16 Core Mac Pro Late 2011?

Chris7

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Aug 8, 2008
396
0
Lost in Thought
What do the people here speculate will be Apple's offerings for the various Mac Pro's in late 2011, early 2012?

According to the wik on the Sandy Bridge chip here, an 8-core "MP server" chip will be available late 2011 (the "Sandy Bridge-EX").

Perhaps dual 8-cores (16-core) will be the $3300 Mac Pro, with one native 8-core "Sandy Bridge B2" Mac Pro for $2500?

(I don't know where the Sandy Bridge-EP and -EN would fit in. I don't know much about servers. Do you need "MP server" chips to do what Apple has been doing with it's current dual 4-cores?)

Just pondering,

Thanks
 

Salavat23

macrumors 6502
Feb 7, 2008
328
1
Just FYI (in case), MP-Server does not mean Mac Pro server. It means multi-processor server (More than 2). So this does not apply to the Mac Pro in anyway.

The Mac Pro does not, and will not use any MP chips. The Mac Pro will stick to 1P and 2P processors. (Sandybridge-EN in that wikipedia article).
 

Chris7

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Aug 8, 2008
396
0
Lost in Thought
...The Mac Pro does not, and will not use any MP chips. The Mac Pro will stick to 1P and 2P processors. (Sandybridge-EN in that wikipedia article).
Interesting. And why not the Sandy Bridge-EN? Can two of these be "wired" together?

Edit: I meant Sandy Bridge-EP.
 

Salavat23

macrumors 6502
Feb 7, 2008
328
1
Interesting. And why not the Sandy Bridge-EN? Can two of these be "wired" together?
You mean EP? Socket 1356 is the replacement for 1366. Since the Mac Pro is on 1366 now, its seems only reasonable that it will go to 1356. Therefore it should be EN, not EP.
 

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,718
2
Just FYI (in case), MP-Server does not mean Mac Pro server. It means multi-processor server (More than 2). So this does not apply to the Mac Pro in anyway.

The Mac Pro does not, and will not use any MP chips. The Mac Pro will stick to 1P and 2P processors. (Sandybridge-EN in that wikipedia article).
Yep.

The EN variants will be the workstation parts (37xx & 57xx parts for SP and DP respectively).

You mean EP? Socket 1356 is the replacement for 1366. Since the Mac Pro is on 1366 now, its seems only reasonable that it will go to 1356. Therefore it should be EN, not EP.
I think he meant is it possible to be used in DP systems if it's the DP versions wired to the correct chipset, which the answer is Yes. ;)
 

Chris7

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Aug 8, 2008
396
0
Lost in Thought
You mean EP? Socket 1356 is the replacement for 1366. Since the Mac Pro is on 1366 now, its seems only reasonable that it will go to 1356. Therefore it should be EN, not EP.
Yes, that's what I meant (EP). Sounds like it will be the Sandy Bridge-EN for single native 8-core Mac Pro.
The EN variants will be the workstation parts (37xx & 57xx parts for SP and DP respectively).
What do SP and DP refer to? Single processor and dual processor? (I'm new to this stuff).
 

Umbongo

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2006
4,929
54
England
Yes, that's what I meant (EP). Sounds like it will be the Sandy Bridge-EN for single native 8-core Mac Pro.What do SP and DP refer to? Single processor and dual processor? (I'm new to this stuff).
Yep, although Intel use the term uni-processor (UP) rather than single.
 

xgman

macrumors 601
Aug 6, 2007
4,780
606
Considering how long it is taking for the current 6 core update . . . . . . . :rolleyes:
 

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,718
2
Yes, that's what I meant (EP). Sounds like it will be the Sandy Bridge-EN for single native 8-core Mac Pro.What do SP and DP refer to? Single processor and dual processor? (I'm new to this stuff).
Yes.

