Will Mac Pro be updated soon?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by stuuke, Sep 17, 2006.

  1. stuuke macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #1
    I realize the mac pro just came out but it seems like there are lots of new chips becoming available. With the performance of the iMac you would think they would try to upgrade the Mac Pro quicker than usual.
     
  2. Chaszmyr macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #2
    There's nothing wrong with the current Mac Pro performance, and there are not yet any chips available better than the ones in the Mac Pro. I wouldn't expect it to be updated until at least late January.
     
  3. p0intblank macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #3
    The Mac Pro was just released. There is no better chip to upgrade it to anyway. Wait until MWSF '07.
     
  4. suneohair macrumors 68020

    suneohair

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    #4
    The iMac is not the Mac Pro nor can it perform like a Mac Pro if the Mac Pro is used the way it should be(read: multiple Professional applications at once)

    The new chips are coming, the quad core Xeons, etc. Those will not be taking the place of current dual core chips. The quad cores will be very expensive, they will be considered a high end part for quite sometime. I am just guessing here, but I would not expect a Octo-Core Mac Pro for less than $3500 anytime soon.
     
  5. FleurDuMal macrumors 68000

    FleurDuMal

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    London Town
    #5
    You're kidding right? A machine that can take any GPU you throw at it, with 3Ghz quad cores, up to 16GB RAM, 2Tb hard drives, and you think its about time Apple upgraded?!?

    Some people want the moon on a stick! :rolleyes:
     
  6. stuuke thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #6
    When the iMac is performing equally with some of the MacPros then yes I think it's time to upgrade. Just from what I've read here, Apple Insider and Macworld the Core Duo 2 chip is performing really well. The MacPro obviously offers the most customization but the line between Apples consumer level and pro level isn't that big.
     
  7. stuuke thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #7
    Is the Kentsfield chip going to replace the Woodcrest? The front page mentioned that this chip was going to be released in 06 now instead of 07. Would Apple release the Mac Pro earlier with chip being available?
     
  8. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #8
    You've got to be kidding right? The iMacs will compete with the downgraded 2Ghz Mac Pro in applications that are not optimised for more than two cores. Any applications that are will run faster on the Mac Pros. Also there's the whole multitasking side of things. The Mac Pro is a good deal faster than the iMac Core 2 Duos in the professional applications and professional uses it was designed for.
    The next processors that will go into the Mac Pros will have four cores on one chip. They will also probably be clocked lower than dual core variants. an iMac Core 2 Duo 2.33Ghz could quite conceivably outperform an octo cored Mac Pro at 2.0Ghz if the program is not optimised for more than two cores.
     
  9. stuuke thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #9
    You can argue all you want but the fact is that several people that thought Mac Pro was the only way to go are now considering the 24" iMac. Personally I will be purchasing a Mac Pro so there's not really a point to argue this. I would like to wait for the second generation just because I prefer not to purchase the first generation and am hoping that it comes out quicker than usual.
     
  10. Origin macrumors regular

    Origin

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Location:
    Nantes, France
    #10
    You just CAN'T compare MacPro with the iMac... the main difference between them is NOT strictly speeking only the speed of it under some applications !!!

    How can you compare a integrated great 24" iMac running "public level" chipsets and cpus with a ScreenLess professionnal workstation that use mostly only enterprise grade chipsets (ECC memory, Xeon Woodcrest SERVER processors) and offer a large field of extensions for the future ...

    Haa, yes, the price... so ?

    Sorry but, it's like comparing a Porsche Boxter with a Monster Truck !
     
  11. suneohair macrumors 68020

    suneohair

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    #11
    So wait. What is the point of asking here as if we have inside information. I doubt the Mac Pro is updated til a few months into 2007. Although I have no clue. Nor does anyone here. There is nothing wrong with the first gen Mac Pro, so I would buy, and I did.

    Don't expect Octo-core Mac Pros anytime soon, I dont think that is what the roadmap is intending. The Kentsfield will not be replacing the Woodcrest anytime soon. Also, remember that you can upgrade the Mac Pros CPU. I doubt any major changes in its design will be coming anytime soon, so buying now and upgrading when you need it is a good option.
    You are one the who brought up the iMacs performance, so dont turn it around as if we are arguing. We were pointing out the flaw in thinking the iMac performs like the Mac Pro.
     
