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'

robinp said:
If you look at the buyers guide then it clearly shows we are approaching the longest time between updates in the history of the mac pro/powermac. I know the update before the current generation was just a drop in CPU replacement and was therefore very little effort for Apple, but I don't think we should use that lack of complexity on their part as an example of what to expect in the future. The actual performance increase from that simple upgrade was very large indeed, in fact it was probably one of the single biggest performance increases to the top end of their Pro lineup. I really think Apple wont wait until WWDC to update, but agree it may not actually at Macworld. However, I think apple's reluctance to release previous Mac Pro updates at Macworld has more to do with the updates not being very glamourous. This might be different, particularly if there is a change to the case on top of the new architecture.
Click to expand...

Yes... but they did NOTHING for the rest of the line, and therefore NOTHING for anyone just wanting a larger hard drive, more RAM, or cheaper computers. They added an expensive CPU option in a 518 day time frame. I realize that the 8-core option was obscenely fast, but that didn't help the rest of the target market who couldn't have afforded that anyway.

Oh, and I'm all for a case redesign, I've just yet to see anything that could possibly be more useful or look better than the cheese grater.
 
Tallest Skil said:
Yes... but they did NOTHING for the rest of the line, and therefore NOTHING for anyone just wanting a larger hard drive, more RAM, or cheaper computers. They added an expensive CPU option in a 518 day time frame. I realize that the 8-core option was obscenely fast, but that didn't help the rest of the target market who couldn't have afforded that anyway.

Oh, and I'm all for a case redesign, I've just yet to see anything that could possibly be more useful or look better than the cheese grater.
Click to expand...

Yes I quite agree, and it made my current quad core 2.66 seem like very good value indeed given that it wasn't superseded in a 1.5 years. People rarely upgrade every cycle though, more likely every 2 or 3 and I'm sure Apple is aware of this. That they kept the top end kept moving upwards was almost as good from their perspective because it provided those with a quad G5 a decent proposition for an upgrade (ie something that was drastically faster than what they already had). I am convinced we wont see a wait of much more than a year from when the current generation were released. Apart from anything, I can't see the Mac Pro not having a 23/24" display that works with it for long (made by Apple). I am sure this size is currently the most popular among Mac Pro owners and Apple will be well aware they are missing out on a lot of sales right now.

As for the new case, I also agree. This current tower is the best around by far, but I also believe that Apple have the ability to improve on it. The design has been pretty static for several years now so it would make sense that if they are going to update all the internals (needed for Nehalem) then they may as well take the opportunity to tweak/change the case.
 
robinp said:
I really think Apple wont wait until WWDC to update, but agree it may not actually at Macworld.
Click to expand...

I can't see Apple waiting until June either and they don't need to release things at events. A Mac Pro release will get as much interest from a press release as it would from a WWDC keynote.

The best information we have is that intel will start producing Gainestown in January and Mac Pros have come out 6-8 weeks after Intel's release date on processors. This to me rules out Macworld as there are no indications Apple will stray from what they have done so far in regards to the Mac Pro.
 
Tallest Skil said:
Stop pretending that you know more on the subject than Eidorian (because, come on... it's Eidorian!) and either prove him wrong or accept that you were.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the help but I just want to see what tenks posted proved wrong since that's what I was agreeing with in the first place.

I know that I've said the exact same thing and so have many other users in this thread as well.
 
Tallest Skil said:
And if not, it'll be at WWDC. Yes, they would keep the same hardware that long. They did it last time.
Click to expand...
Apple may keep doing 1.5-year cycles (with or wihout an interim update). I fear that Westmere will be a drop in upgrade like the original 8-core model, and we will have to wait until Sandy Bridge in early 2011 for the next big update. And Sandy Bridge is speculated to go for 3 years...

Umbongo said:
The best information we have is that intel will start producing Gainestown in January and Mac Pros have come out 6-8 weeks after Intel's release date on processors. This to me rules out Macworld as there are no indications Apple will stray from what they have done so far in regards to the Mac Pro.
Click to expand...
A January production start means what release date, do you think? 6~8 weeks from March is surprisingly close to WWDC.
 
iMacmatician said:
Apple may keep doing 1.5-year cycles (with or wihout an interim update). I fear that Westmere will be a drop in upgrade like the original 8-core model, and we will have to wait until Sandy Bridge in early 2011 for the next big update. And Sandy Bridge is speculated to go for 3 years...

