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.
Apple Buying Up High End Penryn Processors?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd like to see where you saw that ATI cards cost 50% less than nVidia cards.....
Also, there is no "crossfire" nor any "SLI" in a Mac Pro. None.
Mate, have you had a look at any of the articles I've linked to? I know the Inq is a crappy site, but they say that the RV670 will only be like 250 bucks. The 8800 Ultra is like 600 bucks, and apparently, the performance of the two different cards is very similar.
And why can there not be crossfire in a Mac Pro? If they are going to be redesigned for new processors, with higher FSB's, maybe PCI Express 2, etc, why is Crossfire impossible? Maybe it will be supported by Leopard?
can't wait to switch from XP to a Mac Pro once Leopard is out... I dearly hope the Mac Pro update is very close to the release of Leopard, my studies demand a laptop... and I can't take much more of Photoshop running so slow if another application is open.
I wouldn't consider it a loss not to have blu-ray or HD-DVD... (but Planet Earth would definitely look super nice) Isn't it only a benefit to those who have external cinema displays? I'd hardly say the market is not established enough for it to be worth the price jump (maybe $250 more for including it)... right now anyway
I wouldn't consider it a loss not to have blu-ray or HD-DVD... (but Planet Earth would definitely look super nice) Isn't it only a benefit to those who have external cinema displays? I'd hardly say the market is not established enough for it to be worth the price jump (maybe $250 more for including it)... right now anyway
This could be a stupid question, but you do realise that the Mac Pro is not a laptop right, and is not even close to portable at all? If your studies require a laptop, then you're looking for a MacBOOK Pro...
...Which is definitely NOT what this rumour is about.
Although an eight core MBP would certainly be nice, but won't happen for a few years yet.
Yeah, would be nice if the heat goes out in the house this winter.....
GATHER AROUND THE 8CORE MACBOOK PRO CHILDREN TO STAY WARM!!!!!!!!!
I would expect that in 2-3 years 8 core mobile CPUs will be available that use less power than today's Meroms. I would expect that soon after we will be looking at 80 core mobile CPUs with very, very low TDPs.
Intel AFAIK has no workstation chipset that support Crossfire. The one workstation chipset they do have only supports SLI (Skulltrail) and that may not even make an Apple debut. AMD has to price their parts cheaper. They came out almost a year too late, and the performance sucked quite badly. From what I am seeing it wouldn't take much for Nvidia to beat AMD (in way of a price drop).
intel are all over AMD at this point...quite frankly their management have made awesome decisions regarding C2D architecture and GPU's
AMD are looking old hat atm and, as intels only competition, need to come up with something soon to keep in competition with them
AMD are looking old hat atm and, as intels only competition, need to come up with something soon to keep in competition with them
Actually, in workstation applications that use shaders for rendering and computing the ATI offerings has a performance advantage.
Of course you may be thinking in the context of games, which is understandable, but I doubt the majority of people buy a Mac Pro for its gaming capabilities.
Yeh, that's what I meant. Macbook Pro. hmm... I'm an idiot. I hope they update the Macbook Pro though... Mac Pro's, as you have observed, are not portable.
The rumor is credible, even if the source is the Inq.
It makes sense because Apple got access to the QC 3Ghz chip before it was released, and it could happen again here (not necessarily before its released, but they could get a majority of the product when its relesaed).
I can also see Apple aggressively pushing out XCode updates that support SSE4 to dramatically increase performance of their creative applications. The demo Intel did with Divx encoding and cutting the time by 50% or whatever it was shows that SSE4 and Penryn can open a can of whoopass on encoding style functions.
What I'm more interested in is how cheap the slower penryns will be...
2.5GHz QC - $316
2.0GHz QC - $209
What I'd really like to see is the Mac Pro bottom end of the line get cheaper - for comparison the DC 2.0GHz current Xeon chip that goes into the slowest MacPro is currently priced at $316.
This itself has a few implications. First is that it looks like Apple may drop dual core chips entirely and have all boxes be quad cores. Because you can get a quad-core chip for $209 at minimum, there is no reason to use dual core.
The other possibility with this decision is that we might see Apple ship a Mac Pro with only one socket populated and (hopefully) lower the price. Its fesiable that Apple could ship a $1899 Mac Pro with a single QC chip at 2.33Ghz. Will Apple? I dunno, I'd like it, and those who want a mini-tower Mac could start to bite at this (though consider that the expensive FB-DIMMs the MPs use are going to be obsolete a year from now when Nahelem is released with an integrated DDR3 memory controller).
