Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Nehalem EP (Xeon) Processors 'Ridiculously fast'

AidenShaw said:
Oh really?

Fedora Core (desktop): Free
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (server): ~$1000 for dual socket, ~$1800 for multi-socket





No system using the humonguous aluminum case could be called a "mini-tower". The Yosemite plastic cases (the "Smurf Hotel" PowerMac G3 (B&W) and PowerMac G4) were mid-towers - better, but still large systems.

Apple used to have small pizza box systems like the PowerMac 6300

6300.gif



Look at what Dell has in the OptiPlex line of desktops. Why can't Apple do something similar, instead of the horrible choice of a toy mini and a huge tower?

295


(There are three systems - a mini-tower, a small desktop, and an SFF. Specs in the thumbnail.)

I guess I'll just wait now for the "But they're fugly" tangential replies to start.
Click to expand...

Is this thread about Nehalem chips or the jackalope/mini tower myth?
 
MacRumors said:


TechRadar.com reports on some preliminary benchmarks on Intel's upcoming Nehalem EP chips which they say will be sold as the Xeon X5560 CPUs in the 1st quarter of 2009. Apple has traditionally used the Xeon processors for the Mac Pro line.

Based on their early benchmarks of dual-processor configurations, TechRadar found that the new Nehalem Xeon scored favorably in SPECfp benchmark with a score of 160 as compared to a score of 90 for Intel's current Penryn-based Xeons running at 3.4GHz.The current Mac Pro uses the Xeon ("Harpertown") 5400 series processors in dual-processor configurations. It has been speculated that Apple will be migrating the Mac Pro to these Nehalem Xeon processors which are due in the first quarter of 2009.


Article Link: Nehalem EP (Xeon) Processors 'Ridiculously fast'
Click to expand...

Having forked out over $6,000 for my current 8 Core Mac Pro 2008, soon to be ridiculously slow, model I can only say I wish the Intel CPUs could be swapped out ... :(
 
Cromulent said:
Originally Posted by kabunaru
Desktop CPUs for the Mac Pro not Workstation CPUs please and a lower price too.
Click to expand...

That is the last thing most people want.
Click to expand...

(I assume that you're not referring to a "lower price" as being the last thing that people want ;) )

Perhaps not "most" people - for most people the Mac Pro is priced so far out of reach that they see no use for it.

However, there's plenty of room in the lineup for a mini-tower and/or SFF using desktop parts for the people who don't want a Mini or an all-in-one - but can't afford the price or space for the maxi-tower.

Keep the maxi-tower for those who need dual-socket performance, of course, but add the mini-tower.
 
sangosimo said:
nehalem only uses one socket. desktop cpus and workstation cpus will be the same.
Click to expand...

While the high end desktop, single socket server, dual socket server and dual socket workstations will all be using derivatives of the same chipset and sharing a socket type you will need different processors if you want to run two.
 
tivoli2 said:
And Eidorian, are you saying I could run two sessions of AE simultaneously? This is the first I've ever heard of such a thing. That's running things in the shell, I'd imagine? (behind the GUI... in the console, is what I'm trying to say...)
Click to expand...

The operating system lets you do it (just make a copy of the program, start the original and the copy). The problem is whether the application can handle it. Let's say AE needs a temporary file, so it creates a file named "AE.tmp" in the /tmp directory and writes things to it and reads them back later. And the second copy of AE needs a temporary file, so it also tries to create a file named "AE.tmp" in the /tmp directory and writes to it. You can see how this is asking for trouble, since one copy of the program overwrites things that the other copy has written to the file. Not saying After Effects is doing things that way, just giving an example where things can go wrong.

It's not difficult for a programmer to do these things right, but if they didn't care about running multiple instances, then it won't work.
 
tivoli2 said:
Has Apple ever had anything that fit the mini-tower description, or have their towers always been workstations? (If so, what was the last one?)
Click to expand...

