I built a PC recently using an Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 (3.16 GHz) and DDR3 RAM. Under automatic OC, it completed a task twice as fast as my SR MBP (2.4 GHz) running Vista. Given that not many applications are taking advantages on 8-cores these days, anybody knows why Apple does not make a faster, single CPU MacPro?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why Apple does not make a faster, single processor Mac Pro?
- Thread starter hajime
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Tallest Skil
macrumors P6
You mean the xMac? They don't care, pure and simple.
The iMac is their desktop, the Mac Pro is their workstation.
The iMac is their desktop, the Mac Pro is their workstation.
I would say that since announcing Snow Leopard and Grand Central Apple's strategy is to bet on multicore processors being the future. They are partnered with Intel who recently said that programmers need to start thinking about writing programs for dozens if not hundreds of processors.
Now we just have to wait for the software to catch up with the hardware.
Now we just have to wait for the software to catch up with the hardware.
TumbleDryer
macrumors 603
Because its a pro machine aimed at professionals who need as much power as they can get. Professionals usually have more than £1000 for a machine.
Genghis Khan
macrumors 65816
because multi-core is the future
it's cheaper to make 2x3.0 GHz Quads than it is to make a single 6.0GHz Quad
so long as software developers catch on to the fact that they have to develop for multi-cores, we'll be all good....not to mention grand central in snow leopard...
hopefully software will move to being more core-count friendly...
it's cheaper to make 2x3.0 GHz Quads than it is to make a single 6.0GHz Quad
so long as software developers catch on to the fact that they have to develop for multi-cores, we'll be all good....not to mention grand central in snow leopard...
hopefully software will move to being more core-count friendly...
Apple brought back the single processor Pro recently but it still costs more than many would hope. The computer you are envisaging would have to be a new computer altogether, since the computer you built uses a desktop class processor on a motherboard demanding desktop-class ram. The mac pro uses Xeons which need FB-DIMMs and both cost far more than their consumer equivalents.
Such a computer is dubbed the xMac and whilst many of us want them, most apple fans will tell you that it goes against Jobsy's agenda of making small locked-down systems rife with built-in obsolescence that you can't upgrade your way out of (each fitting neatly into a simple stratified product line that sells you a lifestyle solution according to your pricepoint, thanks to which apple can dictate to you what it is you need). That said, the situation has gotten a lot worse since the Power Mac days when you could get a tower for $1500, and so the gap in the product line has gotten wider of late. Many of us still dare to dream.
Such a computer is dubbed the xMac and whilst many of us want them, most apple fans will tell you that it goes against Jobsy's agenda of making small locked-down systems rife with built-in obsolescence that you can't upgrade your way out of (each fitting neatly into a simple stratified product line that sells you a lifestyle solution according to your pricepoint, thanks to which apple can dictate to you what it is you need). That said, the situation has gotten a lot worse since the Power Mac days when you could get a tower for $1500, and so the gap in the product line has gotten wider of late. Many of us still dare to dream.
SwiftLives
macrumors 65816
As a graphic designer, I used to always buy the pro towers. Powermac G4, Powermac G5. And that was mainly for longevity reasons. With the PCI slots, I was able to upgrade and add USB ports and swap out video cards.
However, with the Mac Pro, Apple released a machine with more power than someone like me needs. The price premium didn't really justify the longevity claim.
Secondly, with Intel's multi-core processors, mobile computing has gotten a lot more powerful. I currently use an iMac and a MBP for my design work. And both are sufficient for my needs. The drawback is that I can't really add cards and upgrade the machines outside of upping the RAM.
I agree - the future is multi-core. And the iMac is perfect for a mid-range pro machine these days.
However, with the Mac Pro, Apple released a machine with more power than someone like me needs. The price premium didn't really justify the longevity claim.
Secondly, with Intel's multi-core processors, mobile computing has gotten a lot more powerful. I currently use an iMac and a MBP for my design work. And both are sufficient for my needs. The drawback is that I can't really add cards and upgrade the machines outside of upping the RAM.
I agree - the future is multi-core. And the iMac is perfect for a mid-range pro machine these days.
I'm not sure that software at the moment is optimized for mutli core processors - or atleast not as much as it could be.
As such filling up your machine with RAM is probably one of the best ways of improving performance over processor speed.
As such filling up your machine with RAM is probably one of the best ways of improving performance over processor speed.
chaosbunny
macrumors 68020
I heard about the advice from Intel to developers. However, most current applications do not take advantage on multi-core (especially 8 cores) systems. Until such highly multi-thread programs are widely available, I would rather Apple offers a MacPro with one 3.2GHz Quad-Core Xeon or an Extreme CPU. As far as I heard, a higher clock, less core system runs most applications faster than a lower clock, 8-core system. Isn't it a waste to buy a 8-core system at this time? iMac is nice but there is no option for a matte screen.
