I love how no matter how awesome the news is, there are always a few people that give it negatives. lol
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.
Details of Core i7-980X (Gulftown) Mac Pro Processors Leaked
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A couple or more 30" ers
Get a couple of HP 30" models. I like the one I have. I'm waiting for my son to bring his color meter over here so that the colors will match my 34 other displays a little better. My 30" Apple display spends too much time in a very red mode. Sometimes the black screen is a deep red.
The machine sounds good. I've just been spoiled with dual processors.
I hope this Gulftown processor rumor is true. Hopefully by spring, the 4GB DD3 cards will have bumped down in price, so we can get 8GB or 12GB of RAM for the base Mac Pro model. I would also like to see dual Graphics card as an option even though I know you can add one as you go.
I want the 6-core, with 12GB of RAM, powerful dual 1GB GPU's. And I will worry about the monitor at a latter date.
Get a couple of HP 30" models. I like the one I have. I'm waiting for my son to bring his color meter over here so that the colors will match my 34 other displays a little better. My 30" Apple display spends too much time in a very red mode. Sometimes the black screen is a deep red.
The machine sounds good. I've just been spoiled with dual processors.
Multi core myths
Multi cores are sorta like broadband internet. The data runs at the same speed but it has a larger pipe/bandwidth that allows more data to flow at the same time, thereby you get your requested data chunk faster than dial-up. Another analogy is a 2 lane road compared to 12 lanes. More people are getting to work at the same time and can do more work in a specified time frame than on a 2 lane.
If you go by the benchmarks in programs advertised and think wow if it does that at that speed, imagine what it will do for my browsing or other simple tasks. You will really be disappointed in a multicore machine.
IMO Snow Leopard still has a long way to go to get to where it should to support multi processor machines. IMO Apple and Intel both need to produce programming tools and simpler instructions for developers to be able to use and adopt. I have had several multi processor machines in the past that never saw any real load because no one produced code except for high end programs. Until the bottle neck is broken on processor speeds then this is the road map they need to follow.
I bought this octo core because I needed the large memory/hard drive expansion it has, and possible future needs. Even using a few of the programs that use all cores and running flash vids etc or other multi tasking, the overall "user" CPU load is very very low. Even when I feel Im really pushing it.
Multi cores are sorta like broadband internet. The data runs at the same speed but it has a larger pipe/bandwidth that allows more data to flow at the same time, thereby you get your requested data chunk faster than dial-up. Another analogy is a 2 lane road compared to 12 lanes. More people are getting to work at the same time and can do more work in a specified time frame than on a 2 lane.
If you go by the benchmarks in programs advertised and think wow if it does that at that speed, imagine what it will do for my browsing or other simple tasks. You will really be disappointed in a multicore machine.
IMO Snow Leopard still has a long way to go to get to where it should to support multi processor machines. IMO Apple and Intel both need to produce programming tools and simpler instructions for developers to be able to use and adopt. I have had several multi processor machines in the past that never saw any real load because no one produced code except for high end programs. Until the bottle neck is broken on processor speeds then this is the road map they need to follow.
I bought this octo core because I needed the large memory/hard drive expansion it has, and possible future needs. Even using a few of the programs that use all cores and running flash vids etc or other multi tasking, the overall "user" CPU load is very very low. Even when I feel Im really pushing it.
If I rated the news I'd rate this down for being inaccurate. The Core i7-980X will not be offered in the 2010 Mac Pros. Although it does give an idea of the release time and specification. This article is far more relevant: http://www.crn.com/white-box/222001806
It's coming in January and is not suitable for any current Apple product. Cost alone on the processors would rule it out. 2.66GHz 6 core Dunnington processors are $2,700 each, Nehalem-EX will probably reach to the $3,000 mark for decent clock speed.
This obsession with the Mac Pro's looks must be a gamer / geek thing.
Once again, it's not for looks, it's for customization. Having more PCI slots and HDD bays standard would be welcome. I don't plan on putting any double wide PCI cards in my next tower, but I have this Matrox MXO2 Mini that has a PCI host card, there's the double wide ATI card, the FW800/400 card, the Matrox Compress HD, and then I am done... no room for the eSATA card, or I can take out the FW800/400 instead.
Not everyone that comments on looks is talking about cosmetics, we actually have a real reason for a possible case design.... some of us do anyway.
I can understand that, but it is a 5 year old plus used machine with a 3 month warranty.
There's a small demand for it in the audio production market here in Maryland. I've had a good number of people ask where they can find one of them.
It doesn't make sense to compare a tower that old with a fairly modern laptop.
While Apple has traditionally stuck to the Xeon line, EEC support may not be as important to Apple as cheaper Westmere chips may be. The article even specifically mentions that the 980X is to be server/workstation processor, perfectly suitable for the Mac Pro.