What about the Cube? Granted it wasn't perfect when they first tired it, mainly due to price, but if they put that out again at a 1,700 price point with some specs between the iMac and the MacPro with a little more flexibility/expandability than the iMac, they'd fly off the shelves.
 
same silicon means nothing

sangosimo said:
nehalem only uses one socket. desktop cpus and workstation cpus will be the same.
Click to expand...

Intel can easily modify the CPU sockets/packages to disable dual socket capability - even if the silicon is exactly the same.

Look up "dual processor Celeron" on the web for an example - the Pentium II-based Celerons had DP disabled, but it was easily hacked to make a dual-socket Celeron for far less money that the Pentium II chips that had all of the pins connected.


cawesjmu said:
...if they put [the Cube] out again at a 1,700 price point with some specs between the iMac and the MacPro with a little more flexibility/expandability than the iMac, they'd fly off the shelves.
Click to expand...

In other words, if they made a mini-tower that was the same dimension for height, width and depth? ;)

But, the $1700 price tag would kill it - base dual-core, 2 GiB GMA4500 system should be under $800.
 
kabunaru said:
Desktop CPUs for the Mac Pro not Workstation CPUs please and a lower price too.
Click to expand...

First, the Xeon 5500-series and the Core i7 900/ Xeon 3500 series are the same core. The Xeon version and the dual CPU version of the tylersburg chipset have a second quickpath link.

Second, you can have both. It happened for many, manny years on the PowerPC side.

Pugpuppydude said:
what is the difference between workstation and other.. cpu!?
Click to expand...

In this case, just the second quick path link for multi-processing. Other than that, they're identical, right down the 1366 pin socket.

DopeyFish said:
Intel does let you - via their Skulltrail platform (wintel) - however no system exists for Mac yet.

Who knows - you might get lucky as Intel will be revisiting skulltrail early next year for Core i7
Click to expand...

The distinction between Core and Xeon is little more than marketing. That Core 2 extreme on skulltrail is a rebadge of a socket 771 xeon just as the 3000-series xeon for single socket servers is a rebadge of the desktop Core 2 Duo. It gets even closer now with the core i7/ xeon 3500 and Xeon 5500 sharing a common chipset and socket.
 
BenRoethig said:
The distinction between Core and Xeon is little more than marketing. That Core 2 extreme on skulltrail is a rebadge of a socket 771 xeon just as the 3000-series xeon for single socket servers is a rebadge of the desktop Core 2 Duo. It gets even closer now with the core i7/ xeon 3500 and Xeon 5500 sharing a common chipset and socket.
Click to expand...

Apparently the Skulltrail processors use different prefetch instructions (not sure if that is the right way to refer to it) so that they were more optimized to gaming rather than typical server tasks. If this is the case I would assume this is something that differentiates 3000 series Xeons from the Core 2 Quads/Duos. You might need to be running hundreds or thousands of systems to notice differences though.
 
Evangelion said:
Among other things, Xeons support multi-CPU cofigurations, wheread desktop-like (ajka i7) only supports one CPU.

If Mac Pro moved to i7, it would mean that it could only have one CPU, as opposed to having two CPU's like it does today.
Click to expand...
You didn't read what I said about Nehalem Skulltrail and the X58.
 
In other words, if they made a mini-tower that was the same dimension for height, width and depth? ;)

But, the $1700 price tag would kill it - base dual-core, 2 GiB GMA4500 system should be under $800.
Click to expand...

Dimensions aside, I was thinking the mini tower would be, performance wise, a bridge between the iMac and the MacPro. Are we more talking about a bridge between the mac mini and the iMac? I personally wasn't thinking (hoping) the mini tower would be a base- anything, with dedicated graphics and an extra hard drive bay.
 
cawesjmu said:
Dimensions aside, I was thinking the mini tower would be, performance wise, a bridge between the iMac and the MacPro. Are we more talking about a bridge between the mac mini and the iMac? I personally wasn't thinking (hoping) the mini tower would be a base- anything, with dedicated graphics and an extra hard drive bay.
Click to expand...

