Mac Pro Suitable Nehalem (Core i7) Processors Due in 1st Quarter 2009

[Joe The Dragon]

It would be great if Snow Leopard came with a new effort from Apple to ensure that the latest, hottest graphics cards will always be supported on both OS X and Windows. Apple doesn't have to do more than that to reach out to gamers.

they will aslo need a real desktop at $800 to $1900 to get games as well. A $2300 desktop with a low end video card and 2gb of ram does not cut it.

 

[m1stake]

OSX is not built to play games. OpenGL in general is laughably behind D3D, and Apple's implementation of it isn't particularly good to start with.

Unless that changes, no smart game aficionado will be playing anything on OSX. They've had 8 years to do it, why start now?

 

[guzhogi]

It would be great if Snow Leopard came with a new effort from Apple to ensure that the latest, hottest graphics cards will always be supported on both OS X and Windows. Apple doesn't have to do more than that to reach out to gamers.

I'd like to know whether it's hardware vs. a software issue considering how few graphics cards Macs have. I've heard that it's because Macs use EFI & PCs, for the most part, still use BIOS. Any thoughts?

 

[iMacmatician]

I wish apple would use desktop core i7 or equivalent single socket xeon processor. It has tremendous bandwidth( 25.6GB/s), quad core wit hyperthreading ( 8 virtual cores) and since it supports DDR3, Apple could have used low powered/latency to build a killer workstation. But apple would never go that road.

Because dual Gainestown would easily beat single Bloomfield (8 logical cores aren't 8 physical cores). As much as Nehalem is a benefit over Core 2, dual Nehalems raise the bar even further - and I want Apple to raise the bar, not keep it where it is.

 

[diamond.g]

Because dual Gainestown would easily beat single Bloomfield (8 logical cores aren't 8 physical cores). As much as Nehalem is a benefit over Core 2, dual Nehalems raise the bar even further - and I want Apple to raise the bar, not keep it where it is.

Wouldn't that be true due to Gainestown having 16 logical cores versus 8 with Bloomfield? I was just thinking that they could move over to the new stuff now and introduce the killer rig as soon as it becomes available. As it is now (if you look at benchmarks) a fast Bloomfield is able to keep up with the high end DP Core 2 Xeon. So now you can touch Mac Pro performance for a "fraction" of the cost.

On the contrary, Apple's original Intel-based Dev Transition Kit used a 3.6GHz Pentium 4 with Hyperthreading enabled.

Interesting...

 

[iMacmatician]

Wouldn't that be true due to Gainestown having 16 logical cores versus 8 with Bloomfield?

Yes it would. So even though single-CPU speed will increase a lot with Nehalem, dual-CPu speed would increase the same amount too.

I was just thinking that they could move over to the new stuff now and introduce the killer rig as soon as it becomes available. As it is now (if you look at benchmarks) a fast Bloomfield is able to keep up with the high end DP Core 2 Xeon. So now you can touch Mac Pro performance for a "fraction" of the cost.

In the next quarter, there will be Gainestowns that deliver almost double the speed. Sure Apple can release a Mac Pro with one CPU as a lower-end addition to the current Mac Pro, but leave the dual-CPU options too.

 

[mjteix]

Sure Apple can release a Mac Pro with one CPU as a lower-end addition to the current Mac Pro, but leave the dual-CPU options too.

That's what I wanted them to do since the Intel switch:
- Mac Pro "One" with Conroe, then Yorkfield and now Bloomfield
- Mac Pro "Dual" with 2x Woodcrest, then 2x Harpertown and now 2x Gainestown,

Not just a dual cpu motherboard with just one cpu, but one "entry-level" motherboard with one desktop cpu and one "high-end" motherboard with two workstation/server cpus. And it makes even more sense right now that the price diffrence between "desktop" cpus and DP-server cpus is wider.

