How bad can this rumour reporting get?

theSeb

macrumors 604
Original poster
Aug 10, 2010
6,963
91
Poole, England
This bad

9to5Mac said:
Here are the three configurations per reliable sources:

Normal configuration: 3.2GHz quad-core processor, 6GB of RAM, 1TB hard drive, and the ATI Radeon 5770 graphics chip.
Normal configuration: 2.4GHz 12-core processor, 12GB of RAM, 1TB hard drive, and the ATI Radeon 5770 graphics chip.
Server configuration: 3.2GHz quad-core processor, 8GB of RAM, Two 1TB hard drives
3.2 GHz Sandy Bridge Xeon Quad Core, eh? Oh wait, it does not exist. Never mind a 2.4 GHz 6 core suitable for dual CPU use. Unless I've gone blind due to all the vodka I've been drinking recently.

A Radeon 5770? Sure, Apple does not always use the latest and fastest cards, but using a 3 year old card that's already in the current 2 year old Mac Pro would be a new low.
 
Last edited:

theSeb

macrumors 604
Original poster
Aug 10, 2010
6,963
91
Poole, England
They are either some serious typos, or they know nothing like the rest of us.
They've basically made so many rumours about this possible refresh that they're bound to get at least one thing right, unless there is no refresh at all this week. Then, when they get one thing right, there will be a lot of celebration and patting themselves on the back.
 

Tutor

macrumors 65816
This bad



3.2 GHz Sandy Bridge Xeon Quad Core, eh? Oh wait, it does not exist. Never mind a 2.4 GHz 6 core suitable for dual CPU use. Unless I've gone blind due to all the vodka I've been drinking recently.

A Radeon 5770? Sure, Apple does not always use the latest and fastest cards, but using a 3 year old card that's already in the current 2 year old Mac Pro would be a new low.
Those " reliable sources" appear to be unreliable:
1) http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon E5-1650.html is 6 core Xeon; whereas http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i7/Intel-Core i7-3930K.html is 6 core non-xeon i7;
2) http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon E5-2665.html is an 8-core - 2 of which would yield a 16-core.
Thus, that vodka isn't that potent. Working at 9to5 what a way to make a living?
 

theSeb

macrumors 604
Original poster
Aug 10, 2010
6,963
91
Poole, England
Those " reliable sources" appear to be unreliable:
1) http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon E5-1650.html is 6 core Xeon; whereas http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i7/Intel-Core i7-3930K.html is 6 core non-xeon i7;
2) http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon E5-2665.html is an 8-core - 2 of which would yield a 16-core.
Thus, that vodka isn't that potent.
There is no way the 2.4 8 core would be in the entry level dual CPU model at such a cheap point since it costs about $1440 (for one)

Edit: I see this junk has now been regurgitated on the front page of Macrumors too, without any attempts to point out the clearly wrong specs.

*facepalm*
 
Last edited:

Tutor

macrumors 65816
There is no way the 2.4 8 core would be in the entry level dual CPU model at such a cheap point since it costs about $1440 (for one)

Edit: I see this junk has now been regurgitated on the front page of Macrumors too, without any attempts to point out the clearly wrong specs.

*facepalm*
Agreed. It would definitely not be the entry level given the cost of the CPUs [unless (and remember that you read it here first - take that 9to5) the U.S. House of Representative has voted to repealed the Apple tax]-> more likely the top of the line if all these new rumors have any validity. Time will shortly tell.

2nd thought: How about a single 2665 - 8 core configuration for the entry level? Would that be bad?
 
Last edited:

theSeb

macrumors 604
Original poster
Aug 10, 2010
6,963
91
Poole, England
Agreed. It would definitely not be the entry level given the cost of the CPUs [unless (and remember that you read it here first - take that 9to5) the U.S. House of Representative has voted to repealed the Apple tax]-> more likely the top of the line if all these new rumors have any validity. Time will shortly tell.
:D This would mean that politicians started hating money? Not going to happen.

The entry-level dual CPU is most likely to be the 2.3 6 core E5-2630. (around $612 a pop)
 

Mister Bumbo

macrumors 6502
Apr 30, 2012
391
0
Processors aside, why would the 2012 Mac Pro's have the same graphics cards as the 2010 ones? Seems ridiculous.
 