A January production start means what release date, do you think? 6~8 weeks from March is surprisingly close to WWDC.
Click to expand...

I'd expect to see them before mid April. WWDC is usually mid June.
 
Eidorian said:
I appreciate the help but I just want to see what tenks posted proved wrong since that's what I was agreeing with in the first place.

I know that I've said the exact same thing and so have many other users in this thread as well.
Click to expand...

You really cant prove what I said and you agreed with wrong, because it's fact. Some can raise the point that the l3 cache sizes will differ from xeon to i7 but I covered that in the original post...my point was the CORES in i7 and Xeon will be identical. What intel is now calling the UN-CORE (qpi, l3 cache, memory controller) will differ from socket to socket and platform to platform; "desktop" "server" "mobile" etc. but other then those minor differences, they are all the same chip.
 
AidenShaw said:
Apple has been very slow in updating the maxi-tower before (quad core Xeons were out from other companies for many months before they were added to the Apple maxi-tower).
Click to expand...

That was a different issue and I would think was down to Apple not wanting an 8 core system that was slower (in many cases) than the 4 core 3GHz they were offering so they waited until Intel could provide enough 3GHz quad parts.

Woodcrest was released on the 26th of June 2006 and Mac Pros using it were shipping on the 7th of August. Harpertown had a release date of the 12th of November 2007 and Mac Pros came out on the 8th of January. Those are the dates that are important.
 
Umbongo said:
That was a different issue and I would think was down to Apple not wanting an 8 core system that was slower (in many cases) than the 4 core 3GHz they were offering so they waited until Intel could provide enough 3GHz quad parts.

Woodcrest was released on the 26th of June 2006 and Mac Pros using it were shipping on the 7th of August. Harpertown had a release date of the 12th of November 2007 and Mac Pros came out on the 8th of January. Those are the dates that are important.
Click to expand...

Yes, both sets of dates are quite relevant, however I think this time Intel may be quite keen to use the extra publicity of launching with Apple and so might well keep quiet until they are properly available. One important thing to remember when considering this option is that in previous launches intel released the Xeon parts before the desktop or mobile parts. I think this is key because the launch of a new architecture is big news, whereas launching a new chip that uses an existing architecture (what we are waiting for with the mac pro) is not nearly as news worthy or such a big event. This makes me think that Intel being flexible to accommodate Apple's release schedule might be realistic. Either way, I will probably wait until March/April before absolutely having to upgrade, but the sooner the better really.
 
robinp said:
Yes, both sets of dates are quite relevant, however I think this time Intel may be quite keen to use the extra publicity of launching with Apple and so might well keep quiet until they are properly available.
Click to expand...
If Apple continues to use the workstation/server class processors, Intel won't keep quiet. Server sales are more important to Intel and server customers demand information for planning purposes. Intel will also need to freeze out Shanghai sales and the only way to do that is by pre-announcing.
 
robinp said:
Yes, both sets of dates are quite relevant, however I think this time Intel may be quite keen to use the extra publicity of launching with Apple and so might well keep quiet until they are properly available. One important thing to remember when considering this option is that in previous launches intel released the Xeon parts before the desktop or mobile parts. I think this is key because the launch of a new architecture is big news, whereas launching a new chip that uses an existing architecture (what we are waiting for with the mac pro) is not nearly as news worthy or such a big event. This makes me think that Intel being flexible to accommodate Apple's release schedule might be realistic. Either way, I will probably wait until March/April before absolutely having to upgrade, but the sooner the better really.
Click to expand...

Maybe Intel and Apple have that sort of relationship on some things but I can't see it on something like Xeon processors. Intel pushed it back because there is no competition and they are making money on Penryn Xeons. The people buying Xeons aren't typically interested in Apple workstations and Apple probably buy a tiny portion of Xeons sold (educated guess of 0.02%) so I can't see Apple being that relevent to a release date. They are relevant to the dual socket Workstation market though, which Intel does care about, but that doesn't impact the overall Xeon schedule.
 
intel is way bigger than nvidia and has alot of customers. I don't think they will wait on anybody.
 
