Dell Precision T5600 CPU Options and what it means for Mac Pro 2012

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by 24Frames, May 31, 2012.

  1. 24Frames macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    #1
    The New Dell Precision workstations based on the Intel Xeon E5-2600 series are now available to order in the US and Europe (I haven't checked other locations).
    It seems reasonable to assume that creating a spec for a Dell Precision T5600 Workstation should give some clues to what Apple might offer in terms of CPUs on BTOs. So here goes:

    Single CPU:
    For the high end options the pricing gets interesting.
    Six Core XEON E5-2667, 2.9GHz, 15M, 7.2 GT/s, Turbo [add $2,081.00]
    Eight Core XEON E5-2680, 2.7GHz, 20M, 8.0 GT/s, Turbo+ [add $2,196.00]
    The 8-Core is much better value for money at the top end. Both these chips Max Turbo Frequency is 3.5GHz, so for almost no extra cost you get another 2-Cores giving theoretically 33% extra performance on for applications that can make use of them with no hit on tasks that only run on a single core.

    Conclusions for Mac Pro
    There will be no single Quad-Core configurations. Apple will raise the entry price by around 300 to 400 USD.
    Base configuration will be a single CPU Xeon E5-2620 6-Core 2.0GHz.
    Apple will offer a BTO options of faster single CPU 6-Core and single CPU 8-Core.

    Dell's estimated shipping date of 3rd week of July.
    Maybe Apple can beat them to it!
     
  2. Amethyst macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    #2
    $2499 - Quad Core Intel Xeon E5-1620 3.6 GHz
    $2899 - Six Core Intel Xeon E5-1650 3.2 GHz
    $3699 - Six Core Intel Xeon E5-1660 3.3 GHz

    $3499 - 2 x Six Core Intel Xeon E5-2620 2.0 GHz
    $4999 - 2 x Eight Core Intel Xeon E5-2650 2.0 GHz
    $6199 - 2 x Eight Core Intel Xeon E5-2670 2.4 GHz
     
  3. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #3
    I am also assuming that the E5-16## CPUs will be used for the single CPU configurations.

    $3699 - Six Core Intel Xeon E5-1660 3.3 GHz - that will be perfect for me

    Edit: has anyone found any reviews for the 16##? I cannot find anything.
     
  4. spacedesign911 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2010
    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    #4
    Interesting, is this a wish or an educated guess?
     
  5. JaHull macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2009
    Location:
    England
    #5
    The Sandy Bridge E processors listed are the same or roughly the same price as what the current processors, when they were first released.
    So i'm guessing its an educated guess.
     
  6. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #6
    lol. You have to love Dell's pricing and customisation.

    I don't know if it's the same on the US site, but if you take the cheapest "base" model and the middle "essential" model and customise them to the exact same specs you end up paying more on the base model, even though you have the exact same specs, software and support.

    So I pay £86 pounds more to have the exact same computer because I started off with the base model? :confused:
     
  7. Amethyst macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    #7
    Guest from current Mac Pro configurations!! (CPU price / System price)
     
  8. spacedesign911 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2010
    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    #8
    Is the 2670 a 2.8ghz?
     
  9. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #9
  10. Umbongo, May 31, 2012
    Last edited: May 31, 2012

    Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #10
    Would you really pay $800 for 100MHz and 3MB more cache over the 1650? Even Dell want £420 inc. VAT. Just can't see it being worth it for performance for most workstation usage.
     
  11. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #11
    Touché. That is a very good point. I need to see some benchmarks, but I just can't find any.
     
  12. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #12
    I think you could probably guess. >5% increase. You don't need benchies for that. Anyway, if it is PC just overclock a little bit. Problem solved and should be perfectly stable. These aren't Ivy bridge or anything;)
     
  13. woody777 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    #13
  14. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #14
    Honestly for the single processor systems just look at the Core i7 ones - no real difference and why you won't see many sites bother to do them, or even get the parts from Intel.

    Core i7 3820 (1620) vs. Core i7 3930K (1650):
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/523?vs=552

    Core i7 3930K (1650) vs. 3960X (1660)
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/552?vs=443

    Core i7 3930K (1650) vs. 980X (W3680 - current 6-core)
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/142?vs=552

    A Xeon E5-1650 system should be the sweet spot for most users and I wouldn't be surprised if Apple didn't even offer the 1660.
     
  15. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #15
    Actually you're right. The 3930 is perfect for me.
     
  16. woody777 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    #16
    i really want a new computer for a music production ,probably a basic model for about 2400 dollars i will be able to afford to and thouse new Persigion Dells look very tempting but probably i will wait for Apple to see what they are coiming with because Mac Pro looks very cool and Mac OS is very nice too... :)
     
  17. unfrostedpoptar macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #17
    Of course - it makes perfect sense. They can offer lower cost on standard configurations since it's less work for tracking and manual intervention that a custom order creates. This is nothing new and is the same in cars and some other products. You seem to be assuming that the price of the computer is just the price of its components.
     
  18. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #18
    Que? Neither one of those is a standard configuration. They are both customised. I simply started at different "bases" and then added the same components to both. I am not assuming anything. You seem to not be reading what I actually posted.

    :confused:
     
  19. xgman macrumors 601

    xgman

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    #19
    The prices seem to go higher and the speeds seem to go slower. Am I missing something here? I know optimizations, turbo, this and that, but still.....

    ----------

    I'm hoping.

    ----------

    Happily. :D
     
  20. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #20
    I can check the US site. I know that you can configure a T3600 with the for roughly $1800 with an E5-1650. That still leaves some of the other components woefully underpowered though. Workstation graphics with 512MB of vram is pretty bleh. The raw system isn't exactly a bad price though.

