The next Mac Pro should have..................

[Tallest Skil]

Yeah, I agree. If Apple would fill that freakin Apple Gaping Lineup Hole there would not be the hunormus jump between a core2 dual core and an eight core Xeon.

Fill it with what? Show me one thing that could go in there that wouldn't go against Apple's business plan.

 

[nanofrog]

Fill it with what? Show me one thing that could go in there that wouldn't go against Apple's business plan.

This is how I see it. It's sold as a workstation, so that means ECC memory. No Core i7 can use ECC. For a single CPU part that does, it requires the W55xx parts, and like the rest of the Xeon 5500 series, isn't available yet.

Same pricing as the Core i7's, when comparing the same clock speed though.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Same pricing as the Core i7's, when comparing the same clock speed though.

The Xeon 5500 series is, you mean? They perform a lot better than the standard chips, too, though, so that's awesome.

 

[mchalebk]

Someone will always under cut Apple's memory prices, especially in the world of online stores.

That may be so. However, if Apple charged reasonable prices (say 10% more than 3rd party vendors), a lot of us would simply pay the premium for the sake of convenience and to make sure we have maximum compatibility.

When I bought my Quicksilver as a BTO in 2001, I downgraded my RAM from 256 MB to 128 MB and got a $200 price reduction. Then for $235, I bought 1.5 GB of RAM from a 3rd party. So, I basically paid $35 to max out the RAM in my computer.

I think I do understand, however, why Apple doesn't play this game. First, they don't really want to be a RAM vendor. Their profit margins would probably be so low that it wouldn't be worth the hassle. Second, there are probably plenty of people/businesses who actually buy the RAM at Apple prices, which is a tremendous profit for Apple. Third (and this might be the most important reason), they would have to constantly vary the prices, since RAM pricing is so volatile. I don't think Apple likes to change prices on stuff.

Bottom line: Apple charges too much and the knowledgeable folks buy their RAM elsewhere.

 

[nanofrog]

The Xeon 5500 series is, you mean? They perform a lot better than the standard chips, too, though, so that's awesome.

Yup.

Xeon Workstation Parts:

Dual socket
W5580 3.2GHz, 1333MHz ECC mem, $1600/1k pcs

I was ignoring this one, but I goofed the numbers a little. Got the 3 and 5 mixed up. Really a server part, IMO, given the dual socket. Just clocked higher. The X5570 is 2.93GHz, and is the fastest part of the 5500 series listed in the current roadmap.

Single Socket
W3570 3.2GHz, 1333MHz ECC mem, $999/1k pcs
W3540 2.93GHz, 1066MHz ECC mem, $562/1k pcs
W3520 2.66GHz, 1066MHz ECC mem, $284/1k pcs

These should work nicely in an ASUS P6T6 WS Revolution board, if a second CPU isn't needed. According to Asus's specs, it will support these and the associated ECC memory. I like the layout and the available slots too.

Now if Intel would only deliver the parts,...

 

[Umbongo]

That may be so. However, if Apple charged reasonable prices (say 10% more than 3rd party vendors), a lot of us would simply pay the premium for the sake of convenience and to make sure we have maximum compatibility.

I think the problem with the 2008 Mac Pro was Apple weren't charging a huge premium over 3rd parties like Crucial and Kingston, but OWC and others came in and severely undercut them all.

I think I do understand, however, why Apple doesn't play this game. First, they don't really want to be a RAM vendor. Their profit margins would probably be so low that it wouldn't be worth the hassle. Second, there are probably plenty of people/businesses who actually buy the RAM at Apple prices, which is a tremendous profit for Apple. Third (and this might be the most important reason), they would have to constantly vary the prices, since RAM pricing is so volatile. I don't think Apple likes to change prices on stuff.

I agree with all your points. I would love to see the actual numbers for the Mac Pro division on total sales and the percentage who got memory and hard drive upgrades from Apple.

