Upcoming 12-Core Xeon CPU Destined for Apple's New Mac Pro Posts Impressive Benchmark Scores
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lone Deranger
macrumors 68000
AZREOSpecialist
Suspended
Apple isn't stupid. The reason they aren't offering a dual CPU configuration is because most Mac Pros are sold in a single CPU config. That's the reality, unfortunately. While there may be some users who buy dual CPU configurations, those who actually need the dual CPUs is a small subset of the already small subset of buyers who purchase the dual CPU configs.
Apple figures that with 12 cores most, if not all, Mac Pro users will be satisfied. I would tend to agree. The only ones who won't be satisfied are the ones who have to buy the biggest and best regardless of need. Those who feel they need more than 12 cores will have to go Windows, sorry.
Apple figures that with 12 cores most, if not all, Mac Pro users will be satisfied. I would tend to agree. The only ones who won't be satisfied are the ones who have to buy the biggest and best regardless of need. Those who feel they need more than 12 cores will have to go Windows, sorry.
handsome pete
macrumors 68000
Of course. I was just pointing out that Apple's relying on OpenCL leaves out the CUDA users. I'm in the market for a new workstation, however I currently run software that supports CUDA. Also, the more cores the better, so a dual CPU option would have been nice for me. Chances are these programs will offer Open CL support in future updates, but I tend to stick with software versions a while between updating.
When the Mac Pro is released, I simply won't be getting the same hardware acceleration as I already do. Unless the software is updated by then, but that means more money spent. I can live with the single processor limitation. But considering the cost of maxing out to 12 cores on a single chip vs. what's available in dual 6 or 8 configurations, that will be even more money necessary to keep pace.
Do you have numbers to back this up? I've rarely seen any single CPU Mac Pros in any place I've done work at, whether that be agencies, post houses, or schools. Granted, that's completely anecdotal but that's what I've seen at least.
donutbagel
macrumors 6502a
Any source to back that claim up? We can speculate either way but it's still just a guess. In my personal experience people generally buy the dual socket because they need the processing power and ram slots. It seems like most users who can get by with the single socket machines can also get by with an iMac or other (cheaper) mac.
It seems that multi-vendor / open source solutions ultimately win out far more often than proprietary ones. Microsoft's failed attempt to take over the internet is a good example. We can only speculate but maybe this is why Apple is not putting its eggs in the CUDA basket with the new Mac Pro.
Blah blah, you don't know what you're talking about.
For starts, the current Mac Pro takes two processors to access fewer cores. There is no reason to make a Dual CPU version because the apps that can utilize 24 cores are nonexistent outside labs. (And if you're using those apps, you're building your own Linux OS from source, you're not a Mac customer)
Second there is a huge differene in the THROUGHPUT of a Xeon vs an i7. That's mostly INTEL's choosing, but them's the apples. See my other post, but i7 is very fast, but with all the ENTERPRISE features snipped out of the hardware and Bios... Intel has i7 kneecapped at the motherboard IO level so it can't handle 6 thunderbolt ports.
Intel has the high-end business market hostage. (As you can see a "server" chip isnt better than a desktop chip only half the time.. and costs TWICE AS MUCH!!!) Sure the cluster builders can roll their own Linux and go with AMD Opteron, but YOUR BOSS isn't paying you for THAT. They pay IT to load Windows and shut up. No PC makers are gonna get faster hardware either... They sell what WinTeltells them to.
DesterWallaboo
macrumors 6502a
Why is trolling in a Mac forum so much fun?
Yep, so we'll sit idly by for another 10 years until applications use the GPU power, but you can bet your balls Apple will have another ADD attack and decide that's too hard, and give up, or until the imagine some other latest 'promise the earth' idea that'll have us waiting again. Whatever happened to Quartz 2D extreme and resolution independence, nothing, we've been waiting since Tiger!!!
These guys at Apple have turned into a bunch of masturbating pompous artsy wayne kers who've been living outside the realms of 'our' reality for too long. They don't listen to their customer's they spend their time figuring out ways to screw dollars out of us while trying to sell us art gallery pieces and BS to us how they are the most expandable evar bla blah blah.
