Apple's Processor Options for Early 2012 Mac Pro Begin to Firm Up

[Jimbo1234]

Uhhhh... i already have a dual 2.5ghz G5..

I'm still using my G5 and still going strong. When I have to upgrade can't decide if IMac or Pro is the way forward. I like the fact the Pro is not integrated and any issues an be more easily dealt with.

But you cant compare our PPC processors to Intel!!

 

[heisetax]

Clock Speeds

Your machine is like, 8 years old. Virtually any new Mac Pro will run circles around it.

Why are the clock speeds always slower with each new model? I have a firs gen Mac Pro & it is a dual 3.0 GHz model. Now the top end will be a dual 2.6 GHz model if Apple will go that route, which they do not always do.

They always say smaller die size equals higher speed. That doesn't seem to always work out.

 

[JesterJJZ]

Your machine is like, 8 years old. Virtually any new Mac Pro will run circles around it.

Apple gave me a MP1.1 after my Dual 2.5Ghz G5 bit one. Even that ran circles around it.

 

[heisetax]

Processor Clock Speed

So if you are forced to buy for reasons out of your control why bother us?

Also; Apples misleading advertising aside, most intel hardware of the day ran circles around the G5. Now it is like 5 years later and intel has drastically increased processor performance, a new machine should be nothing but a positive for you.

His question/comment was about processor clock speed. Answers should be to that point rather than simply saying that the Intel processors used now do more work in one cycle than the G5s did. That is true with most processor updates. It just seems that the top line processors have a slower top speed each time a new model has come out. People talked down IBM because the G5 did not make it to the 3 GHz clock speed. It seems that in the 6 years that with the official Mac Intel cpus that is generally still the case. Inel & AMD have models of their processors in the 4+ MHz clock speed range. This is using the same processors that we Mac people top out at maybe 3 GHz is a select few models.

So how about clock speed answers?

Froma 3 GHz Mac Pro owner.

 

[something3153]

THIS.

A high clock speed four core i7 will give optimal results for most desktop software usage, at a much lower price point.

(And I'm an 8-core MacPro owner)

I've never understood why Apple thinks anyone who needs a tower needs that level of CPU as well. At the very least, single-CPU configurations could use i7s, be much cheaper, and released much sooner.

 

[twoodcc]

looking forward to this update. but the prices aren't looking good though

 

[Eidorian]

There is no USB 3.0 controller on the i7 oriented x79 branded PCH either and yet all of these motherboards, including Intel's, have USB 3.0 included.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/lga-2011-idf_4.html

if Intel's reference board for the Xeon E5 (socket 2011 ) also had a USB 3.0 component in the design then whatever Apple tweaked to get to their design would also likely have it.

Patsburg would cover all SKUs regardless if they become X79 or are used for Xeon workstation/server boards.

Vendors are still free to use USB 3.0 add-on controllers. That brings in a bit of cash for other chip makers.

 

[arogge]

I don't really follow the technical specs of how things work. If I wanted to do that, I'd piece together a machine and dink around with Linux.

Let's see here...

Whining about things not understood;
Pointy-Haired Management approach to purchase decisions;
Failure to understand Moore's Law, and failure to spell the name correctly;
Perpetuating the Megahurtz Myth;
Failure to understand how Linux works in the enterprise environment.

Before making purchase decisions, try reading the relevant literature on the subject matter, a lot of which is available through the CPU manufacturer, and it is specifically focused on helping managers make the right decisions. If you can't do that, how did you get to be in charge of the technical functions? It's typical PHB management idiocy, putting the decision in the hands of someone who doesn't understand what he's looking at, and who refuses to accept expert opinions that are in conflict with an incorrect world view! I'd say that you're about to make a bad decision, because you lack the understanding of what you're trying to buy, and you will probably end up buying something that was not optimal for your actual requirements.

 

[thekev]

I'm still using my G5 and still going strong. When I have to upgrade can't decide if IMac or Pro is the way forward. I like the fact the Pro is not integrated and any issues an be more easily dealt with.