Umbongo said:
Maybe Intel and Apple have that sort of relationship on some things but I can't see it on something like Xeon processors. Intel pushed it back because there is no competition and they are making money on Penryn Xeons. The people buying Xeons aren't typically interested in Apple workstations and Apple probably buy a tiny portion of Xeons sold (educated guess of 0.02%) so I can't see Apple being that relevent to a release date. They are relevant to the dual socket Workstation market though, which Intel does care about, but that doesn't impact the overall Xeon schedule.
Click to expand...

sangosimo said:
intel is way bigger than nvidia and has alot of customers. I don't think they will wait on anybody.
Click to expand...

While I agree loosely with what Umbongo is saying, I still don't think Intel would pass up the opportunity to ride on the wave of apple's amazing publicity machine.

Sangosimo - I completely disagree. Intel has changed its plans specifically for apple before.

I am not saying Intel would actually have changed their actual release date, just the announcement of it. I think the typical time between announcement and availability could be shorter than is typical
 
robinp said:
While I agree loosely with what Umbongo is saying, I still don't think Intel would pass up the opportunity to ride on the wave of apple's amazing publicity machine.

Sangosimo - I completely disagree. Intel has changed its plans specifically for apple before.

I am not saying Intel would actually have changed their actual release date, just the announcement of it. I think the typical time between announcement and availability could be shorter than is typical
Click to expand...


But the honeymoon with Intel could be over - Apple just publicly stiffed Intel by going with Nvidia chips instead.

Intel may no longer be interested in any special favors for Apple....
 
AidenShaw said:
But the honeymoon with Intel could be over - Apple just publicly stiffed Intel by going with Nvidia chips instead.

Intel may no longer be interested in any special favors for Apple....
Click to expand...

I suppose that's where my thinking differs: I don't think Intel would do it to please Apple, and never would have in my opinion (including the past couple of times Apple appears to have had preferential treatment). Its about Intel gaining the kind of publicity that endless millions of dollars spent on publicity would get, but for free courtesy of shifting a launch date a month or so.
 
I doubt 95% of mac pro users would see any real difference when using their mac if it were a Xeon or desktop i7, with that in mind, and this economy, maybe apple should offer those cpu's instead.
 
cisco0623 said:
I doubt 95% of mac pro users would see any real difference when using their mac if it were a Xeon or desktop i7, with that in mind, and this economy, maybe apple should offer those cpu's instead.
Click to expand...
That would imply only 5% of Mac Pro users are working on audio, video and 3D rendering or are developers. I find that very hard to believe.
 
Many/most "Pro" users aren't "Pros"

ktlx said:
That would imply only 5% of Mac Pro users are working on audio, video and 3D rendering or are developers. I find that very hard to believe.
Click to expand...

And the other 95% bought the maxi-tower because it was the only expandable desktop option. ;)

You may argue whether it's 50%/75%/80%/90% or whatever - but I'm confident that a majority of Mac Pros don't spend much time with more than 4 cores busy.

Some users obviously do stress the system (we call these people "Pros"), but many maxi-towers go to amateurs who could easily get by with an 8 logical processor, 4 core, single socket Core i7.
 
AidenShaw said:
You may argue whether it's 50%/75%/80%/90% or whatever - but I'm confident that a majority of Mac Pros don't spend much time with more than 4 cores busy.

Some users obviously do stress the system (we call these people "Pros"), but many maxi-towers go to amateurs who could easily get by with an 8 logical processor, 4 core, single socket Core i7.
Click to expand...
Even more reason to offer single-CPU and dual-CPU models. And when Westmere comes, it's reason to offer 1x 6-core, 2x 4-core, and 2x 6-core models.

I suppose a 2-socket board with just one CPU may work (like now), but a "true" single-CPU model would be better. Apple could really push the threads and so push the fact that thread count stays the same from 2x Harpertown to 1x Gainestown (and also push the dual-CPU model with 2x the threads).
 
iMacmatician said:
I suppose a 2-socket board with just one CPU may work (like now), but a "true" single-CPU model would be better. Apple could really push the threads and so push the fact that thread count stays the same from 2x Harpertown to 1x Gainestown (and also push the dual-CPU model with 2x the threads).
Click to expand...

No, no, no - shrink that humonguous maxi-tower.

attachment.php

(system images to scale)

Reduce the price, footprint, power consumption and other issues by building a small form factor or small mini-tower and using higher volume desktop parts.

As to threads, don't be surprised when the benchmarks come in and they show that 8 cores are far, far better than 8 threads.
 
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