Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Don Pickett · Mar 1, 2012, 06:15 PM

Intel Xeon E5 already in channel, to be official next week | Electronista

I'm hoping for a new Mac Pro as well.

P · Mar 1, 2012, 06:24 PM

Well, there is an event next week...

SierraDragon · Mar 1, 2012, 06:42 PM

With so much CPU power now cheaply available maybe Apple will surprise us and make the base MP low priced but still capable of massive RAM.

Just dreaming...

mduell · Mar 1, 2012, 08:54 PM

I wonder if they'll do a new chassis.

I expect entry prices to stay up since the volumes are so low.

gangster · Mar 1, 2012, 09:22 PM

Rush Limbaugh, a huge long term Mac-aholic since its beginnings stated that he "knows" there will be one more Mac Pro update, but not until 3rd quarter of this year. Not sure what that claim is worth but he has always been a big Apple supporter and user.

SierraDragon · Mar 1, 2012, 09:25 PM

Limbaugh? I am switching to Win right after I puke.

Don Pickett · Mar 2, 2012, 04:06 AM

Intel's been pretty good about letting Apple have first crack at their new chips, so there's a chance we'll see a new Mac Pro sooner than later.

SierraDragon · Mar 2, 2012, 11:12 AM

Agreed. I have always felt that Aoole negotiated first crack at new hardware from Intel when it agreed to switch to Intel from PPC.

Since it has been so long since IMO Apple will release right away once the chips they intend to use are available.

Waragainstsleep · Mar 2, 2012, 11:33 AM

On the other hand, the longer they wait, the better the chances of a case redesign?

Don Pickett · Mar 2, 2012, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

On the other hand, the longer they wait, the better the chances of a case redesign?

If we assume Apple's going to release new Mac Pros, then I think we can assume they've had the new case designs ready for a while. It's how they roll.

SierraDragon · Mar 2, 2012, 02:59 PM

Personally I really like the existing (beast) case, see no reason to change unless they go to a rackable configuration. Or go the other direction and add drive bays, which does not make a lot of sense.

Or keep the Beast as the lower end only, like they do with iPhones. Just add RAM slots...

Waragainstsleep · Mar 2, 2012, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

If we assume Apple's going to release new Mac Pros, then I think we can assume they've had the new case designs ready for a while. It's how they roll.

They might need more time than usual to test the new cases with the new CPUs. Make sure they stay cool enough. The current case was designed to accommodate the ludicrous heat sinks of the G5 processors. They could probably shrink them down a little if they felt inclined but they'd need to make sure they won't overheat under sustained full loads. Ideally stacked 42U high in racks.

lpkmckenna · Mar 2, 2012, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

The current case was designed to accommodate the ludicrous heat sinks of the G5 processors.

I'm pretty sure the original G5s ran reasonably cool, so that wasn't the reason for the case. In fact, I recall the G5 was expected to be a pretty good laptop processor but that just didn't pan out.

mduell · Mar 2, 2012, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

In fact, I recall the G5 was expected to be a pretty good laptop processor but that just didn't pan out.

Whaa?

The jokes started pretty quickly after G5 release:

osiris24x · Mar 2, 2012, 10:40 PM

Quite the opposite - the G5 had horrendous heat and subsequent kernel panic issues. Stuffing it into a laptop just wasn't doable. The dismal failure of the G5 architecture in general is what prompted Apple's move to the Intel architecture in the first place.

P · Mar 3, 2012, 06:54 AM

The G5 was based on a server processor, Power4, and was certainly never designed to run cool. IBM made a low-voltage version eventually, but it ran at fairly low clock speeds and was never interesting.

Waragainstsleep · Mar 3, 2012, 11:06 AM

Here are the first generation heatsinks:

The top end models after that (possible not the last one) had to be water cooled:

Even with all that cooling, the case had numerous carefully designed thermal zones in order to keep the noise down, hence the plastic air bafflers that you used to get behind the alu side panel. When you removed that baffler, the fans ramped up to prevent overheat due to the airflow being wrong.
Try fitting all that in a G4 case.

The G5 or at least some variant of it was supposed to have good potential as a laptop chip but IBM never got it to work at the required power and heat in practise. At least not quickly enough. I recall there were murmurs of nitro-cooled PPC chips running 6GHz a couple of days after Apple announced the Intel switch.

