Umbongo
macrumors 601
From what I gather there are uses for such amounts with certain scientific, analytic and simulation applications and some want to run them on Mac Pros.
The 2009 (Gainestown) Mac Pro: Everything We Know
- Thread starter Tallest Skil
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
From what I gather there are uses for such amounts with certain scientific, analytic and simulation applications and some want to run them on Mac Pros.
Tallest Skil
macrumors P6
Was there any reason for the first aluminum iMac to ship with Tiger?
Money.
This time (WWDC) next year, like Steve said. I imagine that the release date will be announced at WWDC in June and the software will come out in July.
Umbongo
macrumors 601
Right, but it isn't purely a case of "sell without then get them to upgrade a month later". There are development costs and issues and whether people actually will buy without it or if you are defering sales by not releasing it. I wouldn't be suprised to ship them with Leopard I guess, but I don't think it will happen unless Snow Leopard is comming in H2.
Tallest Skil
macrumors P6
I still see the Gainestown Mac Pro/30" LED Cinema Display at WWDC and Snow Leopard/third-gen iPhone in July.
And for that second pair, let's see which one Apple pays more attention to if they botch the job again.
Umbongo
macrumors 601
I can see that too, I hope that the Mac Pros do come with Leopard.
toonshorty
macrumors member
nVidia GTX 260! No way!
Now if only I had £1 million to spend, I guess I will just get an iMac...
Then make an iPhone application, put in on app store, make £1 million and then buy the next mac pro after this with an:
ATI HD 5870 X4 (possibly an actual card)
or
nVidia GTX 395 (made up)
Now if only I had £1 million to spend, I guess I will just get an iMac...
Then make an iPhone application, put in on app store, make £1 million and then buy the next mac pro after this with an:
ATI HD 5870 X4 (possibly an actual card)
or
nVidia GTX 395 (made up)
Tallest Skil
macrumors P6
If my calculations are correct, the Gainestown Mac Pro with...
Oh, wait. My calculation is messed up by the fact that I'm getting the best processor.
Um...
A stock Gainestown Mac Pro with just the GPU upgraded to the GTX 260 would be about $3,100; whatever that translates to in pounds.
toonshorty
macrumors member
Of course it's going to be expensive, and yes it is the best CPU with one of the best GPU's. The £1 Million pounds thing was a sort of exaduration although it would be $220,751 New Zimbabwe Dollars, and that translates to $220,751,000,000,000,000 Old Zimbabwe Dollars. But yea, I will GTFO this thread now.
Aries
Looking behind and ahead, I had a Timex-Sinclair 1000 with 2 kB of RAM that could 'play' a chess program (in machine language) that could beat a human chess player who zigs when they should've zagged...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timex_Sinclair_1000
Many know that 32-bit allows 4 GB RAM.
Less know that 64-bit allows 16 ExaBytes RAM = about 4 Billion times the 4 GB RAM limit of 32-bit
POINT?
You can stuff a lot into 16 ExaBytes: it will change the world; Mr. Obama!
And by the time we bore of 64-bit, the 128-bit world should be fully ready to fly..
128-bit allows for 274,877,906,944 YottaBytes of RAM
DISCUSS!
+++
fingers, toes, abacus...
+++
Looking behind and ahead, I had a Timex-Sinclair 1000 with 2 kB of RAM that could 'play' a chess program (in machine language) that could beat a human chess player who zigs when they should've zagged...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timex_Sinclair_1000
Many know that 32-bit allows 4 GB RAM.
Less know that 64-bit allows 16 ExaBytes RAM = about 4 Billion times the 4 GB RAM limit of 32-bit
POINT?
You can stuff a lot into 16 ExaBytes: it will change the world; Mr. Obama!
And by the time we bore of 64-bit, the 128-bit world should be fully ready to fly..
128-bit allows for 274,877,906,944 YottaBytes of RAM
DISCUSS!
+++
fingers, toes, abacus...
macsForLife
macrumors member
I think I might need more than that...
Interesting with the whole 36 bit address thing though, since it will clearly limit the RAM available with the Pro, because I don't think they will wait till SL is ready to launch it. In fact, that would be very Apple-like to announce it and ship a thousand or two with 10.5, and a 64 gb RAM option, and then a couple months later, when SL comes out, give it a silent update to 96 gb or something like that. Thoughts?never
Umbongo
macrumors 601
I think I might need more than that...
I doubt Apple will offer more than 48GB at launch (12x4GB). 96GB, or even may be supported with 10.6 though.
iMacmatician
macrumors 601
48 GB I'd say is a realistic maximum (Apple-supported, at launch). Interesting what that means for the Xserve though. When they first went to Intel, the Xserve had 2x the maximum RAM as the Mac Pro. So maybe the Mac Pro could be announced at WWDC and released shortly after, while the Xserve could be announced at WWDC and released a while after, after Snow Leopard.
