This is fundamentally flawed start is what kicks off the trip down the rabbit hole into Wonderland alternative reality that isn't likely at all.
The C60x chips are for E5 v1 and v2 ( Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge). The Mac Pro already has a E5 v2 chip (and 602 chipset). Why would Apple release another Mac Pro with same almost going on 2 years old chip? The C60x chips are just wrong at this point in time. The C610 series set is extremely more likely.
Guess what? the X99 and C610 are basically the same thing with some minor differences.
" ... Intel® C610 Series Chipset and Intel® X99 Chipset Platform Controller Hub (PCH) datasheet " ... "
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/datasheets/x99-chipset-pch-datasheet.pdf
Not particularly surprising since the Core i7 x9xx CPU packages are done as a derivative design of the E5 line up. Same socket and same mask in for the lower end of the E5 line up with some features flipped on/off along with some binning to provide the desired market segmentation.
I must remeber you the point is the Mac Pro moving to X99, C610 is covered among the options (read 602, 60..., of course this series includes the C610).
The ECC support is basically there because the C610 need it. The actual RAM is hooked to the CPU package.
Let's look at a Core i7 4690X to see if it supports ECC.
http://ark.intel.com/products/77779...ssor-Extreme-Edition-15M-Cache-up-to-4_00-GHz
No. Only 64GB and no ECC on that spec sheet at about a $1K price. So without a CPU with ECC support there is no ECC the X99 is going to touch. What is allowed here is an odd ball configuration where can mix and match chipset with CPU it is not suppose to be paired with. It will "happen to work" but Apple is extremely unlikely to go with a configuration that will "happen to work". Apple will pair up what Intel would strongly like for them to pair up.
Sir, you dissapoints me, cleary I pointed out that i7 on X99 dont support ECC memory, its well known (as on the revious generation X79 you have to use an Xeon o these chipset to enable ECC memory, for ECCis mandatory both PCH and CPU to handle ECC, the purpose of an X99 based Mac Pro isnt to enable you mixing comonents, but to provide you an common platform for both Xeon and i7 solutions tailored a Professional or enthusiast, w/o need to develop specific motheboards for each market.
Actually no, only six.
http://ark.intel.com/products/81761/Intel-DHX99-PCH
Apple is extremely unlikley to put anything past the number of ports the chipset supports on the edge of the device. Quite often in Mac designs, this is a subset of the max number.
Six are enough, and actually isn't the first time Apple uses all the ports from the Chipset, closes example is the Mac Mini Late'14 with its 4 USB3 uses all provided.
http://ark.intel.com/products/75030/Intel-Core-i5-4260U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-2_70-GHz
Guess what? The C610 has that too. No differentiation at all.
The point is't if the C610 have or not have what X99 has, but if the X99 its enough for a new Mac Pro, the X99 has the advantage it's cheaper and also supports i7 (despite those Haswell-E i7's are Xeon derived, they are Enthusiast CPUs not Workstations CPU, X99 allows to choose from both and cover more markets.
40 v3 lanes are on the CPU package not the chipset and once again there is no differentiation at all.
Again, point to favor x99, not required an C610 for an new MAc Pro...
... but I remeber you whiouth the PCH enabling the I/O your cpu could have 80 lines, if the PCH only manages 40, you only have 40 availables.
The current Mac Pro burns up all of its 8 v2.0 lanes on I/O.
2 GbE
1 Wifi/Bluetooth
1 USB 3.0
4 PCIe SSD
There is no room for any TB v2 controllers at all. There won't be with a C610/X99 either. Marginally might pick up a x1 lane because USB 3.0 is in the chipset. Pragmatically probably haven't picked up anything as the internal chipset USB 3.0 and likely even faster PCIe SSD will throttle the DMI connection to the CPU in high bandwidth concurrent usage.
TB3 hooks on PCIe v3.0 lanes, Alpine Ridge requires 2 or 4 PCIe v3 lines depending how many headers, those 4 lines are available (from the 40 lines PCIe v3.0 minus 32 on GPUs minus 4 on NVMe SSD).
So with X99 the mac pro still can provide TB3/USB-C ports alongside TB2/USB3 ports.
ahh, you should read what means NVMe, and why is far superior than PCIe-SSD.
The X99 buys nothing differentiating here.
If Apple waits until very late 2015 to pick up TB v3 then the number of TB ports will likely go down; not up. Those 4 ports will have at least as much aggregate bandwidth as the 6 in the current one does.
X99 can handle concurrently 4 TB3 and 6 TB2, of course its unlikely all those ports to be active at the same time, I didn't make the Maths buth I thiks the X99's DMA controller still have enough bandwidth bor all this load..
Delusional. You are basically handcuffing the Xeon E5 to the v2 options which are years old. There are new options now. There will be even newer options early in 2016 when E5 v4 arrives.
The E5 1600 v3 options are available now and cover the same 8 cores and TDP range.
http://ark.intel.com/products/series/81064/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1600-v3-Product-Family
The larger E5 v3 family covers a even broader range of core counts.
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/78583/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-v3-Family#@Server
For example the E5 Xeon 1660 v3
http://ark.intel.com/products/82766/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1660-v3-20M-Cache-3_00-GHz
About $1K price. 8 cores ( 2 more than
4960X, tradeoff is slower core count ) , Faster max RAM speeds , more possible max RAM ( which leverages more banks than Apple will use, so a tie at 4 DIMM slots ) ,
Wrong, 6 core Core i7-5930K sells for 550$, 8 Core 5960X sells for 999. of course the 5960X exceed the MacPro TDP, but an six core 5930K its an bargain compared with similar Xeon, but Xeon are Xeon amd i7 are i7, dont mix apples and peaches, i7 is for Enthusuast/Gamers and Xeon are for Workstations Pro's.
If Apple is reliable on something lately is on not providing big specifications jumps, besides modest clock speed updates, its very likely the CPUs on the updated Mac to be the closest siblings on Haswell-E to the 2013 mac pro choices (ivi-bridge), only thing I could spect is Apple dismissing the 4 core Xeon option, sure will start from 6 core xeon to 12, maybe upto 14, never 18 or 20 cores.
Early 2016 Xeon (no delay from intel) will not see an mac pro until mid 2017, Apple's practice.
And a more complicated inventory since the parts aren't shared across models are well. The X99 has stuff that doesn't matter for Mac Pro. ( Intel hardware raid. tons of SATA ports , ) If need to buy C610 chips for higher end E5 2600 v3 models it is far more simplier to buy the same C610 PCH chipsest for the X5 1600 v3 which have much of the same coverage at the Core i7 x9xx series at the roughtly the same price point. x9xx is not substantially cheaper.
FYI Xeon E5-2600v3 family is supported by X99, just read at this super micro motherboard specifications:
https://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Core/X99/C7X99-OCE.cfm
So debunked friend, Apple saves a lot of money going on X99 while keeps an optimal solution for the Mac Pro, saves on inventory since an single PCH handles the entire line of Xeon/i7 producs, a single motherboard for all Mac Pros, also those on E5-2600v3 ans those hypotetical on i7-5930K's.
Apple will probably have core i7 Radeon 300 series iMacs in the Fall. A "100" series chipset too.... doesn't that make for better tech spec porn than a "99" one?
My debunked Friend, FYI the iMac thermals cant handle Haswell-E, 100 series chipset are for broadwell lga1151 cpu's an updated Retina iMac on Broadwell is inminent at year's end but not on the range of performance of the i7-5930 (4 core vs 6 cores).
Whatever with or whitout i7 choices the next Mac pro will be based on X99 platform.
