Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Releases Sandy Bridge-based Xeon E5 Series

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the please-send-eight dept.

Intel 96

crookedvulture writes "Desktop and notebook users have been enjoying chips based on Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture for more than a year. Now, workstations and servers can get in on the action with the Xeon E5-2600 series. These Sandy Bridge-EP Xeons offer up to eight cores, 20MB of cache, and a truly staggering amount of I/O bandwidth. Unlike their consumer-grade counterparts, the new chips feature more advanced power management and the ability to deposit incoming data packets directly into the CPU's cache rather than going through main memory. They also plug into LGA2011 sockets, requiring an upgrade to the new Romley-EP platform. No fewer than 17 models are available, with prices falling between $200 and $2000 and TDPs ranging from 60-150W." The summary is slightly incorrect -- the Xeon E3 series has been out for the workstation market for quite a while (sporting graphics cores on the models ending in -XXX5 too).

cancel ×

96 comments

Mac Pro (2, Insightful)

FreakyGeeky (23009) | more than 2 years ago | (#39265311)

Come on new Mac Pros!

Re:Mac Pro (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39265339)

Yeah, the timing couldn't be better. Mortgage rates are at some of the lowest levels in decades.

Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (1)

2starr (202647) | more than 2 years ago | (#39265575)

Oh, come on. Why mod this down? This is comically pointing out the biggest problem with Mac Pros: the absolutely ridiculous price tag. When you can build a Hackintosh [tonymacx86.com] with twice the power for less than half the starting price of the Mac Pro line, there's something very wrong.

My Mac Pro wish is for a line refresh with a major price cut.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39265627)

I've only managed same power for 2/3rds the price, but I only stick to stuff I've found to be very reliable over time. I don't go for parts manufacturers that, in my experience, have higher than normal failure rates - which sadly end up being many, but not all, of the cheap ones.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39265731)

Oh, come on. Why mod this down? This is comically pointing out the biggest problem with Mac Pros: the absolutely ridiculous price tag. When you can build a Hackintosh [tonymacx86.com] with twice the power for less than half the starting price of the Mac Pro line, there's something very wrong.

My Mac Pro wish is for a line refresh with a major price cut.

And here we go again.
You dont seem to get the point. Apple makes the computers, they make the software. That is why their computers is the most rock solid solution. I have now had a macbook pro for over two years!. And not one kernel panic!. Windows, hahahaha. those years of reinstalling and trying to figure out eh what the hells is the problem is gone. Id rather pay more for things that does not break!.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (4, Insightful)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266401)

I've had my Windows 7 PC for over a year now, not a single crash. Its made from parts from Intel, Crucial, Western Digital, Gigabyte, Sapphire, LG, Silverstone, Logitech and ViewSonic. What's your point again?

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271931)

I have an XP laptop since 2003 and it hasn't had one (1!) Kernel panic in the last five (5!!!) years.
I haven't used it since 2006 but who cares?

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39266063)

You want to run your media production company on Hackintosh? Good luck with that, dude. Your clients will be real impressed with your low budget bootleg studio.

They're called Mac PRO for a reason, if your business can't swing the pricetag for a real unix workstation maybe you need a new line of work.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39268665)

you want to run a company on Macintosh? Good luck with that, dude.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266163)

You do realize that the Mac Pro is not a commodity gaming box, right? These are Xeon-based workstations with ECC RAM. I doubt that many Hackintoshes are built with those. As for the price, Mac Pros tend to be surprisingly competitive, sometimes even better-priced than the competition, but only for a while after their introduction. The line is stale now while the competition has been shuffling models and prices around. The next line will probably be priced appropriately for its particular market (at least in some models. Dual CPU Mac Pros tend to be more competitive), and that particular market is NOT the kind of people who build Hackies from commodity parts.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39266967)

As for the price, Mac Pros tend to be surprisingly competitive, sometimes even better-priced than the competition, but only for a while after their introduction.

