That's the point. Since hackintoshes can be made using CPU's that are generic, Apple may want to build custom CPU, which would make it impossible for them to build hackintoshes with, and make OS X somehow support only these custom CPU's.
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.
Mac Pro to Use Custom Intel CPU? More Details on Mac Mini and Time Capsule
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's the point. Since hackintoshes can be made using CPU's that are generic, Apple may want to build custom CPU, which would make it impossible for them to build hackintoshes with, and make OS X somehow support only these custom CPU's.
I don't thinks so. That would mean that none of us will be able to upgrade to Lion or any future update unless we buy a new hardware. Highly unlikely unless they develop special version of Lion for Mac Pro which is again highly unlikely.
I don't think Apple loses sleep over private citizens building clones. As long as nobody does it commercially.
I'm not sure about this - I don't see Apple commissioning a custom chip for their (probably - feel free to correct me) lowest volume product. I could imagine it being a 'timed exclusive', e.g. getting the sandy bridge server class chips 6 months early, but not entirely custom chips.
Last edited:
No that doesn't mean that at all. Obviously Apple would prepare its software for it ahead of time. The CPU's used in current Apple hardware are generic as well.
With regards to the Mac Pro - most likely it is just early access to the server variant of Sandy Bridge.
However they may also include a service processor, and they might choose to utilise an A4 or A5 for this role. However this service processor is used for management of the server, not as the server itself.
I'm glad the Mac Mini is getting an update to Sandy Bridge, but saddened that means having to use Sandy Bridge's low-end integrated graphics which can't do OpenCL. I really hoped that Apple would find a way to squeeze in a discrete GPU after all these years, even if they used one of AMD's embedded GPUs with on-package memory - for example http://www.amd.com/us/products/embedded/graphics-processors/Pages/radeon-e6760-discrete-gpu.aspx
It seems that putting in ThunderBolt - a port many users will never use - trumped using the motherboard space for graphics.
I also wonder if I'd prefer a quad-core Llano with integrated Radeon graphics over a dual-core Sandy Bridge with Intel HD3000 graphics, despite the lower per-core performance. I truly hope it doesn't use HD2000 graphics.
However they may also include a service processor, and they might choose to utilise an A4 or A5 for this role. However this service processor is used for management of the server, not as the server itself.
I'm glad the Mac Mini is getting an update to Sandy Bridge, but saddened that means having to use Sandy Bridge's low-end integrated graphics which can't do OpenCL. I really hoped that Apple would find a way to squeeze in a discrete GPU after all these years, even if they used one of AMD's embedded GPUs with on-package memory - for example http://www.amd.com/us/products/embedded/graphics-processors/Pages/radeon-e6760-discrete-gpu.aspx
It seems that putting in ThunderBolt - a port many users will never use - trumped using the motherboard space for graphics.
I also wonder if I'd prefer a quad-core Llano with integrated Radeon graphics over a dual-core Sandy Bridge with Intel HD3000 graphics, despite the lower per-core performance. I truly hope it doesn't use HD2000 graphics.
So in layman's terms, how does it differ from the standard production run? Anything noticeable to the end user? In other words, what would be the reason for a customer to order a run of "custom chips"?
Finally somebody who gets it! I can't stand all this "optical is dead" nonsense. Maybe for your house it is but, uh, hello, as a professional I still deal EVERY DAY with DVD's and Blue-Ray. No way Apple gets rid of this for a few years, even if it's an option on a custom build.
This isn't going to make any difference to hackintoshes, the OS still needs to support xeon and i7 to support existing chips - having a "custom" cpu (which in this case would either be the upcoming one a bit early or just a cpu with some tiny tweaks made) would make no difference at all.
The cheapest model sure isn't, it's silly to declare a machine that's outperformed by a cheaper iMac a "workstation", even beat by the top laptops in some cases. I'd sure as hell take better performance (and lower) without EEC.
And yes, EEC is overkill for many uses that people are doing with "workstation" machines.
I totally would and know plenty of others who would too. Audio and video pros in particular, either in a stationary rack or in a road case for portability.
But only in the higher end model. And 4/8 ram slots were a boneheaded move for a system that supports triple channel memory. They really should have been doing the max slots in both machines if they were serious about the whole MP line, but if they really wanted to differentiate on number of ram slots they should have gone 6/9 instead of 4/8.
The cheapest model sure isn't, it's silly to declare a machine that's outperformed by a cheaper iMac a "workstation", even beat by the top laptops in some cases. I'd sure as hell take better performance (and lower) without EEC.
And yes, EEC is overkill for many uses that people are doing with "workstation" machines.
I totally would and know plenty of others who would too. Audio and video pros in particular, either in a stationary rack or in a road case for portability.
But only in the higher end model. And 4/8 ram slots were a boneheaded move for a system that supports triple channel memory. They really should have been doing the max slots in both machines if they were serious about the whole MP line, but if they really wanted to differentiate on number of ram slots they should have gone 6/9 instead of 4/8.
Turn it into a big iPad. Put a 30" screen on the side of the machine and use it that way. Nobody uses Macs anymore*, right guys?
*I use Macs.
I owned an MP once and loved it. It's a shame it doesn't get more love, lower prices and a case redesign.
*I use Macs.
I owned an MP once and loved it. It's a shame it doesn't get more love, lower prices and a case redesign.
Comparing to previous Mini model
I'm looking at buying a new mac mini which I'll be using for both normal computing at home and some amateur video editing with FCP. From what I've read here the CPU will run quicker, but the graphics will take a hit. Is this something I would notice significantly while editing? I'm just trying to determine if the faster CPU in the new model outweighs the superior graphics in the current model. Care to weigh in?
