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

How bad can this rumour reporting get?

theSeb

theSeb

macrumors 604
Original poster
Aug 10, 2010
7,466
1,893
none
This bad

9to5Mac said:
Here are the three configurations per reliable sources:

Normal configuration: 3.2GHz quad-core processor, 6GB of RAM, 1TB hard drive, and the ATI Radeon 5770 graphics chip.
Normal configuration: 2.4GHz 12-core processor, 12GB of RAM, 1TB hard drive, and the ATI Radeon 5770 graphics chip.
Server configuration: 3.2GHz quad-core processor, 8GB of RAM, Two 1TB hard drives
Click to expand...

3.2 GHz Sandy Bridge Xeon Quad Core, eh? Oh wait, it does not exist. Never mind a 2.4 GHz 6 core suitable for dual CPU use. Unless I've gone blind due to all the vodka I've been drinking recently.

A Radeon 5770? Sure, Apple does not always use the latest and fastest cards, but using a 3 year old card that's already in the current 2 year old Mac Pro would be a new low.
 
Last edited:
Blue Sun said:
They are either some serious typos, or they know nothing like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

They've basically made so many rumours about this possible refresh that they're bound to get at least one thing right, unless there is no refresh at all this week. Then, when they get one thing right, there will be a lot of celebration and patting themselves on the back.
 
theSeb said:
This bad



3.2 GHz Sandy Bridge Xeon Quad Core, eh? Oh wait, it does not exist. Never mind a 2.4 GHz 6 core suitable for dual CPU use. Unless I've gone blind due to all the vodka I've been drinking recently.

A Radeon 5770? Sure, Apple does not always use the latest and fastest cards, but using a 3 year old card that's already in the current 2 year old Mac Pro would be a new low.
Click to expand...

Those " reliable sources" appear to be unreliable:
1) http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon E5-1650.html is 6 core Xeon; whereas http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i7/Intel-Core i7-3930K.html is 6 core non-xeon i7;
2) http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon E5-2665.html is an 8-core - 2 of which would yield a 16-core.
Thus, that vodka isn't that potent. Working at 9to5 what a way to make a living?
 
Tutor said:
Those " reliable sources" appear to be unreliable:
1) http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon E5-1650.html is 6 core Xeon; whereas http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i7/Intel-Core i7-3930K.html is 6 core non-xeon i7;
2) http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon E5-2665.html is an 8-core - 2 of which would yield a 16-core.
Thus, that vodka isn't that potent.
Click to expand...

There is no way the 2.4 8 core would be in the entry level dual CPU model at such a cheap point since it costs about $1440 (for one)

Edit: I see this junk has now been regurgitated on the front page of Macrumors too, without any attempts to point out the clearly wrong specs.

*facepalm*
 
Last edited:
theSeb said:
There is no way the 2.4 8 core would be in the entry level dual CPU model at such a cheap point since it costs about $1440 (for one)

Edit: I see this junk has now been regurgitated on the front page of Macrumors too, without any attempts to point out the clearly wrong specs.

*facepalm*
Click to expand...

Agreed. It would definitely not be the entry level given the cost of the CPUs [unless (and remember that you read it here first - take that 9to5) the U.S. House of Representative has voted to repealed the Apple tax]-> more likely the top of the line if all these new rumors have any validity. Time will shortly tell.

2nd thought: How about a single 2665 - 8 core configuration for the entry level? Would that be bad?
 
Last edited:
Tutor said:
Agreed. It would definitely not be the entry level given the cost of the CPUs [unless (and remember that you read it here first - take that 9to5) the U.S. House of Representative has voted to repealed the Apple tax]-> more likely the top of the line if all these new rumors have any validity. Time will shortly tell.
Click to expand...

:D This would mean that politicians started hating money? Not going to happen.

The entry-level dual CPU is most likely to be the 2.3 6 core E5-2630. (around $612 a pop)
 
Processors aside, why would the 2012 Mac Pro's have the same graphics cards as the 2010 ones? Seems ridiculous.
 