 

[thedarkhorse]

My ideas for a new generation of Mac Pro

-Refreshed case design
-USB 3.0 -SATA connectors
-hardware raid built in
-expresscard34 slot in the front.
-blu-ray with full support
-2 more hard drive racks
-wider video card support, if not all cards at least 3 gpus from every generation of at least one brand.
-dedicated & fast hardware h264 decoding/encoding.
-& whatever the next chipset/processor upgrade is supposed to be

 

[J the Ninja]

Ok.....here are my thoughts:

8 core "standard" can't be kept up, the 5500 chips just cost too much. We'd be looking at a $3000 base config. So, I think Apple may split the line. A "Mac Pro Quad" and a "Mac Pro Octo" (or whatever they call it). The quad will use 3500 chips, the the octo will use the 5500. Theorecically, the cost savings would allow the 2.66Ghz Quad to be sold for maybe $600 under the current one.....or maybe not quite that much...maybe $1799 for the base config.....with:

2.66Ghz Xeon 35** (which is more or less a rebadged i7 920)
3GB DDR3
9500GT
500GB hard drive
New case (for the sake of making a new case)

and an octo-core

Dual 2.66Ghz Quads (Xeon 55**)
Maybe 6GB RAM as it is "premium"
and the same 9500GT, 500GB HDD, and and case.

Price the base octo around $3k, and of course BTO options for faster procs, bigger GPUs, and other such typical things for both.

 

[robinp]

Ok.....here are my thoughts:

8 core "standard" can't be kept up, the 5500 chips just cost too much. We'd be looking at a $3000 base config. So, I think Apple may split the line. A "Mac Pro Quad" and a "Mac Pro Octo" (or whatever they call it). The quad will use 3500 chips, the the octo will use the 5500. Theorecically, the cost savings would allow the 2.66Ghz Quad to be sold for maybe $600 under the current one.....or maybe not quite that much...maybe $1799 for the base config.....with:

2.66Ghz Xeon 35** (which is more or less a rebadged i7 920)
3GB DDR3
9500GT
500GB hard drive
New case (for the sake of making a new case)

and an octo-core

Dual 2.66Ghz Quads (Xeon 55**)
Maybe 6GB RAM as it is "premium"
and the same 9500GT, 500GB HDD, and and case.

Price the base octo around $3k, and of course BTO options for faster procs, bigger GPUs, and other such typical things for both.

essentially what you are suggesting is what people have been wanting for years: a lower specced tower. It might happen, but so far apple have chosen not to get involved in this market. I can see three 8-core set ups remaining, perhaps with a price increase (but maybe not given the motherboard is simpler without the FSB)

 

[iMacmatician]

1. 8X Blu Ray Drives

Don't see them.

2. An NVIDIA GTX 295 (nothing less for the high end)

A bit too high end for Apple, considering the previous GPUs. I'd say 9600, GTX 260 (280), and Quadro FX 5800.

3. 64 GB DDR3 RAM

Nehalem CPU memory has to be in multiples of 3, so I'd say 48/96 GB.

4. New design ... though the current one is really nice Apple must surprise the World with something truly jaw dropping.

If it comes at WWDC, then we have a higher likelihood of a redesign. Any such redesign is likely to be small.

5. SSD as BTO option

Yep. In the highest capacity available.

I'm not too sure on where developments are on multi-FPGA modules for Intel sockets, but it was quite a while ago that people demonstrated tri-FPGA ones [2]. Of course, the time between prototype and production is a radically varying thing.

[1] http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer...l-opens-up-its-front-side-bus-to-the-worlddog
[2] http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/920/1021920/fpgas-grow-xeons

Mac Pro Extreme.

Ok.....here are my thoughts:

8 core "standard" can't be kept up, the 5500 chips just cost too much. We'd be looking at a $3000 base config.

Yeah. Although the clock speeds go down to 1.87 GHz, the bus speeds vary.

So, I think Apple may split the line. A "Mac Pro Quad" and a "Mac Pro Octo" (or whatever they call it). The quad will use 3500 chips, the the octo will use the 5500. Theorecically, the cost savings would allow the 2.66Ghz Quad to be sold for maybe $600 under the current one.....or maybe not quite that much...maybe $1799 for the base config.....with:

The other scenario is if Apple wants to go all-octo and use the cheap CPUs. But that may not be as appealing as a single-socket or high-end desktop system. Personally, the "Mac Pro Quad" makes perfect sense as an additional Mac Pro model.

What I think is a more likely path for Apple, however, is to raise the Mac Pro even higher and release higher-end iMacs to fill the gap. We've seen the base Power Mac / Mac Pro go up from $1499 to $1999 to $2499 (≈$2100) to $2799 ($2299) since 2004 or so. It's not impossible that Apple would raise the price if they feel like they need to.

