)
Remember that little leak thingy that said there would be 32nm quads along with the hexa-cores in the new Xeon lineup? Maybe they are gonna make the line all dual-socket? (Like I've been saying? Remember, I was one of like 3 people who guessed the glass trackpads wouldn't be screens, just trackpads made of glass.
Your logic has validity, and something that would make sense IMO as well. But I'm not so sure about the timing, going by the recent past. But it is possible it could happen this month.
March would seem to fit with their past anyway, but with their shift in media events (i.e. no longer participate in MacWorld), it's possible, as now there's no schedule to follow except their own.That would be a dream come true. Although I don't think it will happen in February. March seems more likely to me. But with Apple it's always a guessing game.
It's possible.
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>).
I'm waiting for a full list as well, but I'm thinking the 6 core parts will be an option, not standard for (whatever the clock steps used) base models (i.e 4 core SP and 8 & 12 core DP systems).
It's possible.
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>).
There's quite a bit of widely used professional software that can't use more than 4 cores. Some such as PhotoShop, can currently only utlize 2. This will change over time, but it will be awhile IMO, which would translate into at least one generation of computer later.
There's quite a bit of widely used professional software that can't use more than 4 cores. Some such as PhotoShop, can currently only utlize 2. This will change over time, but it will be awhile IMO, which would translate into at least one generation of computer later.
Same thing with memory bandwidth.
So decisions will have to really focus on specfic use, as those that have purchased or considered purchasing the '09's discovered. Cost considerations have become more prominent whether it's an individual pro or corporate entity, and will be an even greater factor in which machine is the most viable solution IMO, as budgets have been tightened (i.e. including how/what to upgrade, such as going for additional RAM and/or RAID vs. higher clock speeds for the CPU's to obtain the greatest overall performance value).
There are plenty of reasons to go for as high a clock as possible, but I meant in terms of balancing the budget (ultimately fixed at some set figure) with both the clock, core count, and upgrades.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you here. They already offer the W3580 in the '09 Quads, which is the fastest in that family (SP Xeon line; 3.33GHz).
additional RAM + storage might indicate that video/audio production is being used, therefore the higher powered (i.e. more GHz) computers would be ideal, over more cores. in some scenarios anyway.
what i mean is that i hope the new 2010 mac pros keep the same single processor configuration with the highest frequency. im sure that there is a fairly big market for these single processor machines - otherwise apple would have dumped it ages ago!
0% chance of that happening, the price drops that is. hopefully apple will give the users that need the multicore machines a higher frequency. 2.26GHz octo core is a bit of a flop IMO.
would be great to see the pricing. let us know when they come out!
You're missing my point. Ideally, YES, you want it all.
Ah. I'm not so sure (base Quad = higher clock), as Apple likes to keep their processor options low compared to other vendors. So I don't expect 3x clock speed choices with each model (SP and DP versions as we do now).
Performance wise, the 2.26GHz DP would seem to be a flop, but ultimately CPU pricing from Intel will dictate what Apple offers.
ha! well of course you want it all! but with given budgets your options diminish quickly. leading too the compromise scenario you briefly stated below.You're missing my point. Ideally, YES, you want it all.
a very wise move.
no i dont expect 3 lots of the speed choices either. having 1 (or 2)x quad core (or hexacore if they are indeed released) on offer and then 2x dual quad cores (or dual hexacores) would make sense. id be happy with that.
oh, totally! apple have a slight influence on what intel produces i daresay, probably with frequencies and that - not really with the rest of the specs. you know how influential apple can be
i would agree with that and be happy with that. leaves room for all parties basically.
+30% of course hehe. im just not really comfortable with such a low powered octo core. as has been said there are still many many single core applications, they would run pathetically slow.
