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 Unveils 'Purley' Xeon Chip Lineup, but None are Appropriate for High-End iMac Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, ARM on desktops will remove the ability to run non-app store apps and games, along with no windows bootcamp.
It will also be slower than the retina macbook.
It is not realistic at all to sabotage the high performing desktops for a silly dream.
Difficult with them needed to wait on Intel.
If they released it with the Broadwell chips then they would need to completely rebuild it to support the new Skylake chips. So by know, it would be redundant.
I'm sure they will get the specs they have listed on the website. Given the i9 parts are just disabled Xeons and they boost a single core up to 4.5Ghz they could get one of these parts and make sure Intel don't disable the ECC.
I don't think Apple would of listed the specs if they weren't going to use them. Also let's not forget this was a "preview" of what's to come as the time gets closer we may hear more details on the iMac Pro, it will be very interesting to see if they do add Touch ID and or the Touch Bar to the iMac Pro's keyboard.
> No, ARM on desktops will remove the ability to run non-app store apps and games, along with no windows bootcamp.
I agree
> It will also be slower than the retina macbook.
No if you don't have the very strong power requirements ARM chips (look at the server stuff from IBM) are very fast.
Personally, I think this Xeon is a good match for the iMac but for the modular they should go with AMDs Epyc platform, amd are offering all the 128 PCIe (gen3) lanes from 8cores up to 32cores. Yes the single core performance is lower but apple could work with AMD to build a board that supports both the Epyc cpus and the Threadripper models. Since both of these support ECC ram and have the same socket just a few small changes on the chipset.
if you need high single threaded then go with the threadripper if you need 32cores and lots of IO go with the epyc.
[doublepost=1499868119][/doublepost]
absolutely i agree they will meet all the listed specs. Interestingly this machine might end up being very unique in that no one else will be able to get a ECC memory supporting chip that has single core boost upto 4.5Ghz.
[doublepost=1499868531][/doublepost]
I think for the modular this would be reallyly nice move.
If they could build a board that supports both EpYc and Threadripper. (possibleis given that they use the same socket) a diffrent chipset but apple could work that out.
The issue with the Xeon line is it is very confusing, and for a modular product that has PCIe and memory controlers this leads to an issue for apple.
it not very apple to have a big user manual that says for each cpu what PCIe sockets are available and what ram slots will work, amd have made this simple with the Epyc line from 8 cors all the way upto 32cores you have 8channels DDR4 ECC and 128PCIe lanes.
Or with threadripper, you have 4 channels DDR4 ECC (supported but not validated, Apple could validate each chip before installing if they want that validation) 64PCI lanes from 10cors to 16cores (higher clock speeds than Epic)
Understand that.
And with the chassis dimensions already there, that process will move along much quicker than if they were creating a completely new machine from nothing.
[doublepost=1499870610][/doublepost]
Where is that promise at ?
Was that a "cross my heart and hope to die" promise and was it December release to order dates or release to deliver dates?
It would not be the least bit shocking if preorders began in December with deliveries set for March. Leaving 2-3 months for the vocal anti-Tim and Apple is doomed! parties to pummel their poor keyboards.
Oh! I was already there with the $5,000 starting price...
Why? The Xeon equivalent will likely have a very similar price point with ECC support, more validation and loose the ability to overclock which Apple won't use anyways. It might save a few $100 on the price of a $5K machine. Believe it or not lots of pros would prefer ECC RAM.
They are working on a Mac Pro this isn't suppose to be that. This is the iMac Pro for the Pro's who use iMacs but want more power.
That's base system (8C, Vega56,512GB) given price delta among 8C Skylake-X and 18C its about 1400, and Vega64 its expected to cost about 800$ more than Vega56, add this current Apple tax on SSD/Ram Upgrades, a loaded iMac Pro (vega 68, 18C, 128GB, 2TB SSD) should realistically top 9000-10000$, a more popular system should have 10C/Vega64/1TB and cost 6500-7500$.Oh! I was already there with the $5,000 starting price...
Expensive, but still competitive in Workstations Market, where loaded system easy skyrocket over 20.000$
For sure. There are people and companies out there that need/require Xeon processors and ECC memory. I would wager a good majority don't.
I can't imagine adding a 5K display to the Mac pro, a better graphics card, upgrading the ram from 64GB to 128GB, and technically, you can stuff 4TB of storage into the iMac Pro via two SSD slots, will be priced anywhere below $10,000. Especially when you consider the price of a maxed out 2013 Mac Pro in December of 2013...
