What about new MacPro with 3.2 Nehalem

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by DantesAID, Mar 5, 2009.

  1. DantesAID macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #1
    Hey guys,

    Do you know what happened to 3.2Ghz Nehalem ? I know some internet stores have them, i wonder why Apple dont have it on they're web site. Is it because its waaay too expensive ?:) :(
     
  2. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #2
    I'd say yes...:(

    I'd have gotten one, but whatever...
     
  3. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #3
    More likely there isn't enough supply right now.
     
  4. yippy macrumors 68020

    yippy

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #4
    It also could be because to go from 2.93GHz to 3.2GHz the TDP jumps from 95W per processor to 130W per processor. Maybe Apple couldn't/didn't want to deal with that much heat.
     
  5. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #5
    Well both the old 3GHz quads were 120W and the 3.2GHz was 150W so while possible I'm not sure that is the issue.
     
  6. KBS756 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    #6
    whatever the issue is i hope they dont come out with 3.2's right after i order mine ... (like within a month)
     
  7. apolloa macrumors G3

    apolloa

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #7
    Looking at the size of the heatsinks Apple's used I don't think so, plus it looks like you have 1 fan at the front and back creating a wind tunnel effect.
     
  8. thedarkhorse macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #8
    I don't think "too expensive" is in apple's vocabulary. It was probably some other reason like heat/cooling.
     
  9. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #9
    I'd think available quantities has more to do with it. Limited production due to one operational 45nm fab, and the grading is likely quite stringent. So not every part produced would pass.

    Somehow, I don't think an extra 20W/CPU TDP would prevent Apple from using it. :p
     
  10. Justinm59 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    #10
    What are the chances the 3.2 coming out and the 2.26 being eliminated? and the prices aligning ex 2.66 is now the base model with the same price that the 2.26 had.
     
  11. dannymarr macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #11
    Possible

    Hmmm...very unlikely :(
     
  12. Roy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    #12
    Slim to none with none edging out slim by a 100 to 1 shot!:D
     
  13. TrapOx macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Location:
    Denver
    #13
    A $7,000-8,000 base configuration price for 3.2ghz would be a bit much.
     
  14. DantesAID thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #14

    I for one really hope that it will comeout soon. :) Maybe the end of this month ? Anyone?
     
  15. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #15
    Then everyone who ordered a 2.93 eight-core would return their computers. Apple won't do it.
     
  16. bozz2006 macrumors 68030

    bozz2006

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
  17. EmperorDarius macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
  18. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #18
    I think there is a slight chance, after all the 15" mbp was upgraded silently.
     
  19. xgman macrumors 601

    xgman

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    #19
    Imagine how much a quad 3.2 system would cost right now. :rolleyes:
     
  20. MadisonTate macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    #20
    Not likely

    The 3.2 has a different thermal envelope. With the current case design, you wouldn't benefit from the built-in automatic overclocking since you would be hitting the thermal limits all the time.

    35W x 2 = an extra 70 watt light bulb's worth of heat to get rid of. That's a very big deal and they would need to design it into all the cases or end up with a separate design.

    Everybody just sit back and watch what Snow Leopard does with the extra virtual cores and Turbo Boost (?). Hopefully then you'll stop nit-picking over an extra 100 MHz.
     
  21. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #21
    So the new internal layout has worse cooling? The old 3.2Ghz processors had a 150W TDP, the new ones are 130W.
     
  22. PeterQC macrumors 6502a

    PeterQC

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    #22
    Virtual cores? you mean threads? Threads and Turbo Boost are processors feature already available for the Xeons in the new Mac Pro, not from Mac OS X.
     
  23. DantesAID thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #23
    I think you right...
    The moment DELL, IBM and the rest of them will start selling they're workstation with 3.2Ghz in a month or two. Apple will have to do something about it.
     
  24. Ploki macrumors 68010

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #24
    why?
    dell is also selling quadcore laptops and apple doesnt give a rats ass about it.
    i bet that we wont see a 3.2 nehalem so soon
     
  25. MadisonTate macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    #25
    I used the term "virtual cores" for effect. 8 cores with HT is not the same as 8 cores wo/HT if the OS knows how to use it.

    HT support is present in the processors, but the OS must be smart enough to manage HT properly. For example, the first "core" will expose ID's 0 and 1, the second "core" 2 and 3, etc. An HT-aware OS will use ID's 0, 2, 4 and 8 before going back and using 1, 3, 5 and 7. Windows XP needed the same optimizations.

    Also, you need to do much tighter management of wait loops so that the "partner thread" for a core can have better access to it. There are also certain threads that can be optimized to use the units that can be easily shared between partner threads. A core has some resources that are duplicated, other resources that are shared. If, for example, you know that your driver threads don't need the unique resources, those threads can be given affinity to be set up as partner threads.

    You get much more from HT if you know what you're doing than if you use it as though you have just have twice the number of simultaneous threads. I've managed a significant performance increase on certain hand-assembled pieces of code for Microsoft Windows, enough to make the virtual thread just as good as having another full "core."
     

Share This Page