Or, Apple could silently add a 96 GB RAM option like they did with the 750 GB (?) HDD option sometime before the next update (Westmere). And with Gulftown coming in Q2 2010, Apple might just wait until then for the 96 GB RAM option.
Or, Apple could silently add a 96 GB RAM option like they did with the 750 GB (?) HDD option sometime before the next update (Westmere). And with Gulftown coming in Q2 2010, Apple might just wait until then for the 96 GB RAM option.
Umbongo
macrumors 601
The Xserve having more memory isn't that important, but the Nehalem server platform can easily support 18 DIMMs which would give it 72GB using 4GB DIMMs. It also depends on the state of 8GB DIMMs at launch.
macsForLife
macrumors member
Weren't 8gb DIMMs supposed to be in production like, Q1 last year? What's up with those?
What's up with those?
Umbongo
macrumors 601
Weren't 8gb DIMMs supposed to be in production like, Q1 last year?
8GB DIMMs have been out for a while, but it isn't clear if DDR3 versions will be when the Mac Pros launch. They probably will be.
2009 Mac Pro
While all of you are anticipating the new 2009 Mac Pro. It is safe to say that the specs are close to what was posted with one difference being that the RAM will be 128 GB instead of 96 standard blocks (Kingston now sells 16 GB sticks) do a GOOGLE search for 16 GB and 32 GB sticks. A future expansion amount going to 256GB for late 2009 or early 2010 Mac Pro. Consider the 2008 Mac Pro and that it could take 32. The 2007 was stated as only 16. But the 2007 can now handle 32 it doubled and apple didn't advertise that. So 256 is a safe assumption for the late 2009 or early 2010 model. It's coming to the market soon. This technology boost will send ram prices to a new standard. Look out DDR1 and 2.
The GPU cards are a nice change but instead we will see Nvidia holding on in the Mac Pro. SLI and Crossfire are going to be standard from now on with Apple and Mac Pro as well as 10.6 and on. Apple is inserting a new standard for Graphics intensive GUI. 3D Desktop is coming late 2010 or mid 2011 and will far exceed what can be produced by Meh crow sloft. I cant help it. The Mac Pro will have to produce a level of 3D capability that we think is awesome today by present Mac Pro's and their GPU units. I can only say that the future for all that prefer the Macintosh Apple will be very nice. Keep up the enthusiasm.
While all of you are anticipating the new 2009 Mac Pro. It is safe to say that the specs are close to what was posted with one difference being that the RAM will be 128 GB instead of 96 standard blocks (Kingston now sells 16 GB sticks) do a GOOGLE search for 16 GB and 32 GB sticks. A future expansion amount going to 256GB for late 2009 or early 2010 Mac Pro. Consider the 2008 Mac Pro and that it could take 32. The 2007 was stated as only 16. But the 2007 can now handle 32 it doubled and apple didn't advertise that. So 256 is a safe assumption for the late 2009 or early 2010 model. It's coming to the market soon. This technology boost will send ram prices to a new standard. Look out DDR1 and 2.
The GPU cards are a nice change but instead we will see Nvidia holding on in the Mac Pro. SLI and Crossfire are going to be standard from now on with Apple and Mac Pro as well as 10.6 and on. Apple is inserting a new standard for Graphics intensive GUI. 3D Desktop is coming late 2010 or mid 2011 and will far exceed what can be produced by Meh crow sloft. I cant help it. The Mac Pro will have to produce a level of 3D capability that we think is awesome today by present Mac Pro's and their GPU units. I can only say that the future for all that prefer the Macintosh Apple will be very nice. Keep up the enthusiasm.
Tallest Skil
macrumors P6
Any evidence there for 16GB sticks? Because 8GB barely even exist.
I don't see it, since SLI needs to be licensed out.
Nope. Not in the slightest.
I can only say that the future for all that prefer the Macintosh Apple will be very nice. Keep up the enthusiasm.
As true today as it was in 1984.
Umbongo
macrumors 601
I have posted information previously in this thread on 16GB and maybe 32GB DIMMs (I forget). tylerk36 is obviously incorrect in the total amounts as they are not based on 12 DIMM slots. 16GB DIMMs would lead to 192GB and 32GB DIMMs would be 384GB.
Tallest Skil
macrumors P6
That's insane, man.
Just ONE 16GB DDR3 ECC stick... might be more than the entire computer?
At any rate, if I get any free time, I'll draw up a new internal layout with RAM slots not based on risers. (because we can't seem to decide whether or not this is possible)
Yes, it will have 12 of them... and yes, it will have to be longer because of this.