Actually, building your own Mac Pro, with roughly the same parts, costs around $2k less than the Mac Pro. For example, with the baseline dual-socket Mac Pro 5,1 you get two 2.4 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon E5620 processors, 8 GB 1333 MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM, a 1 TB 7200 RPM SATA HDD, an ATI Radeon HD 5770, an 18x SuperDrive, and a Magic Mouse/Trackpad and keyboard for $3949. For $2022 you get virtually same components:

Intel Xeon E5620 Westmere 2.4GHz 12MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 80W Quad-Core Server Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117234
Price: $390 * 2 = $780

SUPERMICRO MBD-X8DTi-LN4F-O Dual LGA 1366 Intel 5520 Extended ATX Dual Intel Xeon 5500 and 5600 Series Server Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182219
Price: $429

Kingston 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM ECC Registered DDR3 1333 Server Memory
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820139575
Price: $79

PLEXTOR Black 12X BD-R 2X BD-RE 16X DVD+R 12X DVD-RAM 8X BD-ROM 8MB Cache SATA 12X Blu-ray Writer
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827249079
Price: $147

MSI R5770 Hawk Radeon HD 5770 1GB 128-bit GDDR5
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127490
Price: $114

Western Digital Caviar Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136533
Price: $139

Thermaltake Toughpower W0132RU 1000W ATX12V / EPS12V
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153053
Price: $334

(Note that I splurged a bit some areas and you can bring that total down by $200 or so.) Now, taking out the above quad core Xeons and replacing them with:

Intel Xeon X5670 Westmere 2.93GHz 12MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 95W Six-Core Server Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117229
Price: $1442 * 2 = $2,884

you could have a $6649 Mac Pro for only $4126. If you wanted to put all of that into a Mac Pro case, you'd need to spend another $170 (http://www.macpartsonline.com/mac-pro-parts/922-9631-enclosure-without-power-supply-mac-pro-mid-2010-a1289.html), around $300 for the remaining case components (like the drive covers, fans, etc.), and some money for various power tools, provided you didn't own them already.

Of course, there are a few ways you can bring down the price of the Mac Pro. For instance, you can grab the baseline, single socket version, sell the processor for $150 and motherboard for around $400, and then buy the dual socket motherboard for $500, a second heat sink for about $150, and the dual 6 core Xeons for $2884. At that point, you'll be looking at $5483 instead of $6649.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39267529)

It’s so funny.. Do you always think that Apple, Hp, Dell etc assembles the computers for free?? OH no i know, you did not think about that!! Workforce costs money too. Do you have a job?

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268163)

Yeah, it totally costs $2000 to assemble a Mac Pro. That's clearly what it is.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (2)

Chase Husky (1131573) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268615)

What a humorous, yet snide, response to my merely pointing out and verifying that you can have a workstation with the same quality as a Mac Pro, at least where the components are concerned, not necessarily functionality and aesthetics, for much, much less than what you could get through Apple; clearly, you have some serious issues that you need to address.

Oh, and to answer your question, yes I do have a job: I work as an applied maths researcher and pay for my salary, research endeavors, and travel arrangements to present papers at conferences like NIPS, ICCV, CVPR, and ECCV through the annual interest made on my investments and healthcare patent royalties from GE, Intel, Honeywell, etc. so I don't have to bother with writing grant proposals or department politics.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39270969)

Umm, if you're so rich traveling the world on interest payments and patent royalties why are you wasting time making a hackintosh and not just buying a mac pro? Haha.

Oh, you meant you're an unemployed old baby boomer who lives off his retirement account from Honeywell and has a very fixed income. Haha.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272595)

Umm, if you're so rich ...

Quite possibly for the same reason many other people who can afford to pay someone else to do something but instead choose to do it on their own: they enjoy doing so more than they value spending the excess time elsewhere in their life.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39273781)

Well, that's fine but don't begrudge professionals who actually have shit to do and don't want to fuck around building a sketchy unsupported hackintosh for their critical workstations.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#39286913)

I was doing no such thing. With the exception of the top couple posts in this thread, the only people being snide or begrudging were those who "didn't see the point" in doing it.

If I had a critical workstation, I'd buy support. If I had (and do, and did) have one not as critical, I most certainly would do it myself. When you get past simplistic, knee-jerk reactions, you may find that the same person can support both sides by realizing that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for everyone. There's more than enough room for more than one approach.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (1)

Chase Husky (1131573) | more than 2 years ago | (#39276555)

Umm, if you're so rich traveling the world on interest payments and patent royalties why are you wasting time making a hackintosh and not just buying a mac pro? Haha.

