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

The 2009 (Gainestown) Mac Pro: Everything We Know

Status
Not open for further replies.
mchalebk said:
They used to be the first Mac site I went to. Then they became pretty spotty for a while, disappeared a couple of time and have re-emerged as (unfortunately) a site to be ignored.

The last time I got sucked into their delusion was when they were certain that the AppleTV would be updated with a Blu-ray drive. Even though it didn't make a lot of sense for Apple to do this, MOSR made it sound like they had inside info and that it was a done deal. Obvisously, that didn't happen and isn't going to happen for a long time (if ever).

I still pop by their site once in a while when I'm bored, but it really is a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Yeah I remember when they were the place to go. Went massively down hill as soon as they started forcing refreshes. I think they probably lost their insider too, either that or Apple just tightened up security.

It is worth noting that they were banging on about a 'MacBook Thin' for ages before the MacBook Air came out... how much of that was luck and how much was real information remains unknown.
 
robinp said:
I honestly don't think that they will hold off that long if they are already available (not confirmed I know), but there are reports that systems with them will be available with the launch at the end of March. I honestly don't see any reason at all for Apple to hold off.
Click to expand...
The last real information I would rely on, was Intel making the end of Q1 '09. I've not seen anything definite to indicate otherwise. (It's in the forum somewhere). So that's the end of March. System vendors need 6 - 8 weeks to get systems built, and begin shipping.

It's possible for Intel to ship as they're producing the parts, but I doubt they'll do this. Makes locating manufacturing defects very difficult. Not to mention the fallout from shipping defects could be disastrous. It's just safer to complete a lot production first, verify proper operation (of the entire lot), then ship.
t0mat0 said:
Ok - so we know of Beckton. What's to stop Intel having a There are no 8-core-per-chip Gainestown being off the books?

Aren't there precedents for Apple using non-off-the-shelf CPU/boards etc? Or chips that haven't been much mentioned prior?
Is there Intel literature beyond the Intel Roadmap Overview from 4 months ago, one that actually specifically says model,type (Beckton, Gainestown etc),to avoid ambiguity?

I can see there might be a big misunderstanding also...
Click to expand...
I've not seen anything presented in that manner recently. IIRC, they're part of the code naming scheme (sub listings under Nehalem). They change when the parts are soon to be released. Apple has used Intel parts listed, though perhaps not commonly used by others. The boards have been a version Intel sells, and the specifics are determined by the options they decide on. The only part that became somewhat "custom", was the use of memory risers rather than the typical slots.

I only tend to see a list of p/n's of the entire group available. (All W,E,X,L designated parts were included under Xeon 5500 Series). They would probably differentiate the Beckton parts in the same manner, simply as the Xeon 7500 Series.
 
Tallest Skil said:
What will you use in the six month interim?:confused:

Darn macosrumors.com and their comment "awaiting moderation" thing. Nothing that I said was vulgar, but I expressed my lack of belief in the site and KIND OF linked to this thread, telling people that this is where the real information, based on what facts we know, is... :eek:

Ah, well. They'll just not approve it, I guess. :D
Click to expand...


powermac g5 in the office for now, mac mini for home use (basic email, music, ect). but let me tell you, WHAT A DOWNGRADE FOR NOW :(..

but all good investments take time to mature, and the yeild on this outweights the temporary sacrifice
 
t0mat0 said:
Ok - so we know of Beckton. What's to stop Intel having a There are no 8-core-per-chip Gainestown being off the books?
Click to expand...
None that we know of; Intel would have to be keeping it very secretly.

t0mat0 said:
Aren't there precedents for Apple using non-off-the-shelf CPU/boards etc? Or chips that haven't been much mentioned prior?
Click to expand...
The chips have basically all been small speed bumps of CPUs that would be released to other places a little later. The MacBook Air's board and CPU seem to be the exception to that, although I don't think Apple would let Intel announce the 8-core Gainestown at ISSCC...

t0mat0 said:
Is there Intel literature beyond the Intel Roadmap Overview from 4 months ago, one that actually specifically says model,type (Beckton, Gainestown etc),to avoid ambiguity?
Click to expand...
I can't recall any. Closest I can remember is a chart saying "Nehalem-EX" and "Nehalem-EP" in their respective segments.
 
