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

New Mac Pros With Up to 16 Cores Coming in Late July/Early August?

tarproductions said:
Interesting, would like to hear more. I still use my 2006 MacPro as my main desktop. What graphics card/SSD did you go with?
Click to expand...

I would also be keen to hear how your pimped Mac Pro is performing. My 8-core 3.0Ghz model is shouting at me for an SSD. Latest build of Lion runs well on it, however AirDrop seems to be missing. I am guessing that this is to do with the model of card installed.

What SSD did you go for?
 
heisetax said:
Which video card do you have in yours?
Click to expand...

tarproductions said:
What graphics card/SSD did you go with?
Click to expand...

The ATI 5770. It says 2009 or 2010 but it works fine on my machine.

I'm a Final Cut Editor, though, not a gamer. So I can't say if this card would make them happy. For me the speed of the hard drives matters more, honestly. The times I wait for stuff is video compressing. Just plain old cutting and real-time filters were never a problem even before this. But waiting for that DVD to compress while the processors work at 40%...that's always been my headache.

I'll tell you the 2 places I noticed the biggest improvement with the video card upgrade: Safari and Aperture scrolling. I figured Aperture would get better but I was amazed at how much Safari improved. I hadn't realized how much my video card was holding up my web experience before.

I haven't gotten an SSD yet. That's next on my list but funds dictate I'll have to wait a little while longer. But I can already feel my machine breathing easier, I know that'll just kick it up another notch. I did get this mount along with a 5th hard drive. I'm adding a 5th SATA drive to my 2nd optical bay now and once I do get an SSD it can go in there too. So I'll have an SSD + 5 SATA drives.
 
joeyhockey said:
The image is a fake. You can query anything in the Apple Service Source and have it show up on the page. Look, Apple is coming out with a SuperMac Pro Widget!
Image

Plus, the Service Source documentation is usually the LAST place that gets updated when a product is released.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the image is almost certainly a fake. Thankfully for us hopeful types, that picture isn't the 'evidence', just an illustration!
 
Small White Car said:
The ATI 5770. It says 2009 or 2010 but it works fine on my machine.

I'm a Final Cut Editor, though, not a gamer. So I can't say if this card would make them happy. For me the speed of the hard drives matters more, honestly. The times I wait for stuff is video compressing. Just plain old cutting and real-time filters were never a problem even before this. But waiting for that DVD to compress while the processors work at 40%...that's always been my headache.

I'll tell you the 2 places I noticed the biggest improvement with the video card upgrade: Safari and Aperture scrolling. I figured Aperture would get better but I was amazed at how much Safari improved. I hadn't realized how much my video card was holding up my web experience before.

I haven't gotten an SSD yet. That's next on my list but funds dictate I'll have to wait a little while longer. But I can already feel my machine breathing easier, I know that'll just kick it up another notch.
Click to expand...


Its sad when a 5770 is an "upgrade". You can buy that card for $90 now.
 
toddybody said:
Its sad when a 5770 is an "upgrade". You can buy that card for $90 now.
Click to expand...

Well, price-vs-performance was a factor. I find that if you're not doing anything that involves 3D (games, animation) the video card just doesn't make all that big a difference to your life.

Like I said, my biggest gain was Safari browsing. I'm enjoying it but it's not exactly changing the way I work.
 
chrmjenkins said:
What's wrong with this one? Many consider it the epitome of towers.



Yeah, it's very interesting. If Intel is practicing this much favoritism, it really makes you wonder, particularly given Apple's ARM fanaticism.
Click to expand...

Well first of all, winter is already here.
I agree that the Tower is awesome in its design, but I think it could be further improved. The rumors that would make it a standard rack sized enclosure would we sweet. Since many people are using it in studio environments (broadcast production here), it would be beneficial to have it ride carts without additional effort. It doesn't need to shrin much, but some would be good.
 
Bubba Satori said:
Please have a bto for an i7.
And don't charge an absurd $2,500 for a base model
with 3GB, 5,400rpm and a junk GPU. It's insulting. :mad:
Thanks.
Click to expand...

Extremely insulting. The entry level Mac Pro was a bad value when first released a year ago. I don't care how great the expandability, case, powersupply etc. are, a $2500 system should have better than a $280 CPU, a $100 GPU, a $50 HD, and $50 of memory (retail pricing).
 
tarproductions said:
Interesting, would like to hear more. I still use my 2006 MacPro as my main desktop. What graphics card/SSD did you go with?
Click to expand...

i just put an OCZ agility 120 GB in my 2009 MP and I can't believe how much zippier it is for accessing files and launching apps. very very nice edition.

Lots of threads on SSD recommendations. I suggest hopping the to Mac Pro form as there was a specific thread on it. Lots of great info.

As for the MP form factor, I believe the rumour of a smaller, thinner case designed for racks etc... I can see them cutting down on size.

then again, that was before hearing about 16 cores (possibly). might change that idea. lol
 
bearcatrp said:
I would hate to see the price of the 16 core/32 thread monster. 12 core/24 thread Mac pro's top out over 5 grand. My guess would be 8 to 10 grand. Who can afford it besides folks currently making a lot of money. Will be interesting for sure.
Click to expand...

The answer to that question is in the name. Pro's. :)
 
Small White Car said:
Funny...with an SSD, new graphics card, and Lion I finally feel like my 2006 Mac Pro's processors are finally being used to their full potential.

People are so focused on the numbers they never noticed that these XEON chips often worked at half power because everything else couldn't keep up or take advantage of them.