But you cant compare our PPC processors to Intel!!

It's easy to get stuck on old computers. Some things about the imac will always piss me off. Display issues including glossy displays kind of push me away from it. I'm not sure if they went that route to cut costs or because LG goes really aggressive on their anti glare coatings (they've had some sparkle issues there which are annoying on text). Then they made the hard drive basically non serviceable this iteration, so if I purchase one, I guess it'll definitely be with an SSD (as the 2.5" bay doesn't seem to have this issue).

Why are the clock speeds always slower with each new model? I have a firs gen Mac Pro & it is a dual 3.0 GHz model. Now the top end will be a dual 2.6 GHz model if Apple will go that route, which they do not always do.

They always say smaller die size equals higher speed. That doesn't seem to always work out.

The high end uses more cores. The more cores they cram on, the lower they go with clock speed. Apple has also trended toward lower processor models in their baseline mac pro machines which is kind of dumb. Yeah they're the lower end of the mac pro line, but they're designed/priced to function as high end workstations.

I've never understood why Apple thinks anyone who needs a tower needs that level of CPU as well. At the very least, single-CPU configurations could use i7s, be much cheaper, and released much sooner.

It guarantees them a minimum sale. They figure if you need the expansion capability you'll pay for it. Really many people benefit from ram / hard drive space more than they do from a small bump in clock speed.

looking forward to this update. but the prices aren't looking good though

Bleh they've used some really stiff markups on the hardware. Lack of sales volume may have contributed here. If they wanted to they could deliver a 6 core below $3000 which would probably sell well especially if it's possible to order one before the end of the year with a delay on shipping. The current pricing on the 6 core was based on much higher initial component pricing. It would be amazing if they had something this year. Intel has kind of dropped the ball here. Some of the other oems have reduced their pricing with cpu price drops, but Apple hasn't really done that kind of thing since the G5 days.

 

[H2SO4]

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 know of people who have built their own cars. They used a VW chassis as a base, the finished article was faster and more fuel efficient than the equivalent model sold by VW, guess which one I, (and I suspect you), would prefer.
It's not all about cost. Price may be a major factor but it isn't everything.

Again look at VW, they own Bentley. Guess where the vast majority of the parts for a Bentley are sourced, that's right the standard VW parts bin. This doesn't blunt the appeal or price of the finished article, and that's the point. The finished article. My Mac not only does what those same specced PC's will do but it looks and feels nice at the same time so I didn't mind paying the premium for that. This makes a difference to some.

If being ripped off really made a difference to most windows users, (which it doesn't really), they'd all build their own, or get a friend/relative/colleague to do it for them. They would also never buy anything branded again.

I've changed jobs recently and even for goods that are not considered premium I've discovered that the mark ups are just phenomenal - we are all being ripped off. All companies will charge what they think the market will bear. HP et al are no different from Apple in this respect.

 

[AppleDroid]

I just wish there was a more affordable entry machine for us designers that don't need 16+ cores. And no an iMac isn't an option I don't want a 27in glossy display.

 

[Nostromo]

I just wish there was a more affordable entry machine for us designers that don't need 16+ cores. And no an iMac isn't an option I don't want a 27in glossy display.

The entry level Mac Pro should be around $2000.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

I don't expect Apple to price the Mac Pro with any sort of "value" in mind. They want their ridiculous markup.

The last time the Mac Pro was reasonably priced was the 2008 models, of which I bought the 2.8 GHz dual quad-core. Since then, Apple has really made it a "pay to play" proposition.

That was the sweet spot to have. My current company has that exact model and it's been humming along with no problems, performing well (although my home built machine smokes it).

I recently had to throw a couple of hard drives in there. It was a joy to install. no plugs, no wires, just mount it on the board, slide it in. Amazing.

 

[iBug2]

I just wish there was a more affordable entry machine for us designers that don't need 16+ cores. And no an iMac isn't an option I don't want a 27in glossy display.