Umbongo said:
Nope. If they were all ready to be shipped at the same time then perhaps, but Apple don't need to tie things together or to events as many users and journalists like to believe.
Click to expand...

Any thoughts on the Superbowl? hehe ;)

@iMacmatician - is there precedent for Intel to have kept something hidden from release successfully? And i'm wondering if you mean Apple wouldn't let Intel announce an 8-core Gainestown, or Intel wouldn't let Apple announce an 8-core Gainestown.
 
Great thread

Wow,

I have been waiting to upgrade for a loooooong time. I'm currently writing this from a 1st gen dual 2.0 G5. I have the funds set aside but I was getting frustrated with a lack of information (and even rumors) on the next Mac Pro. Thank you for collecting all of this well researched speculation in one place. While I know it is not set in stone, it is nice to have a ballpark idea of what the next Mac Pro will be and when I can expect it. Thanks again.
 
A bit of nearly baseless speculation:

You may have noticed that the 17" MacBook Pro is now $2,999 for the base configuration. Obviously, Apple is not afraid of raising the price of it's high end laptop. This leads me to believe that it is perfectly realistic to expect a $2,999 starting price, at least for the 8 core version.

The real question is whether Apple will ship them with single processors, and I'm willing to bet they won't, especially if the iMac starts shipping with a quad core processor of it's own.
 
m1stake said:
A bit of nearly baseless speculation:

You may have noticed that the 17" MacBook Pro is now $2,999 for the base configuration. Obviously, Apple is not afraid of raising the price of it's high end laptop. This leads me to believe that it is perfectly realistic to expect a $2,999 starting price, at least for the 8 core version.

The real question is whether Apple will ship them with single processors, and I'm willing to bet they won't, especially if the iMac starts shipping with a quad core processor of it's own.
Click to expand...

Wait, the 17" mbp is $2999? No.. its still $2799 for the 2.66ghz.

3239322541_9b6b80916a_o.png
 
t0mat0 said:
@iMacmatician - is there precedent for Intel to have kept something hidden from release successfully?
Click to expand...
Not that I know of, but I haven't been tracking hardware for long. But the various "insider" sites seem to get at least the main stuff a while before Intel announces them.

t0mat0 said:
And i'm wondering if you mean Apple wouldn't let Intel announce an 8-core Gainestown, or Intel wouldn't let Apple announce an 8-core Gainestown.
Click to expand...
I don't think Apple wouldn't let Intel announce an 8-core Gainestown at a place other than the event Apple would undoubtedly hold for the Mac Pro update.

m1stake said:
The real question is whether Apple will ship them with single processors, and I'm willing to bet they won't, especially if the iMac starts shipping with a quad core processor of it's own.
Click to expand...
I don't think they'll have a SP variant either. So I guess 2.8 GHz standard with 2.67 GHz BTO is likely now. Basically I think that the iMac-Mac Pro gap is going to move upwards once again (by $200 or so). So the base Mac Pro would move up in price, and the quad-core iMac would move up in terms of capability (but not necessarily price). Even if the iMacs stick with mobile CPUs (and Apple is willing to put lower-clocked quads in the same lineup as higher-clocked duals), mobile quad-cores cover a fairly wide range up to 2.53 GHz, which means the high-end iMacs would increase in price as well as relative performance.

I think Apple's been raising this gap since the $1499 Power Mac was discontinued.
 
jjahshik32 said:
Wait, the 17" mbp is $2999? No.. its still $2799 for the 2.66ghz.
Click to expand...

It starts at $2,799, but the ad on the front page says from $2,999 - they consider the $2,999 model the "default" - just like the 8 core standard Mac Pro.

iMacmatician said:
Not that I know of, but I haven't been tracking hardware for long. But the various "insider" sites seem to get at least the main stuff a while before Intel announces them.
Click to expand...

