The 2009 (Gainestown) Mac Pro: Everything We Know

Very informative Tallest,

Thanks!

Tallest Skil said:

Now, Gainestown goes in the Tylersburg chipset. Here's where my knowledge breaks down. From what I've read on Tylersburg, it looks like we can have two 16x PCIe 2.0 slots like we have now, but then only one more PCIe 2.0 (?) 4x slot, and that's it. Only three?

Click to expand...

This is personal conjecture, but maybe the total nuber of lanes available in the PCIe bus add up to 2x 16x ans 1x 4x, just as the current MacPro has a certain number of PCIe 16x slots but not enough lanes to fill the slots.

Tallest Skil said:

The Nehalem Mac Pro will be released at WWDC 2009*.

Click to expand...

While I don't think Apple need to tie hardware launches to events this does seem plausible. One thing I'd like to say that relates to this is I don't think we will see the new Mac Pros shipping with Leopard. So if we get a better idea of a Snow Leopard release date that could help with a timeframe.

The three graphics options will be: _______, ________, and the nVidia Quadro FX 5800

Click to expand...

While I think the FX 5800 is the most likely "Pro" card, the 4800 would also fit the bill here. I think if it were to come out now we would be seeing the GTX 260 as the mid card and 9600GT or maybe the Radeon 4650 as the base card. So anything comming to replace them in the next few months is a possibility I guess.

Now, Gainestown is the two-processor variant of the Nehalem Xeon. The three most likely candidates for the Nehalem Mac Pro are the W5580, the X5570, and the X5560. These three processors clock in at 3.2, 2.93, and 2.8GHz, respectively. In 1,000 count lots, these processors cost $3,200, $2,772, and $2,344, respectively.

Click to expand...

You've ignored the 2.66GHz X5550 ($958) which myself and others believe will be the base choice, I thought I've seen you suggest that too. I figure we will see that as the base choice and probably 2.93GHz and 3.2GHz options, with Apple skipping the 2.8GHz. The 2.66GHz processors should perform as good as or better than the current 3.2GHz, so while Apple may not like having a lower number for marketing they can use the "faster than blah blah blah" speal. It'll be interesting to see how they handle the iMacs if they go quad core.

Now, Gainestown goes in the Tylersburg chipset. Here's where my knowledge breaks down. From what I've read on Tylersburg, it looks like we can have two 16x PCIe 2.0 slots like we have now, but then only one more PCIe 2.0 4x slot, and that's it. Only three?

Click to expand...

Tylersburg can support two I/O Hubs which support 36 lanes each. This means we could see workstation boards with four x16 and two x4 slots. A Mac Pro with four PCI-E 2.0 x16 slots seems perfectly possible. This isn't limited to dual processor boards either, we could see this sort of thing in the enthusiast market too for supporting more than two graphics cards.

$2,999: Apple should be getting a better price than that of the 1,000 lot price, because they'll be ordering more. However, Apple is a for-profit company. This price is based on the assumption that Apple's profit margins push the per-consumer price of the chips back to their 1,000 lot price, and then adding the cost of the other components and case on top of the cheapest potential Gainestown chip.

Click to expand...

In regards to the price, I originally suggested the $2,999 price after the Xeon lineup was posted here based on the following:

The 5150 Woodcrest processors cost ~$700 each, the Harpertown 5462s cost ~$800, nothing else really changed on the 2008 Mac Pro but it went up $200. Both of these systems are roughly the price of their components at retail prices. With the 2.66Ghz X5550 processors being listed at $950 it seems likely the price will go up again, though I think $3,099 is nowhere near as palatable as a $2,999 sticker price.

I still don't believe that it will be 3k starting. Thats where I stand on that. Everything else is pure speculation I think. Here goes the way though, tick tock tick tock.

RobLS said:

I still don't believe that it will be 3k starting. Thats where I stand on that. Everything else is pure speculation I think. Here goes the way though, tick tock tick tock.

Click to expand...

I agree, I have a feeling it will be priced the same if not slightly cheaper.

Gainestown pricing

The wikipedia entry, List of Future Intel Xeon Microprocessors has much lower price points for the Gainestown processors. As an example, it lists $1,600 as the price of the 3.2 GHz Xeon W5580. Perhaps you are quoting the cost of two processors for $3,200?

My reasoning behind this, is because the price of the base increase last time was that it was going from 4 core standard to 8 core standard, and it wasn't charge a full core extra either. And when you look at the current setup, you can get knocked down to 4 core if you want and save 500$, even though the cost of the core itself is 700. Apple keeps it competitive to a degree right off the bat, they just don't adjust the prices really as the product life cycle goes on, look at ram prices for example.

