Wich processors for 2012's Mac Pro?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Xanix, Oct 22, 2011.

  1. Xanix macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2011
    #1
    Hello. From these models, what do you think Apple will use on the next Mac Pro models?


    Intel Xeon E5-1600 family, Socket 2011
    Intel Xeon E5-1620 4 8 3.6 GHz 10 MB 1 130 Watt HT, TBT
    Intel Xeon E5-1650 6 12 3.2 GHz 12 MB 1 130 Watt HT, TBT
    Intel Xeon E5-1660 6 12 3.3 GHz 15 MB 1 130 Watt HT, TBT

    Other families, Sandy Bridge micro-architecture, Socket 2011
    Intel Xeon E5-2637 2 4 3 GHz 5 MB 2 80 Watt HT, TBT
    Intel Xeon E5-2609 4 4 2.4 GHz 10 MB 2 80 Watt HT, TBT
    Intel Xeon E5-2620 6 12 2 GHz 15 MB 2 95 Watt HT, TBT
    Intel Xeon E5-2630L 6 12 2 GHz 15 MB 2 60 Watt HT, TBT
    Intel Xeon E5-2643 4 8 3.3 GHz 10 MB 2 130 Watt HT, TBT
    Intel Xeon E5-2630 6 12 2.3 GHz 15 MB 2 95 Watt HT, TBT
    Intel Xeon E5-2650L 8 16 1.8 GHz 20 MB 2 70 Watt HT, TBT
    Intel Xeon E5-2640 6 12 2.5 GHz 15 MB 2 95 Watt HT, TBT
    Intel Xeon E5-2650 8 16 2 GHz 20 MB 2 95 Watt HT, TBT
    Intel Xeon E5-2667 6 12 2.9 GHz 15 MB 2 130 Watt HT, TBT
    Intel Xeon E5-2660 8 16 2.2 GHz 20 MB 2 95 Watt HT, TBT
    Intel Xeon E5-2665 8 16 2.4 GHz 20 MB 2 115 Watt HT, TBT
    Intel Xeon E5-2670 8 16 2.6 GHz 20 MB 2 115 Watt HT, TBT
    Intel Xeon E5-2680 8 16 2.7 GHz 20 MB 2 130 Watt HT, TBT
    Intel Xeon E5-2690 8 16 2.9 GHz 20 MB 2 135 Watt HT, TBT
    Intel Xeon E5-2687W 8 16 3.1 GHz 20 MB 2 150 Watt HT, TBT

    Regards
     
  2. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #2
    I can see the 6-core 3.2 at base with a 3.3 CTO option. I don't see them having a single Quad anymore as i7-2600 in iMac is so fast and the E5-1620 looks to be relatively equal. The rest will be duals in whatever config the thermals and PSU can take. Apple is all about expanding the cores too whether or not it is needed so expect 16-core 32 thread variants. Plan on it being extremely expensive as Intel just raised their prices on account of AMD not showing up to the battle this year.
     
  3. Xanix thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2011
    #3
    What do you think of this...

    Mono:
    BASE# 1 x Intel Xeon E5-1620 4 8 3.6 GHz 10 MB 1 130 Watt HT, TBT
    CTO1# 1 x Intel Xeon E5-1650 6 12 3.2 GHz 12 MB 1 130 Watt HT, TBT
    CTO2# 1 x Intel Xeon E5-1660 6 12 3.3 GHz 15 MB 1 130 Watt HT, TBT

    Dual:
    BASE# 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2643 4 8 3.3 GHz 10 MB 2 130 Watt HT, TBT
    CTO1# 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2667 6 12 2.9 GHz 15 MB 2 130 Watt HT, TBT
    CTO2# 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2680 8 16 2.7 GHz 20 MB 2 130 Watt HT, TBT

    Regards
     
  4. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #4
    It's hard to say without a formal published Quantity Price List from Intel, but I'd think along the following:

    SP Models:
    • Intel Xeon E5-1620
    • Intel Xeon E5-1660
    DP Models:
    • Intel Xeon E5-2620 or Xeon E5-2630
    • Intel Xeon E5-2660
    • Intel Xeon E5-2680
     
  5. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #5
    it doesn't seem like the Mac Pro case was designed for more than two 95W CPUs, so I think we can rule out most dual 8-core configs.

    SP: 1620 and 1650
    DP: 2609, 2620, 2640, and 2660

    the 1650 and 1660 are similar in speed but the 1660 is almost double the cost, much like the W3680 and W3690, so I doubt Apple will go with the 1660.
     
  6. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #6
    They have been relatively equal for some time.

    2009: 2.66GHz quad core iMac / 2.66GHz Mac Pro.
    2010: 2.80GHz quad core iMac / 2.80GHz Mac Pro.

    The following processors have been used in Mac Pros:

    Xeon X5365 - Max TDP 150W
    Xeon X5472 - Max TDP 120W
    Xeon X5482 - Max TDP 150W
     
  7. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #7
    there was never an X5472, it was E5472. I didn't catch the other two. those were all pre-2009, though. I'm curious why there hasn't been a high-TDP DP model since then.
     
  8. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #8
    Nope. Those are i5's in the iMac's. The Mac Pro Xeon's are more like i7's. They beat them by 30-40% clock for clock thanks to the Hyperthreading.
    edit: sorry the 2.8 is i7 but according to sources the Mac Pro is still 10% faster. But the 2.66 is not even a contest.
     