On top of everything else you have reading comprehension issues. To help make things clear for you, I never said that I owned a hackintosh.

However, I will mention that I assembled my workstation, if you can even classify it as such, and it is far more powerful than a Mac Pro: it has 8 Xeon E7-8870s, for a total of 80 cores and 160 threads @ 2.4/2.8 GHz, a Supermicro X8OBN-F motherboard, 512 GB (16x 32 GB DIMMs) DDR3 RAM, and 4 NVIDIA M2070s. (As an aside, a single Xeon E7-8870 costs more than the entry-level, dual-socket Mac Pro and the entire computer is a few thousand dollars short of the price of a new Porsche 911 Carrera.) Oh, and yes, I routinely develop software or run simulations that actually require that much, or far more, computing power: try running lattice-Boltzmann/finite element or Stokesian particulate flows, for modeling thousands to hundreds of million red blood cells, on a Mac Pro.

Oh, you meant you're an unemployed old baby boomer who lives off his retirement account from Honeywell and has a very fixed income. Haha.

Continuing the above remark, it's laughable that you take what I've written and automatically default to assuming that I'm "unemployed," let alone a baby boomer. Just so you know, I'm not even 30.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39267777)

Well that is a good analysis of BOM it doesn't cover assembly, software installation, warranty and shipping.

The average buyer of a system wants them all working out of the box. Yes it may only take 2 hours to build and install, but if any of the parts are bad, you've now wasted the clients time.

I've honestly "been there" twice where parts ordered to be assembled at the client's location turned out to not be what it should be. Intel fucked me over on the Pentium 90, the Pentium II, the i820 MTH, and a Xeon 3220. No more stupid shit. I no longer build systems for other people, only fix them. It stopped being fun when you lose clients or have the "sales" person yell and thow a tantrum because you cost them a commission.

Now when someone wants to know what to buy, I tell them to buy a iMac if they want a desktop or a Macbook Pro if they want a laptop. I have yet to run into someone who had a Mac die on them. I have however had countless people have HP's die on them, including roommates and family members. Cheapest is never best.

If you're comfortable building your own system, and don't mind taking it on the chin when the occasional part burns you for more than what you budgeted (That X3220 pissed me of because it resulted in replacing everything but the hard drive) then go ahead and build. But don't say Mac's are expensive because you can buy cheaper hardware elsewhere. Apple does more QA control than Dell does, and has earned the right to make more money by not having as much support overhead. I wish HP and Dell would learn that.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39268367)

hmmm,

  where is the laptop case ?

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 2 years ago | (#39269169)

Which is why I said for a while after introduction. You can build one cheaper now because Apple rarely does much with the MP line aside from perhaps one or two minor bumps/BTO options during a model's lifetime. When they first come out, they're pretty competitive. When they've been out a year+...not so much.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39272393)

Where's your case? Your cooling system? Bluetooth? Wi-fi? Firewire card? Let's say you price out the above--it'll end up around $250.

Why are you comparing a package with a magic mouse and keyboard but not adding those costs to your build? That alone is an additional $118.

That's $2390.

Where are you getting $3949 in comparison? You're describing a bog standard $2499 Mac Pro with a $79 memory upgrade.

$200 for the assembly, software, and other niceties doesn't sound all that problematic to me. You've rather proven the opposite of your point.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (2)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266565)

Seriously? Go part for part one Mac pro.

You're talking about systems that have CPUs that cost upwards of 1600 bucks each. With one CPU plus motherboard plus case plus ram plus an upgraded psu to match spec for spec on a pro comes up to about the same price and you haven't even factored in disk, video card or peripherals.

A Mac Pro is relatively priced with its competitors.

The only thing that blows is that Apple nor AMD nor nvidia is interested in support for newer gpus. But if that's your bend, you're probably just going to bootcamp anyway and use whatever gpu you'd like.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39267267)

you don't need a 1K PSU in a one cpu system and other stuff in the mac pro is over kill. Now apple needs a $1000-$1500 1 cpu desktop system. The 1 cpu mac pro at $2500 is very over priced and the mini is to small and under powered for people who need a good desktop.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268131)

You sure could use a 1k psu if you're powering several video cards, max out all the drive bays etc.

