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

Tuesday 15th May

2

24Frames

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 23, 2012
181
0
Another Tuesday on the horizon. Will it be the big day?

Well there is still no sign of HP Xeon E5 2600 based workstations in Europe at least in their online store (or anywhere outside the US?), same with Lenovo. Dell aren't shipping anywhere...

It seems that Intel are having some problems making enough Xeon E5 2600 series CPUs to go round. Having said that Dell and HP would be using some of there quota for Servers, Apple's situation is somewhat different.

Then there is GPU availability, AMD seem a bit ahead of NVidia on that. NVidia pricing may also be too high for Apples base model. The current Mac Pro uses Radeon HD 5770, which is listed at $159, the least expensive suitable NVidia offering would probably be the GTX570 for $349, quite a big difference when the add the margin.

Maybe some more weeks of waiting.
 
I know I'm a minority here, probably.... but with what I do in video and photography I have never felt any gains by having a better video card. This could be because I've always had one adequate for my needs, but I'm not even sure what a better video card is doing for me -- except maybe h264 decoding but I'm not even sure how much of that is done on a GPU.

I would much rather a freaking update with the old GPU than anymore waiting around. It seems in every thread people go on and on about GPUs, but for the non-gamer or 3D renderers, I don't see what the big deal is. And I would assume they would be the minority.

Now I'll sit back and wait for others to tell me I'm wrong...
 
rawdawg said:
Now I'll sit back and wait for others to tell me I'm wrong...
Click to expand...
You're not wrong at all.

We all have different uses, preferences and ways that work for our needs.

My Mac Pro is an excellent machine, but I would really like to buy a new one just in case they are discontinued. I'm waiting till Apple says something, at least I hope they don't go silent and just pull them from the Store with no notification.

If they build new models, I will buy one, if they don't I'll grab one of the last of what they have, if it's a configuration that works for me.

With the new iToyz centered Apple, it's a crap shoot as to what they may, or may not do, when it comes to computers.
 
That's precisely why Apple have configurations with relatively inexpensive GPU and BTO options with more expensive ones, and an after sales option of an NVidia Quadro 4000. This means that users that don't need a mid to high end GPU don't need to pay for one, and those that do need one can.

For those of us using 3D software the GPU can make a huge difference to viewport performance.

As the more expensive GPUs are released first everyone has to wait!
 
rawdawg said:
I know I'm a minority here, probably.... but with what I do in video and photography I have never felt any gains by having a better video card. This could be because I've always had one adequate for my needs, but I'm not even sure what a better video card is doing for me -- except maybe h264 decoding but I'm not even sure how much of that is done on a GPU.

I would much rather a freaking update with the old GPU than anymore waiting around. It seems in every thread people go on and on about GPUs, but for the non-gamer or 3D renderers, I don't see what the big deal is. And I would assume they would be the minority.

Now I'll sit back and wait for others to tell me I'm wrong...
Click to expand...

There are some video cards that help drastically with editing really big video files (such as 2k and 4k RED files). The Quadro 4000 card cuts render times down and allows real time playback and other benefits.
 
24Frames said:
I just noticed that the dispatch times on Mac Pros on the European stores have shortened. Today (Monday 14th May) all Mac Pro models on the European stores now say "Dispatched: 1-3 business days". The last few months they have been varied between 2-4 and 3-5 days.

http://store.apple.com/uk/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro

This might imply an update tomorrow...
Click to expand...

It could also imply absolutely nothing, but it would be great news.
 
We wonder why we haven't heard anything with all the macbook pro and imac rumors this month. Maybe we already have our answer.
 
xgman said:
We wonder why we haven't heard anything with all the macbook pro and imac rumors this month. Maybe we already have our answer.
Click to expand...

The fact that there are basically no E5-16xx CPUs reviews or benchmarks and that I can't find it for sale is the most likely problem.
 
theSeb said:
The fact that there are basically no E5-16xx CPUs reviews or benchmarks and that I can't find it for sale is the most likely problem.
Click to expand...

You mean E5-26xx series, don't you?
Those are the chips Dell & HP are using and the chips (presumably) the Mac Pro would use.
 
Wild-Bill said:
You mean E5-26xx series, don't you?
Those are the chips Dell & HP are using and the chips (presumably) the Mac Pro would use.
Click to expand...

No, I mean 16xx series. I am assuming Apple would use the 16xx series in the single CPU Mac Pros and the 26xx in the dual CPU versions.

Have I gone mad? :confused:

Xeon E5-1600 series is aimed at uniprocessor workstations, and consists of three SKUs, E5-1620, E5-1650 and E5-1660. The processors have from 4 to 6 CPUs cores, and pack from 10 MB to 15 MB of L3 cache. Specifications of these models look identical to Core i7s for socket 2011 platform, and they are priced similarly, from $294 to $1080.

Xeon E5-2600 family supports dual-processor configurations, and includes a mix of models with 2, 4, 6, and 8 CPU cores, operating at power levels from 60 Watt to 150 Watt. 8-core E5-2600 parts feature 20 MB L3 cache, whereas 6- and quad-core models come with 15MB and 10 MB last level caches. Prices for 2600 series chips range from $200 - $300 for entry-level quad-core models, and up to $2057 for flagship 8-core E5-2690.
Click to expand...

The 1600 series is what HP is using in some of their single processor workstations, like HP Z420.
 
