New Mac Pro only available with single CPU!

[WardC]

I just realized this...in their video on the website, it shows the 'processor' and explains that there are 12-core options, but they are only referring to a single-CPU Ivy Bridge chip. From what it looks like...Apple will not be offering a dual-CPU model.

12-core single chip will be the top option.

Looks like Apple dropped the ball on this one.

 

[Kissaragi]

I just realized this...in their video on the website, it shows the 'processor' and explains that there are 12-core options, but they are only referring to a single-CPU Ivy Bridge chip. From what it looks like...Apple will not be offering a dual-CPU model.

12-core single chip will be the top option.

Looks like Apple dropped the ball on this one.

Has been discussed before, endlessly.

 

[phoenixsan]

If that is confirmed.....

and come to reality, more motives then for holding me about buying a new Pro. But I can see the reasoning in this, because design constraints and such.....

 

[hudson1]

I just realized this...in their video on the website, it shows the 'processor' and explains that there are 12-core options, but they are only referring to a single-CPU Ivy Bridge chip. From what it looks like...Apple will not be offering a dual-CPU model.

12-core single chip will be the top option.

Looks like Apple dropped the ball on this one.

If you think the trend is toward offloading tasks to the GPU then I suppose you might call it a three-processor machine. As has been just mentioned, it's been endlessly discussed but the real power of this computer won't be known until it's released and thoroughly tested.

 

[Photovore]

It's also not entirely inconceivable that they may, a year later, offer a stretch tube chassis with an extra CPU and maybe an extra SSD ... though pretty unlikely, I think.

 

[wonderspark]

I want a fatter tube, not really a taller tube. It already looks like it will be easily knocked over, and a fatter tube would be more stable while providing more space for additional parts.

 

[d-m-a-x]

Triangle would have been waaaayyy cooler

 

[wonderspark]

"They have a fight, Triangle wins, Triangle Man..."

 

[Foxdog175]

It's also not entirely inconceivable that they may, a year later, offer a stretch tube chassis with an extra CPU and maybe an extra SSD ... though pretty unlikely, I think.

That's not Apple's style. They'd rather you throw them another 6 grand for a new Mac Pro than offer a CPU expansion. They're probably delaying this feature just as an incentive to buy the next (taller) Mac Pro.

 

[Photovore]

That's not Apple's style. They'd rather you throw them another 6 grand for a new Mac Pro than offer a CPU expansion. They're probably delaying this feature just as an incentive to buy the next (taller) Mac Pro.

Apologies if my meaning was unclear, but I think that what you are saying is exactly what I meant to say: wait a year or two and then offer the higher-capability chassis. A "stretch limousine" after you just bought the previous model of limousine.

Thankfully, these puppies tend to have a good resale value!

----------

I want a fatter tube, not really a taller tube. It already looks like it will be easily knocked over, and a fatter tube would be more stable while providing more space for additional parts.

Yes, there you go. A taller tube would 1) be easier to knock over and 2) only offer the same cooling as the lesser-TDP model (unless they put a squirrel-cage fan on top!). A fat one would be better. So, a "puffed tube" rather than a "stretched tube".

Or, a smoothed triangle, as above. That would be cool!

 

[mcfx]

I prefer the 12-core single CPU vs 12-core dual CPU anytime. There's more efficiency: less power consumption -> less heat & noise, no more cache and memory latency over the QPI.

 

[ScottishCaptain]

I can't wait until someone upgrades a 2010 or 2012 Mac Pro to dual 12 core processors (24 cores/48 threads).

I just wanna watch the New Mac Pro zealots squirm when they realize their new form factor will never be that powerful now or in the future.

-SC

 

[mcfx]

I can't wait until someone upgrades a 2010 or 2012 Mac Pro to dual 12 core processors (24 cores/48 threads).

I just wanna watch the New Mac Pro zealots squirm when they realize their new form factor will never be that powerful now or in the future.

-SC

I have (see my signature)

 

[Umbongo]

I prefer the 12-core single CPU vs 12-core dual CPU anytime. There's more efficiency: less power consumption -> less heat & noise, no more cache and memory latency over the QPI.