All will be forgiven if this silly shaped penis pump is placed in the lineup to fill the hole between the Mac Mini and that stupid beauty salon mirror thing they call an iMac and a proper PCI expandable tower (the same as the existing Mac Pro) is updated and released, even if delayed a little longer. I just want the current Mac Pro to have new internals, PCIe3, SATA 6Gb, USB 3, 4x thunder bolt (2 for displays and two for external backup storage and faster newer CPU's and a choice of Video cards.
Apple, you've got more billion that you know what to do with, stop screwing us and learn give a little back after all the fsck en dollars we've spent on you over the 25 years. Update the EFI firmwares to industry UEFI 2.1+, bring back the 17" MBP, put an Ethernet port on the rMBP.
This iOS phenomena isn't going to last forever, when that market is saturated after you've screwed us all with the Mac/ Mac OS you aint gona have too many friends.
chrono1081
macrumors G3
Well they did that with the current Mac Pro too and there are both single and double sockets in them.
That's was the dream in the late 90's that when OS X came out then finally they'd build 4 processor machines. The only innovation to come out of Apple these days is, how to make products that force use to buy every component from them at their stupidly marked up prices.
Just do what every other Mac or Windows user in the universe does.... put your applications on the internal drive. Whether you do this or not, Apple isn't going to add a feature to OS X for the one person who chooses not to do this.
Nvidia supports OpenCL fine on the more modern GPU's, but AMD has a slight advantage in that its GCN (Graphics Core Next) supports mixed graphics and computation, not either or. The only issue with OpenCL is developer support, but it's already happening.
I would expect Apple to use OpenCL intensively with some near term release of FCX. That and other existing apps will likely validate the tradeoff between dual processor and dual GPGPU in the previewed Mac Pro.
Intel has been and is very expensive with Xeon relative to GPGPU's. Expect other manufactures to follow Apple's lead in Workstation alternatives to traditional towers.
mdriftmeyer
macrumors 68040
Nvidia's OpenCL support is incomplete for 1.1 and non-existent for 1.2, never mind 2.0.
therealtycho
macrumors newbie
EXACTLY!!!!!
I, (like you), make a living crunching numbers for NASA!
How are normal guys like us supposed to survive without 24 cores instead of 12?
I guess Apple abandoned us. Glad to see I'm not alone!! I would've felt RIDICULOUS complaining about something like this.... were it not for my NASA job..! Take care, my mathematician friend!
Oh... /sarcasm
Slight advantage? bahaha smoke some more:
http://www.tomshardware.com/print/best-workstation-graphics-card,reviews-3493.html
DesterWallaboo
macrumors 6502a
Yes... AMD slaughters NVidia in the OpenCL department.
----------
This is because NVidia doesn't care about OpenCL... they are busy pushing their proprietary CUDA processing. More money in it if they can tie people down to CUDA than adopting open standards like OpenCL.
derbothaus
macrumors 601
Pretty simple. 15% faster in very specific apps and 20% slower in most general apps in a 4 year time period = not a significant upgrade to the people who buy your product. Form factor aside. It will not be faster than what we see as Intel makes no faster chip. There is no miracle chip hiding away. We should be impressed with their ability to put 12 cores on one die. But that argument and achievement belongs in the mobile space. We are perfectly happy with a big ass fridge under feet with who cares die sizes. They are in a square case and they pummel everything else. I stare at a monitor and a keyboard and mouse. Not a pretty little tower. I also don't ever need to 'bring it with me' They have things called laptops for that. And those are getting pretty damn fast in their own right.
They did what with the current one? Apple has the initial info on their website, and it's up to 12 cores, single socket. Seems like wishful thinking to imagine that Apple would secretly have a model that is 24 cores dual socket but publicly announce 12.
Gee, you sure told him.
There's a major reason. Two six core CPU are much cheaper than a single 12. Same with four and eight. And dual six will be available in much higher clock speed than the 12, 3.5Ghz versus 2.7. Sure the dual cpu motherboard costs a bit more, but probably not nearly as much as the difference in the cpus.
On the upside, intel should have 1600 series xeons in four and six core options that are actually intended for single socket use and priced similar to the i7s that apple could use on the low end and have a fairly affordable base model if they wanted.