Intel Preparing to Launch New Xeon Processors for Potential Mac Pro Upgrade

[lbotez]

article from Macworld UK: http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/mac/...-pro-processor-coming-this-september-3536364/

some interesting rumors in that article too.

 

[potatis]

but what about a [red] version?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I don't see why anything more powerful than an iMac is necessary then.

Perhaps you don't need anything more "powerful". The problem is that some of us HATE the iMac because we don't want to buy our monitors based on a computer or our computers based on a monitor. Offer a similar powered Mac Mini and you've got a sale from me. I have almost zero interest in iMacs.

A "gamer" (oh I hate that word) would be the one swapping out GPUs to get 120FPS instead of 100FPS on Crysis 3 or whatever.

I'd be happy with 30fps. I'd just like to be able to play games that aren't 4 years old on a brand new 2014 computer. Apple can't seem to deliver that at less than a top of the line iMac (still way too much for the performance level; you could build a Hackintosh that could do it at $1200 easy and have tower expansion). But offer a Mac Mini gaming edition for $1200 and I guarantee you it'll be the ONLY Mini that sells in any quantity. Some people seem to think Mac users don't game at all. That's pure BS. And not all games are suited to "iPads". In fact, most games suck on iOS type devices, IMO other than puzzles.

 

[lbotez]

Perhaps you don't need anything more "powerful". The problem is that some of us HATE the iMac because we don't want to buy our monitors based on a computer or our computers based on a monitor. Offer a similar powered Mac Mini and you've got a sale from me. I have almost zero interest in iMacs.

I have a mac mini right now, the souped-up one. It was an "in-between" machine while I was waiting for the new mac pro. And it's really nice, except for a couple of things. Until recently, I couldn't really run my two macintosh monitors on it (like I did on my old mac pro); recently though (quite can't remember exactly when, but not that long ago) they finally fixed that.

I just wish the mac mini had a real graphics card. And more ports. All my ports are filled, even the firewire port! And a faster processor, and easier way to swap out the hard drive, etc. etc.

Too bad there's nothing like a fast Cube. That design was amazing, why couldn't they update that?

I don't like all-in-one computers, except for laptops. I also want to get a 4K monitor sometime in the future...

A nice headless machine. Apple? They forgot about us.

 

[Mago]

article from Macworld UK: http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/mac/...-pro-processor-coming-this-september-3536364/

some interesting rumors in that article too.

They missed HDMI 2.0, further over optimistic on lighting digital audio output, this is an no sense since already MP has digital audio output with studio std toslink.

 

[the8thark]

Really? I paid for all my Macs (iBook, iMac, MacBook, 2 MacBook Pros, iPad mini, iPhone) in cash, but then again I have no Apple Store in my town and the Apple resellers in my town sell me Apple hardware 50 to 200 € cheaper than Apple would.

I like cash, since it is more anonymous.

Resellers are not Apple stores so they don't count. But it has been said above that Apple to take cash for iPhone purchases in Apple stores still. I always thought they didn't but I guess I am wrong.

----------

I can't use a Mac for business. I want one for personal use. Unfortunately the choices are really bad, especially now that some moron at Apple started thinking that an iMac needs to be really thin.

I would not call them bad, I would rather say, if you can't find the good points in an iMac, then an iMac is not the computer for you.

 

[Umbongo]

Top i7 may cost sane as baseline Xeon, but also chipset it's cheaper for non Xeon architecture since no need for ECC ram, just look at Intel pc market with Z99, add a 20% premium and sure you may configure a 4 core i7 with 16gb ran and a couple of good AMG gpu plus 256gb ssd for less than 1600

Apple are custom building a aboard, there would be no significant price difference in them using C600, H97 or X99; and the costs for Apple shipping ECC memory rather than non-ECC would have no impact on the price either. Not to where you are shaving off $1,000. Why would they do any of that anyway, these things were in high demand even with the huge premium over systems built with consumer parts.

