Who's anticipating buying a 2010 Mac Pro?

[VirtualRain]

Software development cycles, particularly professional ones, may not be that fast.

I'm thinking at least 5 years myself.

Agreed, Quad cores have been around for at least 3-4 years and there's very little software that can fully utilize four cores. It's like 9 women can't have a baby in 1 month... some tasks just don't lend themselves to parallelism.

Gimme a 6GHz dual core!

 

[nanofrog]

Agreed, Quad cores have been around for at least 3-4 years and there's very little software that can fully utilize four cores. It's like 9 women can't have a baby in 1 month... some tasks just don't lend themselves to parallelism.

Yep. Some things just won't benefit from parallelism, and potentially tie up system resources if it were attempted.

For example, using all the cores to run a word processing application would be a waste, as it has to wait on user banging away on the keyboard for input, but now all the cores are occupied, unless the controller frees up some cycles. Talk about latency...

 

[Techhie]

Well, with buying the 17" MBP my budget has sunk to a measly $1,900, hopefully we can add to that before a new box comes out

Does anyone have spare change?

 

[DoFoT9]

Agreed, Quad cores have been around for at least 3-4 years and there's very little software that can fully utilize four cores. It's like 9 women can't have a baby in 1 month... some tasks just don't lend themselves to parallelism.

Gimme a 6GHz dual core!

nice analogy

go grab a few of them POWER7 CPUs im sure they will work for you nicely

 

[sgunes]

Agreed, Quad cores have been around for at least 3-4 years and there's very little software that can fully utilize four cores. It's like 9 women can't have a baby in 1 month... some tasks just don't lend themselves to parallelism.

Gimme a 6GHz dual core!

Dang, I was trying to get 9 women pregnant on a monthly schedule so there would be a baby every month for 9 months.

 

[DoFoT9]

Dang, I was trying to get 9 women pregnant on a monthly schedule so there would be a baby every month for 9 months.

you're....keen? no.. clever?? nope... stupid! thats the one

who would want to do that

Yep. Some things just won't benefit from parallelism, and potentially tie up system resources if it were attempted.

For example, using all the cores to run a word processing application would be a waste, as it has to wait on user banging away on the keyboard for input, but now all the cores are occupied, unless the controller frees up some cycles. Talk about latency...

lol nano your jokes are funny in the sense that only people that know what their stuff will understand it i like that

 

[juan370Z]

any clue if this new mac pro would be an amazing refresh? additionally what specs you guys think would come with the mac pro? should i wait?

 

[Fiete5401]

any clue if this new mac pro would be an amazing refresh? additionally what specs you guys think would come with the mac pro? should i wait?

There are 8 pages of pure speculation about this question. Feel free to read them.

 

[hosko]

any clue if this new mac pro would be an amazing refresh? additionally what specs you guys think would come with the mac pro? should i wait?

The only thing I would say is that the lowest end Mac Pro should outperform the highest end iMac. Its stupid if it doesn't, but then again it is apple we are talking about.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Agreed, Quad cores have been around for at least 3-4 years and there's very little software that can fully utilize four cores. It's like 9 women can't have a baby in 1 month... some tasks just don't lend themselves to parallelism.

Gimme a 6GHz dual core!

Multithreading of single apps is only part of the rational of quad or octo cores.

The other big reason is the huge performance boost you get when you are running many cpu intensive apps and plugins, even if they are all only single or dual core aware in their threading architecture.

 

[grue]

The only thing I would say is that the lowest end Mac Pro should outperform the highest end iMac. Its stupid if it doesn't, but then again it is apple we are talking about.

I'm reasonably sure that Apple can look at their financial success, and decide they don't really care what crybaby fanboys on forums think.

They don't care what we want, they care what they can make money from.

 

[Hmac]

They don't care what we want, they care what they can make money from.

If they're making money (and they are) then perhaps the "we" you're referring to isn't representative of Apple's market.

 

[grue]

If they're making money (and they are) then perhaps the "we" you're referring to isn't representative of Apple's market.

Very true. Apple is a consumer electronics company that does some pro stuff. We're not a big part of their strategic vision, I suspect.

 

[nanofrog]

Multithreading of single apps is only part of the rational of quad or octo cores.

The other big reason is the huge performance boost you get when you are running many cpu intensive apps and plugins, even if they are all only single or dual core aware in their threading architecture.

Of course multitasking is another reason, but for many, perhaps a Quad and closing stuff out is a better solution than an Octad with applications sitting dormant (loaded, then sit there for hours before used again).

It comes down to specifics of course.