An application that uses multiple cores to enhance performance:
3DMark 06 and onwards IIRC...
Quads running at the same speed as Duos kick their scores in the teeth...🙁
Applications that normal people use...sorry can't think of any...🙄
3DMark 06 and onwards IIRC...
Quads running at the same speed as Duos kick their scores in the teeth...🙁
Applications that normal people use...sorry can't think of any...🙄
Sun Baked
macrumors G5
Apple used to sell single CPU machines faster than the multi CPU machines, and they used to sell lower end CPUs faster than the top end CPUs.
All this did was lead to consumer confusion, and salesmen saying that the machine with the higher MHz CPU being able to run applications faster. 🙄
Which of course wasn't true ... and it took searching databases to figure out which machine was faster for a certain app. Some Apps ran faster, but not all -- all depended on the application and what you did with the machine which can be confusing. 😕
After all this confusion Apple simplified things, so that the top end CPUs got the fastest clock rate -- and single CPU machines clocked in lower than multi-CPU machines.
Not the best solution, but it removed the MHz myth from the equation and simplified marketing.
All this did was lead to consumer confusion, and salesmen saying that the machine with the higher MHz CPU being able to run applications faster. 🙄
Which of course wasn't true ... and it took searching databases to figure out which machine was faster for a certain app. Some Apps ran faster, but not all -- all depended on the application and what you did with the machine which can be confusing. 😕
After all this confusion Apple simplified things, so that the top end CPUs got the fastest clock rate -- and single CPU machines clocked in lower than multi-CPU machines.
Not the best solution, but it removed the MHz myth from the equation and simplified marketing.
Just curious, when software is written to run on Mac OS/Leopard/Tiger (forget panther coz they are the first core2DUO) how many cores are they set to take advantage? is there such thing in the programming of software?
Tallest Skil
macrumors P6
Panther was never Intel.
It depends on the software. I think that HandBrake can use at least 8 cores, but CS3 uses less, for example.
Apple won't have a 4-core Mac Pro clocking higher than an 8-core Mac Pro because they want both clock speed as well as core count going up as price goes up.
This is also why we may not see quad-core iMacs or MacBook Pros until 2010.
Its a chicken and egg problem. Cant see the developers seriously addressing multiple cores in their applications unless there are enough multicore systems on the market to justify the increase in costs. Pushing multi core systems to the consumers is one way of advancing the collective technology, while it does not harm the consumers as they get increased longevity out of their systems due to the multiple cores.
gnasher729
Suspended
You don't "set the number of cores" for an application. It doesn't work like that.
An application can create as many threads as it likes (within reason, but the operating system has no problems if you create hundred), and each one of these threads can use one core when it has work to do. It is the job of the programmer to distribute work to different threads. If you type "posix threads" into Google you will get plenty of information how this is done.
Distributing work to threads is not easy, that's why programmers who can do it are paid good salaries. Future versions of MacOS X will have more functionality built in to make this easy.
However, professionals buying these eight core machines usually run more than one application. If you run eight applications that each can use only one core, then all eight cores will be fully used. We had one poster here recently whose Mac Pro had been running for over one month with all eight cores running at 100 percent all the time.
Anybody knows why Apple does not offer a MacPro with one 3.2GHz Quad-Core Xeon? This option
is doable as the chip is available. Applications that I run do not take advantage of 8 cores.
By the way, how many cores do Leopard and the 64-bit version of Vista Ultimate use?
is doable as the chip is available. Applications that I run do not take advantage of 8 cores.
By the way, how many cores do Leopard and the 64-bit version of Vista Ultimate use?
gnasher729
Suspended
Find yourself an Intel price list (they are all available on the web if you do a bit of googling), and compare the price of a 3.2 GHz chip with the price of two 2.8 GHz chips. That will give you a hint. Then consider that you are _not_ the typical customer for the Mac Pro. The typical customer has these eight cores doing work, in some cases 24/7 for weeks at a time.
But Apple is a big customer. They should get more discount than an individual person. The Intel price lists on the net are probably for those who buy in small quantities (perhaps only one cpu). Is there a list for big customers?
Sounds like a good idea. In fact, volume discounts are pretty common in most industries. Unfortunately, it seems AMD will file a lawsuit every time Intel offers anyone a discount for any reason. I'm exaggerating, of course...
I guarantee Apple is not paying full market price for Intel's processors. But I also guarantee they are paying more than other computer makers who are adopting the full platforms. Winning Apple as a customer was huge for Intel, and they don't want to disappoint; there are other, non-monetary perks included in the deal, I'm sure.
As for the op question, it's been sufficiently answered: a Mac Pro is not just an expensive beige box, much like an earthmover is not just an expensive Corvette.