Wild-Bill said:
You mean E5-26xx series, don't you?
Those are the chips Dell & HP are using and the chips (presumably) the Mac Pro would use.
Click to expand...

HP and Dell will use the E5-1600 series in their smaller boxes that are limited to just one CPU socket. They are more cost effective than using the E5-2600 series alternatives. They are also faster if only need 4-6 cores also.

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2012030701_Intel_rolls_out_Xeon_E5-1600_and_E5-2600_CPUs.html

Likely candidates 1620 , 1650 , 1660 in single package model. 2620 , 2640 , and either 2665 or 2670 in the dual package models.

In a single socket set up the missing QPI link is a non issue. It is only useful in connecting to another CPU package. If there are none, that isn't a big dieal.

For the boxes of more similar size and features ( dual Ethernet , drive sled count , etc. ) it probably is the 2600 series that Dell/HP will use. What they are not going to do is put the CPU/RAM on a daugther card and sell same box infrastructure as a Uni/Dual offering like the Mac Pro.

Apple is not going to release Dual Mac Pro's and not release Single Mac Pros until a much later date. They either are both ready or the whole line up isn't.
 
I now actually feel like either the whole lineup is months away for whatever reason or just never coming.
 
I think it is coming as well as if it wasn't, I believe Apple would have already mentioned the discontinuation. Therefore I think it will have a different form factor and will have to be introduced at an event, as they never just drop a different form factor for an iMac/PowerMac/Mac Pro without a big introduction event. However I would think WWDC would not have enough time devoted for iMac/MBP/iOS6/10.8 but I guess we'll wait and see.
 
Do you think there is at least one member who reads these MP threads that actually does know what's up? Maybe Apple blocks this domain.
 
I wouldn't start to worry unless we get past WWDC and there is no update.

All indications are no one is shipping until the end of the month, which puts things close to WWDC. I've been doubting an update at WWDC, but if they're going to do the iMac and the Macbook Pro, maybe they'll do the Mac Pro as well. They could be holding until Mountain Lion is Mountain Lion is what has the new NVidia drivers, and the new Mac Pros have been rumored to be switching to NVidia.

I'm doubting more there will be a discontinuation at this point, but if they were going to discontinue, it would probably happen at the same time as the Macbook Pro and iMac releases, at the latest.

xgman said:
Do you think there is at least one member who reads these MP threads that actually does know what's up? Maybe Apple blocks this domain.
Click to expand...

Probably.

That person would probably also have black helicopters sent after them if they said anything. It's not worth giving up Apple sources for a post on a message board.
 
Last edited:
I agree...we will know by the time WWDC is over. Apple knows that developers are going to have to decide what to get by then. If they keep the Mac Pro alive, I would think that they would want to update the Thunderbolt display to Retina at the same time. Just hard to believe that they can do retinas with a 27" screen and keep the price within control.
 
macpro2000 said:
I agree...we will know by the time WWDC is over. Apple knows that developers are going to have to decide what to get by then. If they keep the Mac Pro alive, I would think that they would want to update the Thunderbolt display to Retina at the same time. Just hard to believe that they can do retinas with a 27" screen and keep the price within control.
Click to expand...

I'm having difficulty understanding the Retina display discussion.
On a 17-inch MBP 1920 x 1200 or 27-inch CINEMA Display at typical viewing distances it simply would make little or no discernible difference. As far as I can see it is completely pointless, reduces performance, as the GPU will have to work harder, and increase the cost.

There is an article on the front page that discusses implementing a Retina display on the 27-inch in a way that would limit its actual display resolution to 1920 x 1080. Now the only reason I would like a 27-inch screen is to increase the vertical resolution for using applications that split the screen vertically, which is almost all the ones I use.

Am I missing something!?
 
rawdawg said:
Now I'll sit back and wait for others to tell me I'm wrong...
Click to expand...


http://www.adobe.com/ap/products/premiere/mercury-playback-engine.html

http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/PremiereCS5.htm


Second Benchmark Test (Updated 03/29/12) - I used Adobe Premiere CS5.5 and a 10 minute time line with 3 tracks and multiple effects and dissolves. Each video card had at least 1 Gig of DDR5 memory.

Video Card # of Cuda Cores Time Line Rendering
MPE GPU Hardware
Minutes & Seconds Time Line Rendering
MPE Software
Minutes & Seconds
GT-240 96 5:41 40:12
GT-440 96 5:37 40:12
GTX-470 448 5:34 40:12
GTX-545 144 5:37 40:12
GTX-550 Ti 192 5:35 40:12
GTX-570 480 5:29 40:12
GTX-680 1536 5:16 40:12
 
24Frames said:
I'm having difficulty understanding the Retina display discussion.
On a 17-inch MBP 1920 x 1200 or 27-inch CINEMA Display at typical viewing distances it simply would make little or no discernible difference. As far as I can see it is completely pointless, reduces performance, as the GPU will have to work harder, and increase the cost.

There is an article on the front page that discusses implementing a Retina display on the 27-inch in a way that would limit its actual display resolution to 1920 x 1080. Now the only reason I would like a 27-inch screen is to increase the vertical resolution for using applications that split the screen vertically, which is almost all the ones I use.

Am I missing something!?
Click to expand...

It helps with the issue of UI elements getting smaller as resolution increases.

If you don't like it, you can just turn it off. But keep in mind it would still be an effective resolution of 3840x2160. Buttons and title bars would be bigger, but your content would be the same size.
 
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