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.
8-core Intel Xeon now standard??!!
- Thread starter majorgray
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think this was an advertisement from Apple made on the 2008 Mac Pros when the base system was a 8core 2.8GHZ Mac Pro. You then had the option to choose quadcore if you wanted but 8core was almost standard that is until 09's pulled up.
Or it could really be the new Mac Pro, just like last March when right before that huge Mac refresh, there was similar google sightings on one of the European searches.
At least this is what I'm hoping for.
Google would not keep that ad in search (or even cache) for this amount of time. I'm putting my bets on a refresh within this or next week.
Let's hope they fix this before: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/795966/
My sister is in the market for a new Mac Pro and I hope Apple will fix this issue before using the same architecture in the upcoming version.
While we can hope, the problem in the OS/chipset won't be fixed by simply throwing a new chip and microcode into a system. Apple will have to work that out as a separate issue, hopefully before they lose professional clients.
The hardware is fine, as the problem is NOT replicated under Windows. So it's strictly within OS X, which does need to be sorted, and preferably prior to the next model revision.
The cat's out of the bag, and if it continues with the next model revision, it will be a black eye for Apple.So its finally produced adequate motivation for Apple to look into it and find a solution, given some of the recent posts in the linked thread. Of course, officially, they still won't state they made a mistake, and those that have been contacted have been told to keep quiet.
Better late than never, but I won't be totally convinced until the solution is produced and proven to work properly, given Apple's track record on this, and other recent issues.
Yepp, the current situation is ridiculous. You have to give the advice to look out for a 2008 MP. I bet a single developer at Apple HQ could solve that problem within a few days (if not hours) but instead they simply deny the existence of any problem at all.
Something tells me it is a problem that is not easily fixed, and their hand to choose between either admitting a fault or denial was forced. Being Apple, you can guess which they chose
It's possible.So, now you're forced into buying a DP system for $3k ?
Personally, I'd think the Quad is a good system to keep available, as not all workstation users need more cores (8+ physical), but fewer, faster cores (non-reliant on Turbo Mode, as it could be at full load). It also happens to be less expensive to produce, and if priced right, could increase the systems sold (i.e. users that can't <need based> or won't buy an iMac <i.e. glossy screens or other reasons, though technically capable for their needs>).
The hardware is fine, as the problem is NOT replicated under Windows. So it's strictly within OS X, which does need to be sorted, and preferably prior to the next model revision.
So its finally produced adequate motivation for Apple to look into it and find a solution, given some of the recent posts in the linked thread. Of course, officially, they still won't state they made a mistake, and those that have been contacted have been told to keep quiet.
Better late than never, but I won't be totally convinced until the solution is produced and proven to work properly, given Apple's track record on this, and other recent issues.
Wouldn't you laugh if Apple threw in new Gulftown six-core chips in addition to a dual core chip just to satisfy the 8-core archetype? That would be even funnier than the pricing point for the '09 quad
Something tells me it is a problem that is not easily fixed, and their hand to choose between either admitting a fault or denial was forced. Being Apple, you can guess which they chose
If an advanced user can code a rudimentary fix for the issue I can only hope a well paid Apple developer will be able to do it in a much more professional way. They don't even have to admit a fault. Simply hide a fix in the next xyz-update.
You mean 6 core + 2 core CPU's in one system?Wouldn't you laugh if Apple threw in new Gulftown six-core chips in addition to a dual core chip just to satisfy the 8-core archetype? That would be even funnier than the pricing point for the '09 quad
Nah. Never happen, but not because of Apple or any other vendor.
It just won't work. None of the dual core Nehalem's have the second QPI to work with the 520 chipset. Otherwise, I wouldn't put it past them. Calling a Quad (physical) and Octad via the virtual thread count, is something I could see a marketing dept. picking up on though.
And given Apple's desire for high margins, the MSRP could be bumped up to $3k for the base Quad, as it could get a USB 3.0 chip to differentiate it from the '09 Quad (though otherwise, it's the same exact system). 
This is the approach I expect them to take, given the users that have been contacted are being told to keep quiet.If an advanced user can code a rudimentary fix for the issue I can only hope a well paid Apple developer will be able to do it in a much more professional way. They don't even have to admit a fault. Simply hide a fix in the next xyz-update.
Stall, and admit nothing. Fix only if placed in a position of no way to avoid it any longer. This type of thinking is getting all to common for my taste, and it's not just computers.
Toyota could be viewed the same way, given the recent recalls/issues that actually go back for years when investigated further (according to news articles I've seen the last few days or so).
No, it's known as deceptive wording. Technically accurate
Disagree. There are four cores in the computer. If I sell someone a holiday to Bermuda and plunk their ass in an IMAX theatre and put on footage of the beach, that's a virtual holiday but I'll still get my ass sued.
Yes, but that isn't open to interpretation, while physical cores and logical cores are. Saying there are 8 cores is not lying, however underhanded it may seem to the ignorant folks who don't understand the difference.
It would likely differ from country to country, as they each have their own laws regarding such issues. Here in the US, such a statement would be allowed from what I can tell (i.e. other products, and what's been allowed to occur), though unfortunate, just by eliminating the necessary difference - the word virtual or real/physical from the word core.
Here at least, it's "Buyer Beware", as marketing is allowed to go after the uninformed like that.