2.67/2.93/3.2 GHz.I would speculate the low end to be 2.67 GHz, and top out at 3.2 GHz, as you suspect. Similar range to current clock speeds. I keep searching for something concrete though.
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.
New Mac Pro's soon?
- Thread starter MBX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think it is sad Apple has lowered our expectations to this level. After making us wait 18 months to revise the Mac Pro I am sure a year seems fast for a refresh. Apple used to refresh every 6 to 9 months, better yet slowly drop the prices after a several months.
Having said that, I am hoping a new lower cost mini tower is in the cards. Since Apple is no longer discounting the tower I can not justify the expense but every 3-4 years, versus every 2 years which is what I would prefer.
Would you have an article, or is it an educated guess?
The closest I've read so far, was on TGDaily, and going on near a year old. And searching, so far hasn't yielded more info on clock speed.
Wikipedia has many references confirming that a 2.66ghz, 2.93ghz, and a 3.2ghz version of Bloomfield will be available.
The bus is 133Mhz, so the speeds will be multiples of that.
133Mhz x 20 = 2.66Ghz
Apparently they also overclock WELL because the multiplier is so high. Even "FSB" overclocking (Adding to the 133) should product great results because of the high multiplier.
133Mhz x 20 = 2.66Ghz
Apparently they also overclock WELL because the multiplier is so high. Even "FSB" overclocking (Adding to the 133) should product great results because of the high multiplier.
It has been many times in the past though don't forget.
yes, but only when there are substantial changes. No processor updates at major expos.
There's no reason to think we won't see new ones until January if the chips are available sooner. When the next generation of xeons arrives (or rather, when 3.2+ ghz next gen chips arrive), there will be new mac pros.
Erm.... fairly certain the current MBP bus runs at 1.6 GHz, not 133 MHz... meaning it's 400 MHz quad pumped.
If we only had 533 MHz buses, there'd be a serious bandwidth constraint problem. Even the Pentium 4 C benefited from the increase from 533 to 800 MHz.
It's not quite Apple's fault if there are no new suitable CPUs for them to put out.. and the mid-priced tower isn't happening, though I agree, it should.
133 MHz under Nehalem and the QPI. This is a Mac Pro discussion as well.
The MacBook Pro current runs under an 800 MHz FSB (4 * 200 MHz). Under Montevina it's 1066 MHz ( 4 * 266 MHz)
The Mac Pro is 1600 MHz though.
133 MHz under Nehalem and the QPI. This is a Mac Pro discussion as well.
The MacBook Pro current runs under an 800 MHz FSB (4 * 200 MHz). Under Montevina it's 1066 MHz ( 4 * 266 MHz)
The Mac Pro is 1600 MHz though.
I love you.
133 MHz under Nehalem and the QPI. This is a Mac Pro discussion as well.
The MacBook Pro current runs under an 800 MHz FSB (4 * 200 MHz). Under Montevina it's 1066 MHz ( 4 * 266 MHz)
The Mac Pro is 1600 MHz though.
Bleh, meant MP.. had MBP on my mind lately.
Yeah, the MBP is running at 800 MHz, and the Mac Pro is running 1.6 GHz... what is this about Nehalem running a 133 MHz bus...?
I'm also looking to get a new Mac Pro within the next few months. In real world practice, just how much of a difference will we see between the current Mac Pro's and the next version? Also, if the case is to be redesigned, be prepared for v.1 issues (fan/heat problems, noise, etc.).
It *should* be pretty significant.
That said, the current ones are no slouch, and will only get even better/faster with Snow Leopard if promises of multi-core optimisation are delivered upon. If you need a machine now, I can't imagine you'll be disappointed or looking to upgrade for at least a couple of years. Which depending on your point of view might be a good thing, the next MP and it's architecture will be brand brand brand-spanking new, totally different, rev A syndrome is highly likely.
Well then, maybe it would be worth it to wait. I assume price points will be similar to the current price structure. I guess I'll wait until Sept. to see if we are closer to a release date.
Bloomfield ≈ Gainestown.Knock that off!
I'd seen the Bloomfield specs, just looking for something solid on Gainestown. Not just rely on my math. Expectations destroyed a few times.
Whatever specs you see for the high-end desktop processor are likely to be the specs you see for Gainestown.
133 MHz is the reference clock for all components in the processor. The QuickPath clock is either 2.4 GHz (133 MHz x 18) or 3.2 GHz (133 MHz x 24).
From what I've seen it isn't 133 but rather 133.4 not that it makes much difference. We should see Apple offer similar speeds to those available currently at 2.8GHz, 3.06GHz and 3.2GHz eitherway.
All from a CPU-Z Anandtech shot:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3326&p=2
Apparently the bus is a straight 133, if you trust CPU-Z (Which you should!). Not sure what the "rated" FSB is in this case, but that may be CPU-Z saying "IDK WTF THIS IS, I WANT TO GO BACK TO FSB PLZ" or something similar.
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3326&p=2
Apparently the bus is a straight 133, if you trust CPU-Z (Which you should!). Not sure what the "rated" FSB is in this case, but that may be CPU-Z saying "IDK WTF THIS IS, I WANT TO GO BACK TO FSB PLZ" or something similar.
I was rounding to 3 significant figures. But I didn't know that it was actually 133.4 MHz, I thought it was 133.333... MHz. I seem to recall my iBook G4's clock speed as 1333.2 MHz too.
The 133 MHz is multiplied by 18 or 24 to get the rated "FSB."
Existing FSBs do the same thing, they are multiplied by 4 to get the effective FSB clock ("quad-pumped").
Everyone knows that in computer speak, 133 = 133.33333... and 266 = 266.666666... etc
Anyway, about Nehalem processor bus interfaces, they are using Quickpath, which is a rather different technology altogether. Quickpath will replace the Front Side Bus. And the best thing is, its speeds are around 4.8GT/s (gigatransfers per second) to 6.4GT/s.
wikipedia said:
The fact that the CPU clock speeds are multiples of 133 is irrelevant.