2007 Harpertown Stoakley-Seaburg Motherboard With New Graphics Cards 8-Core Mac Pro

[Multimedia]

So May Apple Not Start Taking Orders Next Week Aiden?

I used to work in the workstation division of one of the top Intel vendors, supporting hardware betas and ISVs and the like (look up names like "Deschutes", "Klamath", "Katmai", "Coppermine", "Tualatin"). My experience over those years is as I've described - lots of chips early - but sales started when Intel opened the gates with the announcement.

Why is it so hard to believe that "street date" refers to both "retail boxes containing the bare CPU" and "retail sales of systems containing the CPU"?

What's the real difference between an Intel Penryn CPU box marked "Do not sell before 12 November" and an HP ProLiant Penryn system box marked "Do not sell before 12 November".

I never doubted you Aiden. So does that pre-empt Apple from starting to take orders next week then?

 

[Macinposh]

Does anyone recognize the gfx card in that "picture"?
Is that a ati x1900 or something else?


Why I say "picture",put that picture in photoshop,blow it up and use curves to lighten it up, especially the processors. Weird black boxes start to show up.
Dunno if they just are some weird artifacts,or have they been used to cover up some old xeon processors tags/logos. Dont know,because I dont remember what there were stamped on them..

Put´s on a tinfoil hat...

 

[Kosh66]

By the sounds of the report, nobody is going to have very many top-bin Xeons with Intel trickling them out in mid-November. From that statement I assume even the OEMs will have a hard time getting top-bin Xeons, and since most Mac Pro owners want the higher-end configuration, you're not likely to see Mac Pros announced until January. Apple is not going to get their hands on much in November (even, they won't announce anything in December, so it'll likely be January. Besides, November or January, what's the difference. SAt least we know the new Mac Pros are coming in the next 1-3 months.

 

[Kosh66]

Does anyone recognize the gfx card in that "picture"?
Is that a ati x1900 or something else?


Why I say "picture",put that picture in photoshop,blow it up and use curves to lighten it up, especially the processors. Weird black boxes start to show up.
Dunno if they just are some weird artifacts,or have they been used to cover up some old xeon processors tags/logos. Dont know,because I dont remember what there were stamped on them..

Put´s on a tinfoil hat...

I was looking at the picture too, to figure out the graphics card, when I realized that the picture may have been created by AppleInsider. Ie. AppleInsider Photoshopped a current Mac Pro to create the picture. I didn't take the picture as being leaked info.

 

[sblasl]

With Leopard right around the corner, it is only going to help drive additional sales of the Mac Pro line in it's current configurations, Apple will take advantage of this sales enabler for the balance of the year thereby maximizing sales of Leopard. They will release the updated Mac Pro line in 2008.

 

[darthraige]

With Leopard right around the corner, it is only going to help drive additional sales of the Mac Pro line in it's current configurations, Apple will take advantage of this sales enabler for the balance of the year thereby maximizing sales of Leopard. They will release the updated Mac Pro line in 2008.

I doubt that. Apple would not hold onto a chip for 3 months when it's available for anyone Mid-November. Expect a new MacPro in a few weeks.

 

[KevinPlusPlus]

Apple can't afford to let Dell and HP offer killer systems better than the Mac Pro in terms of raw data-crunching power. While yes Leopard would tend to drive sales of the current configuration, those are waiting are still going to wait, and after November 12th when the new technology goes mainstream, a lot more people would be waiting.

My 2 cents.

 

[Pressure]

Half-Step Multiplier resulting in 200MHZ FSB?

That's not how it works.

Processor Speed = FSB * Multiplier.

The 3.0 GHZ Chips @ 400MHZ FSB would have a multiplier of 7.5.

The reason for half-multipliers is to allow Intel more flexibility when it comes to making chips. If they didn't have the ability to make a half-multiplier then the only options would be 2.4, 2.8, and 3.2 GHZ.

Tracer

Don't get me wrong but the current line of Woodcrest and Clowertown do not have half-step multipliers. However both Harpertown and Wolfdale do.

I think we are somehow misunderstanding eachother here...

I was just implying that Intel actually could make a 2.70Ghz Xeon if it wanted to with a Quad-pumped Front Side Bus of 200Mhz (800Mhz effectively), resulting in 13.5 x 200Mhz = 2700Mhz

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple can't afford to let Dell and HP offer killer systems better than the Mac Pro in terms of raw data-crunching power..

Then why did Apple wait from November until April to simply drop the Clovertown quad core into the Mac Pro?

 

[AidenShaw]

I never doubted you Aiden. So does that pre-empt Apple from starting to take orders next week then?

It all depends on Apple's OEM deal with Intel - but Intel usually treats its OEM customers even-handedly. (To favor one customer over another isn't a good business practice when AMD has product to sell.)

I bought 24 Woodcrest systems from HP at announcement, and they weren't able to accept the P.O. until announcement day (I did get prices about a week before).