Waragainstsleep · Mar 3, 2012, 11:10 AM

All wishing for a rack mountable change aside, the G5/Mac Pro case is rapidly approaching 9 years old. I would be inclined to think if Apple doesn't change it soon, it would be a good indicator they will ditch it altogether.

I know the Xserve wasn't a money spinner for them, but given the annoyance that was voiced at its death, surely combining both models into one would make some sense?

P · Mar 3, 2012, 01:52 PM

I think it's due for a refresh, because I think they will want to offer all those 16 possible RAM slots, and you can't fit that in the current design. I also think that some sort of compromise rack mounting solution is likely.

Don Pickett · Mar 3, 2012, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I'm pretty sure the original G5s ran reasonably cool, so that wasn't the reason for the case. In fact, I recall the G5 was expected to be a pretty good laptop processor but that just didn't pan out.

I've heard the G5 called many things, but cool isn't one of them.

Don Pickett · Mar 3, 2012, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by osiris24x

Quite the opposite - the G5 had horrendous heat and subsequent kernel panic issues. Stuffing it into a laptop just wasn't doable. The dismal failure of the G5 architecture in general is what prompted Apple's move to the Intel architecture in the first place.

I wouldn't call the G5 a failure: for what it was--a server-derived desktop chip--it was a very good piece of silicon, capable of spanking the fast x86 chips of the day. However, in order for it to go forward IBM would've needed to spend hundreds of millions and, really, develop an entire new line of chips for Apple. Given Apple's low sales volumes in those days, there's no way IBM would've ever seen return on investment.

When things like CHRP died the hopes for wide scale PPC desktop adoption died as well. Given the enormous success of PPC cores in embedded systems, it's not a mystery why Motorola/Freescale and the like concentrated on tiny, low-power cores, as that's where the money was. More and more the PPC desktop chips were a sideline, and one which had to, eventually, be wound down.

angelmb · Mar 3, 2012, 04:52 PM

The Power Mac G5 & Mac OS X 10.3 combo was IMHO one of the greatest in the recent (Apple) history. Apple hardware and software had taken such great steps forward in the summer of 2003.

Don Pickett · Mar 3, 2012, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by angelmb

The Power Mac G5 & Mac OS X 10.3 combo was IMHO one of the greatest in the recent (Apple) history. Apple hardware and software had taken such great steps forward in the summer of 2003.

True: the G5s were an enormous leap over the G4s. And then everything stopped, and Apple was left with overclocking and liquid cooling.

jmiddel · Mar 4, 2012, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

I've heard the G5 called many things, but cool isn't one of them.

I had the DP 1.8 for 4 years, it was definitely temp-cool compared to my i7 iMac on the back of which I could fry bacon, and visually it was way cooool. Why should Apple change a great design, the fabrication of which has long since been amortized, for something else just to be new? Ain't broke, don't fix.

And yes, I'd like an entry level MacPro, like many others, because an i7 is fine for me, but I want multiple hard/optical drives. And as much RAM I can get. Given afore mentioned amortization, this should not only not reduce Apple's profit, but increase it do to many more buyers. I intend to keep my iMac as long as it lasts, but I'd rather replace it when the time comes with a MacPro and and Apple monitor.

Don Pickett · Mar 4, 2012, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by jmiddel

I had the DP 1.8 for 4 years, it was definitely temp-cool compared to my i7 iMac on the back of which I could fry bacon, and visually it was way cooool. Why should Apple change a great design, the fabrication of which has long since been amortized, for something else just to be new? Ain't broke, don't fix.

My dual 2 GHz G5 runs at 128° when cool. My Mac Pro runs at 100° with much lower fan speeds.

Check the CPU temps on your iMac. Most of the heat from the iMac is GPU/display.

Waragainstsleep · Mar 4, 2012, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by jmiddel

Why should Apple change a great design, the fabrication of which has long since been amortized, for something else just to be new? Ain't broke, don't fix.

Taking that attitude to a computer case would mean that a computer still needed its own room.

The G5 case is bigger than the Mac Pro requires and awkward to rack mount. Therefore it can (and should) be fixed.

