According to this report Intel will postpone the release of new Penryn processors that was originally planed for January, which doesn't look good for the Mac Pro update. Your thoughts?
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.
Intel postponing Penryn release - not good
- Thread starter Matek
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
MBP is not very much in a need for upgrade, but MP is so if this only affects portables it's a non-issue regarding "New Mac Pro Models In January" rumor.
this is just a rumor, intel has denied it
someone above posted a link but you had to log in so here's a different one that proves it's not true
http://origin.siliconvalley.com/latestheadlines/ci_7767533?nclick_check=1
someone above posted a link but you had to log in so here's a different one that proves it's not true
http://origin.siliconvalley.com/latestheadlines/ci_7767533?nclick_check=1
AND
They are talking about desktop Penryn processors.
The Mac Pro uses server processors; i.e. Harpertown processors.
Confirmed, I already purchased an Intel Xeon E5420 from Newegg to upgrade one of my machines. The new chips use the same socket, 771 and should be a direct replacement.
Have you installed it yet? I'm dying to find out because I'd like to do something similar myself... Thanks.
Socket compatible, but you will not be taking advantage of the 1333/1600mhz bus speed unless you have one of the very few boards available that does.
Did anyone see this? They talk about it happening whit the Xeons as well.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/26/do_intel_s_delays_hint_of_45nm_woes_/
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/26/do_intel_s_delays_hint_of_45nm_woes_/
Good but not comforting as Apple will most likely use the 2.83 with the 1333fsb for the base config because it is the same cost to them as the current 2.66.
It comes down to money. The 2.83 with 1333mhz FSB is $690 the same price as the quad 2.66 Woodcrest chips, the 1600mhz FSB 2.80 is almost $100 more at $797. Apple is probably looking at the 2.83 1333mhz FSB for the base model and the 3.2 1600mhz FSB foe the top end. The jump in clock speed and FSB would give them a reason to charge a higher premium that just the 400mhz clock speed jump, considering how much they are charging for the 8 core 3.0ghz now they might want to keep up that cash cow for the very top end. I know I would not want to spend an extra $1000 on just 400mhz per core, I would want to the deal sweetened a bit.
Also with the drop in RAM prices for 667mhZ FB-DIMM for the 1333mhz FSB Apple could finally put 2gig as a stock option, something I am really hoping that they do. If they go with the 2.80 for $100 more then we loose out on any extras that they can build into the base unit, hell if they even put in built in airport card for that extra $100 or a decent Nvidia 8800 I would take the hit in FSB speed.
On a side note If they stick in anything less that 400gb drive I will freak!
I didn't check the equivalent Penryn replacement price for a Woodcrest. (I only have the desktop ones memorized...)It comes down to money. The 2.83 with 1333mhz FSB is $690 the same price as the quad 2.66 Woodcrest chips, the 1600mhz FSB 2.80 is almost $100 more at $797. Apple is probably looking at the 2.83 1333mhz FSB for the base model and the 3.2 1600mhz FSB foe the top end. The jump in clock speed and FSB would give them a reason to charge a higher premium that just the 400mhz clock speed jump, considering how much they are charging for the 8 core 3.0ghz now they might want to keep up that cash cow for the very top end. I know I would not want to spend an extra $1000 on just 400mhz per core, I would want to the deal sweetened a bit.
Also with the drop in RAM prices for 667mhZ FB-DIMM for the 1333mhz FSB Apple could finally put 2gig as a stock option, something I am really hoping that they do. If they go with the 2.80 for $100 more then we loose out on any extras that they can build into the base unit, hell if they even put in built in airport card for that extra $100 or a decent Nvidia 8800 I would take the hit in FSB speed.
On a side note If they stick in anything less that 400gb drive I will freak!
Good work.
Pray for Stoakley-Seaburg.
It comes down to money. The 2.83 with 1333mhz FSB is $690 the same price as the quad 2.66 Woodcrest chips, the 1600mhz FSB 2.80 is almost $100 more at $797. Apple is probably looking at the 2.83 1333mhz FSB for the base model and the 3.2 1600mhz FSB foe the top end. The jump in clock speed and FSB would give them a reason to charge a higher premium that just the 400mhz clock speed jump, considering how much they are charging for the 8 core 3.0ghz now they might want to keep up that cash cow for the very top end. I know I would not want to spend an extra $1000 on just 400mhz per core, I would want to the deal sweetened a bit.
Also with the drop in RAM prices for 667mhZ FB-DIMM for the 1333mhz FSB Apple could finally put 2gig as a stock option, something I am really hoping that they do. If they go with the 2.80 for $100 more then we loose out on any extras that they can build into the base unit, hell if they even put in built in airport card for that extra $100 or a decent Nvidia 8800 I would take the hit in FSB speed.
On a side note If they stick in anything less that 400gb drive I will freak!
I wouldn't be shocked if they still keep the 250gb base drive (but I also wouldn't be shocked if they move it up, either). The argument against the 1.333GHz FSB is that it means that they would essentially have two submodels. For someone like HP or Dell, they sell enough machines that they can afford to do that. I'm not sure that's the case with Apple. They didn't use the slower FSB Woodcrests, when they would have been cheaper... The jump in clockspeed alone seemed just fine to justify the premium for some users for the 3.0 GHz model vs. the 2.67 GHz model.
cheers.