(Note the 3.0 GHz quad core looks like an exception, but Apple took something that the others didn't want. HP/IBM/Dell waited for the improved 120watt G0 stepping of the Clovertown, making it look like Apple had an exclusive on the older 150 watt item.)

 

[KevinPlusPlus]

Then why did Apple wait from November until April to simply drop the Clovertown quad core into the Mac Pro?

I don't know, I wasn't really following things back then. Nonetheless the marketplace is always becoming more and more competitive and what they did in the past may or may not be a good indication of what they will do in the future.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple hears its own beat

I don't know, I wasn't really following things back then. Nonetheless the marketplace is always becoming more and more competitive and what they did in the past may or may not be a good indication of what they will do in the future.

Apple sells the only legal hardware that runs OSX, so they don't feel the pressure to match the other vendors at each minor increment in performance.

Only a few people run CPU-hungry cross-platform applications that they can easily choose Windows or Linux over OSX if an HP or Dell box has better price performance or raw performance than an Apple box.

And clearly, judging by the crappy video cards and slow upgrades to the consumer line - Apple doesn't worry about performance. "Good enough for most" is all you can expect.

 

[Multimedia]

Leopard Sales Are Already Disconnected From New System Sales • It's Free Since Oct. 1

With Leopard right around the corner, it is only going to help drive additional sales of the Mac Pro line in it's current configurations, Apple will take advantage of this sales enabler for the balance of the year thereby maximizing sales of Leopard. They will release the updated Mac Pro line in 2008.

Leopard has been FREE ($9.95) since October 1 with any new purchase. After next Friday it will be dropped in the box of any systems already with Tiger installed. Then the assembly line will begin installing native Leopard. So your theory is really flawed because all Mac sales already have zero effect on the retail sales of a Leopard box.

 

[solvs]

Then why did Apple wait from November until April to simply drop the Clovertown quad core into the Mac Pro?

Didn't I answer that one already? Because the quad 2.6s were far more expensive for almost no performance gain, and actually slower than the 3GHz in some situations. When they could get the quad 3s, they did so. They may not be faster than the cheaper systems in some cases, but they aren't any slower either. If the top system at the time was 2.6GHz, I'm sure they would have had the quad 2.6s out when they originally came out.

 

[Umbongo]

Didn't I answer that one already? Because the quad 2.6s were far more expensive for almost no performance gain, and actually slower than the 3GHz in some situations. When they could get the quad 3s, they did so. They may not be faster than the cheaper systems in some cases, but they aren't any slower either. If the top system at the time was 2.6GHz, I'm sure they would have had the quad 2.6s out when they originally came out.

I was going to post almost the exact same thing (though there was performance gain as highlighted by those who upgraded processors), and I can understand why they did it, but I think it does highlight that they don't really care about the consumer so much as doing things their own way. They could have made it clear that 3GHz Quad would be better or worse than a 2.66GHz Octo depending on task and put the onus on the buyer to decide which was the best solution.

 

[solvs]

They could have made it clear that 3GHz Quad would be better or worse than a 2.66GHz Octo depending on task and put the onus on the buyer to decide which was the best solution.

I didn't say it made sense that's just why they did it that way.

 

[Sun Baked]

I didn't it made sense that's just why they did it that way.

Back in the Performa days they learned this lesson, when people pointed out that the faster clocked 603 machines were faster than the slower clocked 604s.

And the confusion created when the dual CPU Powermac 9500MP machines were clocked slower than the single CPU Powermac 9500s.

They learned from the confusion of model names and MHz mess of that era.

They learn that customers were stupid and that the MHz myth prevailed.

 

[AidenShaw]

They learn that customers were stupid and that the MHz myth prevailed.

Bingo.

I think that this might be the best reason according to Apple-think.

If a company believes that its customers are too stupid to deal with a second button on a mouse, it wouldn't want to deal with trying to explain why 8 threads at 2.66 GHz is sometimes much better than 4 threads at 3.0 GHz, and sometimes a bit worse.

 

[solvs]

And much more expensive.

As I said (after the edit) I didn't say it made sense, but the question was why did they do it that way.

 

[AidenShaw]

I wonder when Apple will drop the Xserve

I wonder when Apple will stop ignoring the Xserve, and give it a decent burial. Or, revive it and develop a series of Xserves.

Even the Mac Pro has been getting more attention from Apple, and that's faint praise.

 

[frick]

If Apple puts out a new mac pro in the next month or so using top-end Penryn Xeons, it'd be about the worst thing they could do (as far as I'm concerned).

Here's a few reasons:

1. The (price increase)/(performance gain) ratio for Intel's top end chips is *miserable*. As I recall, the 3.2 GHz Xeons will be going for about $1499 a pop... that's an insane amount of money to spend on a CPU. You can pick up a Q6600 on Newegg for $280 today that, when overclocked, is essentially as fast as Intel's current top-end chip, and I expect there to be a similar situation when Intel's desktop Penryns are released. If Apple were to put a Wolfdale chip in a mac pro (the desktop line of Penryn), they could create a high-performance, low-cost mac pro that would lower the barrier of entry for those of us who don't want to spend an extra $1000 on CPU power we'll never use.

2. It is probably still going to use FB-DIMM's. FB-DIMM is a dead technology, and will only be around for as long at this next iteration of the mac pro in all likelihood.

3. Video cards: the market has been stagnant for almost a year, and if Apple just now all of a sudden realizes the mac pro's video cards are crap and pops an 8800GTX in, it will still be completely outdated come January/February when nVidia/AMD(ATI) release their new boards.

At this rate, I'm hoping Apple will at least wait till Macworld in January... this gives us the possibility of Wolfdale CPU's in a low-end (but still extremely powerful), affordable mac pro with the possibility of running DDR2/DDR3 memory and picking up nVidia/AMD's latest. Releasing a new mac pro in November would simply ensure its obsolescence within a few months (save for the video encoding/photoshopping junkies), and drive me to build a Windows machine once again. I like OS X a lot, but I'm not very happy about paying a $1500-2000 OS X tax just to get a box that isn't built with laptop parts.

 

[Multimedia]

Troll Alert! 1 • 2 • 3 • Mac Pro Is Not For Me

Troll:

If Apple puts out a new mac pro in the next month or so using top-end Penryn Xeons, it'd be about the worst thing they could do (as far as I'm concerned).

Why are you even posting here? This is obviously not a product you are interested in owning.

Here's a few reasons:

1. The (price increase)/(performance gain) ratio for Intel's top end chips is *miserable*. As I recall, the 3.2 GHz Xeons will be going for about $1499 a pop... that's an insane amount of money to spend on a CPU. You can pick up a Q6600 on Newegg for $280 today that, when overclocked, is essentially as fast as Intel's current top-end chip, and I expect there to be a similar situation when Intel's desktop Penryns are released. If Apple were to put a Wolfdale chip in a mac pro (the desktop line of Penryn), they could create a high-performance, low-cost mac pro that would lower the barrier of entry for those of us who don't want to spend an extra $1000 on CPU power we'll never use.

We don't care how much they cost. Money is not an issue for most of this customer base because of how much money users make with this tool. So it pays for itself regardless of the up front cost.

2. It is probably still going to use FB-DIMM's. FB-DIMM is a dead technology, and will only be around for as long at this next iteration of the mac pro in all likelihood.

Who cares? It's also cheap ram at only $48.50/GB now and around $60/GB for the 800 MHz versions. It's only going to cost us $999 to add Eight 2GB sticks to top it out at 16GB. That is not expensive at all.

3. Video cards: the market has been stagnant for almost a year, and if Apple just now all of a sudden realizes the mac pro's video cards are crap and pops an 8800GTX in, it will still be completely outdated come January/February when nVidia/AMD(ATI) release their new boards.

Who cares? I'm sure Apple will do the best they can to give us the best video cards they can put together for this round.

At this rate, I'm hoping Apple will at least wait till Macworld in January... this gives us the possibility of Wolfdale CPU's in a low-end (but still extremely powerful), affordable mac pro with the possibility of running DDR2/DDR3 memory and picking up nVidia/AMD's latest. Releasing a new mac pro in November would simply ensure its obsolescence within a few months (save for the video encoding/photoshopping junkies), and drive me to build a Windows machine once again. I like OS X a lot, but I'm not very happy about paying a $1500-2000 OS X tax just to get a box that isn't built with laptop parts.

Again. Why are you even posting here when you obviously don't want to pay what we will be happy to pay? You are not a Mac Pro target member. So please sod off and leave us alone. We're happy.

 

[-Noodles]

Mac Pro RAM

Just wanted to get some advice on the new mac pro that you're talking about here. Will RAM for the higher end configurations only be available through apple during the initial release/update of the mac pro? Or will other vendors carry it? Is there a precedent that suggests what might happen?

In other words should i buy the lowest possible RAM config through apple then buy what i need (2gb sticks) somewhere else? If so are there sites any of you could suggest?

Looking at what's available on the site right now it seems they really overcharge on the RAM they currently offer.

thanks

 

[darthraige]

Internal MacPro HD

Sorry if this has been covered, but...

Anyone know a really good internal hard drive for the money for a MacPro? Thinking of getting two more when the new MacPro ships, one for Windows, and one for time machine. Preferably 250 gigs or lower.

 

[krunk]

Sorry if this has been covered, but...

Anyone know a really good internal hard drive for the money for a MacPro? Thinking of getting two more when the new MacPro ships, one for Windows, and one for time machine. Preferably 250 gigs or lower.

Pick up a Western Digital. FYI, macs use Seagate which is a really nice brand and known for their quite operation.