The problem with a standard desktop machine is that there's no place in the apple mindset for them. users who want that kind of flexibility don't make up a significant portion of the overall market.

OTOH, users who need such features are people who can spring for a pro.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277417)

Mac mini (the latest models) are jsut fine as a 'good' desktop. My win 7 gaming PC transcodes video about 1/3 faster with the extra 2 cores (but no hyperthreading like on the mac.) Ive run handbrake side by side, i5 quad core PC vs i5 dual core HT and the difference is not as great as you would make out. As a DESKTOP its a fine machine, as a workstation, it functions well. 16 GB RAM + SSD in a mac mini = a blazing fast computer with a tiny heat, size and noise footprint. Currently running 2 linux and a win 7 VM on the mac mini. The win 7 VM is recording 2 HD streams of premium cable TV and will then clip the commercials and transcode it into 2 different formats, all while im typing this up.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39267905)

Actually what he's frustrated about isn't the Mac Pro, it's that there's no normal Mac. Not a micro, not a all-in-one, not pro. Just a normal box that you'd find at any PC store that uses normal consumer CPUs, normal RAM, normal graphics cards, normal HDDs, normal everything. Because he might like OS X, he might like Mac software, but the hardware is such a total mismatch it's not going to happen. Been there, considered that but the only Mac I'd consider buying is a Mac laptop because luckily the form factor is so constrained they can't help being like a PC laptop.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268695)

normal consumer CPUs, normal RAM, normal graphics cards, normal HDDs, normal everything

A Xeon is not a consumer CPU. DDR3 ECC memory is not normal consumer memory. Most likely it will be server HDDs which cost slightly more. Other than upgrading to server parts, it's not normal.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266813)

Maybe because the majority of hackintoses are not twice the power of Mac Pro. A Core i Series from Intel is not the same things as a Xeon from Intel unless you believe Intel is ripping you off charging more for workstation/server class CPUs. Apple does not make mid-towers for consumers. A Mac Pro is a workstation or server (if configured to be). Most people here seem to only see CPU frequency and ignore other aspects that make them not comparable.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268565)

Umn, well Intel Xeons are generally underclocked versions of their desktop CPUs with a better lead time, and more testing. It's the additional testing that is part of the cost. In general "Workstation" and "Server" components are usually non-extreme, conservatively clocked components with a *very* large margin (profit) built in, far more than the leading edge desktop fanboi parts by far.

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39277463)

They are different chips besides just lead time and testing. They carry ALOT more cache, which isnt cheap, as well as handle very high amounts of I/O in a much more efficient manner. Xeons are more then just rebadged Cores

Re:Where's the "Funny/Insightful" mod love? (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 2 years ago | (#39278645)

Perhaps you could share some architectural differences? I mean, more cache allows higher amounts of I/O, but just the same, not sure in what ways (or even one) Xeons are dramatically different.

Re:Mac Pro (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39265831)

I recall hearing somewhere that the MacPro line was slated to be discontinued. Yea, here it is:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/apples-mac-pro-may-be-fading-away-11012011.html

There's a whole slew of similar articles dated Novemeber 1st, 2011.

You Aple freaks are snobs.

Re:Mac Pro (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266181)

It's true! The unfounded rumors said so!

Re:Mac Pro (4, Insightful)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39265341)

They'll be here soon enough :) Now if only Apple could do something about the dreadful state of the video cards available...

Re:Mac Pro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39265433)

no kidding. Why no workstation class quadros or firepros?

Re:Mac Pro (2)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39265753)

Agreed. I need to be able to add another $5000 onto my absurdly expensive desktop.

Re:Mac Pro (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39265791)

Spoken like someone who truly doesn't understand that computation time = money for some professionals. That $5000 can pay for itself in a month in some professions.

Re:Mac Pro (1)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39265929)

If you are concerned with computation time or cost you probably shouldn't be using a Mac.

Re:Mac Pro (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266067)

You do know that a Mac Pro is a workstation right? Meaning it is not a consumer machine but intended for professionals whether they are creative types like Pixar animators or scientific types that need a Unix workstation.

just get a HP server (1)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266167)

If you really want CPU power, get a server class box, 48core+

Show me a 48core mac.