Don Pickett · Mar 4, 2012, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

The G5 case is bigger than the Mac Pro requires and awkward to rack mount. Therefore it can (and should) be fixed.

What? I have a G5 and a Mac Pro side-by-side. They're exactly the same size.

angelmb · Mar 4, 2012, 01:28 PM

I guess text is missing a comma between 'Pro' and 'requires'.

" The G5 case is bigger than the Mac Pro requires, and awkward to rack mount. "

Don Pickett · Mar 4, 2012, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by angelmb

I guess text is missing a comma between 'Pro' and 'requires'.

" The G5 case is bigger than the Mac Pro requires, and awkward to rack mount. "

Ah. Makes sense.

Waragainstsleep · Mar 4, 2012, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by angelmb

I guess text is missing a comma between 'Pro' and 'requires'.

" The G5 case is bigger than the Mac Pro requires, and awkward to rack mount. "

Thats not between 'Pro' and 'requires'

But yes, I was referring to the fact that the case in question was designed for the G5 and then adapted for the Mac Pro. It doesn't need to be so big any more.

SierraDragon · Mar 5, 2012, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

It doesn't need to be so big any more.

But the existing case is attractive and very, very functional, so why invest in case changes? Pros do not need a new foo-foo tower case design.

Instead just add new CPUs, RAM slots, value SSD choices and T-bird. Keep prices civilized at the low end.

Rackable cases are a whole new marketing effort which I would applaud, but not at the expense of providing a civilized medium-end tower to prosumers like me. Apple's graphics pros were the base for decades but ~~horrible~~ glossy iMac displays and ~~horribly~~ overpriced Quad MPs screwed us big time; not good.

Please this is not an invitation to debate the glossy displays that consumers seem so fond of, just the observation that lack of a matte choice fails to serve the pro graphics base.

-Allen

Waragainstsleep · Mar 5, 2012, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by SierraDragon

But the existing case is attractive and very, very functional, so why invest in case changes? Pros do not need a new foo-foo tower case design.

Instead just add new CPUs, RAM slots, value SSD choices and T-bird. Keep prices civilized at the low end.

Rackable cases are a whole new marketing effort which I would applaud, but not at the expense of providing a civilized medium-end tower to prosumers like me. Apple's graphics pros were the base for decades but ~~horrible~~ glossy iMac displays and ~~horribly~~ overpriced Quad MPs screwed us big time; not good.
-Allen

The Mac Pro and Xserve have always been very very similar machines internally. If Apple is going to kill the MP entirely sometime soon then I agree it wouldn't be worth building a new case but if they are here to stay then it just seems sensible to me kill two birds with one stone and make a system that can be easily put in a rack. Its obviously not worth doing two separate machines or the Xserve would still exist but I don't think Apple would struggle to rearrange the guts of a Mac Pro to fit in a slightly smaller case and make provisions to bolt rails to it for those that wish to.

I'm sure with a bit of Apple ingenuity a 2U Mac Pro case can be done without sacrificing any RAM slots or CPU power.

mduell · 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

I'm sure with a bit of Apple ingenuity a 2U Mac Pro case can be done without sacrificing any RAM slots or CPU power.

Sure they could; a 2U will easily hold 2 CPUs, 18 memory slots, and 8 drives. They're also incredibly loud to push enough air to cool all that ****. I don't think ol' Jony could magic his way around the noise issue.

Waragainstsleep · Mar 5, 2012, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

Sure they could; a 2U will easily hold 2 CPUs, 18 memory slots, and 8 drives. They're also incredibly loud to push enough air to cool all that ****. I don't think ol' Jony could magic his around the noise issue.

Where did 8 drives come from?

mduell · Mar 5, 2012, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

Where did 8 drives come from?

Other 2Us on the market. Same place 18 memory slots came from.

subego · Mar 5, 2012, 07:26 PM

Not that it's the best idea, but I can see Apple wanting to push everything (PCI and hard drives) off to Thunderbolt.

BLAZE_MkIV · Mar 5, 2012, 08:06 PM

A case that you could tip over and fit in a rack at 4U would be fine. No need to go with the small loud fans it would take at 2U. And you can keep multiple full height PCIe slots. You don't need built in rails, as with the G4s someone will make a bracket. Loosing the dvd drives and make it narrow enough to stand 4 in a rack would make it tippy and only work if you had 4 to rack.

