Will we finally see New Mac Pro's 24th of April?

[James_C]

The Core i7 3820 in the comparison I used is the same as the Xeon E5-1620. The E5-1620 replaces the Xeon W3530 used in the current Mac Pro. All of these processor including the Core i7 3770 are $294. Moving away from Xeon processors does NOT reduce the cost in any significant way to Apple as there are Xeon versions of all single socket processors for the same sort of price, there are actually even better options as the ranges are bigger.

You are correct when you look at quoted prices, and I must confess I have not compared similar processors as E5-1620 is a single processor 4 core chip and the processors I quoted are 8 core Dual Processor chips. However I am sure Apple could get much better pricing in volume with desktop class chips than it could with lower volume / higher spec sever class Xeons.

 

[xgman]

If new MacPros were coming out tomorrow, don't you think we'd have a couple leaks at least a day or two before?

it's more of a sign of desperation than anything else. I'm not getting my hopes up. I'm not even sure they will announce the new mobiles and imacs for a while, but who knows really . . .

 

[goMac]

If new MacPros were coming out tomorrow, don't you think we'd have a couple leaks at least a day or two before?

The iMacs have been leak proof, and the Macbook Pros have been fairly leak proof (no solid info on what is coming, although some guesses.) No leaks on Mac Minis or Macbook Airs. And all are due for an upgrade.

If we were going by lack of leaks, the entire Mac line is about to be discontinued.

 

[macpro2000]

If new MacPros were coming out tomorrow, don't you think we'd have a couple leaks at least a day or two before?

I would agree...however funny how all of a sudden hardly any physical Apple Stores have any stock, and their available dates are just days away. Hope so.

 

[The-Pro]

As it has for months.

aight, didnt know that


I really doubt apple would put normal consumer cpu's into the Mac Pro because their whole thing about the mac pro is that it can have dual processors which are not possible with the i series cpu's.

 

[rawdawg]

Please correct me if I'm wrong. But is the whole reason Mac Pro's exclusively use server class chip because they're the only ones to support multiple processors? Because why then does the low end MacPro cost so much when they could utilize a consumer class chip being it only has one processor?

If a new iMac would be faster is the only point for the low end MacPro is to provide the form factor that I want at the added expense of having to have a server class chip?

 

[xgman]

The iMacs have been leak proof, and the Macbook Pros have been fairly leak proof (no solid info on what is coming

There is never any real "solid" info on anything until it shows up, but, as I have said, the imac you mention at least has some rumors that lead you to see some probable development of the line, such as the thinner case rumor and matte screen rumors (articles written) within the last few weeks, and there are many macbook pro rumors flying including projected release dates. No such rumors about the Mac Pro except thread posts with wishful thinking.

 

[goMac]

There is never any real "solid" info on anything until it shows up, but, as I have said, the imac you mention at least has some rumors that lead you to see some probable development of the line,

The iMac rumors have basically been "there will be an update at some point this year." That's only a notch or two above the Mac Pro's "There might be an update this year."

such as the thinner case rumor and matte screen rumors (articles written) within the last few weeks, and there are many macbook pro rumors flying including projected release dates.

All of which are analyst guesses. No solid info, no part leaks.

No such rumors about the Mac Pro except thread posts with wishful thinking.

On the contrary, there was a rumor about the next Mac Pro using NVidia graphics, which is at least as specific as what we've heard about the next Macbook Pros.

 

[24Frames]

Please correct me if I'm wrong. But is the whole reason Mac Pro's exclusively use server class chip because they're the only ones to support multiple processors? Because why then does the low end MacPro cost so much when they could utilize a consumer class chip being it only has one processor?

If a new iMac would be faster is the only point for the low end MacPro is to provide the form factor that I want at the added expense of having to have a server class chip?

It's not that simple.
The Server / Workstation chips and Mac Pro design in general are much more robust and much better suited for being run for hours or even days at a time flat out. This is exactly what is required for high end 3D / VFX for rendering.

The ability to have 6-16 Cores in a single workstation is very useful for the aforementioned activities.

 

[xgman]

All of which are analyst guesses.

Unfortunately it appears that these "analysts" have no interest in speculating on anything other than the Mac Pro's demise. Quite frankly I think this sub-forum right here is creating more of the buzz about the mac Pro than anywhere else and just maybe helping to keep it alive, which I am happy to be a part of.

 

[Flood123]

As much as I would like to see a refresh tomorrow, I will believe it when I see it. So much time has passed and I am so jaded which is a bummer. I'm still keeping my fingers crossed regardless.

Bottom-line is we will see it (or not) when apple feels like it.

 

[goMac]

Unfortunately it appears that these "analysts" have no interest in speculating on anything other than the Mac Pro's demise. Quite frankly I think this sub-forum right here is creating more of the buzz about the mac Pro than anywhere else and just maybe helping to keep it alive, which I am happy to be a part of.

