Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Any sign of a Mac Pro update?

Phantom Gremlin said:
Let me throw an idea out for discussion. Many people suggest that Mac Pros are low volume compared to most of Apple's other products, that it's a "nuisance" for Apple to keep making them. So what if, for 2010, Apple kept only the SP Mac Pro, and dropped the DP Mac Pro?

Let's assume that Apple sticks to Xeon type silicon, but SP only. Why not? It simplifies their R&D and manufacturing, and Intel gives them 6 cores "real soon now" which realistically should be enough for 90% of Mac Pro users.

Or would the Mac Pro people be devastated and inconsolable over such a development?
Click to expand...

i work for an HP server shop. most of our Proliants ship with dual CPU's but we've bought a few with a single CPU. Same motherboard except there is an empty socket and a terminator or lack of a terminator. forget which.

same with MP. Apple can use the same motherboard and just ship with one CPU there for people who want 1 CPU
 
Transporteur said:
Of course, but from a marketing point of view, how would you put it that your new top of the line product is actually slower than the top of the line product from last year?
Click to expand...

If they dropped the dual socket, then yes, that makes me wonder what Apple would do. The only way around that is to make it cheaper, I guess. Lots of power, lower cost type of thing.

I don't see Apple ever doing that, though. It's going to be an interesting update. If it ever comes out!
 
nanofrog said:
This is becoming far too common IMO with both computers vendors and consumer electronics in general. They're in too much of a hurry to get a product shipped (regain profits), so product validation testing isn't anywhere close to thorough.
Click to expand...

Didn't anyone tell you? The MacRumors forums are the product validation testing labs now :rolleyes: Seriously though, yes, that sucks lol.

alent1234 said:
they did get a lot of good press how the Mac Pro was cheaper than comparable products from Dell
Click to expand...

It's hard to see the good press translate in the actual user feedback on the forums though. All i hear is negativity on the 09s. So I guess only the higher end 09s got the good press?

alent1234 said:
Wintel is breaking down so expect to see more of these things. Apple and Microsoft are getting closer while Dell/HP are partnering with Google and ARM
Click to expand...

I wonder how close is too close though. It will be interesting to see how relationships will be once Apple surpasses MS in market cap finally.
 
Phantom Gremlin said:
So what if, for 2010, Apple kept only the SP Mac Pro, and dropped the DP Mac Pro?
Click to expand...

I wanted to clarify my thoughts about this. Yes, I know that SP and DP silicon is "substantially" the same. However, Intel does "value pricing", and Apple's list prices reflect this.

Here is data from Wikipedia, don't know how it corresponds to what Apple is paying:

SP Xeon W3520 2.66 $284
SP Xeon W3540 2.93 $562
SP Xeon W3580 3.33 $999

DP Xeon E5520 2.26 $373
DP Xeon X5550 2.66 $958
DP Xeon X5570 2.93 $1386

Notice in particular the jump from $562 to $1386 for the 2.93 GHz part. You're paying for two things: 1) TDP is better at 95 W max vs 130 W max and 2) DP works.

So if Intel wants to keep playing these pricing games (and they will, much of their profit comes from the more expensive server parts), then maybe it makes sense for Apple to say "screw that" and just stick with SP at 6 cores max.

Why offer a 12 core machine that costs three times as much as a 6 core machine? Prestige? Or for the 10% of Mac Pro users who really want/need/can afford that much grunt?

I readily admit that there is a small fraction of the Mac Pro user base that could readily take advantage of a 12 core machine. But Apple has never been about what makes sense for the customer, only what makes sense for Apple Inc.
 
Phantom Gremlin said:
Why offer a 12 core machine that costs three times as much as a 6 core machine? Prestige? Or for the 10% of Mac Pro users who really want/need/can afford that much grunt?

I readily admit that there is a small fraction of the Mac Pro user base that could readily take advantage of a 12 core machine. But Apple has never been about what makes sense for the customer, only what makes sense for Apple Inc.
Click to expand...

Any source for your numbers or is it pure guess?
 
Phantom Gremlin said:
Why offer a 12 core machine that costs three times as much as a 6 core machine? Prestige? Or for the 10% of Mac Pro users who really want/need/can afford that much grunt?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know why Apple would have a 12 core monster if it ended up being ridiculously expensive (let's hope it's not!). The Apple of today is a far cry from the Apple of yesterday that used to tout that super computing clusters were made from their G5s.

I honestly think that the next release will be very telling about how Apple views the professional/prosumer market. Some of the insights on this thread have been very interesting. :apple:
 
PeterQVenkman said:
I honestly think that the next release will be very telling about how Apple views the professional/prosumer market. Some of the insights on this thread have been very interesting. :apple:
Click to expand...

. The MacSlow is EOL'ed this fall. SJ will just refresh the exact towers with expensive processors, and larger hard drives.

Then his focus as well as the rest of the company will be on the mobility items.

HINT: (the iPhone) will not be the only phone that Apple will have in the lineup. By the launch of this other phone model, the pro line will be further pushed down in relevance. Then comes the fall..... then no more MacSlow.
 
Hmac said:
Here on MR, I'd be astonished if they didn't...
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums up this forum. If it doesn't have 12 cores and 100GB of RAM as the upper limit people will be pissed...I mean...these specs MIGHT please half the MR crowd:

12 cores, 24 core option (4x CPU's)
100GB of RAM
Matte 40 inch display included
8 PCI-E video card slots
Will Run Mac OS 9 through 10.7
Under $1000
Available in 10 trillion different colors

Do I make myself clear?
 
shabbasuraj said:
. The MacSlow is EOL'ed this fall. SJ will just refresh the exact towers with expensive processors, and larger hard drives.

Then his focus as well as the rest of the company will be on the mobility items.