I for one would be happy to see the boost in both multi and single threaded performance from the higher clock, coupled with a lower system price.
None of this is secret or being 'LEAKED!!ZOMG!!'. Intel road maps are public knowledge.
And as others mentioned, Mac Pro hardware and components are Xeon based.
Xeon 6 and 8 core CPUs are on the road map which is what the Mac Pro uses/will use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_Intel_microprocessors#Xeon_DP.2C_Six-Core
And as others mentioned, Mac Pro hardware and components are Xeon based.
Xeon 6 and 8 core CPUs are on the road map which is what the Mac Pro uses/will use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_Intel_microprocessors#Xeon_DP.2C_Six-Core
I like the case as it is. Its a great combination of form and function. Its cool that it looks nice as it is, but to sacrifice function for form then you screw it up.
As a Tool & Die maker/designer for over 25 years there are tons of things that can be done to modify ones own case. Since its aluminum there are many things you can do with it easily. If you want people to know you have the latest then write the specs on the case. Some of these ideas will warrant you having to tape up and seal all gaps and holes and others you will need to strip out the guts. Yes it involves work.
I agree that it is far more modifiable than a plastic case would be. A question to the ones who don't like the design: what design would be better? bigger? make it look like a Dell? an HP? plastic? Just remember that retooling would cost money and adding gimmicks, bells and whistles does not a better machine make. After all it is a server/workstation not a "desktop" computer. If you spend a little time at dell.com or hp's web site and price a machine with the same components as a Mac Pro the price is often very close to a Mac Pro, and don't forget to add equivalent software.
Building your own system from parts is often cheaper but you are usually pricing for the cheapest parts on the market which is not getting you an "equivalent" machine to a Mac Pro.
Yes there are things I would like them to change, one more memory slot per cpu would be nice, MAYBE anodised colors if not too much more expensive, yes, a better choice of gpu's would be very nice, otherwise I can't think of any good reason to make any drastic changes.
As a side note I gutted my G5 case because I didn't want to get rid of it, I would like to put a Mac Pro mobo in it but I doubt Apple would sell one to me.
Question for the experts, this new 6-core just threw a wrench in my upcoming purchase.
I've been waiting off buying a new machine until after the holidays, I've been debating on either a 3.33ghz quad or a 2.93ghz 8-core. Two different extremes I know, here's the reason. I work as a contract interactive designer, motion graphics designer, and film editor. So my key programs are PS / AE / FCP. All which I know doesnt take full advantage of the multi core I know, but seeing how my new system will last me for the next 3-5 yrs I'm willing to spend the extra cash now and hang on to this system while new software that will take advantage of the multicore to comes out.
And now I'm not too sure which system to get even more now that theres a new 6 core coming out. Is the 6core in between the 4 and 8 as far as performance goes? or is it more powerful than the current 2.93 8cores?!
Any help will greatly be appreciated.
Thanks for the help all.
I've been waiting off buying a new machine until after the holidays, I've been debating on either a 3.33ghz quad or a 2.93ghz 8-core. Two different extremes I know, here's the reason. I work as a contract interactive designer, motion graphics designer, and film editor. So my key programs are PS / AE / FCP. All which I know doesnt take full advantage of the multi core I know, but seeing how my new system will last me for the next 3-5 yrs I'm willing to spend the extra cash now and hang on to this system while new software that will take advantage of the multicore to comes out.
And now I'm not too sure which system to get even more now that theres a new 6 core coming out. Is the 6core in between the 4 and 8 as far as performance goes? or is it more powerful than the current 2.93 8cores?!
Any help will greatly be appreciated.
Thanks for the help all.
More hardware inside. 5 HDD bays for RAID without having to jimmy a fifth HDD in there or take up the second optical slot.
More PCI card space/more IO ports.
Nothing too hard for Apple.
p.s. I'd really love it if Apple would allow me to buy a barebones Mac Pro, just mobo, processors, and maybe a GFX card of my choosing. Then I'd stick whatever HDDs, optical, and RAM in myself.
Im starting to see your points. In my earlier posts I was thinking only about those that cared about outer appearances or one that looks different to show a new model. I then realized how narrow my thoughts were as I started thinking of my own needs.
I now have 3 hard drives in mine with two 2 TB WD Black drives sitting on my desk. Trying to decide where and how Im going to install them and what if any raid options I will use. I plan on buying a SDD before long too for the speed increase for starting apps and maybe PS cache space etc.
I also have plans to buy at least one 30"+ monitor the first of next year and more than likely two. I want to keep at least the two 23" ACD I now have. Now I will probably have to pull the 8800GT GFX card and add another.. having to figure out how to cram all this in for my needs will be fun.
When the first Mac Pro came out, the balls to the wall version was 2 grand cheaper and a smidge faster than anything you could get in the PC market.
