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.
16 Core Mac Pro Late 2011?
- Thread starter Chris7
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
All this talk about 16 cores and developers (including Apple) are still struggling to make use of the 8 cores that have been available for a long while now... I just don't see 8 core chips selling to but a niche market so expect prices on a 16 core Mac Pro to be astronomical.
I believe bigger, cheaper solid state drives will be the big deal in 2011.
Hopefully developers will start catching up with the hardware, but I'm not holding my breath...
I believe bigger, cheaper solid state drives will be the big deal in 2011.
Hopefully developers will start catching up with the hardware, but I'm not holding my breath...
Thanks. Does the Mac Pro always use server processors on thier single processor models?
If so, Apple will be in an odd place in Q1 of 2011. The 4-core non-server Sandy Bridge (Core i7-2600 series) will be sitting proudly in PC's, with the pressure on Apple to put them in their i-Mac's.
But if Mac Pro's only use server chips, this would mean Apple would have to stick with the 4-core Nehalem/Westmere as the base model on the Mac Pro, at least until the Sandy Bridge-EN server chip arrives Q4 of 2011. But this would mean the chip in the i-Mac would outperform the Mac Pro, and of course Apple would not let this happen.
I would suggest Apple will either delay putting the Sandy Bridge Core i7 in the iMac until the Sandy Bridge-EN arrives, or put the 4-core Sandy Bridge Core i7 in the iMacs and make the 6-core Nehalem chip their base model until the 6-core server EN-Sandy Bridge is released in Q4 of 2011.
I'm pretty green regarding chips, and I wonder what do the people here think?
i wish, but i don't see a 1200dollar price decrease on the entry level mac pro....
but they could use a cheaper westmere hex....
Historically speaking, Yes. But it's been a result of what's available to them, and it had to be cost effective (may not translate into cost effective for the user).
Read on...
What you have to remember, is Intel has changed how they break down their lineup to deal with the changing market (technical reasons as well, as they've moved to increasing core counts instead of frequency).
Since 2009 (Nehalem), there's a consumer, high end enthusiast, and enterprise segment. Ultimately, this generates 3x sockets (LGA1156, LGA1366, and the LGA1567, which is the last to release). They're used for the consumer (i3, i5, and some i7 parts), enthusiast/SP Xeon (some i7 = i7-9xx, and the SP Xeons), and Mulit Processor Xeons (75xx series) respectively.
This breakdown is continuing (sockets are meant to run for 2x years), and seems to continue on yet, given the available information released so far (the actual sockets will change as needed, but retain the same 3x count/breakdown).
What this all means, is there's a divergence in the enterprise market, specifically the workstation. The SP parts have merged with the enthusiast parts. The only difference, is the ECC circuits are enabled in the Xeon variants, and disabled in the i7-9xx parts (but the circuits are still there, and the quantity pricing from Intel is the same for identical clock speeds).
If you must have more cores than an SP part can contain, you have to go with either a DP (2 sockets) or MP board (4 sockets).
What we're going to see in general, the workstation will primarily go to SP chips, as the software is well behind the hardware generally speaking (i.e. 8 cores on one die). Given the roadmaps, it appears 2013 will be the deciding year at the latest if Apple will continue with the MP or not (LightPeak plays into this, as an iMac with LP could be used as a replacement system for software development).
Now whether or not Apple will follow suit (move to the new SP processors as other vendors will), is uncertain IMO, given the cost increases resulting from Intel (no competition in the high end performance segment of enterprise parts) and Apple's idea of an acceptable margin (currently seems to be 40%). The costs have gotten high enough they've already run off most of the enthusiasts, and the independent pros are having a tough time of it (going by the various posts on MR). As per large customers (those that buy in quantity), I'm not sure if there's enough of them for Apple to continue the MP for much longer.
Apple's greed could get the better of them here, but afterall, they've gravitated to a device company already. So they may have already decided to milk it for what they can get out of it, and bail when it ceases to be profitable (i.e. sales slump to the point they can't maintain the margins currently obtained).