Dual-cpu nehalem workstations will be more expensive than harpertown systems at the same clock, due to the higher prices of the cpus (and probably the motherboard, too). So Apple could release a smaller/more affordable Mac Pro using the Core i7/X58 plateform and then a "regular" Mac Pro with dual Xeons and Tylersburg chipset:

$1499 2.66GHz, Core i7 920, 3GB RAM, 500GB HDD, Superdrive, GPU (Dell's model is $969, Gateway's at $1299...)
$1999 2.93GHz, Core i7 940, 3GB RAM, 500GB HDD, Superdrive, GPU (Dell's model is around $1439...)
$2499 3.20GHz, Core i7 965, 3GB RAM, 500GB HDD, Superdrive, GPU

$2999 dual 2.53GHz Xeon E5540, 6GB RAM, 500GB HDD, Superdrive, GPU (2x$744=$1488 for the cpus)
$3999 dual 2.80GHz Xeon X5560, 6GB RAM, 500GB HDD, Superdrive, GPU (2x$1172=$2344 (+$856) for the cpus)
$4999 dual 3.20GHz Xeon W5580, 6GB RAM, 500GB HDD, Superdrive, GPU (2X$1600=$3200 (+$856) for the cpus)

Apple would probably sell twice as much of each single cpu model as they have ever sold single cpu Mac Pros! And probably with better margins per model. The standard GPU doesn't need to be high-end since not everybody needs one, but there should be some nicer options than what we can have today...

 

[AidenShaw]

Stop that crazy talk, right now!

That's what I wanted them to do since the Intel switch:
- Mac Pro "One" with Conroe, then Yorkfield and now Bloomfield
- Mac Pro "Dual" with 2x Woodcrest, then 2x Harpertown and now 2x Gainestown, ....

The Steve does not want you to have that option - you're stuck with a choice between laptop chips in an all in one (or a toy headless laptop), and a high end expensive workstation.

'nuff said.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Ah, yes. The iMac reminds me of its limitations daily. And I wouldn't exactly call the the ones looking for a tower average, the average user is already pretty well served. The above average user aka prosumer is the one who's hurting. Apple seems to think that you're either just checking your email or George Lucas.

Very, very true. The same goes for the laptop line up as well.

The interesting thing about the average user and "prosumer" classification..... to me anyway.... is that they are one in the same.

If Apple were to make a mid tower with the same parts of the iMac but fully upgradeable it would be a major success. If they did that with desktop parts and for around $300 less than the equivalent iMac it would be a huge success.

In all reality it'd be all I need for my freelance since I just use my tower to hold my images and backups of videos, photos, and graphics. Many users would go that very cost effective route.

 

[diamond.g]

That's what I wanted them to do since the Intel switch:
- Mac Pro "One" with Conroe, then Yorkfield and now Bloomfield
- Mac Pro "Dual" with 2x Woodcrest, then 2x Harpertown and now 2x Gainestown,

Not just a dual cpu motherboard with just one cpu, but one "entry-level" motherboard with one desktop cpu and one "high-end" motherboard with two workstation/server cpus. And it makes even more sense right now that the price diffrence between "desktop" cpus and DP-server cpus is wider.

Dual-cpu nehalem workstations will be more expensive than harpertown systems at the same clock, due to the higher prices of the cpus (and probably the motherboard, too). So Apple could release a smaller/more affordable Mac Pro using the Core i7/X58 plateform and then a "regular" Mac Pro with dual Xeons and Tylersburg chipset:

$1499 2.66GHz, Core i7 920, 3GB RAM, 500GB HDD, Superdrive, GPU (Dell's model is $969, Gateway's at $1299...)
$1999 2.93GHz, Core i7 940, 3GB RAM, 500GB HDD, Superdrive, GPU (Dell's model is around $1439...)
$2499 3.20GHz, Core i7 965, 3GB RAM, 500GB HDD, Superdrive, GPU

