Sandy Bridge E Processors Suitable for Mac Pro Update Due November 15th?

[deconstruct60]

+1

-1

There has been a lot of random speculation about the X79 chipset being the pacing item.

Not particularly relevant since the Xeon configs do not use the X79 chipset. Apple is likely to use neither the Sandy Bridge E Core i7 chips nor the X79 chipset. The C600 (Patsburg) series chipset is the relevant chipset.

If you look at those X79 rumors the factors that were rumored to be broken (e.g., enhanced bandwidth RAID mode, etc.) are exactly the features that are not in the lower Patsburg chipset and that Apple is very likely to use the lower one. The extra-super-deluxe version of Patsburg (Patsburg D) is exaclty the version that Apple is not going to pick. Apple is most likely to pick the Patsburg A (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/30/intel_sandy_bridge_xeon_platforms/page3.html ), which is exactly similar what some rumors said the X79 might have to fall back to in order to release Q4. There is no need for anyone who intended to roll out on Patsburg A to change schedules.


Frankly the only reason the Mac Pro seems to be linked to Sandy Bridge E and X79 is to temp some seriously stale arguments over the mythical minitower xMac that primarily serves to cannibalize iMac sales.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Blu Ray please

You do realize Santa Claus is a fictional character? There is no point to wishful thinking. The only way BD-R makes its way to a MP is if you install one yourself. Apple has demonstrated with the disc-less Air, then mini, then not including recovery discs with new machines that it's going away from optical media.

 

[deconstruct60]

There's a possibility that due to Thunderbolt, this classical form factor could be due for a change.

There is a higher possibility that Apple will not put TB on the Mac Pro at all. It solves a problem that the Mac Pro doesn't have ( PCI-e expandability: it has always had it).

The more significant problem the Mac Pro case has is that it is rack-unfriendly. The handles are gratitously too tall. That's is something they can fix in the context of having to compete in some spaces where the XServe used to.

One would like to hope that with Cooke, we could potentially see an industrial Mac whose starting MSRP is down around $1500 again.

For the last 2-3 years Cooke has been in charge of Macs in addition to being COO. While he lead Macs the XServe and XRAID disappeared.

Cooke is a cost cutter but he is certainly not a cannibalizer. He is about making more money and increasing margins, not making less money and lower margins.

if iMacs sales went into a hypergrowth mode where some sales wouldn't be missed, you might see this mythical xMac come back into the product mix. That is unlikely since there is a steady steam of users moving toward laptops and out of desktops. The iMac would do well just to keep pace with the growth of laptop models. Let alone outpace them. Making the xMac unlikely to happen.

A Mac Pro in the $2099-2399 range is something that has a better chance of appearing. (out of the iMac range but closer to the $2000 border. )

 

[namethisfile]

Mechanical Engineering with Finite Element Analysis and Computational Fluid Dynamics. Then my other degree in Computer Science deals with Numerical Analysis, Software Animation, etc, not to mention Web Development.

I probably build and rebuild LLVM/Clang, Blender, Inkscape, TeXWorks, Scribus, and much more on a daily basis.

No point in not taking advantage of the systems and keeping current on Linux and OS X as much as possible.

Filing bug reports consistently benefits us all to h aving better software.

OpenCL is another part of the work to become proficient in with OpenGL. Game development depends on it.

interesting. i thought of going into computer science because i like computers and science. my high school counselor at the time, though, counseled me to go into the arts. and so i did. lol.

i wish there was a way to benchmark or see if opencl is being active on a mac. like, i know fcp x utilizes open cl so an open cl capable gpu is of benefit. but are all open cl gpu's rendering at the same speed? i.e., is the geforce gt 330m on my mbp slower in opencl renders than the current and 6xxx series gpu's found in the current macs? or, a likewise, is an and 6750m on the mbp slower in opencl rendering in fcp x than say, the 6970m found in the top end iMac?

 

[zodqyv]

You're right, the problem is, there's always going to be something newer and better around the corner

Don't get me wrong. I was just saying if the guy was going to wait for something he should wait for Haswell, not Ivy Bridge.

Ivy Bridge is just another evolutionary step. Haswell will be the first revolutionary step since Merom (the first Core2 Duo).