I've heard plenty of buzz about the Mac Pro elsewhere. There are tons of Mac Pro users who don't come into these forums waiting for an update.

As far as analysts go, it's not an exciting machine to speculate on. It's a tower. Has some processors, a GPU. But like I said, it's not as if the other machines are getting heavily hit with rumors either. When was the last time you heard a Mac Mini rumor? That's due for an upgrade as well.

But yes, this place is the only forum I'm aware of that is buzzing. But there are other non-forum places around the web waiting for a Mac Pro (like Twitter.)

 

[InuNacho]

I would personally prefer a less expensive Mac Pro, with the Ivy Bridge chips, but the hard disk / memory / expansion capability of the Mac Pro Design. I am sure that Apple would sell a lot more if they switched to the Ivy Bridge design and passed the savings on.

I too wish Apple would sell a low end Pro or something along those lines. The G4s had cheapo models that could be upgraded just as much as the high end versions.

 

[goMac]

I too wish Apple would sell a low end Pro or something along those lines. The G4s had cheapo models that could be upgraded just as much as the high end versions.

It's one reason I think Apple might go i7. i7s are much more in line with what the Power Mac G4 was.

I think Apple was caught by surprise by how fast Xeon prices went up.

But at the same time this would make people unhappy who want 12 cores. Either way they go, someone's not going to be pleased though.

 

[InuNacho]

It's one reason I think Apple might go i7. i7s are much more in line with what the Power Mac G4 was.

I think Apple was caught by surprise by how fast Xeon prices went up.

But at the same time this would make people unhappy who want 12 cores. Either way they go, someone's not going to be pleased though.

Keep a low end Quad i7 Pro and Xeons for the dual processor ones that way both Prosumers and Pros are more than happy. I'd be more than happy with a Quad i7 Pro.

 

[deconstruct60]

There are no Ivy Bridge Xeons!

Ivy Bridge Xeons are not expected until Q4 2012 or Q1 2012.
Intel implement the new production process (22nm in this case) on the consumer chips first, the Workstation and Server Chips get it later.

There are Ivy Bridge Xeons coming in a several weeks (this quarter). They will be Xeon E3 but it will be an Ivy Bridge.

Just saying "Xeon" and implicitly meaning "Xeon E5" only contributes to confusing people when they may read on news and other sites about Intel introducting "New Ivy Bridge Xeon" processors. Because that is exactly how the headlines are going to read when the E3's are released.

As for the Ivy Bridge Xeon E5's. That's up in the air. It is unlikely they will be released in 2012. There is almost zero incentive for Intel to replace the Sandy Bridge offerings in less than 6 months. Dell isn't even shipping till next month. By the time most vendors having gotten to steady state shipping it will be June; if not July. "brand new" models are going to appear 3-5 months later? Not very likely at all.

The core i7 39xx (Sandy Bridge E) may get bumped in Q4 since it will have been a year since their introduction (Q4 2011 ). However, even the core i7 variants trickled into 2012 ( while announced in 2011 the 3920 didn't ship till Q1 2012 ).


In fact, the Xeon E5 class product cycle is typically longer, not shorter. Most likely it will be 2013. How far into 2013 is the open question. Intel has already hinted at a slide with Haswell. They are not in a frantic hurry.

 

[Umbongo]

It's one reason I think Apple might go i7. i7s are much more in line with what the Power Mac G4 was.

I think Apple was caught by surprise by how fast Xeon prices went up.

But at the same time this would make people unhappy who want 12 cores. Either way they go, someone's not going to be pleased though.

Keep a low end Quad i7 Pro and Xeons for the dual processor ones that way both Prosumers and Pros are more than happy. I'd be more than happy with a Quad i7 Pro.

Which i7s should Apple be using then?

 

[deconstruct60]

Which i7s should Apple be using then?

It isn't the processor folks are yelping about. It is the mythical xMac.

The mainstream i7 processors all have deep compromises in them which would lead to a chopped down system to be placed inside of.

16 PCI-e lanes versus 40 (or 80); less than half the PCI-e bandwidth. Smaller caches. Half the memory bandwidth. They are cheaper for a reason. You get less so you pay less. This is far more about paying less than trying to something equivalent to a Mac Pro performance and flexibility.

 

[goMac]

It isn't the processor folks are yelping about. It is the mythical xMac.

The mainstream i7 processors all have deep compromises in them which would lead to a chopped down system to be placed inside of.

16 PCI-e lanes versus 40 (or 80); less than half the PCI-e bandwidth. Smaller caches. Half the memory bandwidth. They are cheaper for a reason. You get less so you pay less. This is far more about paying less than trying to something equivalent to a Mac Pro performance and flexibility.