  9. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #9
    Apple has used up to 150W TDP in the past (X5482 used in the 3.2GHz 2008 models).
     
  10. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #10
    Xeon X5365 - Max TDP 150W - 2007 3.0GHz 8-core
    Xeon X5472 - Max TDP 120W - Yes it did exist and Apple used both the X5472 and E5472 in early 08 models as confirmed by members here in January 08.
    Xeon X5482 - Max TDP 150W - 2008 3.2GHz 8-core

    Why did have they not used them since? Maybe due to daughter board design cooling isn't as efficient and Apple don't think it would make much difference to sales if they offered them.

    Actually you were right the first time, the 2.80GHz CPU on the 2010 model was a Core i5 processor. However:

    2009 iMac - 2.66GHz Core i5 base, 2.80GHz i7 upgrade option - Mac Pro 2.66GHz Core i7 performance in a Xeon
    2010 iMac - 2.80GHz Core i5 base, 2.93GHz i7 upgrade option - Mac Pro 2.80GHz Core i7 performance in a Xeon
    2011 iMac - 2.70GHz Core i5 base, 2.80GHz i7 upgrade option and 3.10GHz Core i5 base, 3.40GHz i7 upgrade option

    I fail to see how the E5-1620 doesn't fit in to that.
     
  11. Tutor macrumors 65816

    Tutor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Location:
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    #11
    ES 1620 is a win-win: lowest cost Xeon for Apple (price about same as i7-2600, ignoring quantity discount) and most powerful one for most customers. I believe that this shows in more detail why SB Mac Xeons should definitely include a quad option:


    Xeon E5 1620 4 8 nonturbo-3.60GHz turbo-3.90GHz ? 4 x 256KB 10MB 130W Q1 2012 $294


    For most of what the low to mid-end Mac Pro purchasers do, this will be the fastest Mac Pro (and Apple) for them as it will best the current fastest iMac option (Quad-Core Intel Core i7 - Core i7-2600 [4 nonturbo 3.4 GHz turbo-1/2/3/4 4 × 256 KB 8 MB HD Graphics 2000 850–1350 MHz 95 W LGA 1155DMI 2.0 $294]) away, unless of course you could over/under clock the 3.4 GHz iMac chip, but not the ES 1620. Only the 130W TDP gives me pause, not because it can't be handled, but just maybe not in a way satisfactory to Apple.
     
  12. derbothaus, Oct 23, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2011

    derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #12
    For some reason I thought the ES 1620 was more expensive. Confused with the current 3.6GHz Xeon, I guess.
    I'd like 2 then.
    My thinking was Apple trying to make a better distinction between current consumer Quads and the Mac Pro. Having no Quad Mac Pros would do that.
    But seeing how much mark up they get for the base model it could still be relevant and profitable.
    Yes. The thermals are confusing things a bit. Never seen a dual 130W tdp setup. And not sure if they would want a quad with same tdp as the hex's which turbo to the same 3.9GHz.
     
  13. Tutor macrumors 65816

    Tutor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Location:
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    #13
    Two reasons that I suspect that Apple does not offer its customers the highest end Xeons is because first and foremost - the price Apple would feel its has to charge to maintain its margin realization guidelines and those prices might not pass the smell/taste/gut reaction test and secondly and minimally - Apple takes great pride in producing long lasting, cool, ultra-quiet boxes. To dissipate more heat would require higher fan rpm's (more noise) or newer/different fan parts (more money than existing long-term supply contracts carry) and more heat tends to degrade longevity.
     
  14. Tutor macrumors 65816

    Tutor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Location:
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    #14
    My refurb 2007 8-cores have a TDP of 120. I had to resort to smcFanControl (and that does slightly increase the fan noise) when I began using the ZDnet software overclocking utility to run them at 3.6+ GHz rather than 3.0 GHZ. Glad that I got the 800, rather than 667, MHz memory for them as it allows for more overclocking.

    My refurb 2008 8-core had 2.26 GHz L5520 quads with a 60 Watt TDP, but during the summer of 2009 I upgraded them to 3.20 GHz W5580's with 130 Watt TDP, and had to resort to smcFanControl to increase my fan speeds somewhat during our hot summers and that does slightly increase the fan noise.

    I'm awaiting the release of a fully-working Intel Xeon E5-2687W (8 16 non-turbo-3.1 (As I recall reading somewhere, turbo-3.9 GHz) 20 MB 2 150 Watt HT, TBT) (something that I believe will definitely not be a factory option from Apple) or the next step up in an 8 (or preferably 10) core Ivy Bridge.
     
  15. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #15
    Financial factors are definitely the primary reason the top CPU's, particularly the DP versions, aren't being offered. Combine Intel's pricing and Apple's idea of profit, the markup brings the MSRP too high for buyers to swallow.

    The cooling issues do have merit, particularly on a smaller footprint board (MP board format = SSI CEB). As the socket sizes increase, it gets harder to fit the CPU sockets (could require the orientation of one socket to be perpendicular to the other, screwing up airflow as there's now two different directions for CPU cooler flow).

    The CPU tray can also cause thermal issues due to the dimensions (why the current coolers are more rectangular than other off-the-shelf products, as it was the only way to fit a pair). It's not as efficient, so changes had to be made to keep the thermal resistance of the cooling solution sufficient to keep the CPU's within Intel's thermal specifications. If they hadn't, the fan speeds would have had to be ramped up (assuming they could handle it, which I expect they could), and that would likely have generated complaints.
     

Share This Page