 

[zodqyv]

May as well wait for Skylake, it will be way better than Haswell.

As I responded in the above response: I was just saying if the guy was going to wait for something he should wait for Haswell, not Ivy Bridge.

Ivy Bridge is just another evolutionary step. Haswell will be the first revolutionary step since Merom (the first Core2 Duo). Broadwell will be the die shrink of Haswell. Skylake (and Skymont) look pretty evolutionary too. But lots or radical computer science is going into Haswell. I have been excited about that one for a long time. Much of the 22nm and trigate fabrication that is being tested with Ivy Bridge is actually related to bells and whistles that will not really be advantageous until Haswell. FMA and their fancy new vector implementation are both pretty exciting stuff, along with several lesser feature from my engineer's wishlist to Santa.

Personally, I add Mac Pros at the rate of about one per year, so I will not be waiting for anything.

 

[Mattsasa]

no flame wars, please. lol.

i have been reading up on amd, too because of my contemplation to build a budget gaming rig and learned about bulldozer from this experience. and i have to say that bulldozer looks good on paper. so good that i almost went through with my gaming pc and then realized that i would not be able to run os x on it, which is where i have already invested video and photo editing software. i would have to replace them adding to the cost. but, man, do pc's look tempting. if i was starting from scratch, i would be able to afford the adobe production sweet and a sweet gaming rig in one. oh, well.

anyway... what is keeping apple from using amd chips if they are both x86 architecture?

is it a contract thing? and if so, does it mean that apple could use and in the future?

Bulldozer looks good on paper but sandy-bridge extreme is faster even with less cores, a

also no thunderbolt support

and apple doesn't want to fragment their computers if they don't have to. make developers have to test on intel and AMD

 

[Xavier]

Me want!!

Finally real rumours of a new Mac Pro!!!

Wait, whats a Mac Pro?



(i am kidding of course. It is nice to see something about the Mac instead of iPhone/iPad)

 

[satcomer]

Blu Ray please

I watch Blu-Rays on my 2008 Mac Pro! I just used an internal Blu-Ray player and the software Macgo.

 

[zodqyv]

I watch Blu-Rays on my 2008 Mac Pro! I just used an internal Blu-Ray player and the software Macgo.

Yep, I have tried it too. Unfortunately, saying Macgo has a long way to go is an understatement. Hopefully it will improve or something better will come along. But for now, as much as I would prefer to watch Blu-ray on my Apple display, I will be sticking with a dedicated player and HDTV.

Maybe the upcoming Apple television will have HDMI?

 

[johnpq]

Sure, but let's face it: if you are a professional video/film editor, or CG artist, faster is ALWAYS better. The new Pros will make your 8-core look like a cored Apple.

If you aren't doing it for income, the difference is merely a bit more time waiting, annoyed, while something renders or outputs, etc. Any lower-end Mac is now fine and convenient for amateurs and hobbyists, or professionals that use less-demanding processor power. Text editing and publishing, for example, would do as well on a MacMini as on a Pro tower as of now.

I'm just a hobbyist who does some low end web site design so I don't really need the power of a Mac Pro. What draws me to the Mac Pro is the accessibility of the machine, I can't tear into an iMac like I can a Mac Pro and the ability to do that is important to me as I like to upgrade and repair my computer myself. Why should I be shoehorned into an iMac? Also, buying a higher end computer means it will be usable longer, my G5 is going on 8 years now.

I realize that there will never be any Mac Pros priced close to the iMacs but there is a niche for them for folks like myself .

 

[SVegard]

MrCrowbar, what are you going on about?

----------



I hear you. Can you believe some people think content creators are going to work on an iPad. And they say that cloud computing will allow it all to happen. Yeah, I want to work on a 5Gig file over the internet. People need to live in the present.

Yeah. This touchscreen hype. I have to say this somewhere. Seems like Apple realy thinks computers will be replaced by tablets. I have had my iPhone for 2 years, and this iPad since february. Loved them from day one. But the last months this has changed more and more.
My iPhone is a nightmare typing textmessages on. I had forgotten how much faster I can type with a hardware keypad. When I had a phone with it I could text when I was in a hurry without even looking at the screen. I could write and send messages when running to catch the bus. Maybe someone can do that with a touchphone too, but I canot.

