Penryn Based Mac Pros Soon?

[AidenShaw]

Aiden points out the whole Penryn model family is not allowed to be offered for sale until November 12 according to Intel rules.

I'm not certain what's going to happen in the next few weeks, but I've been pointing out that historically Intel hasn't allowed open retail sales before the official announcement date.

I wouldn't be really surprised if Apple announces a Penryn-based Mac Pro before too long, shipping on the 12th of November. I would be surprised if it ships earlier.

Overall, though, I'd be inclined to think that Apple will hold off the Mac Pro announcement just to be assured of two sets of headline stories - one for 10.5, and a second for the Mac Pro. It even makes sense, like MM suggested, for Apple to announce the Mac Pro on Tuesday the 13th - again to be alone in the tech headlines.

 

[liv4Mac]

I do hope that the new Mac Pros will have a blue-ray or HD-DVD burner.

BTW Mutimedia, I'm still singing Cum-Bi-Ya

 

[Redneck1089]

So are we really expecting to see a 30-45% speed increase with these new processors? That's HUGE!!!!

 

[Eidorian]

So are we really expecting to see a 30-45% speed increase with these new processors? That's HUGE!!!!

~10-20% average with greater gains on applications that use SSE 4.

 

[chameleon]

I wish hardware RAID 5 support was more common. Don't get me wrong RAID 0 and 1 are alright. But nothing beats a hardware based RAID (5+1) + (5+1). Boy EMC's SAN sure have spoiled me...

I agree.

On the topic of RAID, however, why is Apple's RAID card so damned expensive. I'm far from an expert on RAID, but can't you get a solid RAID 5 card for $100 - $300? Why, aside from pure profit, is Apple dinging us for $999?!?

 

[diamond.g]

I agree.

On the topic of RAID, however, why is Apple's RAID card so damned expensive. I'm far from an expert on RAID, but can't you get a solid RAID 5 card for $100 - $300? Why, aside from pure profit, is Apple dinging us for $999?!?

Solid RAID cards are supposed to come with at least 128 MiB of RAM onboard. If it doesn't then it is a hardware/software RAID card versus a pure hardware RAID card. Plus it also has to be Mac/EFI bootable which not every card can do that as well. Example, too bad it isn't Mac compatible (from the description).

 

[Rick Here]

RAID card

Solid RAID cards are supposed to come with at least 128 MiB of RAM onboard. If it doesn't then it is a hardware/software RAID card versus a pure hardware RAID card. Plus it also has to be Mac/EFI bootable which not every card can do that as well. Example, too bad it isn't Mac compatible (from the description).

Does Apple make the RAID card or is it an OEM thing? This card comes with 256MB. It works really well for me. I put 4 SATA drives in my machine. Does anyone know if I can put in SAS drives?

 

[diamond.g]

Does Apple make the RAID card or is it an OEM thing? This card comes with 256MB. It works really well for me. I put 4 SATA drives in my machine. Does anyone know if I can put in SAS drives?

Pretty sure it is an OEM thing, but I will get corrected if I am wrong. SAS is Serial Attached SCSI, so unless you have the controller card for that, no. SAS drives are great, but expensive. We use them in our SAN. Very fast drives. Great for data that has to be accessible quickly.

 

[CWallace]

Solid RAID cards are supposed to come with at least 128 MiB of RAM onboard. If it doesn't then it is a hardware/software RAID card versus a pure hardware RAID card.

Call me old-fashioned, but I would think if the totality (or at least great majority) of RAID-related calculations are being done on the card, and not the CPU, that would make it "hardware RAID" more then how much memory is installed.

For I remember the days when the servers didn't have 128MB on them, much less their "hardware RAID" cards.

 

[AidenShaw]

It's not the memory size

Originally Posted by diamond.g
Solid RAID cards are supposed to come with at least 128 MiB of RAM onboard. If it doesn't then it is a hardware/software RAID card versus a pure hardware RAID card.​

Call me old-fashioned, but I would think if the totality (or at least great majority) of RAID-related calculations are being done on the card, and not the CPU, that would make it "hardware RAID" more then how much memory is installed.

Yes, also I thought that the "hardware/software RAID" statement made no sense.

For me, the big differentiator between cheap and good RAID cards is whether the cache memory on the card has a builtin battery backup unit.

Without a BBU, the controller has to immediately do all of the reads and writes necessary to do a write to a RAID-5 volume. This can be quite slow. (Writing 1 sector to a 4 volume RAID-5 set can require 3 or 4 reads and 2 writes.)

With a BBU, the controller can buffer the writes in the cache, and do a lazy write. Often, if a large chunk of data is written the controller can skip doing any reads - it only has to write the blocks.

