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

Who's anticipating buying a 2010 Mac Pro?

nanofrog said:
I'd have expected the fastest unit to support 1333MHz, but went by the information I saw (and recalled 1066 listed).

I did a quick check, and it's quite odd that that mistake occurred. Someone goofed the graphic. Teach me to rely on pictures... :eek: :p


Good to see it is 1333MHz. :D

But whether or not Apple will add 1333MHz to the systems that can utilize it, is another matter. Unfortunately, I'm not sure this will happen (financial reasons = fewer parts bins). :( I do however hope I'm wrong. ;)
Click to expand...

Either way, it's likely to be unnoticeable in every day performance.
 
VirtualRain said:
Either way, it's likely to be unnoticeable in every day performance.
Click to expand...
It can help even to make single threaded performance on a single channel go faster. Think OCing for example, where it can be noticed (real results, not just benchmarks).

But whether or not the user can even notice for general use, I highly doubt it. I just don't see 1333MHz making any difference in Safari at all. :p

It would be highly software dependent (really heavy loads) before a user would notice it (such as video/graphics work, particularly 3D rendering), but in such cases, it would make sense, presuming that it's for earning a living where time = money (i.e. noticable, even if triple channel is useless with the application).
 
So does this mean we may get a 6-core model but not a 12-core?

My Early '08 octo-core still feels new(This is a feeling that never, ever happenss on a 2 year old computer!), but I'm hoping for a nice video card that I can use for Windows as well as OS X without hacks.

12 core 24 threads is the most tempting thing in the world if it were coming.
 
fs454 said:
So does this mean we may get a 6-core model but not a 12-core?

My Early '08 octo-core still feels new(This is a feeling that never, ever happenss on a 2 year old computer!), but I'm hoping for a nice video card that I can use for Windows as well as OS X without hacks.

12 core 24 threads is the most tempting thing in the world if it were coming.
Click to expand...

The news sites are only going to focus on the talk of a 6 core model because the only official information is about the Core i7 processor. Apple won't actually use it, they will use Xeons which have the same processor but also like 10 suitable for the DP Mac Pros. The ones that actually understand this probably are under NDA via Intel anyway.
 
VirtualRain said:
Either way, it's likely to be unnoticeable in every day performance.
Click to expand...

I know, even though the RAM speed is a difference of 300mhz. Even with processor speeds say between a 2.26 quad vs 2.66, performance isn't that noticeable, especially in everyday workloads. However that configureation = 1600 mhz difference!

Remember when a 240mhz 604e was so much more snappy than a 200mhz 604e? And a bus speed of 60mhz was the wow over 45mhz? How come it takes so much more performance to 'feel' a difference?
 
mattbatt said:
I know, even though the RAM speed is a difference of 300mhz. Even with processor speeds say between a 2.26 quad vs 2.66, performance isn't that noticeable, especially in everyday workloads. However that configureation = 1600 mhz difference!

Remember when a 240mhz 604e was so much more snappy than a 200mhz 604e? And a bus speed of 60mhz was the wow over 45mhz? How come it takes so much more performance to 'feel' a difference?
Click to expand...

Think of it as the difference between driving 40mph vs 60mph (which is noticeable immediately), as opposed to driving 170mph or 190mph (it's so fast that it takes a LOT of difference to make you notice).
 
mattbatt said:
I know, even though the RAM speed is a difference of 300mhz. Even with processor speeds say between a 2.26 quad vs 2.66, performance isn't that noticeable, especially in everyday workloads. However that configureation = 1600 mhz difference!