They won't have a choice. The LGA1155 parts are consumer units, not suitable for a workstation. But they are suitable for an iMac or Mini (the main benefit for consumer Sandy Bridge is a built-in graphics processor, which Apple won't want). It's not aimed at graphics performance, but low cost systems (i.e. budget boxes that are selling like mad in developing countries such as China).
Apple will have to wait for the LGA2011 parts for the next MP, assuming they plan to produce it (seriously, not sure what will happen, as they won't break down the desktop sales by model and make it public).
+1 on the software sadly lagging the hardware and SSDs being a major area of focus for workstation users in the near term.
With respect to future CPUs... I'm surprised there's been no discussion of a possible switch to AMD. Apple could even buy AMD for chump change if they wanted tighter control and/or better margins on Macs.
It's possible, but there's quite a performance difference between the CPU offerings. But you've a point on the control aspect.With respect to future CPUs... I'm surprised there's been no discussion of a possible switch to AMD. Apple could even buy AMD for chump change if they wanted tighter control and/or better margins on Macs.
I'm also unsure about the viability from a financial POV (debt problems, and they're still trying to go fabless as I understand it), so there's likely overhead and debt Apple likely won't want to incur/have to deal with IMO.
nanofrog,
Are you using the acronym "MP" to refer to both "multi-processor server chip" and "Mac Pro?" A little confused here, as I don't know which is which. Very interested in what you are saying...
Up to 12 cores according to plans.Intel is coming out with a 10 core Westmere chip
The i7 980x machines run faster than the W3680 machines, and they are both six-core 3.33GHz chips. The reason: error checking on the part of the Xeon slows down the speed slightly.
If you're concerned about that, you can replace your RAM with non-ECC RAM and that problem should be solved.
It's not really that big of an issue, it's about a 460 point difference on Geekbench (comparing the new 2.93GHz iMac to the Quad-Core 2.93GHz Mac Pro), about 10450 to 10910
What Will Replace the Mac Pro?
If speculations are that the Mac Pro may no longer exist, what would replace it? (I'm assuming either the Sandy Bridge or the Haswell would be the reason to discontinue the Mac Pro?)
Intel sells the 6-core UP Xeon W3680 currently offered for as upgrade for the Mac Pro for $999. Intel sells the the standard 4-core W3530 found on the base model Mac Pro for $294 (please correct me if I got my numbers wrong).
What might Intel's price be for the 6-core in a year? Would production of this chip discontinue once the Sandy Bridge version is offered?
A couple questions for the people here...
If speculations are that the Mac Pro may no longer exist, what would replace it? (I'm assuming either the Sandy Bridge or the Haswell would be the reason to discontinue the Mac Pro?)
Intel sells the 6-core UP Xeon W3680 currently offered for as upgrade for the Mac Pro for $999. Intel sells the the standard 4-core W3530 found on the base model Mac Pro for $294 (please correct me if I got my numbers wrong).
What might Intel's price be for the 6-core in a year? Would production of this chip discontinue once the Sandy Bridge version is offered?
I'm thinking of upgrading my old power pc mac to a mac pro.
Is there any news on this thread's topic - just wondering if this is actually a bad time to update - is a big change looming?
Cheers
An update is still at least 6 months away
Thanks for replying Hellhammer. That's a long wait, but i'd be prepared to do it if the changes were to be as big as that from power pc -to- Intel (i got caught out by that one.
Very unlikely. Sandy Bridge is just another microarchitecture. According to early benchmarks, it seems to provide ~15% clock for clock improvement so nothing revolutionary. If high-end MP goes 16-core, then it will be a nice bump for the high-end. What MP are you looking at?
Sandy Bridge will be used in lower-end as well but the gains may be more marginal (depends whether 6-core is cheap enough for low-end etc).
I doubt you're going to see an update as huge as PPC -> Intel because of Intel's tick-tock thingy. It's the best for Intel to deliver relatively small bumps in performance because people will still buy them. Plus, sooner than later the technology used in current processors will be overtaken by something faster (IIRC 8nm is as small as it can get unless Intel has figured out something)
Old Thread Continued: Ivy Bridge Mac Pro Late 2011
(Please kindly let me know if it is against forum etiquette to post on an old thread).