Tutor said:
2nd thought: How about a single 2665 - 8 core configuration for the entry level? Would that be bad?
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be "bad", but I think it would be too expensive to include in a $2499 computer.
 
This is why it's not really worth discussing this ****. Rumour sites don't seem to lose credibility for bad reporting and too many fools are ready to jump in and defend them as they see it as an attack on Apple when you say the stuff is nonsense.

Anyone who has spent time on here could have seen what the new Mac Pros will be like and when they would come, so while it may be annoying I guess more fool anyone who believes it.
 
Umbongo said:
This is why it's not really worth discussing this ****. Rumour sites don't seem to lose credibility for bad reporting and too many fools are ready to jump in and defend them as they see it as an attack on Apple when you say the stuff is nonsense.

Anyone who has spent time on here could have seen what the new Mac Pros will be like and when they would come, so while it may be annoying I guess more fool anyone who believes it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for chiming in. There is something that I've not considered. There is an E3 3.2 Quad Core (both Sandy Bridge - April 2011 and Ivy Bridge - recently). What are the chances that Apple decided to use this for the single CPU configuration? My take on it is zero, since the performance increase over the 2010 would be very little.

There is also a 6 core 2.4, but it's the 46## series (4610) and it costs $1219. I cannot fathom why Apple would use a CPU designed for 4 processor machines in a dual CPU and I cannot see a $1219 processor x 2 being in the entry level dual Mac Pro.

But I am happy to be corrected.
 
theSeb said:
Thanks for chiming in. There is something that I've not considered. There is an E3 3.2 Quad Core (both Sandy Bridge - April 2011 and Ivy Bridge - recently). What are the chances that Apple decided to use this for the single CPU configuration? My take on it is zero, since the performance increase over the 2010 would be very little.

There is also a 6 core 2.4, but it's the 46## series (4610) and it costs $1219. I cannot fathom why Apple would use a CPU designed for 4 processor machines in a dual CPU and I cannot see a $1219 processor x 2 being in the entry level dual Mac Pro.

But I am happy to be corrected.
Click to expand...

Nah, you were right to call it out in the news thread. It makes no sense for Apple to use those processors. 9to5 being wrong is far more likely.
 
theSeb said:
A Radeon 5770? Sure, Apple does not always use the latest and fastest cards, but using a 3 year old card that's already in the current 2 year old Mac Pro would be a new low.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much the only thing i'm watching for on the new Mac Pros... if this isn't upgraded, I suppose I'm out of luck big time... :( Hopefully it's just a misinformed rumor. We'll see in a few hours!
 
Umbongo said:
Nah, you were right to call it out in the news thread. It makes no sense for Apple to use those processors. 9to5 being wrong is far more likely.
Click to expand...

There is another thing that I've completely forgotten about...

The E5 - 24## series

intel_xeon_e5_2400_table.jpg



Specifically the E5-2440

This is getting more and more complicated.
 
theSeb said:
There is another thing that I've completely forgotten about...

The E5 - 24## series

Image


Specifically the E5-2440

This is getting more and more complicated.
Click to expand...

The Radeon 5770 and 6GB of RAM on the quad core should say it all - that they are wrong. Are those specs technically possible? Yeah. Are they likely or do they make sense? Nope. Apple have used current graphics cards, minimal memory and workstation processors since 2006, I don't see that changing.
 
Umbongo said:
The Radeon 5770 and 6GB of RAM on the quad core should say it all - that they are wrong. Are those specs technically possible? Yeah. Are they likely or do they make sense? Nope. Apple have used current graphics cards, minimal memory and workstation processors since 2006, I don't see that changing.
Click to expand...

What's your take on 24## vs 26## anyway?
 
I don't expect the base 2012 Mac Pro to WOW many, given that I have no doubt that Apple has been seriously considering EOLing the Mac Pro. I suspect that their reasoning is along the lines that they need to make a larger profit from each unit given the level of sales to justify continuation of this line. How this is revealed by what they announce today is anyone's guess. But I wouldn't hold my breath for more for less. Dell and HP are pricing their WOW systems sky high.
 
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