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

We've seen the new mini enclosure... thoughts on potential Mac Pro redesign...?

I just realized something yesterday. I had to Google it to make sure I remembered it correctly, but it seems I did:

Tri-channel is a passing thing.

Sandy Bridge will do quad-channel, by all accounts. Bulldozer is either going to be quad, or just dual. 6 RAM slots now would be useful for 1 generation, and that's it. Maybe Apple knew what they were doing after all....
 
J the Ninja said:
I just realized something yesterday. I had to Google it to make sure I remembered it correctly, but it seems I did:

Tri-channel is a passing thing.

Sandy Bridge will do quad-channel, by all accounts. Bulldozer is either going to be quad, or just dual. 6 RAM slots now would be useful for 1 generation, and that's it. Maybe Apple knew what they were doing after all....
Click to expand...
Well, when Sandy Bridge's Quad channel parts are available, then we'll see boards with 8x DIMM slots or more per CPU (i.e. smaller form factors will stick to 2x DIMM's per channel, while server boards, which are usually larger form factors, 3x DIMM's per channel), just as it is now.

Apple's DIMM slot limitations in the 2009's were due to the physical constraints that resulted in their design choices (daughterboard config, and using the existing case).
 
nanofrog said:
Well, when Sandy Bridge's Quad channel parts are available, then we'll see boards with 8x DIMM slots or more per CPU (i.e. smaller form factors will stick to 2x DIMM's per channel, while server boards, which are usually larger form factors, 3x DIMM's per channel), just as it is now.

Apple's DIMM slot limitations in the 2009's were due to the physical constraints that resulted in their design choices (daughterboard config, and using the existing case).
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, there are a good number of Xeon 5520 boards that have only 6 slots total, ie, one slot per CPU/channel. My point was that "RAM slots should be in multiples of 3" isn't going to be a long-term thing.
 
It's just flabbergasting to me that someone who doesn't do like work for a TV studio or something along those lines would need a Mac Pro, but I guess people just use them for everyday use, but that's crazy to me. The Mac Pro is so powerful, but I couldn't imagine a task at home that would necessitate that much power.

I think they're keeping the handles. The handles are classic and traditional, used since the Power Mac's, I like the handles. I can't think of any changes to its design besides a unibody enclosure, it's such a flawless machine nonetheless.
 
OGDaniel said:
It's just flabbergasting to me that someone who doesn't do like work for a TV studio or something along those lines would need a Mac Pro, but I guess people just use them for everyday use, but that's crazy to me. The Mac Pro is so powerful, but I couldn't imagine a task at home that would necessitate that much power.

I think they're keeping the handles. The handles are classic and traditional, used since the Power Mac's, I like the handles. I can't think of any changes to its design besides a unibody enclosure, it's such a flawless machine nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Uhh...the Mac Pro isn't THAT powerful. The current iMac quad's have better CPU's than the base quad core mac. Plus "working in a tv studio" is hardly a qualifier for needing a decent machine. There are plenty of uses for good machines that do not require you to work for a network.

What's flabbergasting to me are people who assume that because they don't need something (or apparently really understand it), then no one does.
 
You all realize that the handles serve a dual purpose right?

They keep the Mac Pro a few inches above the floor level to reduce the accumulation of dust which is heaviest on the ground surface.
 
phaedarus said:
You all realize that the handles serve a dual purpose right?

They keep the Mac Pro a few inches above the floor level to reduce the accumulation of dust which is heaviest on the ground surface.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is really disputing the bottom handles (should they even be deserving of the word "handles" if your hands never really touch them? :confused:)

But the top handles, the real handles, are probably not absolutely necessary for the Mac Pro. Removing those could give way for extra room for additional internals.
 
Icaras said:
I don't think anyone is really disputing the bottom handles (should they even be deserving of the word "handles" if your hands never really touch them? :confused:)

But the top handles, the real handles, are probably not absolutely necessary for the Mac Pro. Removing those could give way for extra room for additional internals.
Click to expand...

Then it is no longer vertically symmetrical. (or would that be horizontally symmetrical?) Whichever one it is, Ive and Jobs wouldn't let it fly like that. In fact, it would look like it's on stilts.
 
Aren't the handles a good thing? It's a pretty heavy machine. I'm actually starting to consider the dual 2.26 over waiting for the hex. Ugh.
 
TennisandMusic said:
What's flabbergasting to me are people who assume that because they don't need something (or apparently really understand it), then no one does.
Click to expand...

If I were on a budget, I wouldn't consider purchasing a MacPro.

I don't do video production, but I do create some very large Word documents that require me to make complex indices. Ever try to index something in Word? It's a resource hog when you're dealing with a lot of pages. (Granted not as much a resource hog as Photoshop, but it puts a strain on my iMac C2D 2.8).

The main reason I want a MacPro is to set up dual 24" displays. I could probably do this with my iMac 24", but I'm not sure the screens are the same (the iMac is 2 years old), and not sure if they are the same height.

