be the same on a 16-core? sorry if that doesn't make sense.
Photoshop can only use four cores currently so it would make absolutely no difference Unless you do something very CPU intensive, you have no reason to buy a 12 or 16-core Mac Pro. Photo editing in general isn't very CPU heavy so people who use that won't need a high-end Mac Pro.
+840583040They think using Photoshop means they need a $3k+ computer.
fair enough, i mean, i just figured that there was some sort of cap somewhere that would deem the 16 cores unnecessary, i.e. a cap within the amount of time it takes to do a simple task. i can see it being different for some scientific programming in that it may require such core power but my thought is something like: if you are working in photoshop with an 8-core processor and it reacts instantly, wouldn't it be the same on a 16-core? sorry if that doesn't make sense.
Photoshop can only use four cores currently so it would make absolutely no difference Unless you do something very CPU intensive, you have no reason to buy a 12 or 16-core Mac Pro. Photo editing in general isn't very CPU heavy so people who use that won't need a high-end Mac Pro.
Let's hope that TBolt without DisplayPort is possible (of course it's possible, I mean let's hope that it is "allowed").
hehe perhaps photoshop wasn't the best example. let me try again with a more generalized approach!
so say you have a program that has hiccups with 4 cores but runs flawlessly and reacts instantly with 8 cores. wouldn't that instant reaction be the same with 12 cores or even 16? thus, my original post was born, as in, how much of a market could there possibly be for 16 cores? what doesn't run as smoothly as possible with 12 cores that 16 cores will resolve?
in terms of work, i definitely understand the whole cut down on time don't get me wrong, but what are people running that (forget the "instant" part here) 16 cores will cut down that time so significantly in comparison to 12 or even 8 cores? i suppose it's sped up but is it really justified?
Well, Sony has already said that they'll support Thunderbolt using a modified USB connector... (So it could be a dual-use, either USB 3.0 or Thunderbolt.)
Well, I bet most people who already have a 12-core Mac Pro won't be upgrading to the 16-core version. Usually when people make purchases that big, they try to make it last several years by "future-proofing" it (that is a bit moot though). However, if you have e.g. 2008 8-core Mac Pro, then the jump from that to 16-core 2011 Mac Pro would be huge.
Again, it is justified if you think the end result will get you more money. If you cut the rendering time in half from 20 hours to 10 hours, that means you got 10 more hours for the actual work, thus you can do more work which equals to more money (or at least should).
fair enough man, i see what you're saying and it's a good point. i just think that perhaps efforts could be used elsewhere instead of within a 16 core mac pro model when a 12 core model already exists. namely figure out what they are doing with the macbook.
in terms of work, i definitely understand the whole cut down on time don't get me wrong, but what are people running that (forget the "instant" part here) 16 cores will cut down that time so significantly in comparison to 12 or even 8 cores? i suppose it's sped up but is it really justified?
Well, Sony has already said that they'll support Thunderbolt using a modified USB connector... (So it could be a dual-use, either USB 3.0 or Thunderbolt.)
Unless you do something very CPU intensive, you have no reason to buy a 12 or 16-core Mac Pro.
so say you have a program that has hiccups with 4 cores but runs flawlessly and reacts instantly with 8 cores. wouldn't that instant reaction be the same with 12 cores or even 16? thus, my original post was born, as in, how much of a market could there possibly be for 16 cores? what doesn't run as smoothly as possible with 12 cores that 16 cores will resolve?
I can see it now. 16-cores and yet no USB3.