Yep, although Intel use the term uni-processor (UP) rather than single.
I know, and I drives me nutz that the industry started with SP (which caught on as an understood term), then Intel switched to using UP. :rolleyes: :eek: :p

SP seems more of a no-brainer IMO, given the confusion I've seen over UP from others. :D
 

Chris7

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Aug 8, 2008
396
0
Lost in Thought
"UP Server" Sounds Like an Oxymoron

Yep.

The EN variants will be the workstation parts (37xx & 57xx parts for SP and DP respectively).

I think he meant is it possible to be used in DP systems if it's the DP versions wired to the correct chipset, which the answer is Yes. ;)
Will the good people here please educate me regarding the difference between a "UP Server" chip vs. a non-server chip (such as a "high-end desktop" chip)?

It would seem that "server" means that two or more chips can be "wired together." But "uni-processor" server seems to denote a server server chip that cannot be wired together with another, no?

Perhaps I do not actually know what the word "server" means.

Apple's software baby, the TV industry standard NLE "Final Cut Studio 3" suite, includes a transcoding application called "Compressor." I believe that Compressor can be set up for "distributive processing" over multiple computers (effectively utilizing small supercomputers). Would a "UP Server" chip work for this? Seems this would require a "MP Server," but I donno.

Any help appreciated. Just curious, as usual.

-Chris
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,076
580
Finland
8-core chips will likely cost as much as current 6-cores do so add 1000-2000$ to your prices to make them possible. 6-core may become the base model though.

Why isn't anyone talking about Westmere-EX? Come on, I know you want 40 cores and 80 threads. It wouldn't cost you more than 20-30 000$, not that big deal :D (Just joking, I know Apple won't use them)
 

knucles

macrumors regular
Aug 8, 2006
125
0
Portugal
8-core chips will likely cost as much as current 6-cores do so add 1000-2000$ to your prices to make them possible. 6-core may become the base model though.

Why isn't anyone talking about Westmere-EX? Come on, I know you want 40 cores and 80 threads. It wouldn't cost you more than 20-30 000$, not that big deal :D (Just joking, I know Apple won't use them)
Do you think the 6 westmere will become the 2499 model?

That would be nice....
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,076
580
Finland
Do you think the 6 westmere will became the 2499 model?

That would be nice....
I meant 6-core Sandy Bridge may be found in the 2499$ Mac Pro. It's just my guess, we have no idea on the price yet. The base Mac Pro has used sub 300$ CPUs during the Nehalem micro-architecture so if there is 6-core for less than 300$, then I can't see why Apple wouldn't use it
 

chaosbunny

macrumors 68000
6-core in the base model seems likely, given that there might be another one and a half years until the next Mac Pro update. Followed by 8-core etc. etc. I'm curios how long it will take until most software will really benefit from all these cores.

I wonder if the development until 2020+ will really be as many cores as possible, I don't know, somewhere more and more cores might start to become ineffective, just like with the ghz wall. What else would be there to improve next? I mean, 10 years ago everybody talked about 10 ghz chips in 2010, and look what we have now. Maybe in 10 years we will read predictions of 64 or 128 core machines from now and laugh about it just like we laugh about the predictions of 2001.

For the next 5 years I'll be happy with my '10 Quad, just played a little Starcraft 2 on Ultra settings while ripping some of my dvds - oh and CS5 programs open almost instantly.
 

iMacmatician

macrumors 601
Jul 20, 2008
4,249
55
And then in late 2012 we could see 24 cores and 48 threads. That's assuming Ivy Bridge-EP uses the highest core count planned for Ivy Bridge CPUs (which we don't know, since Ivy Bridge-EX-B and -EX-A are above it).
 

scottsjack

macrumors 68000
Aug 25, 2010
1,899
261
Arizona
16 Core Mac Pro Late 2011?

