Possibility of 3.2Ghz Nehalem Mac Pro?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by jleffell, Jun 8, 2009.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    #1
    I am about to purchase a new Mac Pro but would wait a few months if Apple were to release the 3.2Ghz Nehalem CPU.

    What is the likelihood of this happening?

    I would hate to invest in this machine and then have the faster CPU show up a few weeks/months later.

    Thanks
     
  2. macrumors 68020

    CaptainChunk

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    Tempe, AZ
    #2
    Doubtful, at least this year. Past trends in Apple hardware releases have shown that they refresh their desktop machines about once per year. Sometimes, it takes longer than that. The Early 2008 Mac Pro had a January 2008 release; the Early 2009 model got released in March of this year. So, I don't see a replacement coming for at least 7-8 months.

    If you need a Mac Pro and have the money, buy now. Waiting for the next big thing in computing is like waiting for the next model year car just because it's rumored to have a slight increase in HP output. Technology inevitably improves and there's no controlling that.
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    #3
    They should, they could, but most likely won't. I'm guessing thay have design specs/principles and the 3.2 will most likely run too hot for their liking.
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #4
    you can purchase the base 2.26 and upgrade it on your own, sell the original chips to offset the new.
     
  5. macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #5
    It would likely be a better idea to upgrade other areas of the system for an overall system boost than swap out the originals for 3.2GHz parts.

    HDD throughput can be significantly improved, and would give a better performance IMO. Especially if a RAID is used. Data is fed to the processor(s) faster, so there's less time spent waiting, resulting in faster executions. :D
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #6
    just sayin! :)
     
  7. macrumors 68040

    Cynicalone

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Location:
    Okie land
    #7
    I doubt they will upgrade. Even if they do 2.93GHZ Quad or Octo should be plenty fast enough for a few good years.
     
  8. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Location:
    Over and around
    #8
    A simple search will produce that this topic has been beaten to death thoroughly on this forum. To recap:

    No 3.2 Ghz Mac Pros because, (1) the 2.26 is 80W, the 2.66 + 2.93 are both 95W and the 3.2 is 130W. Hence, the 3.2 doesn't fit Apple's "green" kick. (2) the 3.4 Harpertown was never offered--Apple topped off with the 3.2. (3) If they were going to use the 3.2, they would have done so already--they were the first to get the Nehalem chips and could pick which ones they wanted. (4) if you think the 8 x 2.93 is expensive, forget the 3.2.
     
  9. macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #9
    :D I was just thinking in terms of best bang-for-your-buck. ;)

    Unfortunately, as DeepCobalt mentioned, if the 3.2GHz part were offered, the price would be really high, and may not sell that well. :rolleyes: :(
     
  10. Tutor, Jun 25, 2009
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2011

    macrumors 65816

    Tutor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Location:
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    #10
    clean-up

    Clean up
     
  11. macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #11
    So basically you have the fastest Mac Pro on the planet! Very kewl!
     
  12. macrumors 68030

    BlizzardBomb

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Location:
    England
    #12
    Agreed. That is a very nice setup. Octo 3.2 GHz, Radeon HD 4890 and 32 GBs of RAM... :eek:
     
  13. Tutor, Jun 25, 2009
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2011

    macrumors 65816

    Tutor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Location:
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    #13
    clean-up

    Clean up
     
  14. Tutor, Jun 25, 2009
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2011

    macrumors 65816

    Tutor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Location:
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    #14
    clean-up

    Clean up
     
  15. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    #15
    That looks like a nice System Tutor. :D

    How much did you pay for your CPUs (Intel Xeon UP W3570)?
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    Genghis Khan

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #16
    You should be banned from the Mac Pro forum for that comment.

    People with the 2.93GHz Mac Pro's (or non-base) want/need as fast as is possible. e.g. in my case, if I had a 3.2GHz Pro, i would be able to get renders done at 14% higher resolution in the same time...and that's just better...or i could get them done in 12.5% shorter time...and that's also just better...why not have better?

    /rant



    @Tutor

    may i ask what you do with that beast?:apple:
     
  17. Tutor, Jun 25, 2009
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2011

    macrumors 65816

    Tutor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Location:
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    #17
    clean-up

    Clean up
     
  18. macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #18
    Of course I don't believe GeekBench scores. My own machine varies over twelve hundred points just depending on the phase of the moon. :) So if you want the highest GeekBench scores just run it at various with the fans on max. ;) You'll get it eventually. :)
     
  19. Tutor, Jun 25, 2009
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2011

    macrumors 65816

    Tutor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Location:
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    #19
    clean-up

    Clean up
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #20
    There is an upcoming article at AnandTech in their review of the MacPro that will cover CPU upgrades.

    What I am hoping for is this:

    Hot on the heels of the radical reorg and price shift of the laptop lineup, I'm hoping that that Mac Pro lineup gets a reorg featuring spec bumps and price drops. I can't spend $3300 on a 2.26 machine that needs expensive video card upgrades out of the box.

    I'm hoping to see the 2.66 at the $3300 price point or something like that and they could use Snow Leopard as the reason.

    New OS and a refreshed lineup. Do it!~
     
  21. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #21
    Any issues with taking a 2.26 machine and stuffing 90W or 130W processors in there?
     
  22. macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #22
    Someone here ripped the heat sinks off an Octo core machine and it revealed that the octo processors (unlike the quads) run naked without IHS (integrated heat spreaders). Since all retail processors are sold with IHS, and they are soldered on, it's impractical to upgrade the processors on an Octo.
     
  23. macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #23
    Someone here ripped the heat sinks off a dual processor machine and it revealed that the CPU's in the Octo's (unlike the quads) run naked without IHS (integrated heat spreaders). Since all retail processors are sold with IHS, and they are soldered on, it's impractical to upgrade the processors on an Octo.
     
  24. macrumors 65816

    Genghis Khan

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #24
    read the thread again (with particular reference to Tutor's posts)


    so F.C.P. and stuff? you must be doing pretty well :D

    congrats on having (quite possibly) the fastest Mac Pro in the world
     
  25. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #25
    There's no reference to the TDP issue in any of his posts

    EDIT: and then I read the post that references that they run much cooler now and have heat spreaders :eek:
     

Share This Page