Not saying I wouldn't love Apple to offer loads of combinations of hardware and have lower prices, but they have had the choice of more options since 2006 and lower pricing since 2009 yet there has been a $1,000+ premium for 5 and a half years over similar hardware and limited choices all using the high end DP and later UP platforms for 8 years (last week).

It ain't gonna happen.

 

[Mago]

Apple are custom building a aboard, there would be no significant price difference in them using C600, H97 or X99; and the costs for Apple shipping ECC memory rather than non-ECC would have no impact on the price either. Not to where you are shaving off $1,000. Why would they do any of that anyway, these things were in high demand even with the huge premium over systems built with consumer parts.

Not saying I wouldn't love Apple to offer loads of combinations of hardware and have lower prices, but they have had the choice of more options since 2006 and lower pricing since 2009 yet there has been a $1,000+ premium for 5 and a half years over similar hardware and limited choices all using the high end DP and later UP platforms for 8 years (last week).

It ain't gonna happen.

6 Core i7 Haswell-E cost ....400$
X99 LOGIC Board About .....250$
16GB Ram DDR4 about ......150$(est)
256GB SSD ......................300$
Radeon Video Cards 2xR9 .. 800$
===========================
.................................... 2000$
All Reatil prices.

So Its plausible Apple to Offer an Baseline Mac *pro* with X99/i7 @2000$

FYI ECC memory cost about 70% more than Non ECC, since add at least 3 extra bits per byte plus extra logic for Error detection and recovery.

 

[milo]

So Its plausible Apple to Offer an Baseline Mac *pro* with X99/i7 @2000$

i7 doesn't have much to do with it, if Apple wanted they could offer a baseline mac pro with quad core xeon E5-1620 for $2000. Apple's quad starts at $3000 because apple wants it to, not because it needs to based on component costs.

I'd love to see Apple use the upcoming six core i7-5820K in the iMac (and the mini as well, but that's not going to happen until they get over their size fetish).

 

[Umbongo]

6 Core i7 Haswell-E cost ....400$
X99 LOGIC Board About .....250$
16GB Ram DDR4 about ......150$(est)
256GB SSD ......................300$
Radeon Video Cards 2xR9 .. 800$
===========================
.................................... 2000$
All Reatil prices.

So Its plausible Apple to Offer an Baseline Mac *pro* with X99/i7 @2000$

FYI ECC memory cost about 70% more than Non ECC, since add at least 3 extra bits per byte plus extra logic for Error detection and recovery.

It's been plausible for Apple to offer a baseline Mac Pro for $2,000 since 2009, but they haven't. It has nothing to do with consumer part pricing vs workstation, they just have a large margin on it as it is a niche product.

Currently all the parts in the Mac Pro cost less than those you've listed above.

ECC does not cost 70% more than non-ECC, I've ordered hundreds of DIMMs in the past year and they were not that much more per GB. I can buy 32GB 2133MHz DDR4 consumer (4x8GB) for £330 or 32GB ECC (2x16GB) for £350 today. 16GB 4x4GB is £162 vs £190.

 

[zipa]

Write to them and ask them to make it thicker then

Why does it NEED to be as thick as before?

To allow for an optical drive, a decent graphics card and easier upgrades. And to keep the temperature down in general.

----------

Sorry you can't use a Mac for your Business. Would like to know what you do that only Windows can serve your needs! As for the thinness of the iMac ( I'm a MacPro owner) why is this a problem? Thanks!

I work for a company that assigned me a windows laptop for work. Also, I need Visio. But perhaps that was phrased poorly, what I meant was that I would not buy one for business, but for personal use.

The thinness is a problem because it severely restricts what can be put in it and what can be upgraded without access to high precision soldering tools and the necessary skills to use them.

----------

So it can hold a GPU made for desktops, not laptops. The new iMac is like a non-portable laptop.

Exactly. A Macbook + 30" display is a much better choice, but what I'd really like is a desktop model with desktop hardware and, heavens forbid, some upgradeability.