Remember when a 240mhz 604e was so much more snappy than a 200mhz 604e? And a bus speed of 60mhz was the wow over 45mhz? How come it takes so much more performance to 'feel' a difference?
Click to expand...
Software bloat.
 
jamesryanbell said:
Think of it as the difference between driving 40mph vs 60mph (which is noticeable immediately), as opposed to driving 170mph or 190mph (it's so fast that it takes a LOT of difference to make you notice).
Click to expand...

ya, sort of like diminishing returns then. . . say a quad does a photoshop action in 10 seconds, 8 core 6 s, 16 core 4s, 32 3.2s, eventually 1,000 cores and 10,000 cores would be identically the same speed.
 
mattbatt said:
ya speaking of which: FCP 7 is slower than FCP 6 by a long shot. I put this here because in this case, the iMac beats the MacPro 8 core, which just turns my stomach :(

http://barefeats.com/fcp7.html
Click to expand...
It's an instance where the clock speed makes the difference, as both are the same architecture. So 2.8GHz will beat 2.66GHz running the exact same application, set to do identical tasks.

That should improve with the 2010's, but I'm thinking performance would be on par, not faster (i.e. both an i7 iMac and base Quad MP running at 2.8GHz). Benchmarks would give the same/similar results.

The difference being, is the user of a MP (Quad, Hex, Octad or Dodeca) can address the system bottlenecks, such as HDD throughput, that's not possible with an iMac, given it's an All In One design.
 
jamesryanbell said:
Think of it as the difference between driving 40mph vs 60mph (which is noticeable immediately), as opposed to driving 170mph or 190mph (it's so fast that it takes a LOT of difference to make you notice).
Click to expand...

Actually, it's more like driving 190mhp into a 12 million car parking lot where you sit until you are needed and then a crane with a big magnet just plops you out of your parking stall. Whether you drove 170mph or 190mph to get there makes little difference once you are in the parking lot. If you are needed and aren't in the lot, then your speed is important, but that's incredibly rare. :p

The reason memory speeds are almost inconsequential to overall system performance is a result of the huge L3 cache sizes Intel uses.
 
nanofrog said:
It's an instance where the clock speed makes the difference, as both are the same architecture. So 2.8GHz will beat 2.66GHz running the exact same application, set to do identical tasks.

That should improve with the 2010's, but I'm thinking performance would be on par, not faster (i.e. both an i7 iMac and base Quad MP running at 2.8GHz). Benchmarks would give the same/similar results.

The difference being, is the user of a MP (Quad, Hex, Octad or Dodeca) can address the system bottlenecks, such as HDD throughput, that's not possible with an iMac, given it's an All In One design.
Click to expand...

Actually, barefeats compared an Octo 2.93GHz Nehalem with a 2.8 quad iMac. So 8 higher clocked cores vs. 4 lower clocked cores, or in other words, a $5,900 machine vs. $2,000.

The iMac under both Motion 7 and 6 is faster than the octo in Motion 7 by 24 and 63 seconds respectively. That is a huge noticeable difference.

Now the Octo in Motion 6 is faster than the iMac by 20 and 53 seconds.

So basically, with the new FinalCut suit, the performance boost of an Octo over a quad iMac was completely reversed!
 
At last, some news that something might actually be announced on Tuesday (or maybe this Friday). Whoo Hoo!!! :)
 
Anand is reporting that the new high-end hexacore is a drop-in for 1366 socket motherboards. He put one into an Intel board from late 2008 and only required a BIOS update for it to work without issue.

Anyone here thinking of taking the $1000 plunge to update a current quad? We would obviously need an EFI update to support it, but given the imminent release of the '10s, this would probably be possible soon.

The article is here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3763
 
BillB50 said:
Anand is reporting that the new high-end hexacore is a drop-in for 1366 socket motherboards. He put one into an Intel board from late 2008 and only required a BIOS update for it to work without issue.

Anyone here thinking of taking the $1000 plunge to update a current quad? We would obviously need an EFI update to support it, but given the imminent release of the '10s, this would probably be possible soon.

The article is here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3763
Click to expand...

I would certainly consider it as an upgrade down the line if it was possible to do so - whilst my 2.93 Quad is fast, I can see that I may want something faster in the future. However, I doubt Apple will make it that easy, or even possible.
 
BillB50 said:
Anand is reporting that the new high-end hexacore is a drop-in for 1366 socket motherboards. He put one into an Intel board from late 2008 and only required a BIOS update for it to work without issue.

Anyone here thinking of taking the $1000 plunge to update a current quad? We would obviously need an EFI update to support it, but given the imminent release of the '10s, this would probably be possible soon.