So yeah, theres my reasoning, even if the new xeon is more expensive, I think it can be competitively dropped. They did that when the G5 turned to Mac Pro, apple does compete lol.

Well, assuming the new boards also support running with one socket empty, there should be a single proc variant, probably priced around $2,400.

Something I want to mention is the possiblity of a lower end line using the the 3500 Xeons. Before you form your reactions to this, I need to give a little background. Intel's server line, as of the last few years, has been split into 4 groups:

3*** - Essentially desktop chips with a different name on the box

5*** - Dual-processor workstation/server chips

7*** - "Multi-processor" x86 (or x86-64) chips

9*** - Itanium, what remains of Intel's attempt at replacing x86 back around 2000. It lives on as a high-end multi-proc server chip. We were supposed to have this in all our computers, even things like laptops. That never happened, you can visit Wiki for the story on why (short version: It was at least as hot and slow as what it was meant to replace).


In the past, Intel has used a different platform for all 4, but they seem to be cutting it down to 2-3. During the Core 2 era, the 3*** chips used Socket 775 (since they were rebadged desktop chips), but the 5*** used Socket 771. So using both in a line got pretty complex and expensive, as you'd need two completely different board designs. Not to mention, I'm not aware of any 775 board that supported FB-DIMM, much less mountains of it. So, mixing the lines would've produced two ENTIRELY different machines, hence why we never saw a Core 2 Quad-based Mac Pro. Not feasable. Only the top 3 or so chips could be used without cannibalizing iMac sales, and there were very little cost savings.

This time around, things are a little different. i7 and Gainestown both use socket LGA 1366. They use the same kind of RAM*. Gainestown has some extra Quick-Path links for the additional CPU, but that's it. As far as I know, given the right firmware, you could build a board that could accommodate either one. The prices are cheaper, at least for the lower-end two. It's a little shakey, but it could allow Apple to sell a base model for just under $2k, which would look good to those staring down $3k for the 8-core.



*The only real hiccup is that the 3500 series doesn't support ECC, although that is something that could be given up for a low-end line.

Everything in Tallest Skil's post is what I am expecting. It would be nice if they made the stock model the 2.8GHz but price is definitely an issue unless they want to push the Mac Pro away from the prosumers.

I'm not sure what speed the DDR3 RAM will be but I think it is safe to say it will be ECC.

FireWire 3200 would be really nice as would e-SATA - I'd imagine the worst case is FW800 only and spare SATA ports on the logic board again.

USB 3.0 would be nice but sounds unlikely to be ready in time.

It would be nice if they fit one of the new quiet Pioneer SATA DVD writers as the optical drive on the current machines is probably the loudest thing!

J the Ninja said:

Well, assuming the new boards also support running with one socket empty, there should be a single proc variant, probably priced around $2,400.

Something I want to mention is the possiblity of a lower end line using the the 3500 Xeons. It's a little shakey, but it could allow Apple to sell a base model for just under $2k, which would look good to those staring down $3k for the 8-core.

Click to expand...

I understand where you are comming from but it's basically the same argument as to why Apple do / don't make an "xMac". In the end it's another computer line and one it doesn't seem Apple are interested in. I would love to see it though.

Thank you for setting up this thread.
Kudos to you and keep it updated

Tallest Skil said:

Hardware Specifications:
2.8 (or 2.66), 2.93, and 3.2GHz
Up to 12 slots for 1333MHz ECC DDR3 RAM. It will not be FB-DIMMs. They must be added in sets of three DIMMs at once.

Click to expand...

The X5550 (2.66GHz) is the likely candidate. It's the lowest cost part that supports 1333MHz ECC DDR3. I agree Apple will likely skip the 2.8GHz part.

The memory does not have to be added in sets of 3. It can be operated in single, double, and triple channel modes. Due to cost, I'm hesitant to think Apple will provide a triple channel configuration in the base model.

Mattww said:

I'm not sure what speed the DDR3 RAM will be but I think it is safe to say it will be ECC.

Click to expand...

As they're server parts, it will be ECC.

Tallest Skil said:

Which of the three do you think is most likely? Silly question, so...

Is dual or triple more likely?

Apple could offer either 2x2GB or 3x1GB and still have more RAM standard.

Another question upon which to base our judgement, even though I'm pretty sure the answer is, "No.": Can the current Xeon line run in single channel mode? Can it do so in PC models?

If it cannot, then–and maybe it's just me–I would think that Apple would only provide 3xDIMM upgrades themselves (and therefore supply us with 3xDIMMs from the beginning), even if you can add single or dual DIMMs on your own later.

Click to expand...

Given the increase in the CPU pricing, single channel is likely IMO. Say 2x 2GB/CPU.

nanofrog said:

Given the increase in the CPU pricing, single channel is likely IMO. Say 2x 2GB/CPU.

