Mac Pro is obsolete

Mac Rules

macrumors 6502
Jul 15, 2006
489
332
Switzerland
This website just gets better and better, do they not like Apple?

I very much doubt that Apple would put soo much effort into the Mac Pro, to know tht it'll be completly obsolete in just over a year...

BS from this website strikes again!

Cheers
 

NATO

macrumors 68000
Feb 14, 2005
1,692
28
Northern Ireland
Um, that's not good....

On the other hand, if Intel is expecting this, why would they have helped Apple design the Mac Pro to use RAM which they antipate will become obsolete?
 

Chaszmyr

macrumors 601
Aug 9, 2002
4,263
76
Mac Rules said:
This website just gets better and better, do they not like Apple?
I'm guessing you didn't read the article, because the article didn't even mention Apple.

NATO said:
Um, that's not good....

On the other hand, if Intel is expecting this, why would they have helped Apple design the Mac Pro to use RAM which they antipate will become obsolete?
Who really cares what RAM is being used in 2008? FB DIMMS are the best RAM on the market today, regardless of what sort of RAM computers in the future will use.
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,636
0
NATO said:
On the other hand, if Intel is expecting this, why would they have helped Apple design the Mac Pro to use RAM which they antipate will become obsolete?
Apple used the RAM that works with the chipset they are using right now, that's fine. Next year's Mac Pro will use whatever RAM works with next year's chipset.

This is no big deal, RAM sockets and technologies are constantly changing.

Mac Rules said:
This website just gets better and better, do they not like Apple?
The story is about Intel. Apple aren't even mentioned. You do know that most systems using this stuff won't come from Apple, right?
 

cube

macrumors P6
Original poster
May 10, 2004
16,979
4,926
iMeowbot said:
This is no big deal, RAM sockets and technologies are constantly changing.
This means FB-DIMMs will stay expensive.
 

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,239
4
expensive does not mean obsolete.

also i think the MacPros are running fine, hardley obsolete. :eek: :rolleyes:
i also think they will continue to run OS X and such for quite a while.

now if you were trying to say that the G3 proccessor family is now obsolete i could agree with that. (obviously not having anything to do with this story directly though)
 

TBi

macrumors 68030
Jul 26, 2005
2,582
0
Ireland
Chaszmyr said:
Who really cares what RAM is being used in 2008? FB DIMMS are the best RAM on the market today, regardless of what sort of RAM computers in the future will use.
They aren't necessarily the best. They have high latency and fast DDR2 would be just as fast speed wise without the high latency.
 

displaced

macrumors 65816
Jun 23, 2003
1,425
180
Gravesend, United Kingdom
cube said:
This means FB-DIMMs will stay expensive.
RAM designed for this kind of workstation will never be cheap.

Even our 3-year+ old Dell PowerEdge servers at work still need relatively expensive RAM. For all intents and purposes, the Mac Pro's architecture has more in common with that of a mid-range server than a home PC, and the cost of components is going to reflect that fact.

The article states Intel are looking to return to using RDRAM. RDRAM has never been cheap either. At least RAM isn't a consumable. Buy wisely (i.e. don't fill your slots with low-capacity modules), buy what you need, and It'll be a one-off expense.

I must say, the thread title is bizarre. Probably the funniest reasons I've heard for a machine to be branded "OBSOLETE!!oneone1!!"... "Its RAM won't be cutting edge in 18-24 months! RAM won't be cheap!" :D

Ease up on the hyperbole! (man, I say that a lot these days, I think I should make it my sig)
 

TBi

macrumors 68030
Jul 26, 2005
2,582
0
Ireland
displaced said:
The article states Intel are looking to return to using RDRAM. RDRAM has never been cheap either. At least RAM isn't a consumable. Buy wisely (i.e. don't fill your slots with low-capacity modules), buy what you need, and It'll be a one-off expense.
I'm not sure they meant Rambus, they said "rDimm" not "RIMM" which is the correct terminology for Rambus. I'd say they meant regular DIMM but i don't know for sure.
 

displaced

macrumors 65816
Jun 23, 2003
1,425
180
Gravesend, United Kingdom
TBi said:
Im not sure they meant Rambus, they said "rDimm" not "RIMM" which is the correct terminology for Rambus. I'd say they meant regular DIMM but i don't know for sure.
Good point! A quick google shows others have been similarly confused. However, you're correct - I now take R-DIMM to mean Registered-DIMM. This is still a server-grade technology, and will attract higher prices (although not as much as with RIMMs, because of Rambus' lovely licensing costs)
 

TBi

macrumors 68030
Jul 26, 2005
2,582
0
Ireland
stephenmckeague said:
Yes but expense will be one of the ramifications of making the RAM obsolete
but they aren't making it obsolete, they are keeping it for the biggest and fastest servers.
 

TEG

macrumors 604
Jan 21, 2002
6,570
49
Langley, Washington
Actually, what I read was that the FB-DIMMs are going to be used on high end servers, because you can run much more Memory through fewer slots on the Logic Board. This basically tells me that maybe we won't have FB-DIMMs, but it is more likely that this means that there will be an in between model between iMac and MacPro.

TEG
 

displaced

macrumors 65816
Jun 23, 2003
1,425
180
Gravesend, United Kingdom
stephenmckeague said:
Yes but expense will be one of the ramifications of making the RAM obsolete
... then don't wait for it to become obsolete before buying it :)

It is not obsolete now. Intel's current workstation-class boards (as used in Dell servers, HP servers, IBM servers, etc.) require FB-DIMMs, so there's a need that is being filled by manufacturers.

You might as well say the Dell PowerEdge 2950 is obsolete, or the IBM SystemX 3550 is obsolete too :)
 

cube

macrumors P6
Original poster
May 10, 2004
16,979
4,926
displaced said:
... then don't wait for it to become obsolete before buying it :)
It's not that it will be much more expensive because of being obsolete, it's that the offer won't ramp up.
 

displaced

macrumors 65816
Jun 23, 2003
1,425
180
Gravesend, United Kingdom
cube said:
It's not that it will be much more expensive because of being obsolete, it's that the offer won't ramp up.
Ah, well that's a different story :) It's more like:

"RAM For Machines Using Intel's 'Blackford' Chipset Likely to Not Drop In Price. Future Chipsets to Use Different RAM Technology."

Which isn't really an exciting headline, but at least it's accurate...
 

slughead

macrumors 68040
Apr 28, 2004
3,105
234
FB-DIMM's have their advantages, but Intel seems to think that it's not worth the heat, the high cost, and the longer latency.

FB-DIMM's, however, are stable (which likely translates to applications) and have really high-bandwidth.

When I sell my Mac Pro, the only way this article is going to affect anything is that I'll sell the RAM with it (as my new machine likely wont have it).

This doesn't make the Mac Pro "obsolete", it just means that Intel's newer models will be better in some ways, due to them switching to a new memory type. Wow, new things are better, that doesn't make the old things obsolete.

Look, this mac pro I have in front of me has FOUR GOD DAMNED PROCESSORS IN IT.. it's not going to be "obsolete" for a LONG TIME.