The real question is if Apple could sell a Mac Pro that both filled the xMac and Mac Pro roles. Stuff like 16 PCI-e lanes says no.

i7 machines are really not comparable to Mac Pros.

 

[Umbongo]

It isn't the processor folks are yelping about. It is the mythical xMac.

The mainstream i7 processors all have deep compromises in them which would lead to a chopped down system to be placed inside of.

16 PCI-e lanes versus 40 (or 80); less than half the PCI-e bandwidth. Smaller caches. Half the memory bandwidth. They are cheaper for a reason. You get less so you pay less. This is far more about paying less than trying to something equivalent to a Mac Pro performance and flexibility.

I know. Just fed up of the i7 argument. No Core i7 processor is cheaper than the Xeons that Apple have been using in their base models for 3 years either.

 

[deconstruct60]

Thanks for the link! So it appears a possible new 3.5Ghz iMac would be faster than a single chip 3.6Ghz Mac Pro?! All the more reason why I would like an cheaper redesigned MacPro with Ivy now!

Up until running a 30 minute heavy computational load versus these sub 180 second benchmarks. Or needing above average I/O.

 

[Moonjumper]

I know. Just fed up of the i7 argument. No Core i7 processor is cheaper than the Xeons that Apple have been using in their base models for 3 years either.

I assume a Mac Pro dual processor logic board is very expensive? And the memory it uses the same? Filling a Mac Pro with iMac components (replacing the laptop components with desktop equivalents) must be potentially much cheaper than the current base Mac Pro.

A Mac Pro is too expensive for my needs, but I would like an expandable Mac. I have an old white iMac, but I've not been looking at the current iMac because of the glossy screen. That means I am currently only left with a Mac Mini option, which is no match for the iMac performance.

While I really like my iMac, I ran short of hard disk space long ago. And it is not the simple job to expand that it is for a Mac Pro or would be for a reborn machine in the style of the Power Mac G4.

People hoping for i7 in the Mac Pro are looking for a cheaper way into an expandable Mac. And that looks a slightly more realistic dream than a new consumer tower.

 

[Umbongo]

I assume a Mac Pro dual processor logic board is very expensive? And the memory it uses the same? Filling a Mac Pro with iMac components (replacing the laptop components with desktop equivalents) must be potentially much cheaper than the current base Mac Pro.

The base Mac Pro doesn't use a dual processor logicboard.

The parts and components in the $2,499 Mac Pro probably cost Apple around $1,000-$1,200. When the margin is that high the changes people expect from going to consumer components aren't going to suddenly produce a $1,500 system. It's $2,499 because people will pay that price for an expandable Mac and it puts it above the iMac in Apple's ecosystem.

 

[Neodym]

There are no Ivy Bridge Xeons!
Ivy Bridge Xeons are not expected until Q4 2012 or Q1 2012.

Sounds like Mac Pros still haven't caught up with Sandy Bridge technology which would be the 20-40% gain.
I would like an cheaper redesigned MacPro with Ivy now!

You may actually get this in some way, as the naming scheme for the Xeons is a little misleading. Unlike the clear differentiation in the consumer world the Xeon CPU's are not as distinct "Sandy Bridge" as their i5/i7 cousins. Hellhammer posted a link to an article some weeks ago which showed that the Sandy Bridge Xeons would contain some features which are associated with Ivy Bridge in the consumer world (core i5/i7).

Regarding the question whether Apple could / would switch to i7 CPU's in the MacPro (and have a cost advantage of it):

- We don't know anything about their individual discounts for the respective components, so judging by simply comparing end-user prices does not help imho.

- They might leverage economies of scale by using the same CPU in both iMacs and MacPro, but with a twist:

Common understanding is that due to the lack of a 2nd QPI channel the core i7 CPU's would not allow for multi-CPU configurations. As MacPro-style number crunching usually scales well with the number of available cores, Apple could design a custom motherboard with a second (or third/fourth) CPU running separately (perhaps with a barebone OSX or even iOS), only being available for calculation operations. Something like XGrid set up in hardware on the same motherboard and (e.g. via Grand Central Dispatch) being transparently available as system resource for any multithreaded program able to make use of more cores.

That way they could not only span the range from entry-level tower (using a "normal" iMac CPU and inexpensive helper processors like e.g. ARM CPU's, which they would be able to purchase at a very low price due to the sheer number of iOS devices) over midrange (core i5/i7) up to high-end (only Xeons as both main and helper CPU's - potentially also offering 4-CPU configurations with up to 24 "real" cores for the die-hard number crunchers that don't mind a high bill).

Yes i know - i'm probably dreaming. But i wouldn't really mind Apple doing some revolutionary-type of product again (only this time in the Macintosh world instead of the iOS sphere). The bits and pieces are mostly there already - now Apple would "only" need to put them in the right place...

 

[xgman]

Does it seem to anyone that we are giving this much more thought than Apple is or probably ever will?