Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by cube, Oct 23, 2009.
Will the next release be hexacore, octocore, and dodecacore?
Without knowing what Intel have planned other than 2.4GHz 6 core UP and DP Xeons it isn't clear. There will probably be faster quad cores (shrink to 32nm + higher clocks) and slower more expensive 6 core processors. As 6 core's are expected to start at $999 I would expect something along the lines of the existing line with a speed bump and the option of 6 cores for a price.
If they used AMD they could go up to icositetracore next year.
More a server processor than a workstation one.
Xeons are server processors.
Way to kill a running joke genius.
FYI: Xeon is for servers and workstations. There is no difference.
Processors with more cores and lower clockspeed are more suited to server use for the most part and will be marketed as such. This is due to the differing way in which the systems are used and due to heat output and power draw. Intel market the highest TDP Xeons as workstation processors. That is what the W is for in W5580, W5590 and the W3500 series. The 54X2 processors in the 2008 Mac Pro also had marketing material that indicated they were for Workstations, though that later stopped being used. Obviously they are no different in terms of technology.
The most simple way with great continuity would be dropping the quad CPUs altogether and switch the Mac Pro entirely to hexad chips. The introduction of quads in the iMac would make some sense that way.
This is a tough one, as to whether or not the SP MP would continue with a Quad (better cost wise), but it wouldn't compare so well with the new iMac that just dropped.
The real issue I think will be that if the base hexacore system needs a min of a $1k CPU, then the complaints for an SP system will be substantially worse than the SP Quads are now.
Hmm... Tack on the min of the $$$ difference between CPU's, and that gives a base MSRP of at least $3214, and that assumes there's no margin added for the cost difference of the chip, and the other components cost remains exactly the same (as would the margins applied). Likely closer to $3500USD (figuring on a 36% margin, based on the average last posted on the main page). YIKES!
The price on the 6 cores is what makes me think they would continue with a quad.
I can see the processor line up being 32nm quads with a bump over the speeds of the 45nm Nehalems. Just like what happened with Penryn. So 2.8GHz $284 UP quads and as 32nm is supposed to be 22% faster clock for clock that would be a big speed increase over everything out now. Turbo boost speeds are supposed to be higher too.
Then they just add the option of 6 core processors to be complete. They say 32nm will allow higher clockspeeds but the talk of 32nm and 6 core is usually merged in to one by journalists. If I had to make a guess right now I'd go for something like:
2.8GHz quad - $284
3.33GHz quad - $562
3.46GHz quad - $999
2.4GHz 6core - $999
2.53GHz 6 core - $1,299
2.66GHz 6 core - $1,499
or 2.4GHz, 2.66GHz, 2.93GHz if they can go that high.
I am hopeful for a bump to 6 memory slots per processor too as it would be another selling point over the iMac and current models.
That would have been the only sensible thing to do in the first place. How good are Apple at correcting their wrong technical decisions? It took them two years to fix EFI32 and it affected their whole Mac range of machines. I'm afraid they will simply ignore this together with the deficiencies of the PCIe system.
They seem happy to sacrifice performance for marketing and I can see them looking forward knowing they would need something extra to sell the 2010 systems and the processors being enough on the 2009s. Or maybe they don't look at it like that and they chose their case design, decided the memory system was adequate and went with it.
Time to go AMD:
The pricing will be an issue, no doubt. But how to make it desirable over the iMac?
The idea of additional DIMM slots is a good idea, but it has to be done in a fashion that it won't cut into the Hexad based models. Likely a Catch - 22, as 2 additional cores may not be attractive enough (assuming there is an SP version of a Hexad CPU).
Additional DIMM slots would be nice. But it would make more sense for it to be in SP and DP systems using Hexad chips, and be very similar to what's available now. Greater separation between the systems by ease of memory capacity without the use of large capacity DIMM's (say 8 or 16GB sticks soon to be available), which will cost a fortune.
The positive side, is the 4GB sticks should come down out of the current stratospheric levels.