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

when will Mac Pro get Sandy Bridge processor?

M

malch

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Hi there,
I just saw a news item re the new Sandy Bridge processor, and I'm wondering when it might appear in the Mac Pro?
Any ideas? (by the way, I tried to post this in the Rumours thread, and found out I can't post there).
Regards,
malch
 
rajbonham said:
No way. Purely my opinion, but I would be completely shocked if they waited that long to update.
Click to expand...

It may be just be me, but I think I sensed a bit of sarcasm from Wisty 🙄

Anyway, in another thread, a poster just purchased a new 30" ACD from Apple and his delivery time is showing middle of May, not 5-7 business days, which is what it's currently showing on the store.

I have believed for a while that the rumored ACDs would be launching alongside the new Mac Pros, so I'm thinking we might see something mid May...
 
Forgive me for asking a simple/naive question, but here goes: since the Mac Pro 'case' doesn't seem to get any smaller (and I don't see people asking for smaller, lighter Mac Pros), is it so important that processors keep getting smaller and smaller? (32mm coming, then we're waiting for 22mm).
Is it just so they can add more processors, in less space?
I can see smaller and smaller processors being needed for ever-shrinking laptops/pads/phones, but for a big desktop like the Mac Pro, is it really crucial? Isn't there room in there for even the big, clunky 32mm processors they're about to launch?
Thanks for the replies... I've now read some of the links, and I see that we're a good ways off from Sandy Bridge. Westmere up next, and it could be within a couple months.
Regards,
malch
 
Not so much the processor size but the manufacturing process.
smaller process = more transistors = more calculations = faster
 
malch said:
Forgive me for asking a simple/naive question, but here goes: since the Mac Pro 'case' doesn't seem to get any smaller (and I don't see people asking for smaller, lighter Mac Pros), is it so important that processors keep getting smaller and smaller? (32mm coming, then we're waiting for 22mm).
Is it just so they can add more processors, in less space?
I can see smaller and smaller processors being needed for ever-shrinking laptops/pads/phones, but for a big desktop like the Mac Pro, is it really crucial? Isn't there room in there for even the big, clunky 32mm processors they're about to launch?
Thanks for the replies... I've now read some of the links, and I see that we're a good ways off from Sandy Bridge. Westmere up next, and it could be within a couple months.
Regards,
malch
Click to expand...
It's the process. The transistors themselves are smaller, which allows them to pack in more transistors in a given CPU, and keep the yields high (processors per wafer that pass the binning process - QC + speed measurements).

This allows them to pack in more complex controllers (i.e. features such as HT, Turbo Mode, and Power Management), and more cores per die, which is what the enterprise market desires.

live4ever said:
Not so much the processor size but the manufacturing process.
smaller process = more transistors = more calculations = faster
Click to expand...
Sort of. It depends on the software, as to whether or not it can utilize the additional cores (parallelism). Frequencies aren't increasing by leaps and bounds any longer.

But if you run single threaded applications, it won't matter if it has 2/4/8/12... cores, it only uses one, and the frequency will dictate how fast an instruction can be completed (all other aspects the same, such as bus interfaces in both CPU and board).
 
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