Just give us a machine under $1999 for once, Apple. PLEASE.
Kind of a short-sided vantage there, me thinks. Personally, I've been waiting for a very long time for the very next update because I intend on keeping it for at least 5-7 years so I need it to be awesome even as I considering my next purchase sometime in 2017.I doubt most people actually need a 12 core Macpro, 6 core would do for 90% of professionals I reckon.
ROFLOL. What do you think this is the dell forum?
ROFLOL. What do you think this is the dell forum?
Are we forgetting that Intel is also prepping 8 core Xeons as well for about the same timeframe?
I don't know if they'll get into Mac Pros as they're liable to be insanely expensive and use socket 1567, but I could see them going into an insane Mac Pro config.
Regardless of recent updates to the Mac Pro line, rumors are circulating that Apple could be upgrading its pro line of desktops early next year with faster processors that sport more cores and consume less power. The information was allegedly leaked from Intel, and the new processors (codenamed Gulftown) will reportedly make use of six cores on a 32nm die with 12MB of L3 cache per chip. Currently, Apple's high-end machine offers only four cores per processor with 8MB of L3 cache.
According to AppleInsider, the i7980X will start at a clock speed of 3.33GHz, which happens to be the clock speed of the fastest quad-core processor you can currently order in a Mac Pro. The i7-980X will supposedly replace the i7-975 in the Extreme tier of Apple's three-tier system. According to the roadmap, the processor will see a launch in the first quarter of 2010.
Speculation has arisen that Apple may work with Intel to be the first company to use the new processor and, if you ask us, the timing seems right. The speed bumps to the Mac Pro line earlier this month were done quietly, leading us to believe the increase in clock speed is merely a stop-gap before a larger overhaul. A March rollout would certainly put a NAMM release into the realm of possibility. More cores and perhaps Blu-Ray would definitely appeal to the audio/visual crowd too. It seems likely Apple already has samples of the processor and is in the testing process.
The i7-980X would not only mean better performance for consumers, but also lower power consumption, allowing Apple to make further strides toward being a greener company. It would potentially mean smaller machines, less fan noise, and smaller heat sinks due to the lower power consumption and heat output. It seems only likely that the same processors will eventually go into the Xserve line where these same improvements are even more important.
Something I don't understand: why are people becoming fans of things they don't like? Like on facebook you see fan pages that say "I hate waking up in the morning", if you hate waking up in the morning why are you a fan? And since when could you become a fan of an action or idea? Since when have fanpages turned into groups?
ROFLOL. What do you think this is the dell forum?
The i7 980X would probably be faster than the new xeons considering that the i7's in the iMac are faster than the xeons in the current MP.
The i7 iMac is faster then the base Mac Pro. The base Mac Pro uses a quad-core 2.66 GHz Xeon CPU. The i7 iMac is a quad-core 2.8GHz i7 CPU. The reviews and benchmarks have all shown the i7 iMac is faster.You are kidding right? right?
These days the Mac Pro almost feel like an afterthought from Apple. Lost and nearly forgotten in the glare of the touch generation. 🙁
How far will Apple pull out of the pro market I wonder.... 😕
I'll alert the media. The New York Times in particular has been awaiting the news about what "psingh01" on the MacRumors forum was going to do. Thank you for clarifying your historic decision. We can finally go on with our lives!
Is that like Pro-E? Last CAD (well something close) on Mac for me was formZ 🙂http://www.deelip.com/images/2010-02-02-001.gif
Seriously. I'm shocked to see this and I haven't seen any announcements.
(From SolidWorks World being held this week).
Arn, can you follow up on this?
UPDATE: It's a cloud application running on a mac; pay as you go.
First of all future proofing is nothing more than the gross expenditure of money for minimal performance gains.After Sandy Bridge the Pro Market for Apple will be Gone! IMO .... The PROs will leave Apple not the other way around, due to co$t.
so 2012-2013.... That's why if the 6 cores arrive I'm going to future proof with the highest config,,, which will probably be a 12-core machine (I'm also going to buy the highest clock config) ..... Intel's move to More Cores is due to the enterprise wanting to go cloud, since Intel see lots of $$$$ from the enterprise market each xenon core chip will be priced higher per more cores....That's why you hear all this talk about intel building 48-Core Units etc...... Apple will find a way to make the iMac more "PRO" like by time this happens
First of all future proofing is nothing more than the gross expenditure of money for minimal performance gains.
Secondly, Nehalem and Westmere are here to stay for some time in the server market. Sandybridge in 2011 is aiming for mobile and desktop parts first.
and so Sandy Bridge may be released later than originally planned, but it is still scheduled for 2011."are evaluating options to adjust Sandy Bridge schedule to ensure sufficient Nehalem lifecycle,"
Can you elaborate?Thirdly Future Proofing actually saves money down the road IMO
Q4 2010 pushed back to Q1 2011.and so Sandy Bridge may be released later than originally planned, but it is still scheduled for 2011.
Can you elaborate?
Alright if that works for you. 😀Possible a bad choice of words, when I say future proof I mean buying a top line model with the best cpu and then I won't care when new products come 5yrs later etc.... I can always upgrade the ram, I buy the standard GPU cause I upgrade it.............. besides that I just mean in terms of CPU... The 2009 2.26 pros are a waist of $$$ and the 2.93 price is a joke, but I will upgrade to gulftown when it arrives
...................
You were correct about sandybridge, I stand corrected
You said you only have quad core? So then you should be peaking at 400%
There are TONS of applications that use all your cores. Not to mention most of apple is now 64bit that takes advantage of them all.
Apparently, you should try Flash. 🙂
Kind of a short-sided vantage there, me thinks. Personally, I've been waiting for a very long time for the very next update because I intend on keeping it for at least 5-7 years so I need it to awesome even as I considering my next purchase sometime in 2017.
Why? Currently, I am running a 2002 PowerMac G4 Quicksilver. I could've upgraded a few years ago and then I used funds saved for "this important thing" and I would build back up and then those would go for "another more important situation". Finally, I'm buying,... I've alerted the family that now is MY time! 🙂
First off, the Hyperthreaded cores aren't "imaginary", they're simply logical. Let's take a Nehalem-based quadcore for example. With hyperthreading enabled, it has four physical cores, but eight logical cores. This typically occurs by adding adding another set of registers (control registers, status registers, address registers, etc.), while not adding in another execution set (as this would result in a truly additional physical core). The idea behind it is that since a system is not always dependent upon 100% execution set utilization, by adding in the additional control and general purpose registers, it can execute an additional thread and take advantage of the available execution resources (if anyone has any other thoughts or wants to make make any corrections please do so, my general memory on the fine details of a hyperthreaded architecture are a bit rusty 🙂 ).
Anyway, people often think that to take advantage of Hyperthreading that you needed specially-coded software for it, and that's simply not the case. To see any type of benefit, you simply need to be using multithreaded applications, and in that regard, there are plenty of currently-available applications that are multithreaded.
Now, there has been considerable discussion on whether hyperthreading is even worth it for dual-core systems, given the extra power consumption, thermal output and the fact with a dual, quad (or soon to be 6-core) processor you already have multiple cores available for multithreaded apps, thus negating some of the usefulness of it.
Alright if that works for you. 😀
Intel's tock/tick approach is slowing down by a quarter or two in some instances. Intel skipped 45nm Havendale/Auburndale entirely.