In the end, why do we lay people want to buy a multi-core MacPro? The same reason we want to climb Mt. Everest: because we can.
 
southerndoc said:
The main reason I want a MacPro is to set up dual 24" displays. I could probably do this with my iMac 24", but I'm not sure the screens are the same (the iMac is 2 years old), and not sure if they are the same height.
Click to expand...

I want a Mac Pro for not only the CPU/RAM you can stick in it but cause I want to be able to use more than 2 monitors. I want 3 at least :p Got a dual monitor setup going with my iMac right now, and although it's possible to use more on any system (google DisplayLink) it's in its infancy and I don't want to waste CPU processing on costly USB devices.

I'm a programmer, and the more desktop space the better.
 
anim8or said:
Will they keep or get rid of side access?
Click to expand...

The side access will be replaced with a door to another dimension. A dimension where Apple products grow on trees and "re-grow" every few weeks. Everyone can now have a Mac, there is no famine (as you can eat your Apples, too) and PCs are a virus.
 
OGDaniel said:
It's just flabbergasting to me that someone who doesn't do like work for a TV studio or something along those lines would need a Mac Pro, but I guess people just use them for everyday use, but that's crazy to me. The Mac Pro is so powerful, but I couldn't imagine a task at home that would necessitate that much power.

I think they're keeping the handles. The handles are classic and traditional, used since the Power Mac's, I like the handles. I can't think of any changes to its design besides a unibody enclosure, it's such a flawless machine nonetheless.
Click to expand...

That's what people were saying back in the dual-cpu days with single-core chips. But the Mac Pro is the only real choice available from Apple (not counting DIY) for a truly expandable machine. I have 5 internal drives and another 8 external via 2 PCIe Sonnet eSATA cards. i need storage and I like having my extra cores to run my 3 other virtual machines in VMware.

As for the design, I love the handles, it makes moving the Pro around easier than lifting it from the bottom.

I would love to see 2 or 4 dedicated 2.5" drive bays for SSDs in addition to the current four 3.5" hard drive bays, which would mean more onboard SATA channels.
 
It's not going to lose handles, its not going to loose easy access.

If they did redesign it, which I doubt they will, 10% smaller, slot loading drives, black Apple logo, and higher prices.
 
nick9191 said:
It's not going to lose handles, its not going to loose easy access.

If they did redesign it, which I doubt they will, 10% smaller, slot loading drives, black Apple logo, and higher prices.
Click to expand...

I think you're right. But I hope Apple doesn't make it too much smaller. I hope they leave enough room to stick everything but the kitchen sink in one.
 
Vylen said:
And while I don't have a Mac Pro, I have a similar set up like this - got my power boards mounted to the underside of my desk along with cables and other things like USB hubs and devices that dont need to be on my desk or on the floor.

Sure makes cleaning the carpet easier without risk of knocking adapters out of their sockets (did that once, blew the fuse on my subwoofer - fortunately they are replaceable, naturally)
Click to expand...

Have you had any issues with heat buildup? I notice the person's setup in that picture (not your's correct?) has at least one Mac Mini mounted under the desk and...well...everything else. Since computers and peripherals are normally designed for a world where heat rises easily away from the units, I would think that some of these items might fail as the underside of the desk traps heat. I would imagine the underside of your desk gets pretty toasty.
 
nick9191 said:
It's not going to lose handles, its not going to loose easy access.

If they did redesign it, which I doubt they will, 10% smaller, slot loading drives, black Apple logo, and higher prices.
Click to expand...

If they did redesign it the price wouldn't go up much higher, if at all.
 
J the Ninja said:
I just realized something yesterday. I had to Google it to make sure I remembered it correctly, but it seems I did:

Tri-channel is a passing thing.

Sandy Bridge will do quad-channel, by all accounts.
Click to expand...

the Nehalem-EX proccessor will have quad channel before Sandy Bridge gets release. When get to 6+ cores you need 4 channels to keep all the cores feed in more often. However, it would be uniform. Intel is likely to also use number of memory channels as a market segementation device ( similar to how removed features from lower priced offerings in the past: VT, threading, boost , etc.)

So only the upper end Sandy Bridge parts will get it. Most likely the 6 core parts will since should have had it in the first place. Coin toss whether they put it on the 4 core parts; pretty good chance will not. The less than 4 core parts definitely not.

Intel isn't going to switch their entire line over to 6 core parts even after Sandy Bridge is the primary mainstream arch they are shipping.


P.S. Just saw another article that said Intel is going to push IGP (e.g., on die graphics) hard on sandy bridge models. For workstation class versions of that microarchitecture that won't be the more likely config. However, that does pragmatically increase the core count on the die. So yes will have "6 cores" (actually more) on their mainstream offerings. It just isn't "core" as has been used in conversation till now. Tri channel passing because the graphics are coming on die.

On 1P servers IGP makes sense. Few folks buy a lower end server to play games or watch Blu-ray full HD movies on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back