Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
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??!!

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. 😛)
 
J the Ninja said:
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. 😛)
Click to expand...

This could be true, however it doesn't seem the move of a profit hungry company to opt for the option that makes them less money, unless they boost the base price.
 
majorgray said:
Similar current ads for the imac 21.5 27 also produce these "dead" links if you cut and paste the link, so I dont think the link being dead in this sense is a reliable indicator that it is old. If you click thru in all cases you land at the appropriate page of the product referenced.
Click to expand...

Yes, even the current MP ads in the US behave this way. There is trouble stirring in the MBP forums, my guess is that Apple is planning on a simultaneous refresh:

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9240131#post9240131
 
rtrt said:
these users who've been told to keep quiet - given how unhappy everyone's been - what's motivating them to keep quiet?

apple has no leverage that i can see - 'keep quiet or we won't fix your MP just everyone else' doesn't seem like it would cut it .....

feels a little odd - or maybe i'm just reading a little too much into it.......
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. Maybe a bribe in the form of a gift card or product? 😕
 
Techhie said:
Yes, even the current MP ads in the US behave this way. There is trouble stirring in the MBP forums, my guess is that Apple is planning on a simultaneous refresh:

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9240131#post9240131
Click to expand...


yea I noticed things are heating up there too. I have a feeling Apple will do a "pro" update tactic, with both Macbook pros and Mac Pros refreshing together. Hell, maybe even release alongside them updated ACDs too.

Maybe they have noticed their own neglect to the professional market and this might be the perfect oppurtunity for them to save some face. I don't know. Maybe.
 
Icaras said:
yea I noticed things are heating up there too. I have a feeling Apple will do a "pro" update tactic, with both Macbook pros and Mac Pros refreshing together. Hell, maybe even release alongside them updated ACDs too.

Maybe they have noticed their own neglect to the professional market and this might be the perfect oppurtunity for them to save some face. I don't know. Maybe.
Click to expand...

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.😀
 
Icaras said:
yea I noticed things are heating up there too. I have a feeling Apple will do a "pro" update tactic, with both Macbook pros and Mac Pros refreshing together. Hell, maybe even release alongside them updated ACDs too.

Maybe they have noticed their own neglect to the professional market and this might be the perfect oppurtunity for them to save some face. I don't know. Maybe.
Click to expand...
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.

ildondeigiocchi said:
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.😀
Click to expand...
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.

Theoretically, it could improve the quality (hardware and software integration) of their products at initial release (i.e. better testing), as it's possible it won't be so rushed to make the announcement and ship.
 
Has anyone else noticed the unusually large amount of refurbished Mac Pros in the store in past weeks?
 
nanofrog said:
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>).
Click to expand...

+1 but what we want and what we get are seldom the same! 🙄
 
I wouldn't be surprised to see a move back to the dual quads for under $3,000. A single socket system will only have one 32nm processor available and while they could replace the current processors with 2.8-x4 @45nm, 2.93x4 @45nm and 3.33x6 @ 32 they do have a habit of not doing such obvious things to maintain odd product line images.

The other thing is we don't know why Apple changed things with the 2009 models, or what their view is based on the response to it a year on. One would assume it was all down to the bottom line, but Apple do things for other reasons people don't always comprehend. We don't know what sort of discounts they were getting from 2006-2008 on those $700-$800 processors, or what the margin was on those systems or what Apple's attitude to the Mac Pro's position in their range is. We can assume it is around 50% on the current quad and slightly less on the 8-core, but it may have been an experiment, a bridging gap between iMac and "Mac Pro" or just some weird Apple logic. Jobs also wasn't running things day to day for that period, and we have no idea how involved he was before, was then, or is now.

DP only could make the Mac Pros look like an impressive update too:

Dual 2.66Ghz 32nm quads with 9 or 12 memory slots running at 1,333MHz for $2,799-$2,999 with a $300 discount to drop down to one processor, which would be faster and could be cheaper than the 09 model. Then an option for faster quads or 6-core processors. Hard to really guess even based on the assumption of old pricing because we don't know processor prices points yet.
 
Umbongo said:
...we don't know processor prices points yet.
Click to expand...
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).

We do need additional information to really go any further though, as it's all speculation, educated or not. 😉
 
nanofrog said:
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>).
Click to expand...

apple would be stupid to drop the quad core machine. im sure that there are a ton of people who still purchase the quad cores - those that want the same power as the i7 imacs but want to have the expandability etc.
 