  12. stuuke thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #13
    As a first gen owner of a Macbook with Random Shut Down problems I would prefer to wait. The issues for me didn't start for months after I had purchased my machine. There could still be issues with the Mac Pros that have not surfaced yet. Generally most people will tell you when it comes to technology that the second generations are usually more reliable and perform better.
     
  13. milozauckerman macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    #14
    The Apple marketing line does work wonders...

    I'm curious - were all the G5s using those oogy 'public level chipsets' a real problem?
     
  14. Origin macrumors regular

    Origin

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Location:
    Nantes, France
    #15
    I never said that theses chipsets where bad ???
    Where is the problem ?
    No problem at all, the iMac 24 is FINE and a great integrated computer that I would recommand for everyday computing and gaming !
     
  15. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #16
    That's mostly using non quad core optimised programs and don't compare the multiprocessing abilities. The 2.33Ghz Core 2 Duo manages to beat the 2.0Ghz Woodcrest processors yes, as you would expect it would. Its a faster processor after all. If you look at the results of the 2.16Ghz Core 2 Duo, it actually loses to the 2.0Ghz Woodcrest processors in all but one of the tests (UT2004).
    Its like comparing a two wheel drive saloon car to a 4x4 but doing so on a motorway.
     
  16. Krevnik macrumors 68030

    Krevnik

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    #17
    Kentsfield replaces Conroe, Clovertown replaces Woodcrest. The thing is, when a 2.33Ghz Core 2 Duo-based chip with a better GPU is performing better than a 2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo-based chip with FB-DIMMs in applications that leverage GPU (UT2k4), or low-latency/non-threaded tasks... yeah... the iMac will 'lead'.

    If you actually look at the benchmarks that MacWorld ran... see who won what:

    iMac
    - CS2 (by under 2%)
    - iTunes (by under 5%)
    - UT2k4 (by ~13%, 7600GT versus 7300GT, pretty good considering, actually)
    - Zip Archive (by ~10%)

    Mac Pro
    - Cinema 4D (by nearly 50%)
    - Compressor (by ~12%)

    And the funny thing about all this is... the iMac was running a CPU in the same family line, at a 16.7% clockspeed advantage, and a GPU with an even larger advantage. The fact that the iMac couldn't beat the Mac Pro by percentages equal to the clockspeed advantage tells me a couple things:

    - The Mac Pro is actually 'faster' clock-per-clock than the Merom in the iMac.
    - Merom doesn't scale up to the Mac Pro base config at all... meaning that the Mac Pro will take the crown when using the 2.66Ghz or 3.0Ghz configs, even if you don't use all 4 cores.
    - The current selection of benchmarks doesn't say anything about which ones can span across multiple cores, and which ones don't... but it is safe to say that the only two that are likely able to use more than 2 cores is Cinema 4D, and Compressor.

    Really, instead of being beneficial and being a 'which machine fits your current needs best', they take the tack of 'ZOMG! iMac Wins!'... yeah... great. Meanwhile, I am able to cut compile times for work from 8 hours to 5 hours because of the two extra cores. They don't accurately describe anything but consumer (and a little prosumer) usage, which doesn't help those that need a high-end machine make a valid decision.
     
  17. stuuke thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #18
    Great reply. Thanks!

    Are the benchmarks accurate that suggest that the 3ghz is only 3-4% better performing than the 2.66?
     
  18. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #19
    This is a serious inquiry?
     
  19. stuuke thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #20
    Lol, there were questions on the buy board about when they were going to update the new imacs before they were even shipping. The availability of the new chips has moved up so I think it's a resonable question.
     
  20. Clydefrog macrumors 6502a

    Clydefrog

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    Pittsburgh,PA
    #21
    wow people still haven't even goten their Mac Pros why would they update them:rolleyes:
     
  21. stuuke thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #22
    I'm not asking about updating them this week or next. I'm asking about sometime in the next 2-3 months which would be earlier than expected. Mac hardware has smaller updates happening all of the time now.
     
  22. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #23
    http://www.barefeats.com/quad06.html

    The 3ghz model is most definitely faster than the 2.66Ghz model but its not worth the money imo over the 2.66Ghz model. The 2.66Ghz model is definitely the sweet spot in terms of value vs performance out of the three speeds.
     
  23. abarakat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    #24
  24. peter32892 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    #25
    It would be stupid of apple to release a new version of the mac pro. The current one great and there is no need to have a new one. They will probably release a newer one around the release of Leopard.
     

Share This Page