Intel 'officially' releases E5 Xeons


thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,673
1,765
In 2010 they still lagged for quite some time. At this point you know that they can update it. It says basically nothing over when it will happen.
 

akis-k

macrumors member
Feb 4, 2010
45
24
Greece
Tim Cook: " So Ipad 3 (HD or whatever) comes now with retina display, meaning that apart from consumers, its the ideal mobile tool for professionals as well, aaand speaking of professionals...one more thing.." :) Just dreaming really! :rolleyes:
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
8,069
1,234
In 2010 they still lagged for quite some time..
There were two primarily reasons for that. The first that was overtly obvious is that in 2010 Intel did not really do a complete update. the 5500 series were uniformly upgraded to the relatively complete 5600 series. The 3500 series was not. There was a single 3600 model that pragmatically gave a single significant upgrade point in a 3 model line up. If not going to do a complete line-up refresh ... Apple isn't likely going to rush it out the door. Perhaps getting the E3's jumpstarted killed off the more complete 3500 series. For whatever reason, that shrunked 3600 release help muck up the Mac Pro launch. ( eventually Apple released with band-aid speed bumped 3500's to fill the gaps ).


Second, the "early bird" roadmaps even in 2010 said that the 2011 update was going to switch from March/April time frame (very late Q1 / early Q2) to the September/October time frame ( Q3/Q4 2011 ). That meant there was going to be a "pay with a delay now or pay with delay later" slide. If Intel had stuck to the late Q3 slide Apple's intro (but launching in Aug 2010 ) would have split the difference in the delay. 4 months in 2010. 3-4 months in 2011.


So far, neither is in effect for the E5 launch. The E5 1600 line up is as complete as Apple needs to make some extremely good Mac Pro with a single package. Likewise, there is nothing so far to indicate that Ivy Bridge Xeons aren't approximately a year out from now. [ Some will point there is not confirmation, but there is no explicit later date either. It is probably in debate as folks validate the state of the new hardware. Zero need right now to distribute another errant, " 6 month off target" roadmap. ]


Unless, Apple had committed the Mac Pro's to launching with Nivdia 28nm PCI-e v3.0 cards ( which are due now late April/May ) there is little missing parts motivation to wait past the the 27th of this month to launch. AMD's HD7800 series cards are late but that should resolve by 20th of this month. (they are launched but not shipping. )
 
Last edited:

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
8,069
1,234
...if it will happen
Fixed that for you... :D
It could be that the Mac Pro's sales numbers have shrunk so low at this point that it has been tagged for cancellation. It is possible, but I suspect the folks running the Macs know that the product line has be jacked up over the significant potholes Intel has put into the road along the way over last 18 months too.

There is a good chance that the new Mac Pro is essentially already done and ready to go. It has just been blocked on part availbility. The 2013 Mac Pro? Yeah that is probably seriously contingent on Mac Pro sales having a micraclous recovery and selling a record number of boxes.

If the "my Mac 1,1 is great I'm not buying jack squat for years " is the dominate attitude among the Mac Pro userbase ... then it is dead. I'm not saying everyone has to upgrade but if dropping a new model that smokes 4-6 year stuff isn't enough for a significant number of folks to buy.... I don't see continuing to market these kinds of machines anymore. Every other Mac model is showing significant growth. If the Mac Pro can't Apple will leave it behind. They don't need the money that bad.

If they drop the Mac Pro, Apple may clone HP's Z1

http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/workstations/z1_features.html

as a "High Octane" iMac based on Xeon E3 offerings.
 

d-m-a-x

macrumors 6502
Aug 13, 2011
495
0
It could be that the Mac Pro's sales numbers have shrunk so low at this point that it has been tagged for cancellation. It is possible, but I suspect the folks running the Macs know that the product line has be jacked up over the significant potholes Intel has put into the road along the way over last 18 months too.

There is a good chance that the new Mac Pro is essentially already done and ready to go. It has just been blocked on part availbility. The 2013 Mac Pro? Yeah that is probably seriously contingent on Mac Pro sales having a micraclous recovery and selling a record number of boxes.

If the "my Mac 1,1 is great I'm not buying jack squat for years " is the dominate attitude among the Mac Pro userbase ... then it is dead. I'm not saying everyone has to upgrade but if dropping a new model that smokes 4-6 year stuff isn't enough for a significant number of folks to buy.... I don't see continuing to market these kinds of machines anymore. Every other Mac model is showing significant growth. If the Mac Pro can't Apple will leave it behind. They don't need the money that bad.

