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

benthewraith

macrumors 68040
May 27, 2006
3,140
143
Fort Lauderdale, FL
[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?

Now, will it have a 10 Meg pipe? I need to know so I can have the fast response times necessary to keep my high scores in all the massive multi online role playing games. ;)
 

DeepIn2U

macrumors G5
May 30, 2002
12,821
6,876
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
It's all about Angry Birds, and other minutia.

MoFAQR! If I hear that stupid game again I'm going to punch somebody! I cannot go a day without hearing that game on some platform or another like its the holy grain, AARRRGH!!

k, rant over.

Anyone remember the days of the PowerMac G5 ... its introductory year ... how awesome EVERYBODY loved that machine in the Mac/Apple community the world over ... and how erked/pissed-off every WinPC user was ... how they resorted to those applications not be available for OSX?!

Those where great times.

Now I'm actually looking forward to purchasing a used 22008/2009 Mac Pro (intel cpu).

On another note - this argument of ARM-based cpu's reminds me of a 7yr old post on these boards over CISC vs RISC based cpu's ... I got so lost over that thread - but it was engaging.
 

Dark Void

macrumors 68030
Jun 1, 2011
2,614
479
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?
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,164
582
Finland
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.
 

Dark Void

macrumors 68030
Jun 1, 2011
2,614
479
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?
 

cmaier

Suspended
Jul 25, 2007
25,405
33,471
California
i see your point, but is 16 (even 12) cores necessary though? what actually needs 16 cores that 8 can't handle?

Tons of scientific and engineering software can make almost linear use of additional cores. For example, electronic design automation, finite element analysis, forecasting, etc. Also things like rendering, etc. In many instances this can shave many hours or even days off of jobs.
 

arogge

macrumors 65816
Feb 15, 2002
1,065
33
Tatooine
i see your point, but is 16 (even 12) cores necessary though? what actually needs 16 cores that 8 can't handle?

How many more applications do you want to mention? More CPU power means less time waiting for many tasks to complete, which means less money spent on personnel waiting around for computers to respond with the desired results. Now that software is being optimized to take advantage of multi-core CPUs on multi-CPU systems, the financial gains as a result of these upgrades could be considerable.
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,164
582
Finland
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.
 

Dark Void

macrumors 68030
Jun 1, 2011
2,614
479
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.
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,164
582
Finland
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.
 

chrono1081

macrumors G3
Jan 26, 2008
8,446
4,145
Isla Nublar
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.

+840583040 I get into this argument all the time with friends. They think using Photoshop means they need a $3k+ computer.
 

cmaier

Suspended
Jul 25, 2007
25,405
33,471
California
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.

Yes, makes sense. Many jobs aren't instant, though. Rendering a 3-D scene, calculating the optimal sizes and locations for wires on a microchip, predicting weather, figuring out if a bridge will fall down in high winds, etc. These things can take many hours. If a job can be cut from 20 hours to 10, that's the difference between being able to run it over night vs. sitting around all day at work waiting for results.
 

Dark Void

macrumors 68030
Jun 1, 2011
2,614
479
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.

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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Anonymous Freak

macrumors 603
Dec 12, 2002
5,559
1,245
Cascadia
Let's hope that TBolt without DisplayPort is possible (of course it's possible, I mean let's hope that it is "allowed").

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.)
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,164
582
Finland
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, 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).

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.)

Has Sony officially said this? I only remember the picture of their laptop but I didn't really buy it.
 

Dark Void

macrumors 68030
Jun 1, 2011
2,614
479
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.
 

cmaier

Suspended
Jul 25, 2007
25,405
33,471
California
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.

Meanwhile there are a thousand people complaining apple doesn't spend enough time on its "pro" solutions, including the Mac pro.

BTW, MacBook is dead. Get over it. The future for low end MacBooks is the Air.
 

dev null

macrumors newbie
Jun 27, 2011
3
0
some terrestrial planet
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?

A specific example would be the Vue products from E-on Software (http://www.e-onsoftware.com). If you want to make nice, ray-traced images or videos, be prepared to wait, regardless of the number of cores you have. I ran several three-hour renders yesterday on a 12-core Mac Pro. I've been working with 3d scenes since the Bryce 3 days in the '90s, and the hardware is never fast enough. Fortunately, rendering lends itself to parallel processes, so more cores directly reduce render time (if the software is written properly, as most is now).

The movie Avatar was rendered on more than thirty thousand cores (http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2010/01/39000-core-ubuntu-cluster-renders.html); it will be a few years yet before a Mac Pro will be *quite* that big.
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G5
Mar 10, 2009
12,219
3,821
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.)

The USB standards body has already said that something that is physically compatible with USB is a non-starter. It is going to get blocked. This was likely yet another one of the original USB 3.0 prototypes (back when it had fiber optic elements ) that Intel also were floating around originally.

The USB folks want a path to "go fiber" if it eventually gets inexpensive enough. Allowing Thunderbolt to usurp that would 'dead end' the standard. That isn't going to happen.


Even if they did this. ...... if Thunderbolt forks quickly into two different kinds of plugs it is going to have adaptation problems. Likewise if the "backwards compatiblity" with Display Port becomes a "well sometimes it does and sometimes it isn't" ... that also will lead to adoptation problems.
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G5
Mar 10, 2009
12,219
3,821
Unless you do something very CPU intensive, you have no reason to buy a 12 or 16-core Mac Pro.

it doesn't have to be just "you". If other users are using the computer at the same time the total CPU load goes up. Likewise if using PhotoShop and running multiple background apps ( rendering , etc.). Just pointing out that it doesn't have to be a single, embarrasing parallel application that motivaties having more cores.

Interactive response is a poor motivator for multiple cores. There are usually (broader spectrum of uses and applicatin mixes0 much slower bottlenecks in the system ( RAM , disk ) than CPU ones .
 

MagnusVonMagnum

macrumors 603
Jun 18, 2007
5,193
1,442
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?

Geeze, the sky is the limit. The first thing that comes to mind is Handbrake encoding. If 2-cores took two hours to complete a movie encode, 4 might take theoretically one hour, 8 cores a half hour and 16 would take 15 minutes (not going to be exact, but you get the idea). Now say I have 300 movies to encode from my DVD collection to M4V for AppleTV use. It's going to take 16 cores 75 hours to encode. Reduce that to 8 cores and it's going to take 150 hours instead (over 3 more days than with 16 cores). The same thing would apply to 3D computer animation rendering, etc. that takes a LONG time to process.

You only really see the benefit of a large number of cores with applications that need a lot of processing power. Imagine what they use super computers for with hundreds, even tens of thousands of processors in parallel. Decoding the human genome, atomic modeling. Processing the early universe, etc.

Do you need 16 cores just to run Microsoft Office? No way. ;)
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G5
Mar 10, 2009
12,219
3,821
I can see it now. 16-cores and yet no USB3.

given that USB 3 needs software and Lion was arriving this year it was not likely USB 3.0 would arrive any sooner than Lion. Apple can be even lazier and wait till it is weaved into the support chipsets (which for the Xeon ones will be even later. )

USB 3.0 will probably come when Apple has to do the minimal amount of work to enable it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.