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.
When will new mac pros be released?
- Thread starter jtmacb
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As I've said before, please moderators make a sticky that says:
Probably 90% chance that the first Mac Pro update is Q4 2011/Q1 2012.
(And of course the reasons for this 'delay')
I guess that Hellhammer can do a great job.
Probably 90% chance that the first Mac Pro update is Q4 2011/Q1 2012.
(And of course the reasons for this 'delay')
I guess that Hellhammer can do a great job.
When will you people learn.. The new CPUS won't be out until December 2011 possibly into January.. New Mac Pro might be out between March and April of 2011.. Get over it!! Nano and I know what we are talking about.
We should also make stickies for every other possible question that might be asked pertaining to a Mac Pro. That way there won't be a need for anyone to post about or discuss anything here ever again! Actually, let's just can these forums altogether and put up one big FAQ. Problem solved!
The more interesting thing is that TB ports on a Mac Pro, how does Apple pull that bandwidth through a graphics card without killing performance and if it could even be done. I think the MP's will have their own Thunderbolt ports that are Thunderbolt Only.
Buyer's guide says don't buy, and there are faster procs available now...
dont really see why there wouldn't be a refresh late this summer. who cares about procs in 2011 q4 or 2012. There will be newer ones in 2013, 2014, 2015. That doesn;t mean the MP wont upgrade until 2015, does it?
Based on timing, it will be upgraded, and if people dont believe it, i bet they have NO inside information.
By 2015, there might not be a mac pro - see Nanofrog's posts on why this might happen..
The Mac Pro is a workstation computer that uses server chips.
The xeon Sandy Bridge server chip isn't due out until late this year or early next year.
That is why you will keep hearing that the new Mac Pro will not be released until late this year or early next year.
If you have a deep seated need to believe in something not based on facts, why don't you join up with Harold Camping?
Summer will come and go, Fall will come and go, and there will be no new Mac Pro and no apocalypse.
.
E7-2820 costs 1334$ each. That is almost as much as what X5670 (1440$) costs so that would make DP Mac Pro to start from ~5999$. It would leave a huge gap between the SP and DP Mac Pro as the price difference would be ~3500$. Sure, Apple could keep the 8-core Mac Pro there but seriously, why update now if you can't upgrade the whole lineup and it's only a few months until the more suitable CPUs will be available?
The use of E7 series just doesn't make any sense. They are only suitable for the ultimate high-end Mac Pro and even then, there is only one CPU Apple could use without adding another couple thousand $ to the price. E7 series doesn't even use LGA 1366 so it would require a new logic board design, which obviously adds costs.
The extra cores wouldn't necessary provide a better performance either, considering that you get only 33% more cores/threads while X5670 has 46.5% higher clock speed (just theoretical numbers as I haven't seen any benchmarks). In single-threaded tasks, the X5670 would demolish the E7-2820. Why go through all this trouble when the performance might not even be better?
Unless Apple dramatically breaks their historical pattern, we won't see a Mac Pro update until the SB-E CPUs will be released.
In your opinion what is more probable, the rapture happening on the newly announced date of 21st of October or the new Mac Pro being released around that time ?
Same Day. Mac Pro users who have been good will then have difficult choice. Voluntarily stay back, and take advantage of the Mac Pros announced that morning, or - not.
Those of us not Raptured will have access to the new Mac Pros, which will will make being left behind OK.
Same Day. Mac Pro users who have been good will then have difficult choice. Voluntarily stay back, and take advantage of the Mac Pros announced that morning, or - not.
Those of us not Raptured will have access to the new Mac Pros, which will will make being left behind OK.
Good point. I'll definitely be here. I'm not sure whether enough Mac Pro users are "real" Christians in order to create an oversupply and thereby lower prices. Since many MP users are the "evil" creative types most likely the new MP will cost about the same as the current one.
It still will be one of the highlights of being left behind and a diversion to the plagues, pestulance and world destruction that will occur.