Additionally, from what I can tell the new Thunderbolt ports should make editing quicker via firewire, which sounds like yet another benefit one would notice when editing. Thoughts? Lastly, I like the current price point and wouldn't want to pay much more for the new model...any guesses on the price of the new release? Trying to decide whether to wait the 2 months or not.
Thanks.
I'm looking at buying a new mac mini which I'll be using for both normal computing at home and some amateur video editing with FCP. From what I've read here the CPU will run quicker, but the graphics will take a hit. Is this something I would notice significantly while editing? I'm just trying to determine if the faster CPU in the new model outweighs the superior graphics in the current model. Care to weigh in?
Additionally, from what I can tell the new Thunderbolt ports should make editing quicker via firewire, which sounds like yet another benefit one would notice when editing. Thoughts? Lastly, I like the current price point and wouldn't want to pay much more for the new model...any guesses on the price of the new release? Trying to decide whether to wait the 2 months or not.
Thanks.
It isn't silly at all. A workstation doesn't cease to become one just because technology moves forwards and a consumer system now outperforms it. It isn't Apple's fault Intel switched from enterprise processors and chipsets coming first to last on release of a new architecture.
FCP will use the CPU more than the GPU.
If I were in your position, though, I'd spend a few dollars more and just get an iMac since they're all quad core and come with better graphics and a faster overall experience. Even the 7200 rpm hard drive in the iMac is going to make a big difference in editing and overall snappiness of the system, compared to the 5200 rpm drive stock in the Mini.
With the Intel graphics, you would be running the absolute minimum GPU supported by the new Final Cut. Compared to the current Mini, Sandy Bridge means your exports and background rendering get done a lot faster, but the actual editing process may be clunkier and support fewer real-time effects. I'd say, on balance, the new Mini will be better overall, but as SpinThis mentions, if you plan on editing regularly, it's worth upgrading to an iMac if possible.
As for Thunderbolt, it won't make existing Firewire drives run any faster... you'd have to get drives (or enclosures) that support Thunderbolt directly.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
I feel like I'm proselytizing, but check out http://osx86scene.com to make one for yourself. Check my signature to see what I run.
I feel like I'm proselytizing, but check out http://osx86scene.com to make one for yourself. Check my signature to see what I run.
tongue & cheek with a pinch of sincerity...
Personally, no, I don't need a new computer anytime soon, thus I can easily speculate over the current speculated speculations.
If it's purely for business purposes, I understand the need to keep hardware up to date. Also, if it's your personal machine that's running long in the tooth (3+ years) that's understandable as well to want to upgrade. Either way of it you're right in that we'll ultimately have to wait and see; but from the current crop of rumors swirling around any new Mac Pro released by Q4 2011 doesn't seem like much to get excited about on paper so far; but I do hope we're all pleasantly surprised in the end!
So, perhaps it's better to wait not this for this speculated version of the Mac Pro but rather the one due out sometime in 2012 instead?
You're speculating about not waiting for this speculated version instead of the one (speculated to be) due in 2012? Hopefully you don't need a computer soon
Personally, no, I don't need a new computer anytime soon, thus I can easily speculate over the current speculated speculations.
If it's purely for business purposes, I understand the need to keep hardware up to date. Also, if it's your personal machine that's running long in the tooth (3+ years) that's understandable as well to want to upgrade. Either way of it you're right in that we'll ultimately have to wait and see; but from the current crop of rumors swirling around any new Mac Pro released by Q4 2011 doesn't seem like much to get excited about on paper so far; but I do hope we're all pleasantly surprised in the end!
QPI and the integrated memory controller are two independent things. QPI is used to connect to other processors and/or the IOH/PCH.
You might see 20 PCIe 3.0 lanes. (16 GPU + 4 DMI) That might require a custom PCH though. Otherwise you are waiting for Sandy Bridge-E on X79 and whatever derivative ends up for server/workstations.Perhaps the customizations just involve adding more PCIe lanes & dual socket support to future 1155 parts? From what you say though doing that doesn't sound easy... so it's likely I'm completely off base
Workstations aren't always about pure grunt, they're almost as much about reliability and expansion, which is how the low end MP still qualifies.
Unfortunately you guys weren't the market for xserves, and unless they make some major changes to the MP other than just rack rails they won't be doing anything for *that* market. Currently it works nicely under my desk and awful in the datacenter, and not just for density reasons. Dual power supplies, LOM/IPMI, hot-swap drives.... the list goes on.
As to the bonehead move, the reason it's not a big deal on the 8 slot model at least is because the speed hit of not using tripchannel is far lower than the speed boost of the extra ram in those 7th and 8th slots if you're using workloads that need it. I agree 6/9/12 would be better, but it's not a huge performance problem.
Cool... thanks for the clarification Eidorian, as per usual
.I wouldn't mind a smaller (cheaper) Mac Pro that just uses a regular Z68 board, but then again, wouldn't we all
.
Z68 does open a few possibilities and more so with ThunderBolt. The logicboard itself can have Mini-DP connectors that can pipe out the discrete GPU's output as well. Though you are going to look at only supporting a handful of models on such a platform.Cool... thanks for the clarification Eidorian, as per usual
I wouldn't mind a smaller (cheaper) Mac Pro that just uses a regular Z68 board, but then again, wouldn't we all
Edit: It looks like the PCIe SIG wants to jump on the wagon as well with external PCIe. PCIe 3.0 is the starting point for bandwidth.
Last edited:
At this point I'm not too picky. All I want is a Mac with an i5-2500 and discrete gpu that I can hook up to my matte display