$2999 dual 2.53GHz Xeon E5540, 6GB RAM, 500GB HDD, Superdrive, GPU (2x$744=$1488 for the cpus)
$3999 dual 2.80GHz Xeon X5560, 6GB RAM, 500GB HDD, Superdrive, GPU (2x$1172=$2344 (+$856) for the cpus)
$4999 dual 3.20GHz Xeon W5580, 6GB RAM, 500GB HDD, Superdrive, GPU (2X$1600=$3200 (+$856) for the cpus)

Apple would probably sell twice as much of each single cpu model as they have ever sold single cpu Mac Pros! And probably with better margins per model. The standard GPU doesn't need to be high-end since not everybody needs one, but there should be some nicer options than what we can have today...

Awesome options. Maybe add larger hard disks to the DP systems.

The Steve does not want you to have that option - you're stuck with a choice between laptop chips in an all in one (or a toy headless laptop), and a high end expensive workstation.

'nuff said.

Sadly you are probably right.

 

[Umbongo]

That's what I wanted them to do since the Intel switch:
- Mac Pro "One" with Conroe, then Yorkfield and now Bloomfield
- Mac Pro "Dual" with 2x Woodcrest, then 2x Harpertown and now 2x Gainestown,

Not just a dual cpu motherboard with just one cpu, but one "entry-level" motherboard with one desktop cpu and one "high-end" motherboard with two workstation/server cpus. And it makes even more sense right now that the price diffrence between "desktop" cpus and DP-server cpus is wider.

Dual-cpu nehalem workstations will be more expensive than harpertown systems at the same clock, due to the higher prices of the cpus (and probably the motherboard, too). So Apple could release a smaller/more affordable Mac Pro using the Core i7/X58 plateform and then a "regular" Mac Pro with dual Xeons and Tylersburg chipset:

Apple would probably sell twice as much of each single cpu model as they have ever sold single cpu Mac Pros! And probably with better margins per model. The standard GPU doesn't need to be high-end since not everybody needs one, but there should be some nicer options than what we can have today...

How do Apple market dual processor machines then? A list of every application that can use more than 4 cores? Mac Pro sales would dry up. There is a lot that would go against getting the same revenue, even if it brought in new Mac users. Decreased sales in already established lines that have high margins (iMac and Mac Pro), increase in cost due to a lower volume of a larger number of components, new manufacturing processes and the list goes on. I doubt a few hundred thousand systems a year would make up for it. What if it doesn't attract new customers either in any number? Then Apple lose revenue when they didn't need to. It's the one system that is all about the consumer with very little on offer for Apple (and the shareholders) and in the end that is who they care about.

 

[diamond.g]

How do Apple market dual processor machines then? A list of every application that can use more than 4 cores? Mac Pro sales would dry up. There is a lot that would go against getting the same revenue, even if it brought in new Mac users. Decreased sales in already established lines that have high margins (iMac and Mac Pro), increase in cost due to a lower volume of a larger number of components, new manufacturing processes and the list goes on. I doubt a few hundred thousand systems a year would make up for it. What if it doesn't attract new customers either in any number? Then Apple lose revenue when they didn't need to. It's the one system that is all about the consumer with very little on offer for Apple (and the shareholders) and in the end that is who they care about.

The same way they marketed the 4 to 8 core jump. They don't have to expose to the buyer how many cpu's the system has. Most Mac Pro buyers wont ever update their cpu anyways.

 

[Umbongo]

The same way they marketed the 4 to 8 core jump. They don't have to expose to the buyer how many cpu's the system has. Most Mac Pro buyers wont ever update their cpu anyways.

Previous 8 core systems were always faster than the 4 core alternatives, that's probably one reason we didn't see an 8 core 2.66GHz system, but that wouldn't be the case anymore causing a marketing and image issue for Apple.

I think we all know that 8 cores are overkill for the vast majority of Mac Pro owners right now, the software and workflows people are using don't utilize it. The suggested 2.66GHz quad system would probably become the biggest seller out of them all and Mac Pro sales would probably decline by a huge amount. It would be too big an expense for 8 cores for most people to justify.