While Apple has traditionally stuck to the Xeon line, EEC support may not be as important to Apple as cheaper Westmere chips may be. The article even specifically mentions that the 980X is to be server/workstation processor, perfectly suitable for the Mac Pro.
I for one would be happy to see the boost in both multi and single threaded performance from the higher clock, coupled with a lower system price.
This is a common misunderstanding that keeps comming up. Apple currently use the Xeon 3500 processors in the single quad Mac Pro. These are the same as the Core i7 processors, with the addition of ECC memory support. Apple's pricing has nothing to do with not using socket 1366 Core i7 processors as they are priced the same. They will continue to use Xeons because ECC memory is a necessity for some and it allows them to stock and sell only one kind of memory for the Mac Pro.
There will be 12 core systems too. If you can afford to wait until May then you may get more for your money. Apple have only got processors early once, twice before that they launched 6-8 weeks after Intel's street date release. Intel may have problems getting enough processors out, or other issues may be present. There was talk of a move to 1600MHz ECC, that may cause delays if true, or there may be shipping problems if you want a faster graphics card. Additionally we do not know the pricing on the new processors, so a budget may buy you only a small amount more processing power, unless it's an "unlimited" budget. The difference between an 2009 and a 2010 might be big on paper, but either are going to let you work well and shouldn't hinder your creativity.
Um, what? My i7 920 system uses a processor that, outside of ECC support, is identical to the Xeon X5550. I'd argue the manufacturer of nearly all of my components (ASUS) is superior to Foxconn (who Apple typically uses for many of their components). Self-enclosed water cooling, Intel SSDs, 12 GB Corsair DDR3 Dominator memory, the works. Total cost? Just under $1500. Entry model Mac Pro with inferior hardware (outside of its ECC memory)? $2500
Uh, what? The Xeon X5550, the processor model used in the entry-model Mac Pro, is identical to the i7 920 except that the X5550 supports ECC memory and has its second QPI link enabled (which on the entry model Mac Pro goes to waste anyway).
A i7 920 retails for $200-$300. The Xeon X5550 retails for about $1000. So yes, pricing is definitely impacted by the use of Xeons vs. their i7 9XX series equivalents.
No. The the single quad Mac Pro uses the Xeon W3520, W3540 and W3580 processors. These are $284, $562 and $999 just like the Core i7-920, 940 and 975. Only the dual socket Mac Pro uses 5500 Xeons. The $1000-$1,500 difference in price between Apple's quad systems and what such hardware costs elsewhere isn't due to the processors being used.
There are many "moving objects" that are not NPCs: platforms, vehicles, water, cloth, animated skyboxes, shader-rendered computer screens, etc. It is bots, with their heavy AI loop threads, that are a major game-play (not graphical) performance consideration. In addition to AI, bots have skeletal animation issues. Skeletal animation today takes up resources both in CPU and GPU. Nvidia has made the PhysX API available that can offload the CPU -- but that is only one-half of the video card world and so not universally adopted.
I was talking about high-end tweakers, not "people with weak computers". You set the resolution as high as you can while staying above 60fps. Then, guess what? The card is no longer the issue -- the CPU is! The card is maintaining fps until heavy gameplay drags the experience down with stuttering. The solution: dial back the graphic goodness a couple of notches, or work to improve the CPU side of things. Is that soooooo hard to understand?!
Nice job at selectively ignoring the rest of my post. So why the disclaimers on high-end games that the game will perform differently (better) online than in the single-player campaign? Lots of "moving objects" in both, after all. Answer: only single-player runs the AI loops.
Kids!
Try this experiment at home: in Unreal Tournament 2004 you can load a level and then fly around in it before starting the match. Point yourself at any nearby view you like with the FPS display on ("stat fps" in the console). Then click the mouse button to start the match. Snap back to the nearby view. Watch the frame rate drop significantly (10- to 20-percent total) as the AI-driven bots are added to the match one after another, and not yet appearing on the screen at all.You obviously are not a gamer. I am a military flight sim developer, and a gamer. Try to curb your need to prove that you are a hardman "realist". It's embarrassing.
I tried throwing you a bouquet of partial agreement but you walked all over it, so here goes again: For games and serious simulations, CPU and GPU are both important. Today's high-end games are not strictly GPU-bound as you stated. Peace out.
Probably because it will come with a graphic card from 2007.
Nah. Look for Radeon 5870 Mac Edition in Q1 2010. It already has the Mini-DisplayPort connector designed in. Sure, that'll be one generation behind by then, but still no slouch.
The 4870 is damn good in my machine. 512 MB vs 1GB RAM only seems to gain about 2- to 4-percent in games in the review sites I've looked at. So I'm a happy camper with 2.93 GHz x2 CPUs and 4870. Runs everything great! I have the money so going insane on value-proposition isn't an issue nor an online hobby. I'm just having fun!