    Yes... you'll have to wait until 2014 to test those the way this is going. I have to wonder if Intel is going to keep pushing things back or if they'll eventually play catch up.


    If the rumors that they're debating its future are true, a conservative line would make sense. I mean in single socket configurations, do they really even need to offer anything other than the 1650? The quad isn't that great. The 1660 is really bleh. If you're going to pay a big price hike, you're probably better off going up to the dual socket versions. That really is the only single cpu model that makes much sense, and it would at least have some cpu specific differentiation from the imac in its base configuration.
     
  21. deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #21


    You are not counting cores or the change in architecture. In the single package line up old vs. new :

    old ------------------------------------------------ new
    W3530 2.8 GHz 4C ___________ E5-1620 3.6 GHz 4C
    W3575 3.2 GHz 4C ___________ E5-1650 3.2 GHz 6C
    W3680 3.3 GHz 6C ___________ E5-1660 3.3 GHz 6C

    So respectively, it is + 0.8GHz , + 2 C , and +0.2 Turbo in addition to all of the microarchitecture updates ( 4 memory channels vs. 3 , cache approx. 2+ MB bigger , PCI-e v3 versus v2 along with more lanes for more than 2x bandwidth improvement, better internal bandwidth, etc. ). The "Megahertz myth" is a trap inside of the same vendors offering also. There is an architecture change here that is a substantial factor.

    In the dual package offerings, it is primarily the two core bump that will lead to increased performance. Again those are synergistic with the architecture improvements ( greater than 4x bandwidth increase in PCI-e , bigger cache, more memory channel lanes to support more cores , etc. )
     
  22. deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #22
    but not customized to the same degree. The more changes that need to be made the more work needs to be done on a specialized configuration line.
    Hence, they are different. You can quibble whether the extra work is worth the change but whole "Customer configure" process has mark-up built-in.



    If exactly the same components that would mean the bases are exactly the same but at different prices. I'm not seeing starting points with the same pricing on the US sites.
     
  23. deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #23
    It is a 5MB cache increase ( which is a 50% bump up over the 10MB of the 1650 ). If get to the point cache bound, that is a significant jump. Minimally, $497 of that price delta is coming from Intel since they peg the value difference at that much.

    For those who probably need 8 cores and are "settling" for 6, it is probably worth it. However, best price/performance ratio? .... the top end Intel offering never has that. Folks are always paying in part to be on the bleeding edge. Intel is always willing to take that extra money.
     
  24. deconstruct60, Jun 1, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2012

    deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #24
    LOL. Err no.

    Probably the most popular moaning and groaning complaint about the Mac Pro in these forums is that they cost too much. Apple pushing the entry point $400 higher is just trying to kill off the Mac Pro. Perhaps there are clueless folks in the Mac division now but I doubt it. If the entry Mac Pro price goes $400 higher that would only be to make room for a "Mac Pro lite" box that would be sliding into the $2000-3000 price range. However, that somewhat puts the whole "single package" options in doubt. [ I doubt Apple would go the route of selling one empty CPU socket E5-2600 models. ]


    Slightly less popular posting are from the folks who state the software they are deeply committed to is largely single threaded. The Quad core is the more cost effective way to higher 1-2 core performance. There are lots of folks who buy "GHz". The jump from 2.8 ---> 3.6 GHz at the entry point. They will be all over that like 'pooh bear on a honey pot'. ( If there is no "Mac Pro lite" box introduced .... even more so. ). For folks whose workload is a 2-3 core range it is a substantially better value offering.

    Another less popular, but appears often, posting are from "tinker and upgrade later" crowd. Viewed as a "bare bones box" again the 4 core box at $400 lower price would be the more valued option. The story there would be "invest now" and then insert an Ivy Bridge CPU later after a firmware flash when the price premium had dropped on those. A few hours with their trusty screwdriver , some thermal paste, and ta-da a much better box for less money. [ Apple is not going to purposely cater to these folks but if they are willing to buy and toss the warranty later and not clog up the support lines, Apple is willing to take their money. ]



    This merely apes the HP/Dell/etc. approach of spinning the dual package boxes at lower prices. That's a goofy strategy road to go down in respect to the way Apple does business.

    First, a single E5-1620 or E5-1650 will embarrass an single E5-2620 on a wide variety of workloads. Perhaps not all workloads for the 1620 but the 1650 certainly will. So you actually haven't sold the customer a box with a better system design to fit their current problem/needs . Apple's primary objective is to sell good systems.

    Second, the "spin" value proposition on these is that later some HP/Dell/etc service person will come out and drop the 2nd CPU into the system and it will be "most cost effective over time". Yeah.... cause Apple has pricing options now for changing CPU/RAM trays now to bump from Single to Duo package. ....... not. Or even more strategically unaligned, seem to be encouraging users to fill in that empty CPU socket with their own solution they compose with their trusty screwdriver, thermal paste, and "nifty" heat sink they found on newegg.

    The E5-2620 is a much more effective system solution when paired. 4x the PCI-e bandwidth over the previous generation is a huge value proposition if leverage it. Not piss it down the drain but decoupling the pair. You are wasting the QPI links. A single 2620 has two, high bandwidth QPI links that are hooked to nothing. That's not an "Apple-like" solution/design. You pay Intel a price premium for the links and then proceed to not use them at all. I don't think that in synch with Apple's approach to system design.
     
  25. xgman macrumors 601

    xgman

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    #25
    I understand, but I have seen what 4ghz+ can do compared to 3+ and there is a quite noticeable performance difference. Of course that was on windows. . . I'm pretty sure that even on the Xeon's and for whatever reason, Intel is holding back on some capable raw speed.
     

Share This Page