If they drop the Mac Pro, Apple may clone HP's Z1

http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/workstations/z1_features.html

as a "High Octane" iMac based on Xeon E3 offerings.
That is a Mac Pro user attitude, and there is something to be said for it.
A machine that lasts 6 years is DEPENDABLE. This means we can use it for
work, and not worry about it breaking in the middle of a job. I will pay extra for that
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,673
1,765
There were two primarily reasons for that. The first that was overtly obvious is that in 2010 Intel did not really do a complete update. the 5500 series were uniformly upgraded to the relatively complete 5600 series. The 3500 series was not. There was a single 3600 model that pragmatically gave a single significant upgrade point in a 3 model line up. If not going to do a complete line-up refresh ... Apple isn't likely going to rush it out the door. Perhaps getting the E3's jumpstarted killed off the more complete 3500 series. For whatever reason, that shrunked 3600 release help muck up the Mac Pro launch. ( eventually Apple released with band-aid speed bumped 3500's to fill the gaps ).


Second, the "early bird" roadmaps even in 2010 said that the 2011 update was going to switch from March/April time frame (very late Q1 / early Q2) to the September/October time frame ( Q3/Q4 2011 ). That meant there was going to be a "pay with a delay now or pay with delay later" slide. If Intel had stuck to the late Q3 slide Apple's intro (but launching in Aug 2010 ) would have split the difference in the delay. 4 months in 2010. 3-4 months in 2011.


So far, neither is in effect for the E5 launch. The E5 1600 line up is as complete as Apple needs to make some extremely good Mac Pro with a single package. Likewise, there is nothing so far to indicate that Ivy Bridge Xeons aren't approximately a year out from now. [ Some will point there is not confirmation, but there is no explicit later date either. It is probably in debate as folks validate the state of the new hardware. Zero need right now to distribute another errant, " 6 month off target" roadmap. ]


Unless, Apple had committed the Mac Pro's to launching with Nivdia 28nm PCI-e v3.0 cards ( which are due now late April/May ) there is little missing parts motivation to wait past the the 27th of this month to launch. AMD's HD7800 series cards are late but that should resolve by 20th of this month. (they are launched but not shipping. )
This is a ridiculously good explanation. I wasn't aware of some of those details. Many of the cpu updates haven't sounded that great outside of the very top end again. Have you seen anything on them? I'm not completely sure if Apple would expand out on a product line like the imac. They're very typical consumer centric, and as I've mentioned before looking at younger individuals, things like computer furniture have become a lot less common.

If the "my Mac 1,1 is great I'm not buying jack squat for years " is the dominate attitude among the Mac Pro userbase ... then it is dead. I'm not saying everyone has to upgrade but if dropping a new model that smokes 4-6 year stuff isn't enough for a significant number of folks to buy.... I don't see continuing to market these kinds of machines anymore. Every other Mac model is showing significant growth. If the Mac Pro can't Apple will leave it behind. They don't need the money that bad.

If they drop the Mac Pro, Apple may clone HP's Z1

http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/workstations/z1_features.html

as a "High Octane" iMac based on Xeon E3 offerings.
Looking at consistent price points, the gains haven't necessarily been too insane, and software demands remained pretty flat for several years there at the mac pro level specifically in cpu/ram requirements. That's starting to pick up again. Transitioning from a standard dual socket to a lower cpu budget for construction at the $2-$3k range and some programs lagging behind in core scaling must have made it difficult to market some of these machines with an increasing price ceiling. I can't actually see very many valid upgrade points in there to this point. In 2006 many programs couldn't run natively, so a lot of purchasing was shifted to 2007, still on the 1,1. 2008 again if you recently bought a new machine you're most likely waiting this cycle out. 2009-2010 warrants a purchase of one. In a larger environment the purchasing cycle might look a bit different as purchases are often staggered and shuffled, but it's very common to see the machine used for a very long cycle even if its primary duties are shifted down.
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
8,069
1,234
That is a Mac Pro user attitude, and there is something to be said for it.
No it isn't. There are no large body of Mac mini users wishing their machines would crap out in 2-3 years. It is isn't specific to the Mac Pro or some "special category" of Mac users.

It is not even Apple attitude since their standard "Vintage/Obsolote" policy gives you 5 years after the product is discontinued coverage on parts/support. If the products are refreshed about every 12 months that's approximately 6 years standard on every Mac. (for those at beginning of cycle. End of cycle folk run risk on last year of getting off.)


A machine that lasts 6 years is DEPENDABLE.
Being dependable for 6 year isn't the point. Having a workload stuck at the approximately the same level it was 6 years ago is. Not only are these folks happy but the performance is "good enough" too. They are not bumping into limits.

The majority of Mac Pro users workload's are not growing as fast as the abilities of the Mac Pro is improving then it is a doomed product category. The number of users buying each will shrink. Folks will either move to cheaper product categories ( iMac or mini Tower Win/Linux boxes ) or just squat in their firewalled cave with a stagnant OS/Apps/Hardware.