Lots of people dislike all-in-ones, so yes the mini-tower/SFF is for that gap between the mini and the Mac Pro. (I wonder how much of the popularity of the all-in-one for Apple is simply because there's no real choice.)

Apple could price the mini-tower so that the tower plus an Apple display costs significantly more than an Imac of similar power.

Here's a cube-shaped system:

AMD_1_cube_home.gif
(http://www.centralcomputers.com/commerce/ccp19004-e-cube-sys71778.htm)
 
AidenShaw said:
Lots of people dislike all-in-ones, so yes the mini-tower/SFF is for that gap between the mini and the Mac Pro. (I wonder how much of the popularity of the all-in-one for Apple is simply because there's no real choice.)

Apple could price the mini-tower so that the tower plus an Apple display costs significantly more than an Imac of similar power.

Here's a cube-shaped system:

AMD_1_cube_home.gif
(http://www.centralcomputers.com/commerce/ccp19004-e-cube-sys71778.htm)
Click to expand...

And a lot of people like the all-in-ones for it's clean, clutter free, 1 cable simplicity. If Apple made a computer like the one you linked to, there would be no point in the mac mini. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'd love to see a feature-full mac mini instead of what they offer now, and that'd solve the headless imac issue. I guess it's just semantics, but I see Apple changing the mac mini instead of adding a 3rd display-less computer. They've always touted the simplicity of their line-up as a good thing.
 
cawesjmu said:
And a lot of people like the all-in-ones for it's clean, clutter free, 1 cable simplicity. If Apple made a computer like the one you linked to, there would be no point in the mac mini. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'd love to see a feature-full mac mini instead of what they offer now, and that'd solve the headless imac issue. I guess it's just semantics, but I see Apple changing the mac mini instead of adding a 3rd display-less computer. They've always touted the simplicity of their line-up as a good thing.
Click to expand...
Sadly as much as some posters want this thread isn't an iMac nor a Mac mini one. You're looking at least at a tower of some sort.
 
I really want to see more realworld thermal and oc performance tests because my next rig will probably be a shuttle.
 
milo said:
It's about time, I've been ready to buy a new machine for a while but they haven't updated in ages.



Why? That doesn't seem to make any sense.

What apple should do is use the workstation CPUs in the big tower but ALSO have a "budget" model with desktop cpus.
Click to expand...

I wish they had an affordable tower. $2500 is a lot to ask, but the prices for what you get in a MacPro are pretty darn good, IMO.
 
cawesjmu said:
And a lot of people like the all-in-ones for it's clean, clutter free, 1 cable simplicity. If Apple made a computer like the one you linked to, there would be no point in the mac mini. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'd love to see a feature-full mac mini instead of what they offer now, and that'd solve the headless imac issue. I guess it's just semantics, but I see Apple changing the mac mini instead of adding a 3rd display-less computer. They've always touted the simplicity of their line-up as a good thing.
Click to expand...

Apple's lineup in the laptop area is very confusing for those that see the similarities in all of the machines. I don't see why I'd go for an Air if I can get a slightly heavier full featured machine. Before, there was a huge difference in design and weight, now, not so much. Same thing for the Macbook to MacBook Pro if GPU power isn't a big concern.

Keep the Mac Mini as a super media center Apple TV on steriods, and make the headless Mac with full sized desktop chips possible and the people that want a clean all in one can go for the iMac, while those that want a tower will go for the tower.

PeterQVenkman said:
I wish they had an affordable tower. $2500 is a lot to ask, but the prices for what you get in a MacPro are pretty darn good, IMO.
Click to expand...

You are correct, the $2500 isn't a lot to ask for what you get, but what you get may be more than you need. Most users don't need the 4-8 cores of a Mac Pro with Xeon chips and 32GB of possible RAM.

Many just need the 4 cores of a regular desktop chip, and expandable HDD, PCI and GPUs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back