Click to expand...

It's not worth it though. The savings would be tiny. 3x1GB runs around $150. 2x1GB about $75-$100, and 2x2GB around $150-$200. Not much, unless the premium for ECC turns out to be outrageous (those numbers are for non-ECC) My guess is they'd do 3x1GB just to put "tri-channel" in the marketing literature.

Also, I may be wrong on this, but wouldn't you need to do tri-channel to get a higher effective speed than the last machine with quad channel?

Triple channel is locked in.

Also ECC DDR3 is very, very expensive.

Tallest Skil said:

I can imagine that it will be... No immediate third-party RAM upgrade for me...

So tri-channel is a lock, then? And upgrades must be done in threes?

Click to expand...

I just did a bit of Googling and Amazon searching, and ECC looks to be around double the cost of an equivalent non-ECC piece, unless you buy Kingston, which seems to oddly be about the same price as the non-ECC ones....weird.

Although that might come down once Gainestown is released, as that should push demand up.

Tallest Skil said:

Another question upon which to base our judgement, even though I'm pretty sure the answer is, "No.": Can the current Xeon line run in single channel mode? Can it do so in PC models?

Click to expand...

The 5400 chipset that the Mac Pros use only supports single channel when running a single 512mb stick for testing purposes. It isn't clear what the memory configuration limitations of the dual socket Tylersburg platform is yet. My guess is it will support 1+ DIMMs.

J the Ninja said:

My guess is they'd do 3x1GB just to put "tri-channel" in the marketing literature.

Click to expand...

Yeah the memory configuration will probably be purely about marketing, either tri-channel or having 4GB as standard I guess. Seeing as the macbook Pros have 4GB I hope they go with 2x2GB DIMMs as that is surely the best for consumers. It's also worth bearing in mind that Apple have shipped the bare minimum amount of memory on their workstations for a long time.

Also, I may be wrong on this, but wouldn't you need to do tri-channel to get a higher effective speed than the last machine with quad channel?

Click to expand...

I think the on chip memory controller of Nehalem should make all memory configurations on the Nehalem platform better than what was previously available.

I posted this yesterday on memory pricing. It's for DDR3 PC3-10600 (1333MHz) DIMMS:

Registered ECC is currently $95/GB from Crucial and Unbuffered ECC is $55.50/GB in 2GB DIMMs. I don't know if non-ecc unbuffered will be supported, but it is currently going for $35/GB. For comparison sakes Crucial charge $34/GB for the current Mac Pro and OWC are now at $24/GB. OWC were $50/GB when the Mac Pros launched if I remember right.

J the Ninja said:

It's not worth it though. The savings would be tiny. 3x1GB runs around $150. 2x1GB about $75-$100, and 2x2GB around $150-$200. Not much, unless the premium for ECC turns out to be outrageous (those numbers are for non-ECC) My guess is they'd do 3x1GB just to put "tri-channel" in the marketing literature.

Also, I may be wrong on this, but wouldn't you need to do tri-channel to get a higher effective speed than the last machine with quad channel?

Click to expand...

Currently, Crucial has pricing up for DDR3-1333 ECC Unbuffered memory. (Keep in mind, Apple, or any other system vendor doesn't pay these prices).

1GB is $56.99
2GB is $110.99
2GB Kit (2x1GB) $113.99
3GB Kit (3x1GB) is $170.99
4GB Kit (2x2GB) is $221.99
6GB Kit (3x2GB) is $332.99

Yes, you get the maximum throughput from triple channel, and is the way to go if at all possible.

But 2 3GB Kits would be needed at a minimum for triple channel for both processors, and I just can't see Apple putting $342 (current e-tail) worth of memory in the base.

Umbongo said:

Yeah the memory configuration will probably be purely about marketing, either tri-channel or having 4GB as standard I guess. Seeing as the macbook Pros have 4GB I hope they go with 2x2GB DIMMs as that is surely the best for consumers. It's also worth bearing in mind that Apple have shipped the bare minimum amount of memory on their workstations for a long time.

I think the on chip memory controller of Nehalem should make all memory configurations on the Nehalem platform better than what was previously available.

Click to expand...

All that really gives you though is a "memory throughput" benchmark you could use to paper over the clock drop. You'll still have people wondering about it, even though it isn't actually a real world issue. Remember, big numbers sell. 3 channels is better than 2. Then again, so is 4, so they'd have to throw that benchmark up there anyway. Might as well just go with 2x2GB in that case. (or 2x1GB, after all, this is the tower Mac we're talking about here).

If you think that wouldn't be an issue, I'll point you to those "DDR3 has more bandwidth than DDR2 but is slower (wut?) since it has CL7 instead of CL5!" people.