Yeah! It was cool to get a tiny thing that could surf on the net and make it look just like on a computer. Fun to play around with all kinds of useless apps snd doing all kinds of crap I never needed. Just with my fingers...

Same goes for the iPad. Typing on one now and it s***s. I prefer my wifes laptop before the iPad and my workstation before the laptop. Touch iToys are just add ons for me.

I play angry birds on my iPad. I listen to music, call people and textmessaging on the small stupid qwertyuop "keyboard" on my iPhone. My next phone will certanly not be complete touch.

There is no question. These devices have its advantege on some fields. And can do things other types of controlers can't do.

I may look crazy saying this but I think a lot ofmpeople will start feeling the same as timr goes by.

Apple drops the workstations? Maybe? I fear this too. But I have for years. 5 years ago I sat there everytime they had keynotes or presentation of new products. "All they care about is iPods, iApps and laptops. They give a damn about us needing powerfull workstations". But they are still around.



I will never use cloud computing for mye musical work, photos etc. I will always use my own local computer even when the cloud is capable of doing what I need. People have no reason to trust anyone who provides services like this. It gived "them" more control.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I'm just a hobbyist who does some low end web site design so I don't really need the power of a Mac Pro. What draws me to the Mac Pro is the accessibility of the machine, I can't tear into an iMac like I can a Mac Pro and the ability to do that is important to me as I like to upgrade and repair my computer myself. Why should I be shoehorned into an iMac? Also, buying a higher end computer means it will be usable longer, my G5 is going on 8 years now.

I realize that there will never be any Mac Pros priced close to the iMacs but there is a niche for them for folks like myself .

I have no real need for an MP, but always buy them, the PMs before that, because they are so accessible. I recently flirted with getting an i7 iMac but not being able to swap out the HD if the HD fails was something I can't accept. Plus 4 internal drives is faster than 4 external ones, even if they are FW800 (no TB enclosures yet to test out).

As for price it's all relative. MPs have better resale value than iMacs so I would say actual cost of ownership on a MP is less than that of an iMac, even if the iMac costs less up front. I've never owned an entry level MP/PM that effectively cost me more than $300/yr. That a tremendous value.

 

[mcnaugha]

-1
Not particularly relevant since the Xeon configs do not use the X79 chipset. Apple is likely to use neither the Sandy Bridge E Core i7 chips nor the X79 chipset. The C600 (Patsburg) series chipset is the relevant chipset.

Sorry I have to laugh. I'm afraid X79 is Patsburg and it is generally the same chipset under a different brand name that is used with the Xeons at this level. The differences are only with the Xeon ones is that they have a modified version which supports a second CPU and some have a few more Pro bells and whistles.

-1
Frankly the only reason the Mac Pro seems to be linked to Sandy Bridge E and X79 is to temp some seriously stale arguments over the mythical minitower xMac that primarily serves to cannibalize iMac sales.

No they're linked to the Sandy Bridge-E and X79 because it is exactly the same tech which is rebranded Xeon. This is how Intel works and has always worked for a long time now. The Core i7 3xxx series is the same architecture as the Xeon E5 series. X79 is Patsburg is the C600 chipset at the end of the day. The same thing happened with each previous generation of chip at this level.

 

[Trudy]

No they can't be used in pairs. Apple using Xeons rather than desktop CPUs has no effect on the price. Xeons and Core i5s/i7s have identical if not almost identical prices. Mac Pros are expensive because the market Apple aim them for will pay the prices and it is a niche product.

The prices are pretty much the same for an i7 that has the same specs as a single-processor Xeon. The Xeons start getting very expensive when you go multi-processor. The QuickPath interconnects get faster and their number doubles and quadruples, and the price goes through the roof.

The current 6-core Westmere i7 3.33 GHz and its Xeon single-processor equivalent both run for about $1,000. Swap that Xeon for the dual-processor part and the price goes up to over $1,600 each. Motherboards also double or quadruple in price. The fastest Mac Pro has almost $3,000 worth of CPU in it -- that's why it's expensive.

