Intel postponing Penryn release - not good

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Matek, Dec 21, 2007.

  1. Matek macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    #1
    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?
     
  2. irishgrizzly macrumors 65816

    irishgrizzly

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    #2
    But this will only effect desktop/mobile range, not the workstation, right?
     
  3. Matek thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    #3
    Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. The Xeons should already be available with Penryn. I guess this topic shoud be moved then, it could still interfere with MBP upgrade.
     
  4. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #5
    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.
     
  5. garry12 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    #6
  6. Topper macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #7
    AND
    They are talking about desktop Penryn processors.
    The Mac Pro uses server processors; i.e. Harpertown processors.
     
  7. deathshrub macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Location:
    Christmas Island
  8. chelsel macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    #9
    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.
     
  9. Twe Foju macrumors 6502

    Twe Foju

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Location:
    Jakarta
    #10
    ^
    ^

    so? any faster than your older processor?

    so the penryn for Laptops have been delayed?

    good, now i can just happily buy SR MBP :D
     
  10. pastrychef macrumors 601

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    #11
    Have you installed it yet? I'm dying to find out because I'd like to do something similar myself... Thanks.
     
  11. overcast macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    #12
    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.
     
  12. dollystereo macrumors 6502a

    dollystereo

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Location:
    France
  13. pastrychef macrumors 601

    pastrychef

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York City, NY
    #14
    Yes, but the larger cache should help. Plus, it should run cooler.
     
  14. sdhollman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
  15. sdhollman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #17
  16. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #18
    I don't see a reason not to use the 1600 MHz bus version.
     
  17. sdhollman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #19
    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! :p
     
  18. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #20
    I didn't check the equivalent Penryn replacement price for a Woodcrest. (I only have the desktop ones memorized...)

    Good work. :D

    Pray for Stoakley-Seaburg.
     
  19. dkoralek macrumors 6502

    dkoralek

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    #21
    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.
     

Share This Page