Waragainstsleep · Mar 5, 2012, 08:23 PM

I think a 2U system with 2 CPUs and plenty of RAM slots and an SSD boot drive and then another 2U chassis stuffed with either PCI-E and/or 3.5" SAS or SATA drives would be a great way of doing things. Nice little modular system though the storage subsystem would require fibre channel alongside thunderbolt or that thunderbolt became XSAN compatible which I guess would require some kind of TB switchgear. Be nice if you could share a PCI-E box between multiple server units as well I'd guess.

Then you have option of building anything you want on Apple hardware, render farms, SANS or a glorious Final Cut-friendly mishmash of the two. And of course your'd get Mac Pro, iMac and MacBook Pro users buying the storage or I/O chassis too so if anything, sales of such a system should eclipse the combined Mac Pro and Xserve sales.

BLAZE_MkIV · Mar 5, 2012, 09:03 PM

So I have to have a second box to get my big ass video card and a second media drive? That sounds horrible. No iMac or MacBook user is going to buy a rack mount external case for extra stuff like that. I can't imagine how you would put that on a desk. It won't ever compete with SAN solutions so you just force your existing customers to get two boxes to do what one does.

Waragainstsleep · Mar 6, 2012, 07:31 AM

The point is that it would be happy to free stand on a desk OR be rack mounted. Strap it under the desk, sit it on top, hide it in a rack a few feet away. Versatility.

I guess they could find room for one video/PCI-E card in the 'primary' box.

I still want to know how Thunderbolt is going to work on a Mac Pro. Does it run through the graphics card? You might need one card in the primary box in that case.

P · Mar 7, 2012, 05:41 AM

And now it is official. Reviews available at the usual places. While it is not the massive performance increase that Nehalem gave us, it's a big step forward nonetheless. The Sandy Bridge cache hierarchy really helps when you scale up the cores, and the improved power management translates into higher turbo frequencies.

Spheric Harlot · Mar 7, 2012, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV

So I have to have a second box to get my big ass video card and a second media drive? That sounds horrible. No iMac or MacBook user is going to buy a rack mount external case for extra stuff like that.

With all due respect:

Any professional user is going to buy the tools he requires to get the job done. External expansion chassis have been available from Magma for years, and people who needed them bought them and used them. What the box looks like on the desk is generally not really of that much interest to people who have actual work to get done.

BLAZE_MkIV · Mar 7, 2012, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

With all due respect:

Any professional user is going to buy the tools he requires to get the job done. External expansion chassis have been available from Magma for years, and people who needed them bought them and used them. What the box looks like on the desk is generally not really of that much interest to people who have actual work to get done.

What it looks like on a desk is a counter argument for the idea that the MacBook / iMac users would get one. Not that I think those users would get one even it if looked pretty.

Without all the PCIe & HD slots its an xMac not a MacPro and that argument is old.

Spheric Harlot · Mar 7, 2012, 06:28 PM

BLAZE_MkIV · Mar 7, 2012, 07:44 PM

sweet

mduell · Mar 9, 2012, 12:02 PM

Dell has demonstrated what you can stuff in a 2U with the new R720xd: 2 E5 Xeons, 24 memory slots, 3 PCIe slots, and 26 drives

OreoCookie · Mar 9, 2012, 12:09 PM

@mduell
Impressive.
However, such a machine wouldn't exactly be silent, though. And if you want something that doubles as desktop and a rack-mountable server, I think you would have to go for something less dense.

Don Pickett · Mar 12, 2012, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

Dell has demonstrated what you can stuff in a 2U with the new R720xd: 2 E5 Xeons, 24 memory slots, 3 PCIe slots, and 26 drives

Plus, you can cook bacon on the thing!

Waragainstsleep · Mar 12, 2012, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Plus, you can cook bacon on the thing!

And probably make jerky in the wake of its fans. Within minutes.

Don Pickett · Mar 12, 2012, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

And probably make jerky in the wake of its fans. Within minutes.

Perhaps there's an untapped market here: combine server room and kitchen. I know Apple was on to this early with the G5, but they ruined it with the Intel transition.