Really who care? My guess is very few. Many of us would be better served by cuad or hexacore processors in the 3.6 to 4.0GHz range. Since clock speed still rules I'd rather have fewer faster cores than more slower ones in the $3,000 to $4,000 Mac Pro range.
 

knucles

macrumors regular
Aug 8, 2006
125
0
Portugal
I meant 6-core Sandy Bridge may be found in the 2499$ Mac Pro. It's just my guess, we have no idea on the price yet. The base Mac Pro has used sub 300$ CPUs during the Nehalem micro-architecture so if there is 6-core for less than 300$, then I can't see why Apple wouldn't use it
Anyway it would be a 2,4 ghz Hex right? or a newer model at 3,33 ghz?

Asking because i am seriously considering de 2010 hex...
 

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,718
2
Will the good people here please educate me regarding the difference between a "UP Server" chip vs. a non-server chip (such as a "high-end desktop" chip)?

It would seem that "server" means that two or more chips can be "wired together." But "uni-processor" server seems to denote a server server chip that cannot be wired together with another, no?

Perhaps I do not actually know what the word "server" means.
UP = SP = Uni/Single Processor (the UP term is more recent).

A server isn't really based on the chip, as you can get server software to run on desktop chips. Laptops have been used as web servers afterall.

But between the UP Xeon and High End Desktop parts (same socket and clock speed), the only difference is the Xeon has ECC capability Enabled (the circuits are actually present on the High End Desktop parts, but are Disabled at the factory). They use the same chipset as well (X58).

The DP versions however, have an additional QPI (Quick Path Interconnect) that is used to connect to another DP processor and the chipset. The chipset is different as a result, as it requires 2x QPI channels as well (5520, not to be confused with the E5520 CPU).

Would a "UP Server" chip work for this? Seems this would require a "MP Server," but I donno.
Assuming the software actually does this, then Yes, a UP/SP processor would work. The connections would be between different computers which would be via some form of networking, not internally as would be the case for a DP processor configuration.

The core count issues with applications are internal to the core counts available in the processor/s, as many are either unable to multi-thread (i.e. word processor), haven't done it for say financial reasons (assuming it can be done), or have limited it to a fixed core count (i.e. may run 4x cores per CPU, which means that those with Hex or Dodeca systems can't utilize 2x cores per CPU).
 

WardC

macrumors 68030
Oct 17, 2007
2,728
207
Fort Worth, TX
Intel already makes 8-core processors, they are the 7000 series. There is a quad processor board out that you can buy from Super Micro that will take four 8-core Xeon 7500 series processors for a total of 32 cores. The board also takes up to 512GB of RAM. You can check it out here:

http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon7000/7500/X8QB6.cfm?SAS=Y

By the way, that's 32 RAM slots using 16GB DIMMs to get the 512GB of RAM!
 

seek3r

macrumors 6502
Aug 16, 2010
443
126
Intel already makes 8-core processors, they are the 7000 series. There is a quad processor board out that you can buy from Super Micro that will take four 8-core Xeon 7500 series processors for a total of 32 cores. The board also takes up to 512GB of RAM. You can check it out here:

http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon7000/7500/X8QB6.cfm?SAS=Y

By the way, that's 32 RAM slots using 16GB DIMMs to get the 512GB of RAM!
I was going to say, in certain segments not so uncommon already.

The Dell system I used for my work at the Supercomputing conference last year was made up of quad socket 6-core AMD blades (24 cores/blade). I believe UColorado who's partnering with Dell/AMD for the competition this year will probably have quad socket *12* cores (48 cores/blade).
 

WardC

macrumors 68030
Oct 17, 2007
2,728
207
Fort Worth, TX
Let me post again to this thread. There are multicore 8-core Xeons already in existence (7000 series), but they are Nehalem-based.

There will be 8-core Sandy Bridge processors for 1P and 2P machines by Q3 or Q4 2011. The max clock will be 3.4GHz with a turbo boost of 3.8GHz. They will have a 20MB L3 cache and support up to 1600MHz memory. This is the next step for the Mac Pro, I think.