Mac Pro Updates - What do you want?

[telequest]

The same boards in the 2009 systems will be used in the 2010 systems for cost reasons (Intel designs their chipsets to work with both parts released on an architecture within a Tick Tock cycle so vendors can reduce their costs). This isn't out of pure generosity, but rather saves them time and money, and even makes a product line more attractive as well (i.e. boards can be used with 2 different processor series, as it shares the same socket and chipset).

What this means for the 2010 systems, is there will be NO:

• USB 3.0
• FW 1600
• LightPeak
• SATA 6.0Gb/s
• Additional DIMM slots

So I guess this means for a single processor Hex Core model, the MP will actually have more cores than DIMM slots, 6 vs 4! (actually likewise for the dual Hex Cores 12 vs 8).

The one expansion option I've always taken advantage of in my Macs is adding RAM. The prospect of having just 4 RAM slots in a single proc 2010 Hex core MP is maddening.

The Mac Pro out-expands the iMac in every other category (hard drives, PCIe slots, graphix), except they can't figure out how to get more than 4 DIMM slots in the giant MP tower ... yet they can get the same number squeezed into the tiny space for such things in a 21.5 inch iMac.

Yeah, OK I know it's how they designed the processor boards etc. etc and they won't feel like shelling out the bucks to allow, say, 6 DIMM slots per processor.

But still. Seems lame when a SP Mac Pro can't out-expand an iMac in something so essential as RAM.

Maybe I'm missing something? Can the MP at least handle larger DIMM modules (the tech spec page on Apple's site says 4GB DIMMs are the max for both the iMacs and quad MPs, for a maximum of 4x4 = 16GB each)?

 

[nanofrog]

So I guess this means for a single processor Hex Core model, the MP will actually have more cores than DIMM slots, 6 vs 4! (actually likewise for the dual Hex Cores 12 vs 8).

... yet they can get the same number squeezed into the tiny space for such things in a 21.5 inch iMac.

Yeah, OK I know it's how they designed the processor boards etc. etc and they won't feel like shelling out the bucks to allow, say, 6 DIMM slots per processor.

Maybe I'm missing something? Can the MP at least handle larger DIMM modules (the tech spec page on Apple's site says 4GB DIMMs are the max for both the iMacs and quad MPs, for a maximum of 4x4 = 16GB each)?

I understand the frustration here, and it's a problem IMO. Most other boards do use 6x DIMM's per CPU (yes, it's a function of PCB surface area, but an ATX or SSI CEB can hold 6x DIMM slots for a single processor). DP boards are typically on larger formats, such as E-ATX/SSI EEB. And server boards can actually fit more (there's boards out there with 9x per CPU, so 18 DIMM slots total).

As per comparing it to the iMac, I know it's a tad frustrating, but you have to keep in mind, they use a different chipset (dual channel, with 2x SODIMM's per channel).

In the case of the DIMM capacity that can be used, the 2009 MP's can exceed 4GB per DIMM. 8GB sticks are out now, but they're expensive, and larger are planned.

It's theoretically possible Apple borked the firmware in a manner that limits the max DIMM capacity, but I think someone's tested 8GB sticks in a '09 MP, and it's not in Apple's best interest to do so anyway IMO (takes more time, could waste space in the ROM, and pisses off their customers = loss in future system sales).

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Competitive pricing is all I want.

That's it. No USB3, no lightpeak, no Blu-Ray, just a powerful machine I can upgrade over time if I need to.

 

[VirtualRain]

The same boards in the 2009 systems will be used in the 2010 systems for cost reasons (Intel designs their chipsets to work with both parts released on an architecture within a Tick Tock cycle so vendors can reduce their costs). This isn't out of pure generosity, but rather saves them time and money, and even makes a product line more attractive as well (i.e. boards can be used with 2 different processor series, as it shares the same socket and chipset).

substitute: could be

They surprised everyone with the Mac Mini. They did not need to do a complete redesign and repackaging to offer a new GPU... yet they did... indicating that every refresh is not just about improving specs with minimal investment.

Having said that, I think you are correct to set expectations as you have.

 

[nanofrog]

substitute: could be

They surprised everyone with the Mac Mini. They did not need to do a complete redesign and repackaging to offer a new GPU... yet they did... indicating that every refresh is not just about improving specs with minimal investment.

Having said that, I think you are correct to set expectations as you have.

I take quantity (we don't have actual figures, but there's indications that it's not that large) into consideration when I post my comments on MP's. As it happens, the parts used in the MP are more expensive, and there's a higher part count. Especially compared to the Mini.

It just makes no financial sense for Apple to do a complete redesign from the PCB level up this time around. That typically only occurs with new architecture (i.e. new CPU socket). Intel specifically plans the Tick Tock cycle this way, as it allows for costs and profits to be garnered over two years rather than just one (cheaper for all involved).

I can see the possiblility of a new case, with the same boards. But not new boards as well. Though if it happens, I wouldn't complain (add some value back to the MP for many just with additional DIMM slots alone, even if the price remains in a similar range as current systems).

 

[colonelsanders]

What i'd like to see. (Realistic or otherwise)

1) Dual hexacores: 12 cores 24 threads
2) SLI and or Crossfire support
3) BTO option: Ati 5870 and or nVidia 480
4) esata
5) USB 3.0
6) Keep the HD trays!
7) Sata6
8) Blueray Bto w/ support (don't flame me for that one)

ohh and tomorrow is Tuesday so let's make it happen tomorrow! lol

 

[Chilla Frilla]

Is it too much to ask for an ATI 5870 GPU option?

C'mon Steve, I know you're reading this! (5970 isn't bad either. )

 

[deconstruct60]

substitute: could be
They surprised everyone with the Mac Mini. They did not need to do a complete redesign and repackaging to offer a new GPU... yet they did... indicating that every refresh is not just about improving specs with minimal investment.

Several points. One, they increased the price of the mini. Handing you a chunk of aluminum is being used in part to help justify the higher price. They needed something overt to pull that off. Two, the cpu and graphics update surprised who??????? After the MBP 13" and the MacBook got released with C2D and 320M, who rationally expected something else not based on those? I'm sure there were hand waving speculators who claimed i3 or i5 was coming. Finally, who says the current mini is a one year gig? Next year there still won't be room for a discrete graphics chip. The Intel IGP offerings won't be better than a 320M and there will be a slightly faster C2D closer to the 3GHz range that can drop into the box ( the iMac line would have completely dumped them by end of the Fall so there won't be CPU speed overlap. ). The current minis are running a bit cooler so a 35W C2D may fit. Otherwise can double the L3 cache if want to stay at 25W.

Apple has sat on a basic mini design for two years in the past and just used part updates to move it along. Next year's mini could easily be a bumped C2D, 4GB ram (two 2GB sticks) , and a bigger disk drive. The two 1GB memory sticks are somewhat of a joke right now and of course drives will be bigger year over year at the same price point. The faster and/or larger L3 C2D that are too expensive now (approx. in the $300+ range) will fall back into the $250 range next year.

If Intel is punting chipset USB 3.0 back to 2012 and the Nvidia IGP are better than Intel's offering, I don't see much changing on the mini over next two years.

For the Mac Pro. They have no need to bump the prices higher. It already is at the upper end of the range. So no need to tweak design to justify higher price.