----------

Isn't that the Mac Mini?

No, the Mac Mini is a laptop without a battery and a display.

----------

This. Geeks wanting an expandable machine to tinker are in the minority.

I realize this. Doesn't make me want one any less, though.

 

[zipa]

Very few users of the current multi-core, gigahertz speed CPUs are actually using them for high end applications.

CPU, yes, maybe. GPU, definitely not. And it's the GPU that is sorely lacking on the Mini and the iMac.

 

[zipa]

This issue's somewhat mitigated by the high (for the industry) residual resale value of the iMac you're done with, no?

Not really. I usually take all my "done with" electronics to a local charity, or if someone in my family or one of my friends needs it, just pass it along to them.

----------

I would not call them bad, I would rather say, if you can't find the good points in an iMac, then an iMac is not the computer for you.

I have a 2010 iMac. I really, really can't see anything good having came from making the new models thinner and thinner. I bet that very few people stuff an iMac in their briefcase and go places with it, so thinner is a really daft idea when it comes at the expense of function.

 

[violst]

I don't know how excited I'd get just yet. All this "rumor" points to is potential parts becoming available, not any actual leak or info regarding the Mac Pro specifically.

The point of my post is its good to see that the Mac Pro is back in rotation when it comes to rumors not that the rumors are true.

So to your point I'm not holding out much hope that this rumor will come true anytime soon.

 

[thekev]

There used to be a time when Apple announced updated Mac Pros before Intel announced upgraded processors. There was a time when Intel provided Apple with shipments of CPUs in advance of Intel's own announcement, giving Apple a one-up marketing coup.

It happened once, so you expect it to happen again? That is unrealistic and a bad overall precedence for intel. They aren't getting any contracts on idevices, so I don't see what they really have to gain. As of today Apple is probably a very profitable client, yet not their largest account.

 

[prowlmedia]

I've got 3 of the little suckers with 16GB of RAM and SSDs and just opening a 3D program gets their little fans sounding like 737s ready for takeoff. The video is clearly the weak link, and My MacPros are a much better solution, even the old 8-core.

I do agree that most people are fine with a mini, but whenever I suggest them to people with appropriate needs they usually turn their noses up at them. There seems to be no shortage of people buying nMPs to check their mail on.

As for your photographer friend, Monitor choice is important, and I salute him/her, iMac screens are not suitable for high-end photography. The Holy Grail is the Mid-range Headless Mac, but Apple will never give it to us, so Minis will have to do unless you feel like buying "The Tube".

Sure. But the Current mac minis are not even phased by 2D photographic work even a hasselblad 30 megapixel image. Sure they need an update to the latest intel graphics chip or whatever... I suspect something nice is on the horizon in september. A mac mini with 4K output I am sure. Especially if they bring a screen out. Ha Might even be a flat cylinder

What 3d package do you use? I am running C4D Team Render - not the full Application and it doesn't spin up the fans unless it's on heavy renders.

 

[greenmeanie]

Most people won't be able to even afford these new processors for awhile.
And I don't even think the Software is using the CORES we have now.

 

[pmau]

I think there will be a new MacPro update.

The current allocation of PCIe lanes and the use of the rebranded D500/D700 GPU's makes me believe that the current model was a compromise that they wanted to start shipping end of 2013.

Just look at the delayed shipments. My guess is they were so supply constraint with regards to CPU and GPU that the current model was the only thing they were able to ship at all.

The built a prototype, showed it off saying' "Innovate my A***" and then they ran into problems.

This time, they will ship a model that comes close to what they initially wanted to sell. My guess is that a new model will appear after the holidays, because a MacPro is not a holiday season product at all. I bet on March or June.

----------

Most people won't be able to even afford these new processors for awhile.
And I don't even think the Software is using the CORES we have now.

That's right, but I believe the current architecture is a compromise.
It's not about cores and MHz, it's about wiring of PCIe lanes, memory bandwidth and external ports.

 

[Mago]

I think there will be a new MacPro update.