 

[shabbasuraj]

I'm reasonably sure that Apple can look at their financial success, and decide they don't really care what crybaby fanboys on forums think.

They don't care what we want, they care what they can make money from.

yup. hence the strictly phone appstore focus by SJ.

MacSLOWs will be EOL'ed this fall. sux . but heck we can have PRO PHONES.. at least.

 

[NoManIsland]

yup. hence the strictly phone appstore focus by SJ.

MacSLOWs will be EOL'ed this fall. sux . but heck we can have PRO PHONES.. at least.

Seriously? Apple comes out with one generation of Mac Pro which is overpriced and underspeced and everyone goes all Chicken Little?

 

[NoManIsland]

Honestly, I think Apple is going to surprise us this time round with an improved cost to performance ratio. I don't think we'll see a big price drop, but I think they're going to come to the table with seriously improved specs.

 

[ildondeigiocchi]

Seriously? Apple comes out with one generation of Mac Pro which is overpriced and underspeced and everyone goes all Chicken Little?

Apple's 2009 systems are extremely expensive. I can't complain because I got mine as a replacement for my faulty 2008 system which failed on me. I think the problem is Apple should've started their pricing with the 8-core 2.26 model at the base price. Then things would have been more reasonable.

 

[TheStrudel]

Seriously? Apple comes out with one generation of Mac Pro which is overpriced and underspeced and everyone goes all Chicken Little?

Yeah, they are. It's funny because the model before it was acclaimed. One data point does not make a trend. At least wait for 2010 models to shatter your dreams before the gnashing of teeth, right?

 

[Eric S.]

Very true. Apple is a consumer electronics company that does some pro stuff. We're not a big part of their strategic vision, I suspect.

Agree with that. Pro level computers continue to descend Apple's priority list.

 

[TennisandMusic]

The only issue I can see with the 2010 Mac Pro will be the cpu's that will be used. Apple is in a bit of a hard place as the Gulftown's seem VERY expensive. And in some cases will perform tasks slower than the i7 iMac (when 6 cores are not needed). Not exactly a great PR move for them, as people will scream about that sort of thing, even though it's unjustified really.

I think Apple might be better off making a dual Gulftown a high end machine, make a dual quad 2.8 the "base" version, improve the mobo's, and return the 2008 level of value to the machines.

That could be oversimplifying it, but looking at the cost of the chips, I just can't even guess what Apple will do.

 

[VirtualRain]

The only issue I can see with the 2010 Mac Pro will be the cpu's that will be used. Apple is in a bit of a hard place as the Gulftown's seem VERY expensive. And in some cases will perform tasks slower than the i7 iMac (when 6 cores are not needed).

Where are you hearing this from? The initial Gulftown parts are clocked at 3.3GHz (3.6GHz Turbo Boost)... faster than a 2.8GHz (3.46GHz Turbo) i7 iMac .

 

[nanofrog]

Where are you hearing this from? The initial Gulftown parts are clocked at 3.3GHz (3.6GHz Turbo Boost)... faster than a 2.8GHz (3.46GHz Turbo) i7 iMac .

The W3680 is the only SP Xeon 6 core that will be available.

Any other SP 2010 MP models will have to use existing parts in the 45nm SP Xeon (35xx family). So those using the 35xx parts should be on par with matching clocks (i.e. 2.8GHz clock speed to replace the W3520).

There will be 2x others, but they've staggered release dates.

The DP Xeons OTOH, will have Quad and Hex core parts manufactured on the 32nm process (fall 56xx P/N's).

 

[TennisandMusic]

Where are you hearing this from? The initial Gulftown parts are clocked at 3.3GHz (3.6GHz Turbo Boost)... faster than a 2.8GHz (3.46GHz Turbo) i7 iMac .

I read some benchmarks. If the base gulftown is 3.3ghz though, obviously those benchmarks would have been on a pre production part. If that's the case, then disregard what I said.

But still...the costs I read for the i7 980x (the gulftown cpu), is 1500 bucks....for the retail cpu alone. That's a fortune considering the base mac pro right now has a 200-300 dollar cpu. I'm just wondering what they will do.

 

[Techhie]

But still...the costs I read for the i7 980x (the gulftown cpu), is 1500 bucks....for the retail cpu alone. That's a fortune considering the base mac pro right now has a 200-300 dollar cpu. I'm just wondering what they will do.

It's been speculated that the 980x will only be used in much higher end SP (it doesn't have the connections to be used in DP) systems to justify the cost, however it seems to me that $1,500 would be a make the resulting box a bit too steep in price to make me choose it over DP systems with more cores.