Obviously from a consumer view this is all ridiculous, especially if you are used to the windows world where you get to decide if you want 2, 4 or 8 cores and pay an appropriate price, but Apple have to treat it differently, and Mac users accept it or go hackintosh. In the current economic state and with overall desktop sales decreasing I don't see it making sense for them to bring out a new line that would cut in to at least two others. Apple's own numbers show they are doing fine in the desktop area without the need for this type of system. Maybe they will take the risk, especially with what they have in the bank. I hope they do, but I doubt it.

 

[BenRoethig]

I'd like to know whether it's hardware vs. a software issue considering how few graphics cards Macs have. I've heard that it's because Macs use EFI & PCs, for the most part, still use BIOS. Any thoughts?

A little of both. While EFI may be backwards compatible with a BIOS emulation layer, a BIOS graphics card is not compatible with EFI. The card card would require a dual firmware solution to work on both Mac OS X and Windows. You probably won't see a lot of EFI cards out there until Microsoft add native EFI support to windows, which so far they have refused to do.

The other part is driver support. The Mac OS X video card drivers are much less extensive and of far less quality than their windows counterparts.

Very, very true. The same goes for the laptop line up as well.

The interesting thing about the average user and "prosumer" classification..... to me anyway.... is that they are one in the same.

Someone using their Mac in a small business setting is the same as some teenager using email and iChat?

 

[diamond.g]

Previous 8 core systems were always faster than the 4 core alternatives, that's probably one reason we didn't see an 8 core 2.66GHz system, but that wouldn't be the case anymore causing a marketing and image issue for Apple.

I think we all know that 8 cores are overkill for the vast majority of Mac Pro owners right now, the software and workflows people are using don't utilize it. The suggested 2.66GHz quad system would probably become the biggest seller out of them all and Mac Pro sales would probably decline by a huge amount. It would be too big an expense for 8 cores for most people to justify.

Obviously from a consumer view this is all ridiculous, especially if you are used to the windows world where you get to decide if you want 2, 4 or 8 cores and pay an appropriate price, but Apple have to treat it differently, and Mac users accept it or go hackintosh. In the current economic state and with overall desktop sales decreasing I don't see it making sense for them to bring out a new line that would cut in to at least two others. Apple's own numbers show they are doing fine in the desktop area without the need for this type of system. Maybe they will take the risk, especially with what they have in the bank. I hope they do, but I doubt it.

With HT enabled Apple would still have a 8 "core" system to sell (with just one cpu). Then when DP came along voila double the "cores" and move on. The speed grade could still be present (if Apple were to choose to do that). They could even keep the current prices and scale higher from there.

 

[BenRoethig]

With HT enabled Apple would still have a 8 "core" system to sell (with just one cpu). Then when DP came along voila double the "cores" and move on. The speed grade could still be present (if Apple were to choose to do that). They could even keep the current prices and scale higher from there.

Calling it an 8-core system would be very misleading. 8-threads yes.

 

[Cale31]

I am planning on replacing my 6 y/o Windows XP machine with a MP, and this is for 2 reasons. #1 is that I am so tired of dealing with Windows and having XP do annoying things like changing things on its own and hanging. I bought a Mac Book for the kids with core2duo and it is so much better of an OS so I am convinced to stay with OS X. #2 is that I NEED to run 2 monitors. A MP is the only Apple option that will give me 2 video outputs. I don't think I need a quad core, but the only way to have what I want is MP.

I also think that buying an advanced machine now will get me a machine that will give me another 5-6 years until it cannot handle what I need it to do, which is simple surfing, school work, and a few games for the kids.

Am I off base in my expectations? I would love an Apple desktop that was in that prosumer category.

 

[diamond.g]

Calling it an 8-core system would be very misleading. 8-threads yes.