I'm with you on this, a separate TB port, maybe a 2nd, I personally hate the idea of linking in series peripherals. And the MP is designed for user configuration and various 3rd party graphics cards, which I'd assume would not have the TB port!!
Would all this possibly interfere with backwards compatibility of future graphic cards?
How are they doing it with the MBPs? If I understand correctly, the MBPs can use either a low-power or high-power graphics chipset, depending what the SW needs. Is the TB/Display Port being routed through the chipsets or is there a data connection to the physical TB/DP that bypasses the graphics sub-system entirely?
What if Apple integrated a graphics chipset into the logic board, and then connected that to the TB/DP ports on a Mac Pro? Then you could buy a MP without a video card, or buy one as an "option" to use instead of the integrated graphics subsystem?
It might make sense for Apple to provide their own graphics subsystem that meets their own specifications, instead of waiting-for/contracting for the 3rd party graphics people develop the drop in cards. This might be good news/bad news situation. If the quality of the integrated graphics was high enough, it would meet the needs of the majority of users less expensively. Plus add the TB capabilities. The bad news is that users who need/want to upgrade would have fewer choices since this already small market for the 3rd party makers would be smaller yet.
Don't forget, that each TB chip requires 4x PCIe lanes from the chipset.
Now since they're usually used for PCIe slots in the MP (not so in the iMac and laptops), the slot count/configuration will have to change since the PCIe lane count in the chipset is fixed to 40 lanes (current systems use 40 lanes, and the next MP, based on the LGA2011, which will use the X79 chipset, also contains 40 lanes).
With the current configuration, Slots 3 and 4 already share the same 4x lanes via a PCIe switch. So one of those slots could be eliminated for a TB chip, and the lanes still shared with a 4x lane slot on the board (say retain Slot 3).
Placing 2x TB chips on the same lanes via a switch would be a fools errand, as there's no improvement on bandwidth (still just 4x lanes, but the available bandwidth is essentially reduced due to the added latency of the PCIe switch).
The other possibily is to place the TB chip/s on a card and keep the slots.
Now since they're usually used for PCIe slots in the MP (not so in the iMac and laptops), the slot count/configuration will have to change since the PCIe lane count in the chipset is fixed to 40 lanes (current systems use 40 lanes, and the next MP, based on the LGA2011, which will use the X79 chipset, also contains 40 lanes).
With the current configuration, Slots 3 and 4 already share the same 4x lanes via a PCIe switch. So one of those slots could be eliminated for a TB chip, and the lanes still shared with a 4x lane slot on the board (say retain Slot 3).
Placing 2x TB chips on the same lanes via a switch would be a fools errand, as there's no improvement on bandwidth (still just 4x lanes, but the available bandwidth is essentially reduced due to the added latency of the PCIe switch).
The other possibily is to place the TB chip/s on a card and keep the slots.
I always thought slots 3 and 4 share 8 lanes.
16 for each slots 1 and 2 and 8 for the remaining slots makes 40. What am I missing here?
I should have been a little more clear.I always thought slots 3 and 4 share 8 lanes.
16 for each slots 1 and 2 and 8 for the remaining slots makes 40. What am I missing here?
4x lanes are used for chip to chip communications (connects the CPU to the chipset = PCIe lane data to and from the CPU), which leaves 36x lanes for PCIe slot configurations. Slots 1 & 2 @ 16x lanes per = 32 lanes, so that only leaves 4x lanes. So to get the 4th slot @ 4x lanes, they had to use a PCIe switch.
Hope this clears things up.
It seems you have absolutely no inclination to understand facts (posted in multiple other threads in response), and continue to post your unsubstantiated FUD based on a couple of Tweets with the frequency of a spammer.
I'm surprised to see so little discussion here on the rumor regarding new Mac Pros in August. Granted, it doesnt make much sense to me based on what I've found out through frequenting these forums, but still. Are posters here so jaded by the long wait followed by a lackluster update in 2010 that they wont get excited about rumors anymore?