"a maxed-out 2013 Mac Pro, complete with a 12-core processor, 64GB of RAM, 1TB of flash storage, and dual FirePro D700 GPUs, will set you back a cool $9599.)"
Also, those $20,000 workstations are also loaded with multiple processors, storage and video cards, something neither iMac Pro nor the current iMac can offer.
Waking up Jony Ive proved to be harder than reassigning complete engineering divisions to redress all cpu hardware for the nearest available (iMac) form factor
Can we just all agree that the one thing we all want are the Space Gray magic keyboard and Magic Mouse regardless of what Mac we use?
I think it's more of a there is not the hardware that is out yet that means what they want for a mac pro.
Intel has only just updated the Xeon line and its not that great an update. For a modula mac pro apple may want to realy provide IO like never before. Currently, you either go with the IBM Power9 (that costs a hell load) and would require a complete kernal re-write if at all possible. Or you go for an AMD Epyc but still will require a lot of kernal work to get stable.
these intel chips provide less PCIe than the generation before them.
[doublepost=1499950537][/doublepost]
what would be a better CPU if not a xeon at the moment. The Intel i9 range is having real problems with power draw something you can't have in an all-in-one.
They could go with amd, but that would require big changes to the kernel and lots and lots of testing.
The new Skylake X chips are running into power and thermal issues when they're overclocked. At stock frequencies, they're fine. When compared to all overclocked Ryzen chips, the 7820X draws the same power as the Ryzen chips. Another note to point out, the stock 7820X performs better than any of the overclocked Ryzen 8 core chips set safely to 3.9GHz - especially in the single core performance.
If Apple was willing to rework the iMac case and change sockets for the iMac Pro to deal with the power and thermals for the 8, 10 and 18 core Xeon CPUs, they could do the same with the regular iMac, and expanded the CPU line-up from 6 cores to 18 cores - and probably saved us a few bucks along the way.
The new Skylake X chips are running into power and thermal issues when they're overclocked. At stock frequencies, they're fine. When compared to all overclocked Ryzen chips, the 7820X draws the same power as the Ryzen chips. Another note to point out, the stock 7820X performs better than any of the overclocked Ryzen 8 core chips set safely to 3.9GHz - especially in the single core performance.
If Apple was willing to rework the iMac case and change sockets for the iMac Pro to deal with the power and thermals for the 8, 10 and 18 core Xeon CPUs, they could do the same with the regular iMac, and expanded the CPU line-up from 6 cores to 18 cores - and probably saved us a few bucks along the way.
I dont see much point in apple doing an i9X range given a top end iMac is > 5000USD and the iMacPro starts at 5000USD
There are users whos workloads are single thread bound but they will still do better with an i7 we have seen all the benchmarks showing the i9x cpus cant compete with the top end for single/low core count tasks i7.
You could argue that the MacPro should not be using a server cpu and should use the i9X range but then you loos support for ECC ram and other server features that many of the top end pro users need.
Would it not be better to provide a device may be in the form of the mac pro with lower clock speeds much much more IO and more threads for users whose workloads are a more multi thread (such as rendering where the floating point of Zen is beating intel into the floor.) Such a machine could support real expansion.
Intel readies a Worrkstation Xeon Line based Bassin Falls family (Aka Skylake-X) which its a mere i9X with ECC support and maybe a slower clock for endurance stability and very unlikely overclock capability.
So basically the iMac Pro will run on i9X cpu with ECC enabled and rebadged as Xeon Workstartion.
Zen is beating intel in Cost/Core and Cost/Multithread Performance, but either with i7 or i9 in single thread Intel still well ahead AMD in performance (at stock clock speeds i9 are faster than i7 in single thread, this is very important for workstations since pro's trade overclock for stability/integrity on very long tasks as 3-D binary operations and other single-thread exclusive algorithms)
As a second generation chip designer, I disagree that ARM has the ability to run conventional software without compromises like a x64 processor to execute native code. As such would merely entail power management on ARM, it would not make any difference other than energy saving on laptops, and would have no use case for desktops.
AMD does not have the performance yet to match Broadwell Xeon, let alone Skylake Xeon. As such, why should Apple ship low performing Mac Pro desktops if they want to have a high performance desktop ?
It makes no sense to limit the performance just for an AMD fanbase.
Did you see the benchmarks Anandtech http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade the AMD Epyic (4000$ parts) is beating the next gen intel (8000$) in many of the benchmarks and beating the Broadwell in all.
