They have to use Xeon processors because that is required for ECC memory, which is required by many sources for Workstation purchases. The Xeons used in the single processor Mac Pros (3500 series) are the same price as Core i7s at the same clock speed. Apple aren't charging more because they are paying more than they would for Core i7 processors.
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.
Next-Generation Mac Pro to Receive Temporary Exclusive of Six-Core 'Gulftown' Processor?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They have to use Xeon processors because that is required for ECC memory, which is required by many sources for Workstation purchases. The Xeons used in the single processor Mac Pros (3500 series) are the same price as Core i7s at the same clock speed. Apple aren't charging more because they are paying more than they would for Core i7 processors.
ummm...
For the most part, MOST users will get nothing but bragging rights. BUt then again, the people buying up these mac Pros generally are video/gfx pros - like myself - and therefore use apps that would utilize them all.
Prime example being 3D apps. Sure not the most widely used apps on the planet, but the app i use now, CInema 4D uses every single core to its 100% max to render frames from preview and for final output. Its takes your workspace, say 1280x720 pixels, and on a dual core machine, chops it in half, givin the workload for the top part of the image to one processor, and the bottom half of the image to the other. On a 4 core its split up in 4 parts and each part works simultaneously. On an 8 core, so forth Etc. On a 12 core machine, especially one with a pretty fast clock on a 32nm chip, it'd blaze through what takes my dual core macbook pro at 2.8GHz 2 minutes to render, in theoretically, about 45 seconds. THats some significant time savings. This grows exponentially when you're rendering out a 3d animation as you're saving crazy amounts of time for every frame, 24 or 30 times every second, for several seconds. THe more cores the merrier.
there's also the Compressor encoding app. Adobe after effects. Logic Pro. Various third party encoding apps and a slew of other 3D and motion graphics apps.
However, OpenCL should change this game up pretty significantly. I'm excited to see about that.
For the most part, MOST users will get nothing but bragging rights. BUt then again, the people buying up these mac Pros generally are video/gfx pros - like myself - and therefore use apps that would utilize them all.
Prime example being 3D apps. Sure not the most widely used apps on the planet, but the app i use now, CInema 4D uses every single core to its 100% max to render frames from preview and for final output. Its takes your workspace, say 1280x720 pixels, and on a dual core machine, chops it in half, givin the workload for the top part of the image to one processor, and the bottom half of the image to the other. On a 4 core its split up in 4 parts and each part works simultaneously. On an 8 core, so forth Etc. On a 12 core machine, especially one with a pretty fast clock on a 32nm chip, it'd blaze through what takes my dual core macbook pro at 2.8GHz 2 minutes to render, in theoretically, about 45 seconds. THats some significant time savings. This grows exponentially when you're rendering out a 3d animation as you're saving crazy amounts of time for every frame, 24 or 30 times every second, for several seconds. THe more cores the merrier.
there's also the Compressor encoding app. Adobe after effects. Logic Pro. Various third party encoding apps and a slew of other 3D and motion graphics apps.
However, OpenCL should change this game up pretty significantly. I'm excited to see about that.
Hahaha, wow, on top of offering Xeon's exclusively, you can't even build a Mac Pro with a workstation graphics card? I just had to check to see if that was really true.
So let me get this straight, you HAVE to pay for workstation processors and motherboards, but there is no option for workstation graphics?
Obviously they just wanted to raise the prices on their Mac Pros, and found a strategy that allowed them to do so. I paid $1700 for a dual proc. G4 back in 2002; now there is nothing for less than $2500. That is intentional.
So let me get this straight, you HAVE to pay for workstation processors and motherboards, but there is no option for workstation graphics?
Obviously they just wanted to raise the prices on their Mac Pros, and found a strategy that allowed them to do so. I paid $1700 for a dual proc. G4 back in 2002; now there is nothing for less than $2500. That is intentional.
Why the heck do you want a different case design?
The current one looks nice and works great. Change simply for the sake of change is idiotic. Why exactly do you want them to change it?LMAO you do realize that 2002 was almost EIGHT years ago, yes? You see there's this thing called "inflation". Ah, nevermind, you're probably too young to understand.
No, it's called a giant hole in your product lineup. Apple's least expensive quad core computer is $2,499. With 3GB memory and an Nivida 130GT. LOL
Workstation graphics cards don't offer the driver/software benefits under OS X like they do on Windows, so there is little interest in them. The Mac is hardly a high end 3D content creation platform anyway. You can get a Quadro FX 4800 that will work in OS X and windows, and of course can install whatever you want in there anyway. It performs worse than the GTX 285 in OS X.
Apple's pricing on the single socket Mac Pro is high to position it between the iMac and dual socket Mac Pro. The dual socket Mac Pro has a similar mark up to what other companies have had for years.
http://techresearch.intel.com/articles/None/1813.htm
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/exclusive-apple-dictated-light-peak-creation-to-intel-could-be/
Apple specified constraints on the solution. That is not the same as developing it. Neither has Intel put this in front of a standards body either.
They are trying to stick some aspect of it in front of the USB body but this isn't necessarily the right standard.
Apple (and Intel) could ship something before reaching a significant consensus from the industry, but long term that may end up hurting as much as helping.