It can't do the lazy write without a BBU - if there's a power glitch the RAID volume is lost because data in the cache was not written. With a BBU, it can write the data after power is restored.

ps: My HP ProLiant DL380s have hardware RAID 5 and RAID 6 on the motherboard, with 512 MiB cache and BBU standard...

 

[Rick Here]

OEM RAID thing

Pretty sure it is an OEM thing, but I will get corrected if I am wrong. SAS is Serial Attached SCSI, so unless you have the controller card for that, no. SAS drives are great, but expensive. We use them in our SAN. Very fast drives. Great for data that has to be accessible quickly.

I think it maybe one of these LSI cards in disguise. It supports SATA and SAS.
If so, I might be able to really get this thing to hum with 15K SAS drives.
http://www.lsi.com/storage_home/pro.../megaraid_sas/megaraid_sas_8308elp/index.html

 

[davewolfs]

I really hope that they release a single CPU version of some of the high end processors. 8- cores is simply not necessary at this point and 99% of applications will not even be able to take advantage of the additional 4 cores.

Some of the chips cost 1k alone. Why should I shell out an extra 1k+ to get a 3.2Ghz box?

 

[Multimedia]

Single CPU Mac Pros Are Not Going To Happen

I really hope that they release a single CPU version of some of the high end processors. 8- cores is simply not necessary at this point and 99% of applications will not even be able to take advantage of the additional 4 cores.

Some of the chips cost 1k alone. Why should I shell out an extra 1k+ to get a 3.2Ghz box?

I respectfully disagree that you will not need 8 cores soon enough. But fear not - there will be an 8 core system in the low $2K price point - perhaps even one Quad model although I doubt it.

Your notion that 99% of apps don't use more than one core is really inaccurate in the target that Mac Pros are made for. The most popular and yet mundane of applications like Toast 8 and Handbrake are fully multi-threaded and use all 8 cores. Final Cut Studio 2, Logic 8, Aperture, iLife '08 all are multi-threaded and can use 2-8 cores all the time.

You certainly are not going to have to buy the 3.2 GHz model. That's only for the professionals who must have maximum power every day.

 

[BenRoethig]

Your notion that 99% of apps don't use more than one core is really inaccurate in the target that Mac Pros are made for.

The lack of a true desktop causes many users outside the target to get Mac pros. All those apps that I don't use being multi-threaded is fine, but for a lot of the ones I use, a 3.2ghz dual core is going to be much faster than a 2.5ghz eight core.

 

[AidenShaw]

Single socket dual CPU and quad CPU mini-towers are needed

Single CPU Mac Pros Are Not Going To Happen

Your notion that 99% of apps don't use more than one core is really inaccurate in the target that Mac Pros are made for.
...
That's only for the professionals who must have maximum power every day.

I think that you've hit the crux of the argument for the mini-tower. These aren't "pro machines" with "maximum power" for the "pro target market".

The mini-tower would be for people who could get by with an Imac, but don't want an all-in-one for any of the good reasons not to get an all-in-one. Or any of the good reasons not to get an Imac....

It would be for people who need something more than an Imac (second or third hard drive or optical, quad core, more RAM, expandable graphics, extra PCIe slots...), but who don't need the humonguous expensive Mac Pro maxi-tower.

It would be for people who don't live in McMansions, and need a more compact system for an office or dorm room or studio apartment.

It could even be for the many professionals who truly can't use more than a couple of cores today, or who don't need the expandability of the Mac Pro.

(MM - you have blinders on as far as the "pro apps" using lots of cores. The media apps that are important to you are nicely threaded, but many other pro apps are not and some of them may never be. Look at the set of Photoshop filters that are not MP-aware.

Many tasks and programs are sequential in nature, and are difficult or impossible to parallelize to a great extent. Look at Amdahl's Law for more information on the limits of parallelization.)​

HP can put a compact quad core, 3 GiB, Gigabit ethernet system on the shelves for $800. Why can't Apple give people a choice between the limitations of the Imac and the overkill of the Mac Pro. (Especially since so many people are saying "all 8-core" for the new Mac Pro.)

ps: Since "CPU" and "processor" are ambiguous, I use the unambiguous "single socket" to refer to a desktop Conroe/Kentsfield system.

 

[Spikeanator6982]

even if you only use apps that can use 2-4 cores, or heck even if they can only use one core at a time. you can have more then one app open on your computer. so instead of takign a day to do every thing you want to do. u start them all at once and have everything beating away at once. taking less time as your doign more then one thing at a time and the computer could still have more power to put out if needed.


of course, maybe I am one of the few people who use more then one app at a time?