The current allocation of PCIe lanes and the use of the rebranded D500/D700 GPU's makes me believe that the current model was a compromise that they wanted to start shipping end of 2013.

Just look at the delayed shipments. My guess is they were so supply constraint with regards to CPU and GPU that the current model was the only thing they were able to ship at all.

The built a prototype, showed it off saying' "Innovate my A***" and then they ran into problems.

This time, they will ship a model that comes close to what they initially wanted to sell. My guess is that a new model will appear after the holidays, because a MacPro is not a holiday season product at all. I bet on March or June.

I think so, an due arrive now what they really wanted the Mac Pro has to be, Xeon v3 + better integrated Thunderbolt 2 + HDMI 2.0, since the original nMacPro just offered a marginal performance improvement, the updated nMacPro should really be a performance groundbreak relative to the Mac Pro 5x.

Furthermore I think Apple should sell now an x99/i7 Haswell-E based Mac *Pro* to fill the gap between iMac and Mac mini and the Xeon based Mac Pro, If they don't do they are leaving an market open competition's alternatives.

They may trade on an x99 based Mac *Pro* the 2nd Gpu for an single spinner HDD and still deliver an shocking machine for less than 2000$.

 

[lbotez]

I have no idea what I would do with 18 cores, but I want it!

me too!

We are such Mac whores!


I can't afford it though. I couldn't afford a NeXT computer either, but got one eventually. I feel sort of like Gollum ("my precious"), even though it's totally useless now.


I'm beginning to think it will be a year before a newer Mac Pro materialize ... this current batch isn't even 9 months old yet. Who are kidding?

 

[PocketSand11]

I'd be happy with 30fps. I'd just like to be able to play games that aren't 4 years old on a brand new 2014 computer. Apple can't seem to deliver that at less than a top of the line iMac (still way too much for the performance level; you could build a Hackintosh that could do it at $1200 easy and have tower expansion).

I know a friend who plays lots of computer games on his mid-end 2011 iMac, and his experience is very different. He's always playing these new games with amazing graphics. They'd probably work on the latest Mac mini. It would make sense (maybe not business sense) for there to be a Mac mini with the same hardware as an iMac, and I see the problem, but it's exaggerated how powerful a computer you need to have to play modern games. As of recently, most computers are good enough.

 

[CFreymarc]

CPU, yes, maybe. GPU, definitely not. And it's the GPU that is sorely lacking on the Mini and the iMac.

My take is that next Mac Mini will be a 2" tall version of the current Mac Pro minus the fan. I bet good money you see a radical Mac Mini refresh before the Christmas season.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I know a friend who plays lots of computer games on his mid-end 2011 iMac, and his experience is very different. He's always playing these new games with amazing graphics. They'd probably work on the latest Mac mini. It would make sense (maybe not business sense) for there to be a Mac mini with the same hardware as an iMac, and I see the problem, but it's exaggerated how powerful a computer you need to have to play modern games. As of recently, most computers are good enough.

I've got a late 2012 Mini. It struggles with detailed 3D shooter type games. The newer Intel graphics are probably 2x faster, but still not as fast as an NVidia from 4 years ago.

 

[milo]

My take is that next Mac Mini will be a 2" tall version of the current Mac Pro minus the fan. I bet good money you see a radical Mac Mini refresh before the Christmas season.

Why? In the MP the boards are all in there vertically. A box that short would have them flat like the current mini, it would have nothing in the design in common with the MP other than "hey, it's a circle".

I hope we do see a major upgrade to the mini but there's no practical reason for it to look anything like the MP.

 

[koyoot]

Why? In the MP the boards are all in there vertically. A box that short would have them flat like the current mini, it would have nothing in the design in common with the MP other than "hey, it's a circle".

I hope we do see a major upgrade to the mini but there's no practical reason for it to look anything like the MP.

Yes there is.

Similair design means it can be produced in the same american fab, as the Mac Pro. And further lowering the production costs of running that facility.