Just saw a link saying the 22nm Ivy Bridge may replace the Sandy Bridge late 2011, and I have a few questions...
Looking at Wikipedia, it seems some numbers have changed for the upcoming server processors. I assume the next Mac Pro will use the Xeon E5. Looks like the 8 core and 6 core "Socket LGA 2011" will be Models 46xx, 26xx; and the 4 core and 2 core "Socket LGA 1356" will be models 24xx (I don't know what any of this means, BTW).
If I may ask...
1) Which chip(s) is Apple likely to use for the late 2011 early 2012 update MP?
2) I see 32 nm Xeon E5 on Wik. Is it possible Intel will release a 22nm "Ivy Versions" instead (The Ivy Bridge is said to be about 20% faster per clock cycle, but I don't know if this means the lower standard clock cycles on the 8 core, as on the 2010 "upgrade")?
3) Does it matter?
(My understanding is that, for practical multicore use, there has not been much performance improvement in the 8 core MP since early 2008. But I would LOVE to be wrong).
"Standard" graphics cards have moved way ahead of where they were 3 years ago. I need a Mac Pro now-ish for video, but a trusted (RAID) hard drive manufacture advised me to wait for "Thunderbolt." By the time Photoshop CS5 won't run on my early 2008 MBP, it's time to upgrade. And neither the MBP nor the iMac will work for my purposes. (Plus I HATE the iMac).
(Please kindly let me know if it is against forum etiquette to post on an old thread).
Just saw a link saying the 22nm Ivy Bridge may replace the Sandy Bridge late 2011, and I have a few questions...
Looking at Wikipedia, it seems some numbers have changed for the upcoming server processors. I assume the next Mac Pro will use the Xeon E5. Looks like the 8 core and 6 core "Socket LGA 2011" will be Models 46xx, 26xx; and the 4 core and 2 core "Socket LGA 1356" will be models 24xx (I don't know what any of this means, BTW
).If I may ask...
1) Which chip(s) is Apple likely to use for the late 2011 early 2012 update MP?
2) I see 32 nm Xeon E5 on Wik. Is it possible Intel will release a 22nm "Ivy Versions" instead (The Ivy Bridge is said to be about 20% faster per clock cycle, but I don't know if this means the lower standard clock cycles on the 8 core, as on the 2010 "upgrade")?
3) Does it matter?
(My understanding is that, for practical multicore use, there has not been much performance improvement in the 8 core MP since early 2008. But I would LOVE to be wrong).
"Standard" graphics cards have moved way ahead of where they were 3 years ago. I need a Mac Pro now-ish for video, but a trusted (RAID) hard drive manufacture advised me to wait for "Thunderbolt." By the time Photoshop CS5 won't run on my early 2008 MBP, it's time to upgrade. And neither the MBP nor the iMac will work for my purposes. (Plus I HATE the iMac).
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1141141/
No. They will release Ivy Bridge Xeons some time after Sandy Bridge Xeons. Probably around 12 months later.
That depends entirely on your usage and how you value your time. There isn't a catch-all answer.
Sandy Bridge based Quad-Core Xeon-E3 processors have shipped already for the 1P servers.
The Xeon E5 processors with 4, 6 & 8 cores for 1-2P servers will ship Q4 2011. These are the Xeon processors we can all expect Apple to include in the 2011 models.
Apple is known to have a head start on any Intel technology so it would not be surprising if they will ship the 2011 Mac Pro by the time OS X Lion has gone gold in September.
The Xeon E5 processors with 4, 6 & 8 cores for 1-2P servers will ship Q4 2011. These are the Xeon processors we can all expect Apple to include in the 2011 models.
Apple is known to have a head start on any Intel technology so it would not be surprising if they will ship the 2011 Mac Pro by the time OS X Lion has gone gold in September.