Filling part of the gap would be the upcoming quad-core iMacs (that would actually most likely come earlier). There is the rumor of 65 W quad-core CPUs coming to the iMac, and Nehalem has an entire CPU lineup of mobile quads. The 20" iMac may not be able to handle the quad-cores, so they would stick with mobile dual-cores. So then there will be a fairly significant difference between the 20" and 24" iMacs, and the 24" iMac and the Mac Pro.

The other possibility is that Core i7 28" iMac rumor. That would very nicely fill the gap, at least performance wise. Even if Apple does not use Core i7 or other hot components, a 95 W quad-core at 3.0 GHz and a desktop GPU are a step up from both the current and a possible quad-core 24" iMac.

 

[Tallest Skil]

My ideas for a new generation of Mac Pro

-Refreshed case design
-USB 3.0 -SATA connectors
-hardware raid built in
-expresscard34 slot in the front.
-blu-ray with full support
-2 more hard drive racks
-wider video card support, if not all cards at least 3 gpus from every generation of at least one brand.
-dedicated & fast hardware h264 decoding/encoding.
-& whatever the next chipset/processor upgrade is supposed to be

1. Why?
2. Not until 2010 for USB 3.0
3. It'd be nice.
4. Eh? It's a TOWER.
5. Not until 2015.
6. It'd be nice.
7. ... huh? Wider? Oh. More of them. Talk to ATI and nVidia.
8. Don't they?
9. Gainestown Nehalem chips

 

[iMacmatician]

-wider video card support

7. ... huh? Wider? Oh. More of them.

No more cooling problems, because we now have triple-slot GPUs!

 

[Fomaphone]

Ok.....here are my thoughts:

8 core "standard" can't be kept up, the 5500 chips just cost too much. We'd be looking at a $3000 base config. So, I think Apple may split the line. A "Mac Pro Quad" and a "Mac Pro Octo" (or whatever they call it). The quad will use 3500 chips, the the octo will use the 5500. Theorecically, the cost savings would allow the 2.66Ghz Quad to be sold for maybe $600 under the current one.....or maybe not quite that much...maybe $1799 for the base config.....with:

2.66Ghz Xeon 35** (which is more or less a rebadged i7 920)
3GB DDR3
9500GT
500GB hard drive
New case (for the sake of making a new case)

and an octo-core

Dual 2.66Ghz Quads (Xeon 55**)
Maybe 6GB RAM as it is "premium"
and the same 9500GT, 500GB HDD, and and case.

Price the base octo around $3k, and of course BTO options for faster procs, bigger GPUs, and other such typical things for both.

if this is the case, in terms of overall performance, will $4500 go farther now than it will when the new line of MP's comes out?

 

[Tallest Skil]

if this is the case, in terms of overall performance, will $4500 go farther now than it will when the new line of MP's comes out?

They're not splitting the line. There won't be a "budget" Mac Pro or an xMac. The 5500 series is more expensive, so expect the base configuration Mac Pro to be $3,000.

 

[nanofrog]

if this is the case, in terms of overall performance, will $4500 go farther now than it will when the new line of MP's comes out?

If you mean in terms of performance, I wouldn't think so. The Nehalem architecture offers a lot, and maybe worth it if you think in terms of substantial performance boost for $300 more.

To give you an idea of substantial, take a look here. Using a Core i7 920.

The remaining $1500 is up to you.

 

[nick9191]

What should the next Mac Pro have....

In my opinion....

1. 8X Blu Ray Drives
"Bag of hurt"
2. An NVIDIA GTX 295 (nothing less for the high end)
No, ATI card high end, Nvidia drivers for Mac suck ass. Not to mention thats a gaming card, the Mac Pro is a workstation, try Alienware
3. 64 GB DDR3 RAM
Probably
4. New design ... though the current one is really nice Apple must surprise the World with something truly jaw dropping.
No
5. SSD as BTO option
Despite the fact you can buy a far faster hard drive for 1/10 the price per GB? SSD's are only good for laptops at the moment.
6. MORE PCI Power connectors that ARE STANDARD!!!
Yes

Response in bold.

What I would like to see:
1. Core i7, up to 12 cores.
2. More hard drive bays.
3. Slot load drives.
4. Dual Mini DisplayPort and a DL-DVI per graphics card.