Umbongo

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2006
4,931
54
England
This is why it's not really worth discussing this ****. Rumour sites don't seem to lose credibility for bad reporting and too many fools are ready to jump in and defend them as they see it as an attack on Apple when you say the stuff is nonsense.

Anyone who has spent time on here could have seen what the new Mac Pros will be like and when they would come, so while it may be annoying I guess more fool anyone who believes it.
 

theSeb

macrumors 604
Original poster
Aug 10, 2010
6,963
91
Poole, England
This is why it's not really worth discussing this ****. Rumour sites don't seem to lose credibility for bad reporting and too many fools are ready to jump in and defend them as they see it as an attack on Apple when you say the stuff is nonsense.

Anyone who has spent time on here could have seen what the new Mac Pros will be like and when they would come, so while it may be annoying I guess more fool anyone who believes it.
Thanks for chiming in. There is something that I've not considered. There is an E3 3.2 Quad Core (both Sandy Bridge - April 2011 and Ivy Bridge - recently). What are the chances that Apple decided to use this for the single CPU configuration? My take on it is zero, since the performance increase over the 2010 would be very little.

There is also a 6 core 2.4, but it's the 46## series (4610) and it costs $1219. I cannot fathom why Apple would use a CPU designed for 4 processor machines in a dual CPU and I cannot see a $1219 processor x 2 being in the entry level dual Mac Pro.

But I am happy to be corrected.
 

Umbongo

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2006
4,931
54
England
Thanks for chiming in. There is something that I've not considered. There is an E3 3.2 Quad Core (both Sandy Bridge - April 2011 and Ivy Bridge - recently). What are the chances that Apple decided to use this for the single CPU configuration? My take on it is zero, since the performance increase over the 2010 would be very little.

There is also a 6 core 2.4, but it's the 46## series (4610) and it costs $1219. I cannot fathom why Apple would use a CPU designed for 4 processor machines in a dual CPU and I cannot see a $1219 processor x 2 being in the entry level dual Mac Pro.

But I am happy to be corrected.
Nah, you were right to call it out in the news thread. It makes no sense for Apple to use those processors. 9to5 being wrong is far more likely.
 

revilate

macrumors member
Nov 4, 2011
34
0
A Radeon 5770? Sure, Apple does not always use the latest and fastest cards, but using a 3 year old card that's already in the current 2 year old Mac Pro would be a new low.
This is pretty much the only thing i'm watching for on the new Mac Pros... if this isn't upgraded, I suppose I'm out of luck big time... :( Hopefully it's just a misinformed rumor. We'll see in a few hours!
 

theSeb

macrumors 604
Original poster
Aug 10, 2010
6,963
91
Poole, England
Nah, you were right to call it out in the news thread. It makes no sense for Apple to use those processors. 9to5 being wrong is far more likely.
There is another thing that I've completely forgotten about...

The E5 - 24## series




Specifically the E5-2440

This is getting more and more complicated.
 

Umbongo

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2006
4,931
54
England
There is another thing that I've completely forgotten about...

The E5 - 24## series

Image


Specifically the E5-2440

This is getting more and more complicated.
The Radeon 5770 and 6GB of RAM on the quad core should say it all - that they are wrong. Are those specs technically possible? Yeah. Are they likely or do they make sense? Nope. Apple have used current graphics cards, minimal memory and workstation processors since 2006, I don't see that changing.
 

theSeb

macrumors 604
Original poster
Aug 10, 2010
6,963
91
Poole, England
The Radeon 5770 and 6GB of RAM on the quad core should say it all - that they are wrong. Are those specs technically possible? Yeah. Are they likely or do they make sense? Nope. Apple have used current graphics cards, minimal memory and workstation processors since 2006, I don't see that changing.
What's your take on 24## vs 26## anyway?
 

Tutor

macrumors 65816
I don't expect the base 2012 Mac Pro to WOW many, given that I have no doubt that Apple has been seriously considering EOLing the Mac Pro. I suspect that their reasoning is along the lines that they need to make a larger profit from each unit given the level of sales to justify continuation of this line. How this is revealed by what they announce today is anyone's guess. But I wouldn't hold my breath for more for less. Dell and HP are pricing their WOW systems sky high.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.