All things being equal sure, but the reality is two 3.5GHz 6-cores vs one 2.7GHz 12-core. I'd take the extra 30% clockspeed for a workstation when the extra power usage is 0.1 kWh and we've had to deal with the other issues for a decade and it's been fine. 16 cores at 2.6GHz will likely also be the same sort of price as a single 12-core solution.

Obviously not an option with the new Mac Pro, but I can't see too many clamoring for a single 12-core in the PC workstation market.

 

[JesterJJZ]

I prefer the 12-core single CPU vs 12-core dual CPU anytime. There's more efficiency: less power consumption -> less heat & noise, no more cache and memory latency over the QPI.

I'll pass on both and go for a 24-core dual...

 

[jasonvp]

I have (see my signature)

No you haven't. If you read his post carefully, he mentioned upgrading a 5,1 to a dual 12-core (ie, 24-core). That won't be possible without tearing the logic board completely out of the case and replacing it with something new.

And at that point, why not just build a Hack?

 

[Cubemmal]

Now he realizes two graphics + CPU equals three, and a triangle has three sides ...

By all reports the Mach kernel they have struggles with more cores, I remember reading an article how it doesn't scale well. Linux solved this problem back in the 90's but Apple is still behind the game. Did they ever really fix that? Don't know.

Regardless Intel also struggles to add cores without significantly jacking the price. Xeon's are crazy expensive, it's cheaper to add parallelization through GPU's rather than CPU's which the industry has recognized. The idea these days is to find ways to put your code on the massively parallel and cheaper GPU. Even in supercomputing they are utilizing more GPU horsepower than CPU.

So Apple is just correctly following the industry trend. If software could take advantage it would be fun to put some more GPU out in a thunderbolt cage. That would be interesting because the bandwidth should be adequate for pure compute tasks.

 

[theSeb]

This is new and interesting information that has not been discussed before.

 

[CausticPuppy]

I want a fatter tube, not really a taller tube. It already looks like it will be easily knocked over, and a fatter tube would be more stable while providing more space for additional parts.

Actually, for a dual-processor machine they should use a dual-tube configuration. Essentially fuse two tubes side by side. That way it would look like a jet pack.

 

[JesterJJZ]

Actually, for a dual-processor machine they should use a dual-tube configuration. Essentially fuse two tubes side by side. That way it would look like a jet pack.

Add some hard drive bays and pci slots and I'm sold.

 

[WMD]

I can't wait until someone upgrades a 2010 or 2012 Mac Pro to dual 12 core processors (24 cores/48 threads).

Intel won't be making any 12-core CPUs that the current Mac Pro will support. They may not even be the same socket.

 

[beaker7]

So Apple is just correctly following the industry trend.

If software could take advantage it would be fun

Yep. GPU compute would be great if software could take advantage of it.

And it had a usable amount of memory.

Maybe in the second or third generation tube. iTubeS ?

 

[theSeb]

Yep. GPU compute would be great if software could take advantage of it.

And it had a usable amount of memory.

Maybe in the second or third generation tube. iTubeS ?

The key to this, I think, is making GPU power available to applications without the developers having to do something special. In other words, this should be something that the compiler can do, by analysing and optimising the code.

 

[Tesselator]

Now he realizes two graphics + CPU equals three, and a triangle has three sides ...

By all reports the Mach kernel they have struggles with more cores, I remember reading an article how it doesn't scale well. Linux solved this problem back in the 90's but Apple is still behind the game. Did they ever really fix that? Don't know.

Regardless Intel also struggles to add cores without significantly jacking the price. Xeon's are crazy expensive, it's cheaper to add parallelization through GPU's rather than CPU's which the industry has recognized. The idea these days is to find ways to put your code on the massively parallel and cheaper GPU. Even in supercomputing they are utilizing more GPU horsepower than CPU.

So Apple is just correctly following the industry trend. If software could take advantage it would be fun to put some more GPU out in a thunderbolt cage. That would be interesting because the bandwidth should be adequate for pure compute tasks.

This is new and interesting information that has not been discussed before.

I hope that was meant sarcastically, as I've been saying the same thing for what seems like a trillion times already.

 

[theSeb]

I hope that was meant sarcastically, as I've been saying the same thing for what seems like a trillion times already.

96% of my posts here are sarcastic.