Jump to content

Apple announces updated Mac Pro, Mac mini, iMac, quietly updates MacBook Pro

64Bit

By 64Bit,
in Front Page News and Rumors

 Share
74 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

bofors
bofors
Posted
Posted
I bet the new 8 core 2.26 Ghz is slower than the old 8 core 2.8 Ghz, in CPU demanding apps, for example Logic Pro running loads of plugins.

When apple says the new top end MacPro ( 2.93 x 8 ) is twice as fast as the previous (3.2 x8 ghz) modell, it is only in memory demanding test, in CPU related tests it is approx 1.2 times faster but twice as expensive.

 

I think you are missing the major threading efficiency improvement in Nehalem.

 

Nehalem chips have a "Turbo-burst" mode that will take active cores above rated clock speed unless the chip is too hot:

http://download.intel.com/design/processor...d=tech_tb+paper

 

 

I am not sure if SAP benchmarks are particularly memory intensive, but the dual socket Nehalem (Gainestown) results are impressive:

http://it.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=532

 

 

 

Wow, does anybody else get the feeling that Apple is getting really lazy in the desktop hardware department? This is really pitiful! The rest of the hardware world is passing them by except for the super high end mac pro. I guess this is good news for the hackintosh community as the incentive for building a hackintosh has not evaporated with the latest Apple hardware upgrade. I am beginning to think that Apple will never get it. They just don't give a damn about the market segment that needs a machine that is affordable and offers upgrade options besides plugging in external boxes.

 

Hardware engineers lazy? No...

 

Marketing executives arrogant, obtuse? Likely...

vbetts
vbetts
Posted
Posted

What's not to get? Contrary to popular belief, more cores does not mean more performance. Or better performance. Applications will only take advantage of 1 cpu, not 2 cpus. Now that being said, you have to take into consideration how many cores a single cpu has, and if the application is written to take advantage of multiple cores. The single 2.66ghz cpu, is a quad core cpu. Way more effective then 2 dual cores as it was in the first generation Mac pros. For the double processors, it's 2 quad cores. Not eight cores. And, as for clock for clock comparisons, these new Mac pros are based off the nehalim core(Core i7 if you don't know.), which also means ddr3 memory. It's not the frequency of the cpu that will determine the performance of the chip.

bofors
bofors
Posted
Posted
About the Mac Pro I don't understand why they have a single processore configuration at 2.66GHz and double processor configuration at 2.26GHz ... Boh !

 

The single socket Mac Pro uses Xeon 3500 series chips (Bloomfield), these are basically the same (perhaps with some tweaks to the circuitry connecting the silicon die to the pins) as regular Core i7 chips. Here, the entry level chip is the "920," it is clocked at 2.66 GHz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i7

 

 

The dual socket Mac Pro requires Xeon 5500 series chips (Gainestown). Here, Intel decided to clock the entry level chip, the "E5520," at 2.26 GHz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon#5500-ser...22Gainestown.22

 

Apple is just following Intel's product line from the bottom up.

Maxintosh
Maxintosh
Posted
Posted
this is awesome! partially disappointed that the iMacs n Mac Mini's aren't quad core. but still these updates are awesome!

There is actually 3 models of the Mac Mini. The two 2.0 models that are on their website, and a beefier 2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo model which (for some odd reason) won't be available through any Apple stores according to the store manager that I talked to. This model is going to be Apples MID-SIZED performing Mac costing around $1,044.00, and with the following specs:

 

  • * 2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor
  • * 4GB (2x2GB) of 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
  • * 320GB 5400-rpm SATA hard drive
  • * 8X Slot-loading SuperDrive

I will be ordering two of these new Mac Minis by the end of the week :D

 

THANK YOU APPLE!!!!

pontifex22
pontifex22
Posted
Posted
model which (for some odd reason) won't be available through any Apple stores according to the store manager that I talked to.

Not quite right: There are 2 models (actually just one, but 2 displayed on the website) and you can configure each

to your taste (2GHz /2.26GHz, 1/2/4GB Ram, 3 hard drives - makes like 18 models according to your way of counting ;) )

bofors
bofors
Posted
Posted
this is awesome! partially disappointed that the iMacs n Mac Mini's aren't quad core. but still these updates are awesome! time to save up some money!

 

Mac Mini's and iMac's use mobile parts , quad-core is not a mobile option from Intel yet.

EDIT: As Vbetts points out below, Intel actually has released a quad-core mobile CPU now, but I think my point still stands.

 

I would add that two cores is more than enough for the vast majority of people, especially those in the Mac Mini and iMac market.

 

 

x58 chipset works fine, bad move not instaling it in new macs

 

;)

Superhai
Superhai
Posted
Posted

the 2.26 ghz macmini is rather expensive considering the difference.

