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.
Last Minute Specs: iMac, Mac Minis, Airport Extreme, Time Capsule and Mac Pros?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I hope they redesign the MacPro.
Personally, I think the current Mac Pro looks miles better than this. This doesnt really look like something apple would design, their current trend is black accents on aluminium, not huge panels of black
According to Tomshardware & Anandtech the 2.66 is either faster or much faster than the old 3.2 Quad depending on app.
Apple store down in Europe
The config
MAC PRO 2.26_8CX/6X1G/640/GT120/SD-USA
MAC PRO 2.66QCX/3X1GB/640/GT120/SD-USA
Does not make sense, unless the 2.66 is a single quad core and the 2.26 is dual quad core. An odd configuration but they have had dual G4/533 as top of the line over single G4/733 and dual 800 over single 933
Then the new 2.66 should be cheaper than the old 2.66 as one i7/920 is much cheaper than to plain vanlilla Quads, let alone the server Quads. The memory is also cheaper DDR compared to FB.
Looks like my Sawtooth soon will be relegated to become a backup server or something
Apple store down in Europe
The config
MAC PRO 2.26_8CX/6X1G/640/GT120/SD-USA
MAC PRO 2.66QCX/3X1GB/640/GT120/SD-USA
Does not make sense, unless the 2.66 is a single quad core and the 2.26 is dual quad core. An odd configuration but they have had dual G4/533 as top of the line over single G4/733 and dual 800 over single 933
Then the new 2.66 should be cheaper than the old 2.66 as one i7/920 is much cheaper than to plain vanlilla Quads, let alone the server Quads. The memory is also cheaper DDR compared to FB.
Looks like my Sawtooth soon will be relegated to become a backup server or something
Well 4am... I work for them. So I'll probably find out tomorrow morning, but the suspense is killing!
Good morning my friend! Today i don't want to read FAKE FAK FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE in your posts !!!
Good morning. You won't. As I said, what I said about that new Mac Pro design is completely true.
Either they use a full Tylersburg and a new design, a gimped Tylersburg and the current design, or they don't use Tylersburg at all.
Trust me; I've tried working out the layout for a couple of months now.
And those SDKs are pathetic nonsense. We're not WRONG, yet, because there is NO way that Apple will only have TWO models.
My point too i7 is cheaper more powerful and not locked in to expensive EEC APPLE heatsink memory noi7 is a shame unless they are trying to screw with us.
A i7 machine canbe built via hackntoshand spank the present mac profitaround $500 us dollars. It makes no sense to not have the i7 please what other explenation is there.
Peace
A i7 machine canbe built via hackntoshand spank the present mac profitaround $500 us dollars. It makes no sense to not have the i7 please what other explenation is there.
Peace
According to Tomshardware & Anandtech the 2.66 is either faster or much faster than the old 3.2 Quad depending on app.
Apple store down in Europe
The config
MAC PRO 2.26_8CX/6X1G/640/GT120/SD-USA
MAC PRO 2.66QCX/3X1GB/640/GT120/SD-USA
Does not make sense, unless the 2.66 is a single quad core and the 2.26 is dual quad core. An odd configuration but they have had dual G4/533 as top of the line over single G4/733 and dual 800 over single 933
Then the new 2.66 should be cheaper than the old 2.66 as one i7/920 is much cheaper than to plain vanlilla Quads, let alone the server Quads. The memory is also cheaper DDR compared to FB.
Looks like my Sawtooth soon will be relegated to become a backup server or something
From the leaked specs we see that Apple is fine with keeping the top clock speed the same.
We also know that they have passed on the three mobile quad-cores available now (2.0/2.27/2.53 GHz). So I conclude that Apple is unwilling to put lower-clocked quad-cores in the same line as higher-clocked dual-cores (which is likely the reason why they waited until the 3.0 GHz Clovertown came out to release the 8-core Mac Pro).
In late 2009 and early 2010, the situation will be similar to how it is now. Clarksfield will replace the mobile quad-cores and Arrandale will replace the mobile dual-cores. Although it is likely that initial quad-cores will be cheaper (and so will top dual-cores), Arrandale clocks (remember Arrandale will be 32 nm as opposed to Clarksfield's 45 nm) are likely to be higher than most Clarksfield clocks, just as it is now with dual-/quad-core mobile Penryns (unless Arrandale is dirt cheap or something).
So if there's no quad-core now, then there probably won't be quad-core this time next year, either. If Arrandale is cheap enough so it goes sub-3 GHz and Clarksfield hits a similar top clock, then we could see one or two Clarksfields in the high end. Quad-core yes, but still far from what could happen if Apple would (a) Allow lower-clocked quads to coexist with higher-clocked duals, (b) Have quads as BTO, or (c) Use those 65 W desktop quads.
Who knows when the majority of Intel mobile CPUs will go quad-core. Maybe later in 2010, maybe 2011. But for now I'm going the pessimist route.