Re:just get a HP server (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266339)

Huh? A workstation is not a server. A server is not a workstation. Getting a 48 core machine costing vastly more is the same as getting an animator a workstation to use Renderman is like advocating that construction workers get 18-wheel semis to haul their tools and equipment around when they asked for work trucks.

Re:just get a HP server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39267809)

Well, if you make those beauty shots with the final resolution constantly in your remotely located home office..

Re:just get a HP server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39267383)

With a decent video card, I could show you a 512-core Mac.

Re:Mac Pro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39266495)

mac pro is nothing special, I had one, it broke down to often, had to drag it to a apple repear shop everytime, the last time it broke down with the same problems a month after the applecare packet went out. I should pay at least > 700 euro for repair of a video card + new power. (for those 700 euro I get a video card that is more than 3 years old, and the fourth power supply with the same shitty quality...

I won't be being a power mac any more... I would have guessed for > 3000 euros it would at least last longer than 3 years...

Re:Mac Pro (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266601)

I don't know about your area but if you are losing power supplies 3 or 4 times, maybe your power situation isn't ideal.

Re:Mac Pro (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 2 years ago | (#39267241)

I guess it's finally time to retire the Iris Indigo.

Re:Mac Pro (4, Informative)

friedmud (512466) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266123)

I run a scientific computing group at a national laboratory... we have over 30 people developing massively parallel, multiphysics, simulation tools.... all with Mac Pro workstations and Mac laptops.

Macs are UNIX workstations with a good GUI and they don't break every time you do an OS update (like the one Ubuntu box we keep just for testing did just this morning).

We can do all of our development in a great environment and still be able to throw our code out on our supercomputers when the problems get large.

You sir, are wrong.

And for everyone saying Mac Pros are expensive... they are not. They are priced similarly to their competition (which is, gasp!, other workstations!) like these: http://www.boxxtech.com/products/3DBOXX/8920.asp?prodid=8920 [boxxtech.com]

Re:Mac Pro (0)

JonJ (907502) | more than 2 years ago | (#39267581)

Macs are UNIX workstations with a good GUI and they don't break every time you do an OS update (like the one Ubuntu box we keep just for testing did just this morning).

Having worked some years at a Mac Repair shop, I can tell you that OS X is the most unstable POS operating system I have ever had the displeasure of working with. Kernel panics for the smallest problems, system hangs for no apparant reasons, configurations breaking without an update, sometimes OS X just randomly stops working while you're sitting there doing your thing. I'd rather be running Windows ME than this horrible UNIX-turd.

Re:Mac Pro (4, Funny)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 2 years ago | (#39267693)

Having worked some years at a Mac Repair shop, I can tell you that OS X is the most unstable POS operating system I have ever had the displeasure of working with.

So none of the Macs sent in to the repair shop were working correctly? How odd.

Re:Mac Pro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39270899)

I agree with Macs being nice UNIX machines essentially but you are wrong with the price.

I recently assembled for our research group's computing needs a 2x8 core (3.0GHz Interlagos) 256GB RAM 8x2TB HDD setup for slightly more than to what your link points to : 2x8 core w/ 16GB RAM???, starting price ~$4500.

Comparable Mac Pro : ~6500, and just dare maxing out the memory : 6 extra 8GB sticks will set you back for $2400, when you can get 8GB sticks from respectable brands for ~150 each.

Bottom line : if you don't care for the money, get a maxed out Mac. Otherwise build it yourself and slap CentOS on it.

Re:Mac Pro (1)

friedmud (512466) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272011)

Firstly, it's cool and all that you built your own boxes... that's a great way to go if you can (ie you have the time and expertise to support the group when things go wrong) but it isn't really relevant to the discussion about the price of OEM workstations (that come with warranties and support, etc). Your group might not need that stuff, but for people that do, building it yourself isn't an option. Not to dog on you or anything... just that different groups have different needs.

Ok... with that out of the way... I'm _not_ off base on the price.

Go here:

http://boxxtech.com/products/3DBOXX/8550.asp?prodid=8550 [boxxtech.com]

Click "Configure a Boxx System"... put in your email.

Select the "WS DUAL XEON X5650 2.66GHz, 12MB cache, 1333 MHz, 6.4 GT/s QPI (Six-Core) " processor (because that's what the starting Dual-core Mac Pro has in it).