The article is here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3763
Click to expand...

I highly doubt Apple would update the EFI for 09's so you can drop in a hexacore. That could potentially eat up one of the '10 sales and it would void your warranty.

Maybe if Apple was super nice
 
BillB50 said:
Anand is reporting that the new high-end hexacore is a drop-in for 1366 socket motherboards. He put one into an Intel board from late 2008 and only required a BIOS update for it to work without issue.

Anyone here thinking of taking the $1000 plunge to update a current quad? We would obviously need an EFI update to support it, but given the imminent release of the '10s, this would probably be possible soon.

The article is here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3763
Click to expand...

Unless Apple provides us with a Firmware update for the 09 with the required microcode for the Hexcore, this won't work for us.
 
VirtualRain said:
Unless Apple provides us with a Firmware update for the 09 with the required microcode for the Hexcore, this won't work for us.
Click to expand...
Which I wouldn't expect to happen, as it could reduce the sales of '10 models (i.e. people buy '09's as refurbs or discounted to clear existing stocks when the '10's release, and add the new processor for less than the '10 sells for). Not a drastic discount, but still...

Simply put, Apple wants their margins. :eek: :p
 
nanofrog said:
Which I wouldn't expect to happen, as it could reduce the sales of '10 models (i.e. people buy '09's as refurbs or discounted to clear existing stocks when the '10's release, and add the new processor for less than the '10 sells for). Not a drastic discount, but still...

Simply put, Apple wants their margins. :eek: :p
Click to expand...

Actually, some reading I've been doing indicates that while the i7 980x is a drop-in replacement on X58 boards with a BIOS update, 32nm Xeon's will not work in prior 1366 socket boards without a hard mod. It's not clear if this affects only DP parts or single socket Xeon's as well. The NDA still hasn't been lifted on the 32nm Xeons.

Link
 
VirtualRain said:
Actually, some reading I've been doing indicates that while the i7 980x is a drop-in replacement on X58 boards with a BIOS update, 32nm Xeon's will not work in prior 1366 socket boards without a hard mod. It's not clear if this affects only DP parts or single socket Xeon's as well. The NDA still hasn't been lifted on the 32nm Xeons.

Link
Click to expand...
From what I read, some boards have required hard mods, but not all, and that included the Xeon variant (SP systems). I'd expect the same thing with the DP systems.

Those that have needed hardware mods had VR's that didn't work properly with just firmware updates, so there were some adjustments made (component values/selection).

PITA for those with existing LGA1366 boards though (SP or DP), as not everyone would be able to take matters into their own hands (have the equipment or skills to handle SMT components).

Perhaps the board makers will create an exchange program for the high end boards (rather than "Sorry, we can't make it work, but we have this New and Improved board that'll take care of you for $350+"). Such board owners can hope at least. :eek: :p

Thanks for the link BTW. :)
 
This is an informative thread. I read through the first 80 posts and one of the things I'm seeing is that the 2008 Mac Pro was a great machine that was good value for its money. I'm looking for a mac for home and would like look into a used mac pro. Any advice on what to look for in a used machine for 2008? What specific features would I be looking for so that I know it's a 2008 machine. I'm planning on hitting up craigslist to find it and can be patient. I'd try to find something w/ applecare if possible. Any info on price? What it was then what it could/should be now?
 
Rizvi1 said:
This is an informative thread. I read through the first 80 posts and one of the things I'm seeing is that the 2008 Mac Pro was a great machine that was good value for its money. I'm looking for a mac for home and would like look into a used mac pro. Any advice on what to look for in a used machine for 2008? What specific features would I be looking for so that I know it's a 2008 machine. I'm planning on hitting up craigslist to find it and can be patient. I'd try to find something w/ applecare if possible. Any info on price? What it was then what it could/should be now?
Click to expand...

Pricing was $2800 for a 2.8GHz 8 core, less $500 for quad core, +$800 for 3.0GHz, +$1,600 for the 3.2GHz. Check eBay too for pricing ideas. Use the refurb store if you really want Applecare.
 
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