Keeping secrets is what Apple does. It creates hype. Intel on the other hand has been talking about the Nehalem architecture and it's variants for 2+ years. They have no reason to keep secrets, because they hardly cater to Apple alone. Of course, they value Apple as a customer because all the other OEMs use AMD chips as well. This "exclusivity" has arguable weight (Dell probably buys more overall chips from Intel simply because of their higher volume).
 
m1stake said:
It starts at $2,799, but the ad on the front page says from $2,999 - they consider the $2,999 model the "default" - just like the 8 core standard Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

Wait.. when I click to buy the 17" mbp the $2799 is set at default.. or am I missing something here?

3239411455_2e86930325_o.png
 
I'm going to invoke the baseless speculation clause :p

m1stake said:
A bit of nearly baseless speculation:

You may have noticed that the 17" MacBook Pro is now $2,999 for the base configuration. Obviously, Apple is not afraid of raising the price of it's high end laptop. This leads me to believe that it is perfectly realistic to expect a $2,999 starting price, at least for the 8 core version.

The real question is whether Apple will ship them with single processors, and I'm willing to bet they won't, especially if the iMac starts shipping with a quad core processor of it's own.
Click to expand...

:D

vogelhausdesign said:
Just got my 2x 3.2 Mac Pro w/ 30" cinema display and 32GIG RAM today...:apple::apple:

I <3 it very much. It's so fast!!!
Click to expand...

Even though several posters said that your tasks were not particularly memory intensive? :p It's you're money, now go make more! :)
 
Digital Skunk said:
Not to bright I see.

I never understood why anyone would sell their current machine and not have anything that compares for months.

But then again, I remember that not everyone taxes and maxes out their machines like others.
Click to expand...

The resale value would be a lot more now than when the new ones are released I guess.

A few months of not having a mac Pro probably just got this guy a fair bit of extra money when he sold it.
 
ZAK248313 said:
The resale value would be a lot more now than when the new ones are released I guess.

A few months of not having a mac Pro probably just got this guy a fair bit of extra money when he sold it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I assume he doesn't do too much work with it.

I would do the same thing in his shoes if I didn't need my tower for freelance work, and could spare to be without an 8 core machine that's only 2 years old for 6 months.
 
Why has none of this Mac Pro speculation/information made it to the front page or even page 2 of macrumors? It seems like the macworld article about intel was rumor worthy enough. I feel like macrumors has gone 100% iphone with a dash of laptops and imac thrown in.:(
 
Chaywa said:
Why has none of this Mac Pro speculation/information made it to the front page or even page 2 of macrumors? It seems like the macworld article about intel was rumor worthy enough. I feel like macrumors has gone 100% iphone with a dash of laptops and imac thrown in.:(
Click to expand...

Well, because in the past, I haven't been much of a posterboy for MacRumors, as there are several in the community who found my succinct posting to be rude and callous*. Therefore, it would look kind of bad for the inane (though based in fact) ramblings of a brashly-interpreted individual to be put on the front page of the most reputable Apple rumor website on the Internet.

Thing is, though... with everything that we have compiled here, for once I would actually be surprised if we were wrong. :cool:

And that Intel press release is for Beckton, not Gainestown, so it really has nothing to do with the Mac Pro.

Unless, as I've recently said, Intel has managed to HIDE an 8-core Gainestown from the public, in which case we would have a THIRTY-TWO (logical) CORE MAC PRO.

So, yeah, it's unlikely. :D

*It's a wonder what a few emoticons can do, though. I've been sticking a smile or a wink after sentences and getting my ACTUAL feelings across now... Makes me feel a lot better, I'll tell you.
 
Tallest Skil, thanks again for this compilation of info and reasoning.

Your reputation with mac rumors aside, it is bothersome to me that I had to drill down to this level of the forums to get any info on the Mac Pro. They have printed rumors on everything from tiny iphones to tablet macs from very dubious sources and yet not a peep on the mac pro. Even the macosrumors article which you so gleefully demolished would have been worth a read and a chuckle on page 2. I missed that little gem and the Beckton announcement because mac rumors is my apple "news" source of choice. I'm a tad dismayed that neither the good nor the bad info is coming to light on macrumors. Keep up the good work though.

P.S. shouldn't the fact that gainestown processors have been released get a mention? It would have in the past.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back