Next-gen Xeon specs leaked; iPhone sighting at T-Mobile Germany

[AppleInsider]

The successor to the chips used in Apple's professional Mac line has been leaked through an Intel company note. Meanwhile, T-Mobile may have inadvertently revealed its selection as a European iPhone carrier through its website.

Intel leaks Xeon 5400

Claiming to have received an Intel company-only note, DailyTech says it has confirmed nearly all of the CPUs that will be available in the second half of the year using Intel's upcoming Penryn platform.

The Santa Clara, Calif.-based chip designer is said to be prepping at least five quad-core models in its upcoming flagship line, which will be known officially as the Xeon 5400 series and is codenamed "Harpertown" in the company roadmap. With the exception of an unidentified low-end model, Intel has detailed most models and expects to launch 2.33GHz, 2.5GHz, 2.83GHz, and 3.16GHz processors made with the smaller, cooler-running 45-nanometer process, outshadowing the 3GHz mark set in April.

Each processor is already known to provide a minor boost to performance compared to a present-day Xeon 5300 at the same clock speed, as the total amount of secondary cache on each chip jumps from 8MB to 12MB.

Apple in the past has refrained from outlining its future processor choices but has repeatedly used the latest Xeon processors in its Mac Pro and Xserve lines since the switch from PowerPC to Intel architectures in 2006. In its most recent update, Apple requested and received a special 3GHz Xeon three months ahead of when Intel was officially slated to release the processor to PC builders.

A dual-core equivalent to "Harpertown," known as "Wolfdale," is likewise on schedule for a release in the last months of 2007, but will ship only in 3.16GHz and 3.33GHz variants. An Intel engineer said to be familiar with the matter claims the shift to quad-core is simply a logical move for the Xeon's pro business.

"In the server space, there isn't much need for dual-core when we can go quad... If your [programs] are threaded, there's no reason to use two cores when four are available," the engineer said.

iPhone entry spotted on T-Mobile site

It only appeared briefly, but a category for the iPhone purportedly surfaced at T-Mobile Germany's online phone store, according to the newspaper Focus.

T-Mobile.de (screenshot by Focus)

Visitors to t-mobile.de/iphone or those who successfully searched for an entry during a short interval were able to find a brief mention of the Apple device along with the mention of an "indexation test." This suggested that the listing was an internal database listing which accidentally went live until a site developer caught the error, Focus wrote.

T-Mobile has previously denied any deals with Apple to carry the phone in Germany, but is known to have a buried icon for its service within iTunes.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[ajhill]

Is there any big surprise here. T-Mobile is better know to Germans as Deutche Telecom, or the Ma Bell of Germany. An obvious choice. It would be a fine choice for German, and perhaps more...

It's amazing how long this rumor is taking to play itself out...

[macshark]

Harpertown MacPros by MacWorld 2008 is a sure bet.

The question is: Which processor will go in the next gen iMac? Can we expect to see an Apple "special" 2.4GHz Wolfdale? Or will Apple stick with the notebook line of processors?

[iPeon]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

A dual-core equivalent to "Harpertown," known as "Wolfdale," is likewise on schedule for a release in the last months of 2007, but will ship only in 3.16GHz and 3.33GHz variants.

This would be perfect for the consumer desktop Macs. Come on Apple, give us a comsumer tower already...

[bobmarksdale]

Originally Posted by iPeon

This would be perfect for the consumer desktop Macs. Come on Apple, give us a comsumer tower already...

Dual core 3.16/3.33 for a CONSUMER mac!!!!?!?!???!??!!!!! Wow that would be impressive/insane. I highly doubt it would happen though.

[aegisdesign]

Originally Posted by iPeon

This would be perfect for the consumer desktop Macs. Come on Apple, give us a comsumer tower already...

No it wouldn't. It's a Xeon so it'd be expensive FB-DIMMs still.

[eAi]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Claiming to have received an Intel company-only note, DailyTech says it has confirmed nearly all of the CPUs that will be available in the second half of the year using Intel's upcoming Penryn platform.

Is it just more or does this sentence not make sense? Seems to be missing a verb...

[bobmarksdale]

Originally Posted by eAi

Is it just more or does this sentence not make sense? Seems to be missing a verb...

I think this would help it:

"Claiming to have received an Intel company-only note, DailyTech says it has confirmed that nearly all of the CPUs that will be available in the second half of the year will be using Intel's upcoming Penryn platform."

But the important thing is that we knew what they meant.

[pepp5]

Originally Posted by bobmarksdale

I think this would help it:

"Claiming to have received an Intel company-only note, DailyTech says it has confirmed that nearly all of the CPUs that will be available in the second half of the year will be using Intel's upcoming Penryn platform."