The other possibility is that instead of lowering prices slightly, Apple moves up the slowest chip speed to 2.5Ghz, and offers 2.5, 2.83 and 3.2Ghz (all quad core) options. They'd keep their current price points and just have faster speeds. Sadly, I think this is the route they go. All MacPros become 8-core, with the cheapest going for $2200. I will say than an 8-core, 2.5Ghz box would be one hell of a deal. Even if I had to throw another $500 on it to get to 4GB of RAM.
It makes sense because Apple got access to the QC 3Ghz chip before it was released, and it could happen again here (not necessarily before its released, but they could get a majority of the product when its relesaed).
I can also see Apple aggressively pushing out XCode updates that support SSE4 to dramatically increase performance of their creative applications. The demo Intel did with Divx encoding and cutting the time by 50% or whatever it was shows that SSE4 and Penryn can open a can of whoopass on encoding style functions.
What I'm more interested in is how cheap the slower penryns will be...
2.5GHz QC - $316
2.0GHz QC - $209
What I'd really like to see is the Mac Pro bottom end of the line get cheaper - for comparison the DC 2.0GHz current Xeon chip that goes into the slowest MacPro is currently priced at $316.
This itself has a few implications. First is that it looks like Apple may drop dual core chips entirely and have all boxes be quad cores. Because you can get a quad-core chip for $209 at minimum, there is no reason to use dual core.
The other possibility with this decision is that we might see Apple ship a Mac Pro with only one socket populated and (hopefully) lower the price. Its fesiable that Apple could ship a $1899 Mac Pro with a single QC chip at 2.33Ghz. Will Apple? I dunno, I'd like it, and those who want a mini-tower Mac could start to bite at this (though consider that the expensive FB-DIMMs the MPs use are going to be obsolete a year from now when Nahelem is released with an integrated DDR3 memory controller).
The other possibility is that instead of lowering prices slightly, Apple moves up the slowest chip speed to 2.5Ghz, and offers 2.5, 2.83 and 3.2Ghz (all quad core) options. They'd keep their current price points and just have faster speeds. Sadly, I think this is the route they go. All MacPros become 8-core, with the cheapest going for $2200. I will say than an 8-core, 2.5Ghz box would be one hell of a deal. Even if I had to throw another $500 on it to get to 4GB of RAM.
The current Mac Pro uses the Intel 5000x chipset. The penryn xeons will come with a new chipset codenamed seaburg. Seaburg will have many of the same features as the x38 desktop chipset including dual GPU support.
All I know is I want one.
Although I might have to wait until I leave Uni. I'm not sure I could justify buying one now, especially not when I've just gone and bought a MBP a few months ago.
Oh well, I'm sure by the end of 2010 MP's will be ~4 times faster than they are now. Quad Larrabees with both CPU and GPU compatible cores on them? Yum yum!
Although I might have to wait until I leave Uni. I'm not sure I could justify buying one now, especially not when I've just gone and bought a MBP a few months ago.
Oh well, I'm sure by the end of 2010 MP's will be ~4 times faster than they are now. Quad Larrabees with both CPU and GPU compatible cores on them? Yum yum!
if apple releases a major iPhone update, Leopard, announce new slim macbookpros and gobble up and offer these processors, they will rule the world.
Apple is at it's core a "bleeding edge" technology company. That is why the advanced OS's eschew so much "recently new" technology.
By "risking an order" for Intel chips beyond the common to the high end, they could have been screwed, much like with Motorola. But Intel seems to be focused on improving yields generally.
Apple likes Intel because they deliver what they promise and do so in quantity. They have a reasonably fast progression of speed, but more importantly are wiling to target features of import to Apple. Power and Temperature, and cores/multi-tasking.
Rocketman
Billion$ in the bank = Flash and CPU chips galore!
By "risking an order" for Intel chips beyond the common to the high end, they could have been screwed, much like with Motorola. But Intel seems to be focused on improving yields generally.
Apple likes Intel because they deliver what they promise and do so in quantity. They have a reasonably fast progression of speed, but more importantly are wiling to target features of import to Apple. Power and Temperature, and cores/multi-tasking.
Rocketman
Billion$ in the bank = Flash and CPU chips galore!
Wouldn't they have to first be attached to gamers to need to be separated from them? Apple has a reputation of NOT supporting games. They couldn't be any more separated if they tried, IMO.
Given they now have a Windows boot option, not to mention Parallels and Fusion with increasing gaming support with every new update, I think they should really start offering some reasonable GPU options to try and bring in more switchers. Apple sells hardware, not just software. Why not get more gamers from the Windows platform interested in Apple hardware while they're at it? More to the point, what's wrong with gaming? Windows is known for gaming. Does that mean it's any less professional in other areas? I don't know why so many Apple users don't like gaming on the Mac other than believing somehow that Apple must know better somehow since they don't tend to support it much. I think Apple is missing out on a LOT of potential sales in the long run by taking this ignore the obvious approach. I know I haven't purchased a new Mac because I'm waiting for a decent GPU option that isn't old already at the time I buy it.