DoFoT9 said:
apple would be stupid to drop the quad core machine. im sure that there are a ton of people who still purchase the quad cores - those that want the same power as the i7 imacs but want to have the expandability etc.
Click to expand...
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). 😉
 
nanofrog said:
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). 😉
Click to expand...

in a lot of cases it would be wise for users to purchase the higher clocked quad core machines. the saved money could be put into other things of course.

do you think apple would do that? add the highest spec'd new intel xeon chip of the lowest core count...?
 
DoFoT9 said:
in a lot of cases it would be wise for users to purchase the higher clocked quad core machines. the saved money could be put into other things of course.
Click to expand...
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.

If the use requires additional RAM and RAID for performance (i.e. needed to keep the workflow going), that has to be figured into the total cost of the system, and if it's such upgrades vs. higher clock, such upgrades would offer more performance than a few MHz (multiples of 133MHz, but you get the idea).

DoFoT9 said:
do you think apple would do that? add the highest spec'd new intel xeon chip of the lowest core count...?
Click to expand...
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).

If Apple decides to actually return some value to the systems, they'd increase the clock speed for the base Quad, and offer it for less than the current system prices. But I don't see that happening, as it would mean lower margins, and Intel's not likely to drop the prices either. It would also mean that any left over '09's would need to be further discounted to move them out as well (I'm thinking a USB 3.0 chip could be used to differentiate the models, as it's possible to use a drop in replacement = no PCB changes required).

In any event, lower prices would be welcome by users, but it doesn't seem realistic to me. But ultimately, I want to see a full parts list of the Gulftown parts to get an idea of what we could actually see (including their pricing structure).
 
nanofrog said:
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.

If the use requires additional RAM and RAID for performance (i.e. needed to keep the workflow going), that has to be figured into the total cost of the system, and if it's such upgrades vs. higher clock, such upgrades would offer more performance than a few MHz (multiples of 133MHz, but you get the idea).
Click to expand...
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.


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).
Click to expand...
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!

If Apple decides to actually return some value to the systems, they'd increase the clock speed for the base Quad, and offer it for less than the current system prices. But I don't see that happening, as it would mean lower margins, and Intel's not likely to drop the prices either. It would also mean that any left over '09's would need to be further discounted to move them out as well (I'm thinking a USB 3.0 chip could be used to differentiate the models, as it's possible to use a drop in replacement = no PCB changes required).
Click to expand...
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.

In any event, lower prices would be welcome by users, but it doesn't seem realistic to me. But ultimately, I want to see a full parts list of the Gulftown parts to get an idea of what we could actually see (including their pricing structure).
Click to expand...
would be great to see the pricing. let us know when they come out!

how you been btw?
 
DoFoT9 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You're missing my point. Ideally, YES, you want it all. 😱 😛

But there are users with budgets that can't handle that given what I've seen posted recently (particularly with those wanting Quads), and have to strike a compromise. Instead of going for that few additional points in the muliplier (which translates in to x*133MHz to produce a higher clocked part), could be better spent by improving the system bottlenecks. Which will translate to a much higher benefit in terms of real world performance than if the higher clocked system running less RAM and single drives were chosen.

DoFoT9 said:
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!
Click to expand...
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).

Then you also have to consider the CPU selections offered are based on Intel's parts positioning (cost per clock offerings available).

So it's more realistic we'd only see 1 - 2 Quads (I'm not so sure they'd keep to 3x here to reduce the parts bins), 2x Octads (i.e. toss the 2.26), and a single Gulftown option.

DoFoT9 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Performance wise, the 2.26GHz DP would seem to be a flop, but ultimately CPU pricing from Intel will dictate what Apple offers.
 
nanofrog said:
You're missing my point. Ideally, YES, you want it all. 😱 😛
Click to expand...
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.

But there are users with budgets that can't handle that given what I've seen posted recently (particularly with those wanting Quads), and have to strike a compromise. Instead of going for that few additional points in the muliplier (which translates in to x*133MHz to produce a higher clocked part), could be better spent by improving the system bottlenecks. Which will translate to a much higher benefit in terms of real world performance than if the higher clocked system running less RAM and single drives were chosen.
Click to expand...
a very wise move.


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).
Click to expand...
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.

Then you also have to consider the CPU selections offered are based on Intel's parts positioning (cost per clock offerings available).
Click to expand...
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 😉

So it's more realistic we'd only see 1 - 2 Quads (I'm not so sure they'd keep to 3x here to reduce the parts bins), 2x Octads (i.e. toss the 2.26), and a single Gulftown option.
Click to expand...
i would agree with that and be happy with that. leaves room for all parties basically.

Performance wise, the 2.26GHz DP would seem to be a flop, but ultimately CPU pricing from Intel will dictate what Apple offers.
Click to expand...
+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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back