Let's say there are 1M Mac Pro class users. (I'm being generous for round numbers and simple math. Somewhere are around 1% of the Mac base. ).

Let's say folks bought relatively evenly on 7 year cycles. That would put about 143K per year in the position of needing new hardware. Let's say 13% drop out each year to lower tier machines and 3% come in from bigger boxes. So a net drop off of 10% per year.

year 1 143K
year 2 129K
year 3 117K
year 4 106K
year 5 96K

In contrast if folks upgrade every 5 years but the inflow/outflow mix is different get a different picture. Starts at same 1M but the drop out rate is 5% and inflow is 3% so that net drop off is 2% per year.

year 1 200K
year 2 196K
year 3 192K
year 4 188K
year 5 184K


The first scenario Apple is going to dump. The second is a bit more tolerable but still has major problems inside of a high growth company. It is fixable with perhaps some product tweak to put where they might able to take that year to year transition positive.

The major problem is that the other Mac products look like the inverse order of the first scenario. Their numbers are going up; not down.

The problem is the longer cycle people hold on a single product the more folks are needed to make it show growth year over year. If the other mac products rotate on 5 year cycles and the Mac Pro on 7-8 year cycles then needs a bigger base (which it clearly doesn't have) to show growth.

People whose workloads are steadily increasing at a significant rate aren't on 6-7 year cycles. Every 5 years Intel/AMD (and other component vendors) following Moore Law typically will have doubled the performance (with triple the transistors). That's a curse if the workload isn't only increasing at 2-10% per year or a blessing if the workload is doubling every 5.

This means we can use it for
work, and not worry about it breaking in the middle of a job. I will pay extra for that
Actually, I think most folks would characterize it as paying extra to be able to 'pop' the hood, swap out HDD/card, and keep going.

The solution where the parts don't fail for 6 years just points at solutions like mini and iMac all the more. If they don't fail then don't need to open the box.
 

d-m-a-x

macrumors 6502
Aug 13, 2011
495
0
No it isn't. There are no large body of Mac mini users wishing their machines would crap out in 2-3 years. It is isn't specific to the Mac Pro or some "special category" of Mac users.

It is not even Apple attitude since their standard "Vintage/Obsolote" policy gives you 5 years after the product is discontinued coverage on parts/support. If the products are refreshed about every 12 months that's approximately 6 years standard on every Mac. (for those at beginning of cycle. End of cycle folk run risk on last year of getting off.)




Being dependable for 6 year isn't the point. Having a workload stuck at the approximately the same level it was 6 years ago is. Not only are these folks happy but the performance is "good enough" too. They are not bumping into limits.

The majority of Mac Pro users workload's are not growing as fast as the abilities of the Mac Pro is improving then it is a doomed product category. The number of users buying each will shrink. Folks will either move to cheaper product categories ( iMac or mini Tower Win/Linux boxes ) or just squat in their firewalled cave with a stagnant OS/Apps/Hardware.

Let's say there are 1M Mac Pro class users. (I'm being generous for round numbers and simple math. Somewhere are around 1% of the Mac base. ).

Let's say folks bought relatively evenly on 7 year cycles. That would put about 143K per year in the position of needing new hardware. Let's say 13% drop out each year to lower tier machines and 3% come in from bigger boxes. So a net drop off of 10% per year.

year 1 143K
year 2 129K
year 3 117K
year 4 106K
year 5 96K

In contrast if folks upgrade every 5 years but the inflow/outflow mix is different get a different picture. Starts at same 1M but the drop out rate is 5% and inflow is 3% so that net drop off is 2% per year.

year 1 200K
year 2 196K
year 3 192K
year 4 188K
year 5 184K


The first scenario Apple is going to dump. The second is a bit more tolerable but still has major problems inside of a high growth company. It is fixable with perhaps some product tweak to put where they might able to take that year to year transition positive.

The major problem is that the other Mac products look like the inverse order of the first scenario. Their numbers are going up; not down.

The problem is the longer cycle people hold on a single product the more folks are needed to make it show growth year over year. If the other mac products rotate on 5 year cycles and the Mac Pro on 7-8 year cycles then needs a bigger base (which it clearly doesn't have) to show growth.

People whose workloads are steadily increasing at a significant rate aren't on 6-7 year cycles. Every 5 years Intel/AMD (and other component vendors) following Moore Law typically will have doubled the performance (with triple the transistors). That's a curse if the workload isn't only increasing at 2-10% per year or a blessing if the workload is doubling every 5.



