Just get one of the last or current models of the Mac Pro.
How does a machine that cannot have its RAM increased to as much as 32GB qualify as being more powerful?
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's Processor Options for Early 2012 Mac Pro Begin to Firm Up
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just get one of the last or current models of the Mac Pro.
How does a machine that cannot have its RAM increased to as much as 32GB qualify as being more powerful?
16 cores at 2.6GHZ!!! 
HOLY **** STICKS! Man that would fly, but I can also guarantee people on here will max it out.. Lets hope we get that redesign?
Hmmm, I don't think the new MacBook Pro's next year will match them
HOLY **** STICKS! Man that would fly, but I can also guarantee people on here will max it out.. Lets hope we get that redesign?Hmmm, I don't think the new MacBook Pro's next year will match them
it is not crazy. The entry level 2010 Mac pro is using 2009 era processor tech. A Xeon E3530 which is a just a clock bump of the E3520 that the 2009 Mac Pro shipped with. The flaw is Intel's release last year in 2010 for the Xeon E3600 series. Namely, it consisted of just one model ( E3680 ). So only the top end of the single package Mac Pro got a core technology bump last year.
I'm not sure what folks want Apple to do in that case (and no; shipping a minitower isn't the hand wavy answer). They cranked up the clock speed a bit but the current entry level Mac Pro model is a complete tick+tock cycle back from the Sandy Bridge cores. It should be surpising that it has troubles keeping up.
If folks bother to look at the dual package models and the top end single package model the 2010 Mac Pros still have performance margin on top of the 2011 iMacs and quad MBPs.
Dual Six Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5690, 3.46GHz,12M L3, 6.4GT/s [Included in Price] for about 7 grand anybody?
/from Dell
/from Dell
it's been so long since the Pro got updated I'm fairly concerned it will just be phased out completely. The revenue stream has to be nonexistent for the Mac Pro at this point, and compared to the popular consumer line, is it relevant for Apple to pursue anymore?
largely unimpressive, i have a friend who just built his own (pc) 16 core, 32gb RAM, 256 solid state, 2 1tb HDD's for 5000. apple is lucky to have OSX or i would have switched back by now
I'm quite due for a new main computer, but whenever I try to convince myself to just buy an iMac I end up seeing the final cost and the lack of expansion for PCIe&USB3, the 4HDD bays, space for SSD, ability to use my 3 existing and excellent monitors, and I put it off until the Mac Pro refresh.
Give me a $2500 3.6 quad base option and I'll buy one.
Give me a $2500 3.6 quad base option and I'll buy one.
What a strange lineup of processors.
It's interesting how the clock speed of CPU's is going down in most cases not up.
It's a shame there's no dual CPU configuration of chips running at over 3GHz purely from a promotional and psychological standpoint.
I have a top of the line dual quad-core 2.93Ghz 2009 Mac Pro - it would be interesting to see how it would fare against the entry level 12 core set up, or the entry level single cpu 6 core setup. It just feels strange taking steps backwards in CPU clock.
Why don't they offer the quad core 3.6Ghz CPU in a dual CPU configuration just for kicks? I'm presuming that CPU would have a turbo around 4Ghz?
Still holding out hope that the full package turns out promising. Be nice to have some top of the line GPUs to choose from and a new enclosure.
Scott
It's interesting how the clock speed of CPU's is going down in most cases not up.
It's a shame there's no dual CPU configuration of chips running at over 3GHz purely from a promotional and psychological standpoint.
I have a top of the line dual quad-core 2.93Ghz 2009 Mac Pro - it would be interesting to see how it would fare against the entry level 12 core set up, or the entry level single cpu 6 core setup. It just feels strange taking steps backwards in CPU clock.
Why don't they offer the quad core 3.6Ghz CPU in a dual CPU configuration just for kicks? I'm presuming that CPU would have a turbo around 4Ghz?
Still holding out hope that the full package turns out promising. Be nice to have some top of the line GPUs to choose from and a new enclosure.
Scott
With the processing power of the latest 2600Ks and what's coming next, Apple should avoid Xeons at least on one model of Mac Pro. In single processor setups, these things are way more expensive, and offer virtually no gain in performance compared to a regular i7.
It appears there's many more CPUs apple could choose from.. note the different memory speeds also.
I see an 8 core 3.1Ghz CPU down there.
I see an 8 core 3.1Ghz CPU down there.
I remember the days when I thought a higher clock speed was the way to determine if upgrade's worthwhile. Must have been over 2 years ago when I lost that way of thinking-that'd be when I was 16...
Your lab should just buy base level mac minis with the 7200rpm drive upgrade and carry over the monitors and keyboards.
I would love to see them offer a model with an i7 2600 for sub $2k, preferably around $1,500. With every generation the base price of the Mac Pro has gone up. In the G4 days they were $1,600, G5 $2,000 and now Intel Xeon $2,500.
I just want a desktop, that is a Mac, that doesn't have a screen, is upgradable and is very powerful. I'm at the point of building a hackintosh for sub $1,000 which I know will blow any Mac in the price range away but I hate the idea of having to support my own computer and it not "just working" which is why I use Macs to begin with...
Sorry but I don't see them dropping their 'pro' desktops just like they won't drop their 'pro' notebooks.
Consumer:
Macbook Air
Mac Mini
iMac
Professional
Macbook Pro
Mac Pro
Actually I'd go as far as to say the 13" Macbook Pro should be a consumer model or wiped off the lineup.
The Mac Pro isn't going anywhere. It's the only high end option for Mac users, and Apple has such a strong foot hold on the creative industry that they would be doing themselves a massive disservice by dropping the Mac Pro. I just don't see it happening. I really don't. I expect them to do something with the enclosure to make it more appealing to drive up sales, and I expect that they would be getting special pricing from Intel to keep the costs down compared to the prices listed in the OP.
You sound more like a Mac enthusiast rather than someone who wants a work horse to get a job done The TB, shiny monitor, unserviceable hard drive, non replaceable GPU and really hot running processor don't appeal to everyone.
TwitchOSX - you clearly have never heard of the megahertz myth or how current CPU technology works.. maybe you should commit 5 minutes of educating yourself on it before making such idiotic claims.
A bit confusing
I think the article divided up both single and dual processor configurations in low-mid-high range and not by Apple's three base configurations. So today's pricing would be:
Single: Low $2499 - Mid $2899 - High $3699
Dual: Low $3499 - Mid $4999 - High $6199
I think the article divided up both single and dual processor configurations in low-mid-high range and not by Apple's three base configurations. So today's pricing would be:
Single: Low $2499 - Mid $2899 - High $3699
Dual: Low $3499 - Mid $4999 - High $6199
I don't think they will put 150 W processors in the Mac Pro ever. The wattage is going down if anything.