 

[Eidorian]

The prices are pretty much the same for an i7 that has the same specs as a single-processor Xeon. The Xeons start getting very expensive when you go multi-processor. The QuickPath interconnects get faster and their number doubles and quadruples, and the price goes through the roof.

The current 6-core Westmere i7 3.33 GHz and its Xeon single-processor equivalent both run for about $1,000. Swap that Xeon for the dual-processor part and the price goes up to over $1,600 each. Motherboards also double or quadruple in price. The fastest Mac Pro has almost $3,000 worth of CPU in it -- that's why it's expensive.

The single socket Mac Pro continues to be one of the worst values from Apple. In addition the processors are held on a daughter board so that even the same remainder of the motherboard can be used for either a single or dual processor system.

 

[melgross]

Which Xeon?

There are two lines of Xeons. One for servers, and one for workstations. Apple doesn't use the server versions of the chip or chipset, they use the workstation version.

One major difference is in the memory configuration. On my 2009 MP I can take the 16GB DIMMS. The server chips can only go up to 8GB. There are other differences as well. I've been trying to get people to understand this difference for years. It still doesn't seem to be understood.

And Apple MUST use Xeons, or they can't use more than one chip per machine.

 

[pbuerk]

Server version, please

What are the odds that it will have a redundant power supply option, LOM, and all the other stuff we used to love about the XServe? I don't necessarily need a 1U form factor, but definitely could use a case that could be horizontally rackmounted without cutting off case parts.

 

[hayesk]

I'm just a hobbyist who does some low end web site design so I don't really need the power of a Mac Pro. What draws me to the Mac Pro is the accessibility of the machine…

I realize that there will never be any Mac Pros priced close to the iMacs but there is a niche for them for folks like myself .

The keyword here is niche. If you like to open up the computers then obviously the mac mini or iMac is not for you. But at least you do recognize you are a niche. People say the Mac market is a niche too. So expecting Apple to make a model for a niche within a niche is pretty unrealistic. There just aren't enough of us to justify it.

 

[perpetuity]

No they can't be used in pairs. Apple using Xeons rather than desktop CPUs has no effect on the price. Xeons and Core i5s/i7s have identical if not almost identical prices. Mac Pros are expensive because the market Apple aim them for will pay the prices and it is a niche product.

Well, a Xeon upgrade for my 2009 mac pro, unsupported by apple mind you, is upwards to 950.00. If the upgrade even works!

An i5-2500k is 219.00, an i7-2600k is 319.00. Of course this isn't apples to apples but these are fast, fast CPUs.

Yes, you can buy the i7-990x extreme edition for 999.00 but that's not necessary really IMO except for bragging rights or edge cases.

Frankly, I'm done with Mac Pros.
The lack of upgradeability in CPU and GPU really gets me. I've been buying them since the original dual G5. The only GPU upgrade option at the apple store is 250.00 or 450.00 for a near three year old cards!!!

I always bought Mac Pro's for the power but you know what? They might be the most powerful Macintosh OSX machine you can buy, but they are a ripoff for me. I find lower tier Macintoshs run Aperture and other apps well enough for me.

For gaming I have built an 860.00 screamer with a video card released this year (GTX 570), a CPU (i5-2500k), and 8GB ram (only 50.00!). Next year if the machine feels slow I can only spend a few hundred dollars to upgrade the stupid thing.

Meanwhile I'll be selling my '09 Mac Pro and replacing it with a Mac Mini i7. The discreet GPU should give it plenty of power for Aperture, Photoshop/Pixelmator/Vector drawing and the light movie editing I do aside from the web development (mostly just coding).

I can't wait to be free of the Mac Pro shackles! I love Apple products but not the Mac Pro. I wonder if there is something afoot since in the earnings call they mentioned a product transition.

 

[guzhogi]

The keyword here is niche. If you like to open up the computers then obviously the mac mini or iMac is not for you. But at least you do recognize you are a niche. People say the Mac market is a niche too. So expecting Apple to make a model for a niche within a niche is pretty unrealistic. There just aren't enough of us to justify it.