Click Update Total: $6,659.00

Now go here: http://store.apple.com/us/configure/Z0M4 [apple.com] ?

Select 12GB of RAM. Total: $5,449.00

Now. There are some inequities (graphics cards aren't the same, better HD in the Boxx workstation, etc).... but it's pretty clear that Apple isn't "Overpriced".

Why do we have to keep discussing this every single damn time Mac Pros are brought up???

If you don't want to assemble your own workstations and you really do need WORKSTATION class components... a Mac Pro is a great workstation and falls in line with all the other high-end workstations on the market in terms of price.

or you can buy 2-3 systems for the price mac pro (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266133)

or you can buy 2-3 systems for the price of the mac pro.

Now that is the best back of plan a full system or be able to do X2 the work with the same price.

Re:Mac Pro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39266231)

more like $500 to $1000 in many cases.

Mac Pro is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39265681)

Not shiny enough

starting at $3000 with 4gb ram + low end video car (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39265999)

starting at $3000 with 4gb ram + low end video card and say only a 1TB HDD.

Re:starting at $3000 with 4gb ram + low end video (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266233)

What page are you looking at? A starting Mac Pro is $2500 with 3GB not 4. Putting in 4GB with that architecture is possible but not efficient.

Re:starting at $3000 with 4gb ram + low end video (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266563)

That is what apple can price the next one at. The cpu's are faster let's up the price $500 and there are 4 ram channels so let's put 1 1gb in each.

Re:starting at $3000 with 4gb ram + low end video (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266717)

The history of the Mac Pro suggests that the base price is $2499. With a base price of $200 for the lowest processor, all you have is rampant speculation about Apple may or may not do.

Re:starting at $3000 with 4gb ram + low end video (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39267199)

it was $2000 before the last upgrade and even then it was high priced.

Re:starting at $3000 with 4gb ram + low end video (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39267837)

A Mac Pro was never $2000 unless you have some sort of proof. The last update was 2010. The starting price of the 2009 Quad-Core MacPro was $2499 [macworld.com] . And again, these are workstations which are fairly comparable to others in their classes. These are not gaming machines or mid-towers.

Re:Mac Pro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39266845)

Come on new Mac Pros!

Yeah! Come on overpriced, all-of-them-look-the-same Pros! I can imagine Apple charging around $6,500 per core for those processors, $700 for a heatsink for them, $1250 per GB of RAM you want installed and then telling you it's all because it's incapable of getting a virus.

GoGo Team Jobs! Ripping people off since... well... forever!

Are there any benchmarks posted yet? (3, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39265399)

We run a large number of XenApp servers as VM's and while total system throughput is important so is single threaded performance. Right now we use x5670's with 2.93 GHz clock speeds and a 95W TDP. I'm wondering if the E5-2660 would be as powerful for single threaded workloads which would get us 33% more total throughput for the same power budget but I'm not sure that a 2.2GHz base clock with a 500MHz turbo boost using the SB core is going to be as fast as a 2.93GHz Westmere core.

Re:Are there any benchmarks posted yet? (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39265481)

Anandtech's review is up, only single threaded benchmark I saw though was the Cinebench [anandtech.com] one where the 2.2 GHz is only a slight improvement. The 2.9 GHz top model is running away from everything else though, if you got $2000 to spare...

Re:Are there any benchmarks posted yet? (2)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39265811)

Thanks! A 6% improvement in single threaded from the x5670 to the E5-2660 is good news. It's not a matter of the money for the E5-2690 it's not wanting to grow my power per rack by ~20%.

Re:Are there any benchmarks posted yet? (2)

CRC'99 (96526) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268483)

We run a large number of XenApp servers as VM's and while total system throughput is important so is single threaded performance. Right now we use x5670's with 2.93 GHz clock speeds and a 95W TDP. I'm wondering if the E5-2660 would be as powerful for single threaded workloads which would get us 33% more total throughput for the same power budget but I'm not sure that a 2.2GHz base clock with a 500MHz turbo boost using the SB core is going to be as fast as a 2.93GHz Westmere core.

Be careful. You may get bitten by this bug [redhat.com] . The tl;dr version: If your apps use dynamic loading on Sandy Bridge, you may get segmentation faults cause by a bug in glibc.