The first-generation Mac Pro is going to be one of the longest-lasting machines I've ever owned. I'm 5 years in and I just now feel like it's working at its full potential. It'll be a few more years before I try and replace it.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's exactly how I feel. I have an early '08 eight core and I just replaced my failing 3870 graphics card with a 5770 (just in time for the new FCPX), added some RAM and an SSD. All this now makes my machine feel snappy and apps like BitVice and FCPX fly on this thing!
 
chrmjenkins said:
What's wrong with this one? Many consider it the epitome of towers.



Yeah, it's very interesting. If Intel is practicing this much favoritism, it really makes you wonder, particularly given Apple's ARM fanaticism.
Click to expand...

Who is to say, Intel will not be moving to ARM for their high end stuff. X86 is getting very old. Current implementation of ARM is slow because it is built for power consumption and price. If it was built for speed it would obliterate X86. Eventually, Intel has no choice but to drop all the legacy garbage. Intel has the licenses to build ARM and nothing on the market has the potential to compete with ARM for speed.
 
Small White Car said:
Well, price-vs-performance was a factor. I find that if you're not doing anything that involves 3D (games, animation) the video card just doesn't make all that big a difference to your life.

Like I said, my biggest gain was Safari browsing. I'm enjoying it but it's not exactly changing the way I work.
Click to expand...

Agreed....my gripe is on a philosophical level:) 5770 is more than adequate for daily tasking and many graphically oriented applications, save gaming. Im a Mac user by day/no good PC gamer by night, so I pine for Apple to embrace current off the shelf GPU's:)
 
Last edited:
I assume these will include thunderbolt. And they BETTER include sata III, it was pathetic they didn't upgrade to those last time around.

Bubba Satori said:
Please have a bto for an i7.
And don't charge an absurd $2,500 for a base model
with 3GB, 5,400rpm and a junk GPU. It's insulting. :mad:
Thanks.
Click to expand...

What they should do is just make the base model (single chip) i7 by default. Xeon in a single chip machine is pretty much pointless.

igazza said:
Will they support 128GB of ram ? :D
Click to expand...

I think the current ones might already, there are 16 gig ram chips shipping now.

daylight28 said:
FCPX is going to kill it for Apple in the proApps. so why get a 12 or 16 core if FCP 7 will not use the power!!!
Click to expand...

Logic.


Michael73 said:
A 16 core MP would quickly put an end to any bragging rights current iMac owners have about having the speediest Macs.
Click to expand...

Those so called "bragging rights" were based on misinformation, there are already 12 core macs and a 6 or 8 core configured similarly would have topped that comparison as well.


Iconoclysm said:
Why would you want an i7 Mac Pro? The reason these cost $2500 is because of the processors, not the GPU. There's nothing insulting about it.
Click to expand...

Because an i7 base model would perform as well or better than the xeon that's in there now, and save a lot of money. And the reason they cost $2500 is because you're getting ripped off, not because you're getting the performance that price should fetch. That has been one of the weakest parts of Apple's product line for years, and as the most expensive yeah, it's pretty insulting. Especially considering it ships with 3x1 gigs of ram.
 
milo said:
What they should do is just make the base model (single chip) i7 by default. Xeon in a single chip machine is pretty much pointless.
Click to expand...

Apple using Xeons in the single CPU Mac Pros allowed the use of 8GB and 16GB DIMMs. ECC allows error detection; and while prevention might not be an issue for someone who sits in a creative app all day and isn't fussed about getting as close to 100% uptime as possible, Mac Pros are used in many types of situations where it a welcome feature. The cost for Apple to use Xeons and ECC memory over selling them with a Core i7 and non-ECC memory would not have changed the retail price either. So it would be pointless to not use Xeons.
 
Iconoclysm said:
Why would you want an i7 Mac Pro? The reason these cost $2500 is because of the processors, not the GPU. There's nothing insulting about it.
Click to expand...

That is not correct, at least for the entry model. The base Mac Pro uses a W3520 which according to Intel's Price list is a $284 CPU. The i7-2600 ($294 and quite a bit faster) is in systems costing ~$700.
 
Sounds like Apple is paying a little attention to the professionals again. Finally.
Now if Apple would only pay some attention to those of us that want something for the gap between the Mini and the Mac Pro.

I think I'll open a shopping center and get Apple to build a store there. I'll design it where they have to put it between a Gap and a Gap For Kids. :)
 
RalfTheDog said:
Who is to say, Intel will not be moving to ARM for their high end stuff. X86 is getting very old. Current implementation of ARM is slow because it is built for power consumption and price. If it was built for speed it would obliterate X86. Eventually, Intel has no choice but to drop all the legacy garbage. Intel has the licenses to build ARM and nothing on the market has the potential to compete with ARM for speed.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't, not in the real world.
 
Umbongo said:
Apple using Xeons in the single CPU Mac Pros allowed the use of 8GB and 16GB DIMMs. ECC allows error detection; and while prevention might not be an issue for someone who sits in a creative app all day and isn't fussed about getting as close to 100% uptime as possible, Mac Pros are used in many types of situations where it a welcome feature. The cost for Apple to use Xeons and ECC memory over selling them with a Core i7 and non-ECC memory would not have changed the retail price either. So it would be pointless to not use Xeons.
Click to expand...

The price difference isn't as huge as it used to be, but the i7s are still cheaper not to mention that the memory and motherboard used are generally cheaper for them as well. There's just no excuse for a quad machine costing $2500, particularly with those specs. If they are going to cut corners on the base MP, and that is what they're doing, they might as well cut a few more and make it more affordable for that market. If people need more, that's what the higher end models are for.

i7s can use 8 gig chips, people are doing it now with iMacs (and that's even laptop ram).

And what was apple thinking only putting 4 ram slots in the base MP? Not to mention that these machines use triple channel ram, why not 6 or even 9 (or more)?
 
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