Umbongo
macrumors 601
That's insane, man.
Just ONE 16GB DDR3 ECC stick... might be more than the entire computer?
At any rate, if I get any free time, I'll draw up a new internal layout with RAM slots not based on risers. (because we can't seem to decide whether or not this is possible)
Yes, it will have 12 of them... and yes, it will have to be longer because of this.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/6952207/
http://www.informationweek.com/news...ml?articleID=212903540&subSection=All+Stories
I don't doubt we'll see the larger capacity DIMM's, but when they become available, and the cost, are the real questions IMO.
It would take some time yet to get these parts through final assembly, and into the supply chain. Ultimately, and certainly for me
, cost would be the biggest barrier to rapid widespread adoption. I can imagine a 16GB stick (Registered) going for as much as $1k/DIMM USD (PC3-10600).
Unbuffered for as much as $500 USD (also PC3-10600). I still think Apple would choose to used Unbuffered ECC in the base due to cost. Registered may be an option, if Apple doesn't choose to disable that functionality via firmware.
64GB is not a limit, at least not on this class of computers.
Scientists, meteorologists etc. are more likely to use clusters at this stage as it's a lot cheaper to get several 16-32GB machines than a 64-128GB machine.
As for 128bit RAM addressing.. allow me to tell it as clear as it gets.
Won't happen.
You might be aware of ZFS, the filesystem Sun developed.
Filling a 128bit storage volume to 100% requires more energy than it would take to boil the world's oceans.
On the low-end scale of what a 128bit storage volume would weigh, we have 136 billion kilo.
Now, keep in mind that 128bit storage pools/volumes are interesting as soon as we near the limit of 64bit ones (i.e., some 16 million terabyte -- a decade or two away).
Storage is one thing though; RAM is another.
Production limitations aside, do you have any idea how mindbogglingly huge 16 million terabytes is?
While I don't doubt that we'll have insane amounts of memory in our "computers" 50-200 years from now, I can tell you that individual devices won't touch the 64bit barrier.
Insanely large clusters might (say 1024 TB memory per node in our lifetime), meaning the system as a whole might need to address more than that.
Lets put things a bit more into perspective, shall we?
Governments are usually the best at wasting resources, because they like keeping track of what you do.
Let's imagine that they keep track of one out of ten people on this planet, or roughly 676 million people as of Feb 2k9.
64bit memory allocation would let them keep a few months (too tired atm. to do the maths properly -- anyone else interested?) of 1080p video of all those people, live and kicking on a single computing node.
Again, for storage, things are different.
There are several companies with petabytes of active data, but even they won't hit the 64bit limit for a decade or so. Meanwhile, anyone can tell you that not even 1/10th of that data is "hot" at any given time.
64GB is plenty of RAM for a workstation, and if you really feel the need to challenge the term "workstation", wait until SL is released, allowing you to put an unnecessary 128GB of RAM in it.
In other words, can we please cut the BS on RAM usage?
indiochano
macrumors regular
While all of you are anticipating the new 2009 Mac Pro. It is safe to say that the specs are close to what was posted with one difference being that the RAM will be 128 GB instead of 96 standard blocks (Kingston now sells 16 GB sticks) do a GOOGLE search for 16 GB and 32 GB sticks. A future expansion amount going to 256GB for late 2009 or early 2010 Mac Pro. Consider the 2008 Mac Pro and that it could take 32. The 2007 was stated as only 16. But the 2007 can now handle 32 it doubled and apple didn't advertise that. So 256 is a safe assumption for the late 2009 or early 2010 model. It's coming to the market soon. This technology boost will send ram prices to a new standard. Look out DDR1 and 2.
The GPU cards are a nice change but instead we will see Nvidia holding on in the Mac Pro. SLI and Crossfire are going to be standard from now on with Apple and Mac Pro as well as 10.6 and on. Apple is inserting a new standard for Graphics intensive GUI. 3D Desktop is coming late 2010 or mid 2011 and will far exceed what can be produced by Meh crow sloft. I cant help it. The Mac Pro will have to produce a level of 3D capability that we think is awesome today by present Mac Pro's and their GPU units. I can only say that the future for all that prefer the Macintosh Apple will be very nice. Keep up the enthusiasm.
i thought it was samsung who was offering 16 gig ram sticks
Umbongo
macrumors 601
64GB is plenty of RAM for a workstation, and if you really feel the need to challenge the term "workstation", wait until SL is released, allowing you to put an unnecessary 128GB of RAM in it.
In other words, can we please cut the BS on RAM usage?
Oh I don't think anyone here is going to be needing such amounts, besides it may not go below $50/GB for a while. Just more of a discussion on possible hardware specifications.
I expect most people will have 6GB or 12GB.
- Status