Remember, for this to be useful and widespread it has to be someone other than Apple and Intel that has working offerings. There were some vendors who said Firewire was cool too .... until they have been drifting away. ( maybe for this. )
Some of Light Peak seems half baked (e.g, USB like power over the same cable. ) Frankly have trouble with the Light Peak distance claims ( 100 meters) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Peak and providing power over those kinds of distances. Which either gets you short distance with power Light Peak and pure optical Light Peak or dropping of some of the "yeah and that too" claims.
Likewise all the of multi/demultiplexing of putting random stuff out of the lab on the same wire.
Mac Pro with USB 3 might be more likely. Or that Apple is going to by-pass it (like eSATA).
Why the heck do you want a different case design?
People like change. Though a new case isn't going to sell Mac Pros. Apple probably keep it the same on the exterior so that multiple generations of Apple workstations can coexist in an aesthetically pleasing enviroment
. It seems that the case size limited Apple from offering 12 DIMM slots like other high end dual socket workstations have though. I'd like to see it changed for that reason.But the real question is, how many more calories will that burn? Can I now order the fries guilt free?
Getting One! BOOYAH!
Incredibly excited for this. The wife and I (both Art Directors) agreed to get the next Mac Pro released. I was afraid Apple might do a March release again. Now I'm excited for Adobe CS5 to come out. Hopefully they use all the power available. Maybe stick a couple SSDs, Maxing out the RAM would be ridiculous but I might do it just to say I did.
4yr old MBP at home (and newer mac mini). Unfortunately another PC at work... again. Vista really is horrible. I had to restart twice, today. One time it took me 22 minutes. Then my typing kicked into french keyboard on its own.
A need a fat bastard of a Mac at home to compensate for work's dreadful computer nightmares.
Incredibly excited for this. The wife and I (both Art Directors) agreed to get the next Mac Pro released. I was afraid Apple might do a March release again. Now I'm excited for Adobe CS5 to come out. Hopefully they use all the power available. Maybe stick a couple SSDs, Maxing out the RAM would be ridiculous but I might do it just to say I did.
4yr old MBP at home (and newer mac mini). Unfortunately another PC at work... again. Vista really is horrible. I had to restart twice, today. One time it took me 22 minutes. Then my typing kicked into french keyboard on its own.
A need a fat bastard of a Mac at home to compensate for work's dreadful computer nightmares.
I wouldn't get too excited based on this rumour. Even if it is correct it doesn't mean a January or February release.
Schitte!
Oh well, I think my June-shipped Octopus will hold me for a few years. In tech you're always behind the curve.
Oh well, I think my June-shipped Octopus will hold me for a few years. In tech you're always behind the curve.
You are completely wrong and certainly don't under stand computers.
Now how individual apps leverage these cores is very much a question of how the app is coded and it's ability to be parallelized. Even at this early moment in time, relative to SL, there are many programs that use every core in a Mac.
The problem I have is that you imply that is the only use for multiple cores which is bull crap. It is very easy on todays Macs to bring them to a crawl due to lack of resources.
Dave
I'm not sure if you understand computers here, OS/X uses all the cores and Snow Leopard just takes that farther. SL is very efficent at using all the cores in the machine via it's thread pool technology. That being GCD.
Now how individual apps leverage these cores is very much a question of how the app is coded and it's ability to be parallelized. Even at this early moment in time, relative to SL, there are many programs that use every core in a Mac.
There is little doubt that virtualization is helped by multiple cores. That is a good thing as it enables productivity in a way that hasn't been possible in the past.
The problem I have is that you imply that is the only use for multiple cores which is bull crap. It is very easy on todays Macs to bring them to a crawl due to lack of resources.
obviously you have no idea what modern power users do with their machines.
Dave
Just because you don't need it, don't assume that nobody else does. Where I work, 8 and 16-core workstations are routinely used for compiling large codes. As for actually running those codes, our next big computer will have 1.6 million cores and 1.6 petabytes of RAM.
Besides the Paris "that's hot" Hilton crowd who buys a computer primarily for the "wow" factor? Unless the case is better in some way what is the point in changing it. You get in a car and the gas pedal is on the right and brake pedal on the left. It has 4 wheels and two headlights.
Just what should the outside of the case do differently???
The last update on the Mac Pro tweaked the CPU daughterboard layout. That made the RAID card easier to install ( without unscrewing lots of stuff.). How much easier is it suppose to get to swap the hard drives in/out?
That mode they were in when just slapped colors on stuff. That was pure fluff , not wow. At least wow in "provides user" utility dimension. And it increases costs because now have increased logistics ( do we have enough purple in stock today...)
Similar on unibody. More rigidity so can cut bigger hole for bigger trackpad and other benefits.
I would like to meet the person who can afford a 16 GB DIMM for their computer. Probably only Steve Jobs and Bill Gates (he could BC to Win 7).
Just because you don't need it, don't assume that nobody else does. Where I work, 8 and 16-core workstations are routinely used for compiling large codes. As for actually running those codes, our next big computer will have 1.6 million cores and 1.6 petabytes of RAM.
You're going to need a bigger computer.
Rocketman
Hell, I'd buy one of these. And not just for my occasional WoW habit. I'm getting into upper-division courses for a major in Statistics. I know that I could leverage those cores to make my analyses faster, thus increasing my own efficiency.
My advisor, in fact, recommended that I purchase a powerful workstation before I start grad school for the same reason.
My advisor, in fact, recommended that I purchase a powerful workstation before I start grad school for the same reason.