RHEL should have this fixed by release 6.3. Other clones of EL will get the fix via the update to 6.3 after RH has released it.

Re:Are there any benchmarks posted yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39269423)

We're running XenApp 6 on 2008R2 on VMWare so no worries there. We will have to wait for CPU masks for the E5 to be added in a near-future VMWare update.

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39265403)

I needed a new forced air heating system AND a new server farm. Win, win!

Sandy Bridge on Linux? (2)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#39265495)

How's linux support for Sandy Bridge coming along? Last I checked, about 6 months ago, there was still a lot of bugs/bad performance with the graphics, power management not working, etc. Do any of the distros have good out-of-the-box support yet?

Re:Sandy Bridge on Linux? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39265685)

Not really.
It 'works' but graphics performance is terrible. (bad framerate on minecraft even with lowest settings. barely playable, don't even try survival mode though.)
If you have any sort of compositing, just disable it.
Flash full-screen works, but the framerate depends on what else you have running.

I know that this is meant to be discreet graphics, but it's just terrible (even on windows) to the point where I would not consider the laptop usable
without a dedicated card. You're probably better off with AMD on this one...

Gnome3 is not usable due to this, Ubuntu Unity is the same.

Power Management has Improved, but it still has issues with suspend/hibernate.

In other words, it's kinda terrible for a laptop.
For a desktop, it is doable. As long as you have a graphics card.

Seriously. A graphics card I have from around '05 works WAY better.
Umm.. CrunchBang works out of the box, and it will be the best choice for the graphics.
Anything that comes with compositing turned on will destroy any usability.

Re:Sandy Bridge on Linux? (3, Funny)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266213)

Minecraft is hardly the best benchmark for graphics performance. Never in my life have I seen a game engine that was so horrifically inefficient and inept. Mojang's devs should never be allowed to write another line of code for the rest of their lives.

Re:Sandy Bridge on Linux? (1)

siride (974284) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271837)

It does make Minecraft a great benchmark, though. If Minecraft runs fast on a machine, you know you have either an awesome CPU or a great video card (or a combo of both in all likelihood).

Re:Sandy Bridge on Linux? (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272699)

It's possible (quite likely) that Minecraft is full of lousy, inefficient code.

But it is also possible that Java is (still) inherently shit for desktop gaming.

Re:Sandy Bridge on Linux? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#39276583)

Probably true, but my kids spend more time playing games in Java (Runescape) and Flash (e.g. Club Penguin and various Barbie-type games) than anything else including the XBox. It's good to have some reserve compute power for inefficiently coded applications, offbeat video codecs without hardware decoding support, etc.

Re:Sandy Bridge on Linux? (4, Informative)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 2 years ago | (#39265883)

Intel seems to finally have fixed the power management bug and from the comments on the bug report on Launchpad (LP#818830) it seems very likely that Ubuntu 12.04 will ship with rc6 enabled by default.

I don't know that the sibiling AC is on about, I have used Unity on a Sandybridge laptop with integrated graphics and found no reason to complain about graphics performance, including HD video. YMMV

Re:Sandy Bridge on Linux? (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272265)

Heh, when it comes to graphics performance on linux YMMV is pretty much the tagline. That being said, I'm savoring the anecdotal rebuttal to a blanket statement with no source. Now is my chance to go meta...

Re:Sandy Bridge on Linux? (3, Informative)

friend function (1492021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39265921)

As of Linux kernel 3.0, machines with Sandy Bridge chips are stable; kernels version 3.1 and 3.2 even more so. Linux 3.3 will be released in the next week or two and should include more performance/power-related functionality for these chips.

On the graphics front, the on-board graphics on both my Sandy Bridge laptop and desktop work fine enough for desktop workloads, including 1080p over HDMI. This is both with Ubuntu 11.10-based distributions, which ships with a 3.0 kernel by default, but I typically run the latest stable kernel from kernel.org; I haven't tried running distros with older kernels (such as RedHat/CentOS or Debian) on this hardware.

Re:Sandy Bridge on Linux? (1)

David Greene (463) | more than 2 years ago | (#39267643)

Are you noticing any of the chipset framerate issues with Sandy Bridge? I'm looking to build an HTPC out of them but it sounds like waiting for Ivy Bridge might be a better idea given the chipset issues.