Mac Mini would do the job unless you need tons of RAM. My father is a graphic designer and he's using Mac Mini's all over his studio. They mostly work with Photoshop, Indesign and Illustrator.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

If being ripped off really made a difference to most windows users, (which it doesn't really), they'd all build their own, or get a friend/relative/colleague to do it for them. They would also never buy anything branded again.

That's what all of us do now. My whole company learned to build windows machines. The only branded machines we buy now are laptops, and Apple makes the best of those.

 

[RichardI]

It doesn't appear like there is much of an improvement at all - none in fact - in the single processor line-up. Will these be classified as the first "post Steve Jobs" changes?

 

[SVegard]

Good to hear some news on the Mac Pro

Will replace my 2009 model next year. But will not go for the top model though, never done that.

Love those trunks

And can people stop talking about the Mac Pro like it was a dying horse. Ok, Apple have a lot of focus on the "consumers" now. But that is not a new thing. 5-6 years ago I was sitting there every keynote and presentation. "Arghh..Apple only care about iPods, iTunes and laptops. What about the pros...". Been doing that for years now and they are still here.

 

[christian_k]

Yea.. I know our G5 wont hold a candle to the current machines, but I'm just wondering why megahertz havent gone up. Moores law and all

Power needs (and heat) grow linear with the number of transistors, but quadratically with clock.

Imagine you make a 1 GHz single core CPU that consumes 10 Watt. You want to make a CPU that is 10 times as fast:

- Option 1: Rise the clock to 10 GHz. Power grows quadratically resulting in 100 times the power or 1000 Watt!
- Option 2: Use 10 cores instead. If you use 10 times as many transistors for that you need 10 Times the power or 100 Watt. In reality you don't need that many transistors because the cores can share caches etc (most transistors on a CPU are cache). Maybe you get 70 Watts or something.

As long it is not meant to be mobile a 70W processor is acceptable, while a 1000W is obviously not. You can further reduce power consumption by shrinking the structures on the Chip. If you go from a 60nm to a 30nm process you will only need a quarter of the power. Your new 10 Core will need only 17 Watt, this wold be suitable for a laptop. The 10 GHz single core would still need 250W.

What way would you go?

Christian

 

[scottrichardson]

What way would you go?

Christian

Dual 10-Core @ 10GHz. Just sayin....

 

[Exhale]

Dual 10-Core @ 10GHz. Just sayin....

I would've just said "Bulldozer" and left it at that.

 

[steveOooo]

I feel like I've made the right decision in getting 5 days ago (still in the 7day return period) a refurb QC base 2010 model as it would appear there's no difference between the 2010 6core and the 2012 6core (which m gonna slip in within the next year. Difference being processor speed, I know other stuff like l3 cache, 6gb sata etc will make it faster, but wha I've got now will las me 3-4+ years ( 'touch Alluminum')

 

[Exhale]

as it would appear there's no difference between the 2010 6core and the 2012 6core

You know gamers were having a field day when it was discovered in January that the 2500k (a low-mid range CPU) is faster on per-thread applications than even the 990x (Ultra-top range CPU). And the difference introduced with the 2012 models will only be bigger.

 

[firestarter]

Imagine you make a 1 GHz single core CPU that consumes 10 Watt. You want to make a CPU that is 10 times as fast:
<stuff>

What way would you go?

Now imagine that you have a desktop operating system that doesn't multithread much, a load of productivity apps that don't either and a music player that slows to a crawl on an 8 core machine because it can't properly handle downloading at the same time as other tasks.

Makes the 'lots of slower cores' option look pretty suboptimal.

 

[Bubba Satori]

The entry level i7 Mac Pro should be around $1200.

fxt

Mid size tower, SB 2700, 8Gb, 1TB 7,200 HD, midrange NVidia or AMD GPU and a choice of optical drive.
For old times sake, call it the Mac Pro Quadra.

That's about $200 more than a comparable PC, but it's got an Apple sticker on it.
Need those higher margins for a poor, struggling company.
100 billion in the bank.
Just do it Tim.

 

[skl]

I can't wait to visit the apple page and configure my dream 10k machine (and get a mba instead)...