 

about the i7 cpu, and x58 chipset. the one major advantage is the fact that memory latency and speed is catching up with the cpu speed. Memory bandwidth is much larger, so there will be huge improvement for data not cached in the cpu. There is no point to have a 4GHz cpu if it can't get instructions and data quick enough to utilize it.

vbetts
vbetts
Posted
Posted
Mac Mini's and iMac's use mobile parts, quad-core is not a mobile option from Intel yet.

 

Yes there is. The Q9000 has been out for probably a month or 2 now.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16834115542

m16
m16
Posted
Posted
They're finally using Nehalem for the Mac pro. Good to see actually. :D

It's not clock speed that will always determine the final performance of the cpu. These Macs pros are based off of a different platform from what it was before.

Please, Bluray hasn't even begin to kick off yet. It's not big enough yet or worth the cost for apple to include support for it.

Blu-Ray is big enough to be supported. Especially by high end computers. Blu Ray is much better quality than DVD. DVDs look bad now....

pontifex22
pontifex22
Posted
Posted
No, you can't get the MB464LL/A with 1Gig ram. I tried because it has the better video processor but it's only available in 2 or 4 gigs.

I don't see a difference in on video between MB464LL/A and MB463LL/A please see specs:

http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html

 

Video ram is used according to the main ram built in it apears.

(Quote "2. Memory available to Mac OS X may vary depending on graphics needs. Minimum graphics memory usage is 128MB for 1GB configuration and 256MB for 2GB configuration.")

 

So a MB464LL/A is just another name for a MB463LL/A with bigger hard drive and 2GB ram.

Thus 18 variations of one basic machine. But all right, they don't give you a Mac mini with the MB464LL/A label

with only 1GB ram. But that's just a marketing label.

vbetts
vbetts
Posted
Posted
Neither was the iPod nor iPhone before Apple introduced it to us, remember?

 

Are you joking? As soon as both the Ipod and Iphone were released, they were both big hits. Bluray isn't an apple product either.

 

Blu-Ray is big enough to be supported. Especially by high end computers. Blu Ray is much better quality than DVD. DVDs look bad now....

 

How many Blu-rays do you see in an average home? How many do you see in high end computers now? Blu ray is going to be difficult to grow, because it's not cost effective right now. Yes, Blu-ray does have much higher quality then DVD, and also a hell of a lot more storage space. But, with the way Bluray is now, it's not cost effective. It needs more support. It's not like DVD, where dvd had time to progress from just movie formats to games, to data, basically to computers. That's it's problem right now with hitting off. As well as we're no where near dependant on bluray as we are DVD.

bofors
bofors
Posted
Posted
There is something I am curious about. There should be an imac10,1 coming soon. All these imacs now are imac9,1.

 

Perhaps the imac10,1 will be based on Core i5 (Lynnfield) which is due in about 6 months:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i5

 

the 2.26 ghz macmini is rather expensive considering the difference.

I am sure Psystar won't be complaining (or will they?).

 

about the i7 cpu, and x58 chipset. the one major advantage is the fact that memory latency and speed is catching up with the cpu speed. Memory bandwidth is much larger, so there will be huge improvement for data not cached in the cpu. There is no point to have a 4GHz cpu if it can't get instructions and data quick enough to utilize it.

 

I have not really seen any kind of a general memory bandwidth bottleneck like this since the PPC G4, which was stuck with a 133 MHz front side bus for years and then was raised to mere 167 MHz. Meanwhile, the CPU clock was raised from about 400 MHz to about 1.5 GHz. Even then, Altivec streaming/pre-fetch data instructions largely mitigated the problem, G4 Macintoshes were not totally blown out by Pentium 4 machines on Photoshop tests.

 

Are you joking? As soon as both the Ipod and Iphone were released, they were both big hits. Bluray isn't an apple product either.

 

I agree. Comparing Blu-ray with iPhone or iPod is not useful here.

 

How many Blu-rays do you see in an average home? How many do you see in high end computers now? Blu ray is going to be difficult to grow, because it's not cost effective right now. Yes, Blu-ray does have much higher quality then DVD, and also a hell of a lot more storage space. But, with the way Bluray is now, it's not cost effective. It needs more support. It's not like DVD, where dvd had time to progress from just movie formats to games, to data, basically to computers. That's it's problem right now with hitting off. As well as we're no where near dependant on bluray as we are DVD.