Very true. However, it's kinda sad, too, IMO. Small niche ≠ unimportant. I understand Apple is a business & its main goal is to make money, but there are a quite a few server/workstation makers, right? Plus, with the amount of money Apple has & makes, they could definitely do a good workstation & server system, if they wanted to.

 

[perpetuity]

The prices are pretty much the same for an i7 that has the same specs as a single-processor Xeon. The Xeons start getting very expensive when you go multi-processor. The QuickPath interconnects get faster and their number doubles and quadruples, and the price goes through the roof.

The current 6-core Westmere i7 3.33 GHz and its Xeon single-processor equivalent both run for about $1,000. Swap that Xeon for the dual-processor part and the price goes up to over $1,600 each. Motherboards also double or quadruple in price. The fastest Mac Pro has almost $3,000 worth of CPU in it -- that's why it's expensive.

IF you think spending the extra 500.00 is worth the very little value you gain.

Check the raw benchmark chart: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

You can get an i7-2600k, it's only a quad-core but this sandy bridge CPU is fast, fast, fast and available for under 500.00. An i5-2500k is wicked fast, no hyper threading, and only 219.00.

Love Apple products but Mac Pro steams me off for it's being a brick but boy the case layout is a beauty.

 

[Eidorian]

IF you think spending the extra 500.00 is worth the very little value you gain.

Check the raw benchmark chart: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

You can get an i7-2600k, it's only a quad-core but this sandy bridge CPU is fast, fast, fast and available for under 500.00. An i5-2500k is wicked fast, no hyper threading, and only 219.00.

Love Apple products but Mac Pro steams me off for it's being a brick but boy the case layout is a beauty.

On most hardware websites it is difficult to recommend a processor beyond the ~$200 for the Core i5 2500K. While the Core i7 990X is the flagship for Intel's single socket enthusiast desktop, the $600-700 price increase does not correlate to a dramatic increase in performance.

Single socket Xeon prices fall in line with their consumer siblings. Though ECC support and the occasional chipset or firmware difference requirement might come into play as well. Xeons tend to have somewhat different thermal characteristics, ignoring the very low TDP SKUs. Still, those minor differences do not cause a significant price disparity.

 

[Kimmo]

There’s more to it than that. Don’t forget, not everybody is satisfied with Apple’s decision of the glossy screens in the iMac. Personally, the reflections would annoy the heck out of me and interfere significantly when I’m doing colour sensitive work (75% of the time). Especially if the theme is a dark one and the person sat behind me, back to back, has his screen filled with bright content. No, let me choose the display I want to hook up myself. Besides, what happens if your screen dies on you..? You’ve just lost your computer for a few days whilst it is being repaired. Down time like that is often not an option for a Pro working under a tight deadline.

In addition, the Mac Pro’s are much easier to gain internal access to. Just pop the lid and you’re there. You can even do this as the machine is running (admittedly I can’t think of a reason why you would ). The ability to very quickly swap in and out a set of HD’s (in addition to the Ram and the Super-drives) without having to dismantle half the machine is certainly worth pointing out. You’re essentially back up and running much faster after hardware maintenance, upgrades, what have you.

Mac Pros also operate more quietly than any other Mac out there when placed under full load for extensive periods. Quite a boon in a quiet studio environment. It’s one of the things I love most about my Mac Pro.

Also, being able to place more than one video card can offer up several key advantages. I know of one CG-artist who has two cards in his 2010 Mac Pro. One to dedicated entirely to GPU renderers like Octane, and the other to run everything else (OSX, other apps, etc.)

As good as the i7/i5 line of CPU’s are, it’s my understanding that you cannot run them in a dual CPU configuration. That effectively cuts in half (give or take) their speed potential compared to the Mac Pro’s Xeons. Yes, my software is multi-threaded and will gobble up every core I throw at it. An i7 would thus, effectively, slow me down. They would certainly not suffice.

So as you see, the Mac Pros are really exactly that….. Designed and built to cater to a professional’s needs.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the iMacs. They’re brilliant machines. But for what I do for a living they are behind the Mac Pros on my shopping list and will be for as long as Apple continues to support the Pros.

Lone Deranger isn't alone on this.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

You do realize Santa Claus is a fictional character?

No. ;-)