Re:Sandy Bridge on Linux? (1)

CRC'99 (96526) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268527)

I posted this just above, but as this is a thread purely about linux on SB, I'll place it here also:

Be careful. You may get bitten by this bug [redhat.com] . The tl;dr version: If your apps use dynamic loading on Sandy Bridge, you may get segmentation faults cause by a bug in glibc.

RHEL should have this fixed by release 6.3. Other clones of EL will get the fix via the update to 6.3 after RH has released it.

Interesting (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39265631)

So, how many organs will these cost?

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39265843)

No fewer than 17 models are available, with prices falling between $200 and $2000

From the summary.

Re:Interesting (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266581)

Perhaps he is asking how many organs you can buy for between $200 and $2000

Re:Interesting (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39270601)

So the model I'd potentially want is going for half a kidney. Got it.

Where's the 10GbE? (4, Interesting)

danpbrowning (149453) | more than 2 years ago | (#39265651)

There have been news items all year about how the E5 was going to usher in a new era of low-cost 10 GbE LOM (LAN on motherboard). Even today's news stories are talking about it. But where's the beef? I've looked through about 30 motherboards from Supermicro, Tyan, etc., and the only 10 Gb LOM I've found is on a proprietary Supermicro MB and it's not even ethernet. Sure, system integrators have them, but I'd rather build my own box.

Anyone have an idea where they are?

Re:Where's the 10GbE? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39265945)

Well, the Anandtech review [anandtech.com] on the Intel S2600GZ said:

Four GBe interfaces are on board and an optional I/O module can add dual 10 GBe (Base-T or optical) or QDR infiniband.

So maybe what you should be looking for is IO modules? I don't know.

Re:Where's the 10GbE? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266129)

Yep, I know from Dell's announcement that they have pluggable modules that don't take up any PCIe lanes that can support either 4x GbE or 2x 10GbE or 2x 10Gb FCoE CNA's.

Re:Where's the 10GbE? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39265953)

Eats all the bandwidth lanes. Drop a dual card video setup into a Mac Pro with Thunderbolt & Mythical 10GbE and now you have zero lanes open for your bizarro PCIe video editing card.

Probably won't happen yet.

Re:Where's the 10GbE? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266839)

Huh? A dual port 10GbE card would only need to use two PCIe 3.0 lanes. Since there are 80 lanes available to these systems I don't think two for networking is a huge sacrifice.

Re:Where's the 10GbE? (1)

Ben Hutchings (4651) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271331)

I think you're mistaken about PCIe link speeds, and you're also failing to account for the transaction layer protocol (TLP) overhead which can be quite substantial. PCIe 2.0 link speed is 5 GT/s but that's with 8b10 encoding; the data rate is only 4 Gb/s. PCIe 3.0 doubles the data rate to 8 Gb/s. Two 10G ports require 20 Gb/s plus some overhead, hence 8 lanes on PCIe 2.0 or potentially 4 lanes on PCIe 3.0.

Re:Where's the 10GbE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271503)

No, a PCIe 3.0 lane is 8GT/s but using 128/130B encoding so ~1GB/s or 10Gb/s using 8B/10B ie a 10GbE port =)

Re:Where's the 10GbE? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39266753)

You'll see most of the server vendors offering alternative mezz cards so that you can order with 1GbE or 10GbE on the card, so 10GbE is available without consuming a PCIe slot, For example, Dell is offering 10GbE this way on all their next gen servers and blades

Ivy Bridge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39266377)

Aren't the desktop/laptop class Ivy Bridge processors supposed to be released in the next few months? Why are the server/workstation class processors lagging so far behind, at least in terms of processor family? How will a good Ivy Bridge CPU from a few months from now compare to one of these Sandy Bridge units?

Re:Ivy Bridge (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39266903)

I would guess money would be a factor. Many more desktop/laptop CPUs are sold than server class albeit for lower prices. However, consumers are more likely to purchase new computers sooner than businesses who don't buy new servers every year. As for performance, Ivy Bridge should beat Sandy Bridge in the same class.

Nice! (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#39268523)

Now have Nvidia release a refresh to the Quadro series as well and I might be interested.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...