 

On the other hand, apparently 21.3 million PlayStation 3's have been sold (all have Blu-ray players built-in):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3

 

I see that Sony offers a DVD-burner/Blu-ray-player for about $100 retail:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16827118020

 

I am sure that Apple could get these at a substantial discount, let's say $50, not only after bulk wholesale negations but also because Sony must be pushing Apple to take the lead in adopting Blu-ray. Apple easily has enough margin in the Mac Pro line to include these Blu-ray drives, the DVD-burners they already use are not free either. I think Apple originally adopted DVD-burners at a much higher price point too.

 

The timing and economics may not be right yet, but Blu-ray is not going to take off until companies like Apple start adopting it either. I think Apple fanboys expect it to lead on adopting new technology, like Blu-ray, that is guaranteed to go mainstream too. Sony already offers Blu-ray in their PCs, certainly Apple should not wait for Dell & HP to do the same.

 

Blu-ray should at least be some kind of a Mac Pro option at this point, I am guessing that Apple is still in the process of negotiating a deal with Sony.

vbetts
vbetts
Posted
Posted
On the other hand, apparently 21.3 million PlayStation 3's have been sold (all have Blu-ray players built-in):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3

 

Just because though that the playstation features Blu-ray, doesn't mean that's what all 21.3 million of those people bought it for. As well as you know as much as I do, that probably just under half of those people, if not more do not have an HD tv on for their playstation. Which, Blu-ray without an HD tv is completely useless.

Guest cavallo
Guest cavallo
Posted
Posted
Just because though that the playstation features Blu-ray, doesn't mean that's what all 21.3 million of those people bought it for. As well as you know as much as I do, that probably just under half of those people, if not more do not have an HD tv on for their playstation. Which, Blu-ray without an HD tv is completely useless.

 

Exactly as everythimg without its engineering is not a mac pro

osx_maniac
osx_maniac
Posted
Posted

the new kexts for 4870, will probably bring compatibility for 4850, right? what about 46xx and 43xx series?

also, will the gt 120 kexts bring compatibility to gtx 2xx series from nvidea?

 

greets

osx maniac

Master Chief
Master Chief
Posted
Posted
Are you joking? As soon as both the Ipod and Iphone were released, they were both big hits. Bluray isn't an apple product either.

Please re-read what I wrote; as in the iPod wasn't the first music player, and the iPhone wasn't the first smart phone, but Apple stepped in this market and their hardware (iPod/iPhone) became 'hits' as you say, and thus what I was saying is that Apple can do magic here, since you basically need Blu-ray for your HD content so it is just a matter of time IMHO.

Master Chief
Master Chief
Posted
Posted
Just because though that the playstation features Blu-ray, doesn't mean that's what all 21.3 million of those people bought it for. As well as you know as much as I do, that probably just under half of those people, if not more do not have an HD tv on for their playstation. Which, Blu-ray without an HD tv is completely useless.

Microsoft researched this, in Europe, and almost everyone with an XBox 360 had at least a HD-Ready LCD TV so why would PS3 owners be any different?

 

Remember that PS3 owners already bought the more expensive game console, so money was obviously not a problem, and now people here think that they can't effort a HD(-ready) TV? We're not talking about expensive HDMI 1080p projectors here, which are far more expensive, but plain ordinairy LCD TV's which are quite affordable these days.

pontifex22
pontifex22
Posted
Posted

Who wants Blue Ray anyway? I want HVD!! :thumbsup_anim:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc

 

Guys cool it, your "arguments" won't hinder nor speed up Blue ray.

 

Like allways people will buy when the price is right and they think they need it, for some reason.

 

This means the media has to be cheap, burners cost less then 150US$, readers less then 60US$ and

for the main part the entertainment corporations are through with selling us their DVDs.

 

Sorry, but this will take a year at least, but it will become common at the end.

InsanelyPete
InsanelyPete
Posted
Posted

I posted this in Nov 2008 and the more time has gone by the more it proves me right:

"There has been a lot of talk in regards why hasn't Apple added Blue Ray drives to their computers. In October Steve Jobs balked at the question saying Sony wanted too much money and that he didn't feel it was the future of video distribution. The truth of the matter Apple has gone to great lengths to block Blue Ray but why? Turns out they wan't to distribute movies like they have done with music, over the Internet. This model allows them increased profits and leverage over the movie industry. Yet another example of when given a choice Apple would block hardware innovations that don't suit their interests. In addition they have not added Blue Ray to any of their DVD authoring software (consumer and professional). Its been previously thought BlueRay support had not been released because they needed more time or that they were waiting to see whether HD-DVD or BlueRay would win out, but now it seems more likely that they have no plans to support it. This has lead many in the video editing field to question how much Apple values multimedia. If they decide that they can make a lot more money on products centered around selling music where does that leave they're original customer base. I'm not predicting a dooms day scenario but I can't help think about the implications of Apples new direction."

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...