The end result being the i7-965 is pretty much as fast as the current Mac Pro DP Xeon. So a DP Nehalem would just be mind bending. I still don't understand the downside. You could price the Nehalem rig higher than even the 8 core rig if that makes everyone happy about the cannibalization.

 

[BenRoethig]

I am planning on replacing my 6 y/o Windows XP machine with a MP, and this is for 2 reasons. #1 is that I am so tired of dealing with Windows and having XP do annoying things like changing things on its own and hanging. I bought a Mac Book for the kids with core2duo and it is so much better of an OS so I am convinced to stay with OS X. #2 is that I NEED to run 2 monitors. A MP is the only Apple option that will give me 2 video outputs. I don't think I need a quad core, but the only way to have what I want is MP.

I also think that buying an advanced machine now will get me a machine that will give me another 5-6 years until it cannot handle what I need it to do, which is simple surfing, school work, and a few games for the kids.

Am I off base in my expectations? I would love an Apple desktop that was in that prosumer category.

The iMac has video out for a second display should you be looking that way. All you need is a $30 mini-DVI to DVI adapter. From there you can get a decent 20 or 24" display from Dell or something like that.

 

[iMacmatician]

How do Apple market dual processor machines then? A list of every application that can use more than 4 cores?

I guess the way might be to limit the single-CPU CPUs to 2.93 GHz or so (no 3.2 GHz), and have expensive BTO options (Quadro etc.) for the DP Mac Pro only. But even then, DP Mac Pro sales would decrease quite a bit.

The end result being the i7-965 is pretty much as fast as the current Mac Pro DP Xeon. So a DP Nehalem would just be mind bending. I still don't understand the downside. You could price the Nehalem rig higher than even the 8 core rig if that makes everyone happy about the cannibalization.

There's only a downside if the SP Nehalem Mac Pro replaces the SP/DP Penryn Mac Pro with no DP Nehalem Mac Pro in sight. And then the downside would be more relative than absolute.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Someone using their Mac in a small business setting is the same as some teenager using email and iChat?

Yeah, depending on what that small business is, very very true.

A teenager may be under-utilizing their mid range 20" iMac by going on Facebook and Myspace all day, while the business person will be getting the most out of it using Entourage and MS Office and maybe the iLife suite.

I guess I should say, the way the machines are built now, and with all they can do, their needs are most likely met by the same machine.

This is of course speaking to the Apple way of doing things, where a good desktop with specs that last starts out as a $1500 all in one with non upgradeable laptop parts.

 

[RC24]

So Nahelem MP's are not possible until April-ish?

You guys keep saying that mp's are not upgradable...they have pcix slots and memory slots... that's upgradable correct? What am I missing?

Also... If I wanted to do a little gaming on my MP wouldn't I be getting just as good performance if I booted up in Windows?

 

[warwickt]

post AMW2009 - no MAC PRO - what's the state of play?

Time to upgrade this 2007 MAC PRO 3Ghz 8core. Been good but issues with I/O data rates and recent PCIE HBA additions and some other niggling issues affecting video production workflow lately.

So been trawling (googling) for an hour over mac sites or so to see what the state of play is with any mooted MAC PRO 2009 version in the immediate future.

Post AMW2009 = NO MAC PRO + NO STEVE JOBS and not too much in the way of hardware. (+MBP 17)

This thread is rather old and kicked over by i7 / XEON thread that has gradually evolved to MAC PROO 2009 ?

any thoughts on 2009 MACPRO (now after finished MAC WORLD 2009 some weeks back)?

 

[teleromeo]

you should read this thread

 

[8CoreWhore]

What are the chances of seeing 4 of these in a MacPro (16 total cores)?

Anyone that needs that much would likely have more than one machine - a render farm -for dedicated tasks. No point in having it shoved in there. Well, more is always better... but then the power supply would need to jump up, cooling would be problematic, noise etc, etc... But I do like the spirit of it.