 

[AidenShaw]

even if you only use apps that can use 2-4 cores, or heck even if they can only use one core at a time. you can have more then one app open on your computer. so instead of takign a day to do every thing you want to do. u start them all at once and have everything beating away at once. taking less time as your doign more then one thing at a time and the computer could still have more power to put out if needed.

of course, maybe I am one of the few people who use more then one app at a time?

True, but there are at least two obvious counters to your argument:

1. For most people, two or four cores is plenty for them to "get more done". Unless you're running multiple big computable jobs, the "think time" and human interface activities limit the amount of parallelism
2. For many applications, disk and network IO is the real bottleneck. Starting 8 disk or net intensive apps on an octo won't be much faster than a single or dual.

We're not arguing against octo-core for the people who need them (or the willy-wavers who'll spend the money just for show). We're just saying that a lower end tower or mini-tower should be an option.

The maxi-tower is like the "free t-shirt" that only comes in XXXL. Sure, it will cover anyone's chest, but some people just don't want or need so much fabric. Except with the maxi-tower, you're paying for the fabric even if you don't need it.

 

[Multimedia]

The Obvious Is So Often Overlooked Isn't It?

even if you only use apps that can use 2-4 cores, or heck even if they can only use one core at a time. you can have more then one app open on your computer. so instead of takign a day to do every thing you want to do. u start them all at once and have everything beating away at once. taking less time as your doign more then one thing at a time and the computer could still have more power to put out if needed.


of course, maybe I am one of the few people who use more then one app at a time?

Right. You're the only one.

As the Spikenator so eloquently states the obvious, why does everyone have blinders on about this concept? And I'm not disagreeing with Aiden or trying to be an apologist for Apple's lame brain willingness to not fill that power gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro. It's insane that they are not doing a C2Q Kentsfield mini-tower for $1,200 or whatever. But I am saying that I think the multi-threaded WORK FLOW - even based on running several single core apps at once full bore - is something many are not yet accustomed to doing out of single core habits.

 

[iZaid]

Wow!
You have a very small home then?
Do you live in a cardboardbox?

Next someone is starting to whine how heavy the MP is.
And then why it doesnt have Airport or BT.
And then why it doesnt have Frontrow and remote.
And then.

hahaha........ my room is small and i have two guitars and an amp, i think if i do get another mac its going to go on top of the amp or on top of the bed... ill sleep on the floor, ill have to work something out.

 

[CWallace]

But I am saying that I think the multi-threaded WORK FLOW - even based on running several single core apps at once full bore - is something many are not yet accustomed to doing out of single core habits.

I've had dual CPUs or dual-cores or even dual dual-core CPUs continuously since the late 1990s and I do admit that the biggest advantage of having at least two "compute units" is that most of the time you do not need to wait for one application to "let go" (though, perversely, Firefox on my 2.4Ghz Core2 Duo tends to stall-out for ten seconds or so).

 

[jackc]

I just hope the price comes down a bit. I added a few extras, and here's what I got:

 

[Eidorian]

I just hope the price comes down a bit. I added a few extras, and here's what I got:

I hope you didn't buy your RAM, optical drive, or hard drives from Apple.

 

[snugharbor]

Very few (if any) computers are totally silent.

That being said though, the MacPro is amongst the quietest there is. I think that was the point being made.

The original poster seemed to be claiming that the MacPro was some kind of "noise monster" when it certainly is not. The MacPro is one of the quietest computers you can buy. Pretty much every MacPro I have ever seen, you have to bend over and check the lights to see if it's on or not they are so quiet!

All Apple computers are significantly quieter compared to their equivalent Windows boxes. The only exception IMO are X-Serves and RAID's. Those guys sound like someone left the vacuum cleaner on, but then, they are supposed to.

My MacPro is the most quiet desktop I've had but you would hear it at night in a bedroom. Want 100% quiet or close to it? Of course the iMac. With the firmware upgrade the MacPro has a "dust blower" feature that sometimes activates the fans at full speed at start up (not all the time). I don't hear the hard drives...go with WD.

 

[FF_productions]

I'm sitting at my Mac Pro right now, all I hear is the hard drives inside of it.

Other than that, it sits in Virtual Silence.

All the CPU's are maxed out too.

 

[Multimedia]

$19,439.95 Is With Apple RAM & Hard Drives No One In Their Right Mind Would Order

I just hope the price comes down a bit. I added a few extras and I got $19,439.95 for the current 8 core MP.

Current non-Apple 16GB ram kit is $700. New 800MHz ram 16GB kit will be $999 - I called to ask. Anything else you don't order from Apple either. So you're "guesstimate" is radically off base.