Actually, I think most folks would characterize it as paying extra to be able to 'pop' the hood, swap out HDD/card, and keep going.

The solution where the parts don't fail for 6 years just points at solutions like mini and iMac all the more. If they don't fail then don't need to open the box.
i see a lot more mbp's and imacs go bad, rather than mac pro's (probably because of heating issues). And yes, you cant pop the hood and fix them. good for apple, bad for us
 

FluJunkie

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2007
618
1
If the "my Mac 1,1 is great I'm not buying jack squat for years " is the dominate attitude among the Mac Pro userbase ... then it is dead. I'm not saying everyone has to upgrade but if dropping a new model that smokes 4-6 year stuff isn't enough for a significant number of folks to buy.... I don't see continuing to market these kinds of machines anymore. Every other Mac model is showing significant growth. If the Mac Pro can't Apple will leave it behind. They don't need the money that bad.
This makes a couple assumptions that I think are quite flawed:

1. Some of the "I'm not upgrading" stuff is essentially because of the stagnation in the Mac Pro line. "My MP 1,1 is good enough, and "new" obsolete tech isn't enough to sell me" is entirely different from "Genuinely cutting edge stuff would get me off the bench".

2. You're also ignoring the amount of sentiment that's essentially "Please God let Apple upgrade the Pro..."

3. Apple doesn't need the money that bad - but that doesn't mean they're abandoning the line. Mac Pros aren't all that hard in terms of hardware development, and if they're still making a profit, why would they abandon it? It's not because they're resource constrained elsewhere, not with the amount of cash they have. That's like saying you'd turn down $10 someone offered you, because you already have $100 and don't really need it.

4. They remain Apple's major content creation platform. The rest of Apple's mind-boggling lucrative market is based on consuming that content. Even if they *didn't* make any money off the Pro, if it sustains that...well, the concept of a loss leader isn't exactly novel.
 

Zwhaler

macrumors demi-god
Jun 10, 2006
6,752
981
Intel releases E5 Xeons... Apple becomes "post-pc company".. hopefully they don't ditch the Mac Pro.
 

nanofrog

macrumors G4
May 6, 2008
11,718
2
There were two primarily reasons for that. The first that was overtly obvious is that in 2010 Intel did not really do a complete update.

Second, the "early bird" roadmaps
I understand your points, but I'm not convinced that this was the causality in the case of the 2010 MP's.
  1. They were drop-in parts for existing boards (Nehalem based), which made it possible to get systems shipping quickly.
  2. Even though it wasn't a complete update in terms of full line-up, and they were late, other vendors such as HP and Dell managed to get systems shipping before Apple.
Seems more likely based on the expiration of contracts between Apple and Intel IMO (i.e. no longer had early delivery dates for CPU's due to the expiration of the previous CPU contract, and ended up with longer lead times for the next CPU's they selected due to a reduced volume - recession impact).
 

mdgm

macrumors 6502a
Nov 2, 2010
912
26
After watching Apples Event today I'm wondering about the future of even the iMac.:eek:
The iMac's a popular machine. They'd be crazy to kill it off anytime soon.

As for the Mac Pro hard to say how popular a new model would be.
 

-hh

macrumors 68030
Jul 17, 2001
2,523
322
NJ Highlands, Earth
hopefully not. maybe a silent update next Tuesday?
I don't expect that they'll do any other updates during the demand surge for the iPad3 and AppleTV...from a simple business sense standpoint, one needs to be cautious when risking sales of your main product lines. Given that the iPad is a major growth area and it is starting to feel some heat from Linux tablets, if I were CEO, I'd make it very clear what is currently Corporate Priority #1.

Its possible that they'll wait until iMac updates in April/May, although I'd really hope for earlier...the March 27th date for AMD's HD7800 card could be the milestone there.

What we need is for a slightly impatient Mac Pro development team member to anonymously email MR with just a confirmational "Yeah, the new MP is all ready to go, just waiting for the boss to approve the exact date of the public launch"...

Tax refund is due any day now; that opens up a $5K budget for new hardware.


-hh
 

xgman

macrumors 601
Aug 6, 2007
4,785
609
I don't expect that they'll do any other updates during the demand surge for the iPad3 and AppleTV...from a simple business sense standpoint, one needs to be cautious when risking sales of your main product lines. Given that the iPad is a major growth area and it is starting to feel some heat from Linux tablets, if I were CEO, I'd make it very clear what is currently Corporate Priority #1.

[/I]...



-hh
That's like saying Mercedes shouldn't update the SL500 line right after the C320 is refreshed. 2 completely different markets and Apple has separate resources working on each line. I don't see a silent MP refresh interfering with anything. They will pop when they are ready, but, they are obviously not a priority for Apple.