HINT: (the iPhone) will not be the only phone that Apple will have in the lineup. By the launch of this other phone model, the pro line will be further pushed down in relevance. Then comes the fall..... then no more MacSlow.
Click to expand...

har har har, I see what you did there, MacSLOW haahhhhhhh. Seriously dude, go price SERVER xeon's and get back to me.
 
Umbongo said:
Any source for your numbers or is it pure guess?
Click to expand...

Not clear what numbers you are referring to. The processor prices are straight out of Wikipedia. It's anybody's guess as to how accurate those are. My speculation that the high end DP machine will be 3x the cost of the SP machine, that's a "pure guess". I'm always suspicious of Apple pricing.

But if you look at Apple's current pricing, a DP Mac Pro is almost exactly 2x the cost of two SP machines. E.g. SP 2.93, 16 GB, is $4749. DP 2.93, 32 GB, is $9599.
 
alent1234 said:
i work for an HP server shop. most of our Proliants ship with dual CPU's but we've bought a few with a single CPU. Same motherboard except there is an empty socket and a terminator or lack of a terminator. forget which.

same with MP. Apple can use the same motherboard and just ship with one CPU there for people who want 1 CPU
Click to expand...
You can take an LGA1366 DP board and run with a single chip, but it MUST be a DP processor (Xeon 55xx). SP versions won't work in those boards. Unfortunately, those CPU's are more expensive than their SP counterparts (more than cost + profit on the added transistors needed for the 2nd QPI channel).

So ultimately it's an expensive waste if the second CPU socket isn't going to be populated.

Icaras said:
Didn't anyone tell you? The MacRumors forums are the product validation testing labs now :rolleyes: Seriously though, yes, that sucks lol.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's unfortunately the case these days. :rolleyes: ;)

In general, early users are unknowingly being used for testing (gear is typically in a Beta state), and they have to pay for the gear! It's sickening IMO. :( :mad:
 
Phantom Gremlin said:
Not clear what numbers you are referring to. The processor prices are straight out of Wikipedia. It's anybody's guess as to how accurate those are. My speculation that the high end DP machine will be 3x the cost of the SP machine, that's a "pure guess". I'm always suspicious of Apple pricing.

But if you look at Apple's current pricing, a DP Mac Pro is almost exactly 2x the cost of two SP machines. E.g. SP 2.93, 16 GB, is $4749. DP 2.93, 32 GB, is $9599.
Click to expand...

Not the pricing, that's clear. I was referring to your 10% and "really small fraction" speculation.
 
InfoSecmgr said:
That pretty much sums up this forum. If it doesn't have 12 cores and 100GB of RAM as the upper limit people will be pissed...I mean...these specs MIGHT please half the MR crowd:

12 cores, 24 core option (4x CPU's)
100GB of RAM
Matte 40 inch display included
8 PCI-E video card slots
Will Run Mac OS 9 through 10.7
Under $1000
Available in 10 trillion different colors

Do I make myself clear?
Click to expand...

Some people will never be happy, but if Apple were to offer choice, a full feature set and with a sub $500 premium over retail component pricing then I would think most people would be happy. If you want an example then look at Dell's T3500, T5500 and T7500 systems because they do it right.
 
I'd like to see a more compact case design with a dedicated SSD boot drive option.
 
Umbongo said:
Not the pricing, that's clear. I was referring to your 10% and "really small fraction" speculation.
Click to expand...

No, I have no insight into Apple's product mix. Given that most people can't keep 8 cores (16 threads) busy very often I simply assumed that the percentage maxing out their machines was small.

Also, a "rationally behaving" company wouldn't want very many people maxing out their machines. Because it means those people would be better served by an even more capable, more expensive product. E.g. a 4 CPU machine or a machine with 12 DIMM sockets (e.g. Dell T7500 has 12).

We know that Apple is not "rationally behaving" by most people's definitions. But it works for them. Huge growth rate, billions in the bank, millions of indoctrinated cult members, etc ...
 
Phantom Gremlin said:
No, I have no insight into Apple's product mix. Given that most people can't keep 8 cores (16 threads) busy very often I simply assumed that the percentage maxing out their machines was small.

Also, a "rationally behaving" company wouldn't want very many people maxing out their machines. Because it means those people would be better served by an even more capable, more expensive product. E.g. a 4 CPU machine or a machine with 12 DIMM sockets (e.g. Dell T7500 has 12).

We know that Apple is not "rationally behaving" by most people's definitions. But it works for them. Huge growth rate, billions in the bank, millions of indoctrinated cult members, etc ...
Click to expand...

Those that move on from the base systems probably make up a small percentage, but that doesn't mean they can't use 8 core systems. Most people bought 2.8GHz 8 core systems in 2008 even though Apple offered a 2.8GHz quad for example.
 
What I'm not clear on is whether there will be a single 3.3 6 core option or only a dual 3.3 12 core option and single cpu's a lower speed or even quad.
 
some reviews I pasted.

http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-Core-i7980X-Extreme-6Core-Processor
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3763
http://techgage.com/article/intels_core_i7-980x_extreme_edition_-_ready_for_sick_scores
http://computershopper.com/feature/intel-s-six-core-gulftown-core-i7-980x-cpu-first-pc-reviewed
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/03/11/intel-core-i7-980x-extreme-edition-review/1
http://pcper.com/article.php?aid=883
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/intel_core_i7_980x
http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i7-980x-extreme-six-core-cpu-review
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3177/intel_core_i7_980x_32nm_lga_1366_six_core_cpu/index.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/1912...nough_intels_core_i7980x_extreme_edition.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/1912...nough_intels_core_i7980x_extreme_edition.html
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=475&Itemid=63
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel__core_i7_980x/
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-980x-review/
 
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