 

[Umbongo]

if this is the case, in terms of overall performance, will $4500 go farther now than it will when the new line of MP's comes out?

No, if the base model is a 2.66GHz 8 core for $3,000 that will out perform the current 3.2GHz 8 core which currently costs $4,400.

 

[nanofrog]

No, if the base model is a 2.66GHz 8 core for $3,000 that will out perform the current 3.2GHz 8 core which currently costs $4,400.

I'm certain it will outperform the current 2.8GHz model, but didn't want to go that far. Yet.

Do you have a link that could help confirm my suspicions/hopes?

 

[Bakey]

What should the next Mac Pro have....

In my opinion....

1. 8X Blu Ray Drives
2. An NVIDIA GTX 295 (nothing less for the high end)
3. 64 GB DDR3 RAM
4. New design ... though the current one is really nice Apple must surprise the World with something truly jaw dropping.
5. SSD as BTO option
6. MORE PCI Power connectors that ARE STANDARD!!!

Whoah there!!

8X Blu-ray drives!?!! Holly smoke... Well, I guess you'll definitely need a new design to house those puppies.

Wouldn't one, or maybe two as per the current Mac Pro tower, suffice?

 

[Tallest Skil]

Whoah there!!

8X Blu-ray drives!?!! Holly smoke... Well, I guess you'll definitely need a new design to house those puppies.

Wouldn't one, or maybe two as per the current Mac Pro tower, suffice?

8x burning speed, not number of drives...

What I would like to see:
3. Slot load drives.

NO. WHY?! That means LAPTOP drives and LAPTOP drive speeds in a workstation computer! Not to mention that it would not be expandable.

 

[jjahshik32]

Damn man the i7 is going to spank the current 8 core machines. I cant wait!!

 

[Tallest Skil]

Damn man Nehalem is going to spank the current 8 core machines. I cant wait!!

Fixed, and yes... Yes. It. WILL!

Also, Snow Leopard.

Snow Leopard+Nehalem=

Computer: "Your encoding task is complete."
You: "I... I didn't even press the button yet..."

 

[Umbongo]

I'm certain it will outperform the current 2.8GHz model, but didn't want to go that far. Yet.

Do you have a link that could help confirm my suspicions/hopes?

The i920 (2.66GHz x 4 Nehalem) has similar, and sometimes a lot better, performance to the QX9770 (3.2GHz x4 Penryn) on most benchmarks I've seen. I would think the difference will increase in Nehalems favour when two processors are involved due to the new architecture (edit: and Snow Leopard before Tallest Skill quotes me and points it out). The only things I've seen the QX9770 really show it's clock speed constitently on are games. I wouldn't be surpised to see Mac benchmarks all in Nehalem's favour when comparing such clock speeds.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/824/1/
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/1

Tom's Hardware comparison between the two

A $3,000 Nehalem 2.66GHz Mac Pro will certainly offer better value and should offer better performance, by quite a bit for some users.

 

[jjahshik32]

Fixed, and yes... Yes. It. WILL!

Also, Snow Leopard.

Snow Leopard+Nehalem=

Computer: "Your encoding task is complete."
You: "I... I didn't even press the button yet..."

I'm so glad I sold my mac pro 7 months ago! I will be buying one of these sweet nehalems come this summer!

 

[nanofrog]

The i920 (2.66GHz x 4 Nehalem) has similar, and sometimes a lot better, performance to the QX9770 (3.2GHz x4 Penryn) on most benchmarks I've seen. I would think the difference will increase in Nehalems favour when two processors are involved due to the new architecture (edit: and Snow Leopard before Tallest Skill quotes me and points it out). The only things I've seen the QX9770 really show it's clock speed constitently on are games. I wouldn't be surpised to see Mac benchmarks all in Nehalem's favour when comparing such clock speeds.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/824/1/
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/1

Tom's Hardware comparison between the two

A $3,000 Nehalem 2.66GHz Mac Pro will certainly offer better value and should offer better performance, by quite a bit for some users.

Ahh... I see where you're coming from. They should, as the i7 can trounce Core 2.

I just didn't want to go overboard, as I was hoping for more evidence about how the second CPU scales with Xeon 5500's vs. the current parts.

Haven't seen much yet. The last I did, little information was given. NDA's I presume.

Just enough to tease.