Both IBM and Motorola were worse than Intel at delivering new CPUs.
Remember those 3 ghz G5s? Yeah. Me neither.
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.
A sliver of hope / Sandy Bridge Mac Pro??
- Thread starter d-m-a-x
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Both IBM and Motorola were worse than Intel at delivering new CPUs.
Remember those 3 ghz G5s? Yeah. Me neither.
I seem to recall something like Steve essentially going to Motorola and IBM asking, "So where's my low-power G5 for Powerbooks and my 3Ghz G5?"
And they said... "We got nuthin'."
Helloooooooo, Intel. Rest is history...
Is this worth believing in, or are we just gonna end up even more restless and thirsty!
Looks about right.
Until the chips are in a sufficient volume (AKA actual launch) Apple won't do anything.
It'll come.
I put my upgrade on it.
It'll come.
I put my upgrade on it.
Assuming the next MP finally comes out 1st qtr '12, makes me wonder if they may ultimately wait for Ivy Bridge. Isn't it supposed to be released sometime around March 2012?
Yes, I know Ivy Bridge is the "Tock" (die shrinkage) in Intel's scheme of things, and most of it's benefits appear to be for portables, like the MBA.
It just seems kind of strange to release your top-of-the-line machine on a "previous" generation processor.
Just saying.
Yes, I know Ivy Bridge is the "Tock" (die shrinkage) in Intel's scheme of things, and most of it's benefits appear to be for portables, like the MBA.
It just seems kind of strange to release your top-of-the-line machine on a "previous" generation processor.
Just saying.
No you are confused. The first Ivy Bridge components will replace the Sandy Bridge parts that came out first, which are found in Apple's other products. The CPUs and chipsets the Mac Pro uses are about to be replaced by Sandy Bridge and that will be replaced by Ivy Bridge versions 12 months+ later.
Count on a 2012 release for the Mac Pro.. I for one am done with the Mac Pro as I really don't use it for anything really significant. I only got the 6-core processor upgrade in December of 2010 because of the fact I had hoped to prolong my machine as an everyday desktop machine. Now I see the error in what I did.. but nevertheless, I plan to still keep my 6-core behemoth machine and it works networked alongside my G5 Quad.
Unlikely given that the Xeon variants of Sandy Bridge aren't due until early next year:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/14/intel_xeon_e5_next_year/
Mac Pro has traditionally used the Xeon variants, not the consumer "Extreme" editions.
Given how long it took last time between Intel's announcement of the Westmere Xeons to Apple actually shipping an update with these processors, I wouldn't count on an early 2012 release either.
----------
Although I agree switching to Intel was a great move for Apple, it is worth pointing out that IBM currently makes the fastest CPU in current production. The Power7 spanks any Intel Xeon processor out there and doesn't use too much power either.
The Power7 is also not really a PowerPC. It's a supercomputing chip not designed for use in any sort of consumer machine at all. For example, this is the cooling required for a Power5:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Power5+.jpg
What the Power is really equivalent to is the Itanium (which Apple also doesn't use.) These are monster chips that totally ignore any power or heat requirements. They aren't the sort of chips Apple would consider.
Power7 vs. Xeon? A Power7 wouldn't even fit in a Mac Pro, dude.
And you'd want to compare it to an Intel Itanium anyway.The Power7 is also not really a PowerPC. It's a supercomputing chip not designed for use in any sort of consumer machine at all. For example, this is the cooling required for a Power5:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Power5+.jpg
What the Power is really equivalent to is the Itanium (which Apple also doesn't use.) These are monster chips that totally ignore any power or heat requirements. They aren't the sort of chips Apple would consider.
Power7 vs. Xeon? A Power7 wouldn't even fit in a Mac Pro, dude.
What are you on about?
Power7 runs on the Power ISA. This ISA covers all of PowerPC so it is fully compatible with PowerPC.
Power7 server fit in Blades. They compete directly with Xeons in many markets.
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/
The low end Power7 chips have lower power envelopes that the ones in the Mac Pro - So they could fit in a Mac Pro like enclosure.
i.e. IBM can put in 4 x 8core chips in a standard blade enclosure.
I am not saying that we should move to IBM at all .. it is just a FYI if people aren't aware.
Riiiiiight which you kind of just glossed over. It's true that the Power architecture is a superset of PowerPC, but that means you get a lot of junk piled on top which is useful for supercomputer things but not for workstation things. It means a more complicated pipeline which can result in slower performance for some things.
What? Who on earth says that?
They aren't in the same price point, they aren't at the same power usage point, they aren't at the same form factor. A Xeon can fit in a 1U blade. Those Power7 "blades" are at least 3U or 4U.
If you go and ask Intel what their Power processor competitor is, they will tell you Itanium.
I'm not sure where you are hearing that the Xeon and Power are equivalents, as Intel certainly won't tell you that. It's totally absolutely all sorts of insane to say they are competitors. Power7s are 200 watts PER CORE. That's getting on the scale of some entire Mac Pros (low end).
Yeah, if you took everything else out I suppose. A Power 7 blade looks to be the size of an entire Mac Pro. So sure. If you removed every single other component.
At 6400 watts of max power usage.... I'll just buy a nuclear power plant while I'm at it.
And you're not right. They're not competitors. They're not in the same class. This is why Intel has Itanium, which is a step up from the Xeon.
Now whether Itanium is faster than Power7 is another matter... But Intel certainly would not suggest that Xeon is supposed to compete with Power7, and I doubt IBM would either.
I mean, really, a single core Power7 starts at $6000. Dual core starts at $15,000. Enough said. They aren't the same class.
Where the heck did you get your numbers from? A 32 core 3.2Ghz Power7 750 server at maximum CPU utilization uses 686W. A blade would use much less. This straight from the IBM energy estimator planning guide. All the other rubbish you wrote isn't worth replying to.
Oh, btw, I found the figures for the IBM Power Blade:
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp4655.pdf
p36
"350 watts maximum, which is provided by the BladeCenter power supply modules. The maximum
measured value is the worst case power consumption expected from a fully populated server
under intensive workload."
So almost a factor of 20 less than your outrageous 6400W figure.
Last edited:
Is this worth believing in, or are we just gonna end up even more restless and thirsty!
In a word, NO.
So as has been noted on other threads, we're not likely to see a 2011 Mac Pro update unless Apple gets a plentiful supply of early release chips - this has happened before, but seems unlikely givens Intel's repeated schedule slippage. Apple needs production level quantities, even for the relatively small volume of Mac Pros, that Intel doesn't seem to be able to turn out early. Seriously, or Intel would be bragging more.
I also don't think that Apple has ANY desire to release a "interim" MP without Sandy Bridge and Thunderbolt, so they're gonna wait. So we're most likely looking at a Spring 2012 Update of the Mac Pro.
So "restless and thirsty?" Oh, WELL. Best reign in the frothing and hand-wringing and coax a few more months out of your current systems. Look at it this way, that's one $4000+ expense that's NOT going to land this tax year.
However the folks over at Mac|Life have some amusing thoughts on the subject - What Wed Like To See From A New Mac Pro.
No. No, it wouldn't.
Okay, someone please silence the screaming... the screaming... Oh Gods, the screaming...
More like "The year Intel did not release new Xeon's of any consequence".
A top shelf 133MHz bump is not a "new" Xeon.
Sandy Bridge-E is still coming mid November yeah? Apple is taking their sweet time, but it ain't over yet
The 2010 delay was extremely likely an artifact of exactly the situation in now in 2011. If Apple had released in March/April 2010 (instead of August) the 2011 would now be 6 months late. If they don't come till December they would have been 8+ months late. Imagine the whining and rolling around in the ground in a tempter tantrum that would be going on as Apple pasted the 6 month mark. Then the 7th month mark... and then the 8th month mark. This way they took a 4-5 month hit in 2010 and another what they probably expected 3-4 month hit in 2011.
Additionally, if they had bumped the Mac Pro in March 2010 they probably would have had to kill off the XServe sooner. "Doom and gloom" would have increased on it to significantly negatively impact sales as the gap between the Mac Pro update grew wider. Apple bought the XServe more time by sliding out the Mac Pro release.
The issue is that this delay deeper into the Fall 2011 was known to anyone paying attention last June to PCI-e v 3.0 progress and, looped into by NDAs, how that was intertwined with the E5 series. Even the rumors f or E5's were sliding from Q3 to Q4. Apple has far more information than that to plan with.
Throw on top that Intel really didn't move the W3600 line-up forward in a broad based manner and was no good reason at all to release a Mac Pro update close to the March 2010, effectively partial with respect to the Mac Pro context , Xeon release.
All this "Apple has to be several weeks behind the Xeon marketing day" stuff is smoke. Not sure if fo
As well thought out streching out the schedule to more closely match Intel's schedule changes was, pushing the new Mac Pro into 2012 is exactly the opposite. Apple doesn't have a weaker i7 mini-tower to soak up folks from November till 2012. They are already vulnerable on costs, have negative rumors swirling ( FCPX is evil ... Mac Pro is dead ) , and generally laggard tech adoption rate reputation.
Since Apple only really needs 3-4 PCI-e boards that are somewhat custom anyway (the video cards for BTO configs) to cover a very broad number of Mac Pro sales they should be able to launch on lower volumes of both cards and E5s. If they stuck close to the Intel reference designs the chips will work. ( Hand waving about how Intel could not round up enough chips to validate their own products because the yields are too low and I'll know folks are smoking powerful drugs. )
I think the majority of the other system vendors are dragging their feet on the E5 release because have broader set of risks and issues want to put under control and the holiday timing throws them all off. (e.g., won't have enough PCI-e v3.0 cards in place , field testing processes feedback loops closed , etc. ). This is exactly one of those context where Apple could move more swiftly because they have less baggage. Assuming that they prepared to take advantage of that difference.
Apple could move the shipments into 2012 by announcing late in Nov that systems are shipping in Janurary. But to blank 2011 entirely from Mac Pro news. That's a bad move. That may be enough to kill off the Mac Pro in terms of viable volume.