True AMD do not have the single thread integer performance but in floating point they beat intel even though they have a smaller vector width.
> without compromises like a x64 processor to execute native code
As far as we know apple don't have the patients to produce a chip like this without endless lawsuits.
[doublepost=1500104546][/doublepost]
But it would require Apple to build a different board and at what price point would the i9 be?
it would need to cost more than the current i7 iMAC that once you select the top end CPU are just under $5000 and the iMac Pro starts at $5000.
It would be very strange for Apple to produce a product between the 2. But the other major issue for apple if they did the i9 would be that they would need to start at 10core otherwise they would not have enough PCIe lanes to have 4 thunderbolt ports and a GPU. The lower core i9 chips just don't have enough PCIe so you're still talking about a $1k CPU that would put the price of the i9 iMac around the same as the 8core iMac Pro.
Yes some users need single core performance but more users need multi core performance in the long run if intel can't complete on not just price but also IO (PCIe and memory bandwidth is much larger with AMDs solution compared to Xeons) apple may be forced (if they care about the pro pro user) to look into using a mix of intel and AMD across thier platforms.
A couple of iMacs are part of my computing resources, and I use them both frequently, but I have them because it's a form factor that Apple enjoys to push. I don't like it, because I want modularity and serviceability, two things that Apple considers like an enemy to their business. They want you to buy new devices constantly, and the iMac form factor fits there nicely: the simplest and silliest failure of a single component becomes an strong reason for advising you to buy a new Mac.
On the other hand, the Mac Pro (except the cylinder) is modular and serviceable, it's a long term purchase. Apple doesn't like the "long term" word, that's against the teenager-compulsive-addictive purchasing of the latest iOS device, which is what Apple considers the way to go nowadays.
I can justify spending $4000-$6000 on a Mac if it's a long-term purchase. But on a "repair it by buying a new one" iMac, sorry, but no. Not even crazy. I've seen iMacs fail because of a simple component failure, and Apple telling "sorry, we don't repair that anymore, its beyond 5 years"... well, sorry but then I'm not going to spend $5000 on a machine you want me to replace sooner than 5 years.
That's the reason I believe they released this iMac Pro so soon, while waiting more than a year for the promised "Modular Mac Pro". The word "modular" must be just freaky and scary for them, and they are spending all this time thinking how to make a Mac Pro that can be called "modular" but that will be close to the (lack of) serviceability and modularity of the iMac.
or they are waiting for the Mac Pro untill they have some hardware that is proven and is good.
The iMac Pro will ship with a modified Skylake Xeon (apparently they have managed to get it to boost to 4.5Ghz) these chips have only just now been released and as a brand new arc will have some issues and problems. I recon for the modular mac pro Apple don't want to create a new version of it for at least another 8 years (that is how long it will take Intel to produce the next server arc) The iMac pro i think they will update alongside the iMacs so if there is an issue with these first gen borads they can fix that in a few years but with the Mac Pro that will not be an option.
Also, there is really no point in releasing a Broadwell Mac Pro it would only be a small upgrade over the current version so it makes a lot of sense to wait untill at least mid 2018 untill the new Xeon line is well enough tested in the field for them to be sure enough about the boards they make.
The mac pro market is so small <2% of mac sales they dont care about trying to make you buy a new one every year.
Well, that's scary to think about. I sure hope the new modular Mac Pro is truly modular, as was the pre-2013 Mac Pro. That would be amazing and I would buy it in a heartbeat! But an overly expensive, non-upgradeable all-in-one that has cooling issues? HECK NO! I'm not buying that crap, regardless of how great it looks on paper.
the iMac Pro foresee 4 TBv3 ports, each requires 2-4 PCIe3 lines (8-16 max), a GPU requires 16 PCIe3 Lines, each NVMe SSD requires 4 PCIe3 Lines (8 More) as the 10Gbt Lan (4 PCIe3) other peripheral requires 3 more (USB3/WiFi/webcam) Required by an Maxed Out iMAc Pro are 16(GPU)+8(SSD)+[8/16(TBv3)+4(Lan)+3(Wifi/Usb3.1/etc)] total:24+15/23 intel X299 PCH (bassin fals) provides itself 24 PCIe3 lines, and Skylake-X HEDT HCC cpus provide 28-44PCIe3 lines, so the iMac Pro has enough PCIe lines (Lan, WiFi USB TBv3 and suport peripherals use to be wired to the PCH exclusively, that means the CPU only need to wire 24 of its minimal 28PCIe Lines in case they decide to wire each TBv3).
Last edited: