Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2010 Mac Pro motherboard?
- Thread starter DualShock
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The question is: can you hackintosh it?
Look at the Cinebench scores at 4.3 and 5 GHz x 16 physical cores:
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8114/cb11p.jpg
http://www.theinquirer.net/IMG/072/94072/evgacinebench5g-540x540.png?1268757614
If Apple could give us a logic board with those specs, I would pay the obscene prices they charge. Otherwise, I won't be giving them $1,500 in profit on a computer that costs half that to make.
Hopefully the update actually wows.
Hopefully the update actually wows.
The way apple is jacking up prices on mac pro's, I am probably on my last one. Cheaper to build one if you know what your doing. Guess we will see when the new ones come out.
I am considering buying the Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD7, getting the i7 980X, overclocking to about 4.2 GHz (either air versus water) and Kakewalking it.
6 cores at 4.2 GHz will give the MacPro 2010 with 12 cores at 3.33 GHz a run for the money in most applications. The savings would be enough to get double the memory, good SSDs and a 30inch monitor.
6 cores at 4.2 GHz will give the MacPro 2010 with 12 cores at 3.33 GHz a run for the money in most applications. The savings would be enough to get double the memory, good SSDs and a 30inch monitor.
Yeah the 980 and W3680 are really the perfect Workstation processors right now. A very realistic alternative to dual processor systems even for CPU intensive work-flows.
If you could hackintosh that motherboard, I would stop waiting for the 2010 Mac Pros and start building right now.
Absolutely. DP workstation's days are numbered, especially once the 8 core CPU's ship.
Custom Intel or custom Apple ? To jumpstart the switch to Intel they leveraged Intel but at this point, they are likely doing their own. (hence a small contributor to the higher costs . )
The USB 3.0 addition on this board is a likely candidate for the 2010 Mac Pro. Gigabyte Ethernet , 800 Firewire , etc. all showed up first on a Mac Pro class model. USB 3.0 would just be a continuation of that trendline. Should be more room on the Mac Pro's motherboard to add a USB 3.0 controller (without tossing the Firewire support ) more so than the other Mac platforms. USB 3.0 chips were announced as early as last Spring and out on the market last Fall. It isn't like Apple couldn't have gotten their hands on one a long while back at this point.
Likewise, SATA II (6GB ) would work extremely well on classic Mac Pro workloads more so than most of the other Mac platform workloads. If doesn't require addition board space ( in contrast to USB 3.0 above) then seems like no brainer addition. ( e.g., the disk benchmarks can be cranked up and if hold price relatively constant it is an additional value prop.)
The non fit characteristics is just two fold. One is the double down on each of the memory controller channels ( 12 DIMMS , the more memory add to a channel get a slight decrease in speed. ) and the more than 3 PCI-e slots. This board is larger than an ATX form factor (scroll down on that page to the part where EVGA mentions it won't fit in most cases.) Those are the larger Apple design disconnects.
I guess the 3rd would be overclocking support. Apple isn't out to win any clocking GHz war.
If dual processor package workstations are currently bought because "time is money" ( getting work done faster allows to make more money) then that isn't likely to change. 16 cores will allow work to get done faster than 8 so worth the price premium.
The number of "class war" folks ( I'm a power user so need 'big iron' ... where additional cores aren't really making money anyway. ) will certainly drop.
Likewise folks doing mostly single task , largely single thread jobs. Those folks are on the "bigger GHz" road. Max GHz isn't found in more cores; just more workload done per unit time.
I hope we'll be getting serious workstations at a fair price, not some pretty gimmick upgrade with jacked up prices.
I want to buy a MacPro but I won't let Apple rob me.
Yes, but not all 6-core Xeons will be at that price point. I was referencing the current SP boxes, and the ridiculous profit margins Apple collects on each one they sell.
Space for extra RAM slots
I guess one reason Apple has not rushed to bring out the new Pro with dual six core chips is that with 12 cores and 24 threads the lack of RAM slots will be even more of an issue than it is with the 2009 model. But with the present layout there isn't really any room to extend to six slots per processor.
The 5600 series Xeons can run two DIMMs per channel at full speed (unlike the 5500 series) so having less than six RAM slots per processor looks stingy. (Having said that, Apple restricts the RAM speed anyway.)
I guess one reason Apple has not rushed to bring out the new Pro with dual six core chips is that with 12 cores and 24 threads the lack of RAM slots will be even more of an issue than it is with the 2009 model. But with the present layout there isn't really any room to extend to six slots per processor.
The 5600 series Xeons can run two DIMMs per channel at full speed (unlike the 5500 series) so having less than six RAM slots per processor looks stingy. (Having said that, Apple restricts the RAM speed anyway.)
Apple doesn't design or manufacture their own gear though (they do produce the industrial design and a spec sheet). But the actual circuit design is ODM'ed by another company (Hon Hai Precision does the majority of it, but they've used Intel for the MP boards in the past).
As the pin count is higher than the USB 2.0 chips, they're not drop-in replacements. So it would require new PCB's which would increase the cost. Sticking with the existing boards and providing a firmware update would be the most cost effective solution. Intel intentionally designs their parts for this (1 board functions with a single architecture that spans 2yrs - Tock + following Tick cycle).
For a previous example in the Mac Pro lineup, take a look at the '06 and '07 systems. Same board, just newer CPU's were available.
The chipsets carry over from the '09 models, so 6.0Gb/s SATA isn't supported (X58/5520; SP and DP systems respectively). So it would also require a new board for an additional chip (likely a 2 port part).
The comment is based on 2 specific facts.
1. Intel's roadmap is pushing cores per CPU, and the pricing is out of bounds for workstation use (they're filling the requests for servers/clusters with high core counts - it's all about efficiency).
2. Software is behind for the most part. There are a few applications that can use beyond 8 cores, but it's rare (simulations for example), and usually isn't available for OS X.
Hell, if you could Hackintosh that motherboard, you'd have your hands on a 2015 Mac Pro.
Hell, if you could Hackintosh that motherboard, you'd have your hands on a 2015 Mac Pro.
HAHAHAHA
Hell, if you could Hackintosh that motherboard, you'd have your hands on a 2015 Mac Pro.
How sad how true that is
So when we were on the PowerPC platform, everyone blamed Motorola and IBM for the lack of updates. Now what is Apple's excuse?
Anybody building a DP Hackintosh using the Xeon X5680?
Since it is not known when the new Mac Pro will be available, I am interested in building a DP Hackintosh. Has anybody succeed in building one without hacking? I hope to get a list of components that are guaranteed to work. Thanks.
Since it is not known when the new Mac Pro will be available, I am interested in building a DP Hackintosh. Has anybody succeed in building one without hacking? I hope to get a list of components that are guaranteed to work. Thanks.
Once that motherboard, the X5680s, and the GTX 480s become available, I'll have a tough time waiting for a Mac Pro. Being able to easily overclock is just too fun to pass up!