Santa Fe's GPU isn't exactly stellar, for example, but it would certainly help something like the Macbook at least run CURRENT games at acceptable rates (whereas it's wholly incapable of running most of the current high-end games right NOW with that ancient GMA 950 thing). People seem to think that would cut into MacBookPro sales, but that kind of thinking means they should get rid of high-end iMacs too since it might cut into MacPro sales. A purchase is a purchase, IMO and a HAPPY customer is one that comes back. One that feels he was ripped somehow is not as likely to come back (look at the uproar over iPhone and the price CUT...something that would normally make people feel happy made them very angry because they felt they had been had).
Asking Apple to release a Mac with an up-to-date GPU isn't asking for the impossible, just for them to keep their graphics on top instead of everything but graphics, which seems to be their current approach. What good is a 20% faster CPU if the graphics processor is 100% behind the competition? 3D performance is more important than some seem to realize. It's not good for just gaming either. So I get a little sick of when certain people on here dismiss it so readily with nothing but an "Apple knows best" type response to explain their negative opinion about graphics cards.
There was talk of Crossfire, but I've not seen anything confirmed. With Skulltrail supporting both SLI and Crossfire and being based off of stoakley/seaburg it may be that they don't bother offering it. Of course Apple could use a modified version of Skulltrail to suit their needs and get multiple linked GPU support, but it's probably unlikely.
Yes! New render boxes a coming. ....with tasty new cards though please Steve.
The ATI cards let you you enable dual planes which is great for 3d apps.I am pretty sure the Nvidia cards only allow dual planes in the Quadros,or thats how it used to be.
....with tasty new cards though please Steve.The ATI cards let you you enable dual planes which is great for 3d apps.I am pretty sure the Nvidia cards only allow dual planes in the Quadros,or thats how it used to be.
I don't think anyone not covered by an NDA knows. There are some claiming the next workstation class Xeon chipset will support SLI because the Skulltrail demos included it. However, the sites that have delved into the Skulltrail motherboards claim Intel is using an nVidia MCP as a bridge to provide SLI.
I tend to be skeptical about SLI and conflicted about Crossfire. nVidia has better graphics cards right now and I believe if Intel had the licensing agreements in place, they would first implement it in the systems gamers buy and not workstation chipsets. They're going to make money on SLI with P35 and X38 class chipsets, not 5000X class chipsets. However, since Intel already supports Crossfire on their desktop platforms, I don't see why they wouldn't eventually bring it to their workstation platform.
As for Apple, I'm skeptical they will support either. The reviews I've read say SLI and Crossfire only make any sense if you're already buying the top of the line graphics card for gaming. Apple has always been very focused on aesthetics and I just can't see them building a system with two 8800 GTX or HD 2900XT cards. You'd never be able to quiet down the system without complex water cooling. Being relatively quiet has been such an important property of Apples for so long, I just can't believe they'd toss it just to say they provide SLI or Crossfire support.
I'm dubious about those people who insist that Apple is missing any significant sales by leaving out better graphics cards and SLI or Crossfire. Of the people I know willing to fork out the money for an 8800 GTX or an HD 2900XT, none want to purchase a prebuilt system, let alone one from Apple. They all build their own systems by acquiring parts. Based on my reading of AnandTech, ArsTechnica and TomsHardware, that seems consistent. The market for those cards is relatively small to begin with, based on sales reports, and the number of those in the market for those cards and willing to buy prebuilt systems is far smaller. I have this feeling that the number of people who really are unwilling to buy a Mac Pro because it includes an X1900XT but not either an 8800 GTS/GTX/Ultra or HD 2900 Pro/XT is so small it's not worth mentioning.
I think Apple is ignoring the 8800 GTS/GTX/Ultra and HD 2900 Pro/XT cards purely from a financial standpoint. I cannot believe they'd sell any measurable additional Mac Pros to cover the driver development costs so they won't bother until the next refresh that will only run under Leopard.
Power consumption and multi-core is important for Intel for servers and other markets independently of any demand from Apple.
Besides, Apple is using the 150watt TDP Clovertowns in the octo, when all the other makers waited for the newer 120 watt parts.
Interesting, I didn't know that. So with the same thing happen with these Penryn chips then? Apple will implement the first iteration they can get their hands on while the rest of the market may wait for a slightly more efficient version?