But the important thing is that we knew what they meant.

Well, I read it as a confirmed list as originally written, see the list of 'known' clock speeds in the next paragraph. This (non-essential) addition to the text makes it read how I read it:

"Claiming to have received an Intel company-only note, DailyTech says it has confirmed (the list of) nearly all of the CPUs that will be available in the second half of the year using Intel's upcoming Penryn platform."

[cygnusrk727]

Originally Posted by macshark

Harpertown MacPros by MacWorld 2008 is a sure bet.

The question is: Which processor will go in the next gen iMac? Can we expect to see an Apple "special" 2.4GHz Wolfdale? Or will Apple stick with the notebook line of processors?

The just released core 2 Extreme X7800, clocked at 2.6 GHz, is what we might hope for in the new "top of the line" iMac.

Rumors are the new iMac is to be slightly thinner so "mobile" processors will probably remain. Not to mention cost points.

[aplnub]

Originally Posted by eAi

Is it just more or does this sentence not make sense? Seems to be missing a verb...

Is it just more?

I don't follow ya here?

[bobmarksdale]

Originally Posted by aplnub

Is it just more?

I don't follow ya here?

I think he meant "Is it just me..." but that doesn't explain how he could have typed an 'O' (the 're' is understandable) unless he isn't using a QWERTY keyboard.

[Joe_the_dragon]

Originally Posted by iPeon

This would be perfect for the consumer desktop Macs. Come on Apple, give us a comsumer tower already...

not with FB-dimms / reg memory

[aplnub]

Originally Posted by bobmarksdale

I think he meant "Is it just me..." but that doesn't explain how he could have typed an 'O' (the 're' is understandable) unless he isn't using a QWERTY keyboard.

I know, I was just funning with him.

FYI, I think the sentence is fine.

[onlooker]

Now we know what to expect for Mac Pro processors at MWSF, but what else is Apple going to do to that machine to bring it out of the :"so two years ago" stage it's been in?

[melgross]

Originally Posted by macshark

Harpertown MacPros by MacWorld 2008 is a sure bet.

The question is: Which processor will go in the next gen iMac? Can we expect to see an Apple "special" 2.4GHz Wolfdale? Or will Apple stick with the notebook line of processors?

Apple is primarily concerned with heat and power in its consumer desktops. I don't see what is mostly used for servers and high end desktops turning up in Apple's models, other than the Mac Pro anytime soon.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by cygnusrk727

The just released core 2 Extreme X7800, clocked at 2.6 GHz, is what we might hope for in the new "top of the line" iMac.

Rumors are the new iMac is to be slightly thinner so "mobile" processors will probably remain. Not to mention cost points.

Not gonna happen.

[GregAlexander]

Originally Posted by bobmarksdale

I think this would help it:

"Claiming to have received an Intel company-only note, DailyTech says it has confirmed that nearly all of the CPUs that will be available in the second half of the year will be using Intel's upcoming Penryn platform."

But the important thing is that we knew what they meant.

That meaning seems significantly different to the original... but I don't follow Intel enough to know. By reading the article I assume that we're talking about their Xeon platform, not their desktop platform.

ie: perhaps there are 2 (or 3) platforms.
"we have a prediction of CPUs for the Penryn platform, and a prediction of CPUs for the other (desktop) platform. We've confirmed nearly all the CPUs which use the Penryn platform.

[bobmarksdale]

Originally Posted by GregAlexander

That meaning seems significantly different to the original... but I don't follow Intel enough to know. By reading the article I assume that we're talking about their Xeon platform, not their desktop platform.

ie: perhaps there are 2 (or 3) platforms.
"we have a prediction of CPUs for the Penryn platform, and a prediction of CPUs for the other (desktop) platform. We've confirmed nearly all the CPUs which use the Penryn platform.

Oh, I guess you're right. I think they could have worded it better somehow though. Somewhat confusing as evident by the numerous posts on that sentence.

[GregAlexander]

Originally Posted by bobmarksdale

they could have worded it better

No disagreement there! Absolutely.

[nvidia2008]

New iMac 20" and 24" should be 2.2ghz and 2.4ghz respectively, with 2GB RAM each. Same as MacBookPros. Not likely to have LED Backlight screens, though I don't know... Anyways all this my instinct for now.

[nvidia2008]

Holy transistors, Batman! 45nm by end of the year. . ATI + AMD is seriously fracked. Intel and nVidia are holding their heads over the toilet bowl now for some time.

[SpinDrift]

Originally Posted by bobmarksdale

Dual core 3.16/3.33 for a CONSUMER mac!!!!?!?!???!??!!!!! Wow that would be impressive/insane. I highly doubt it would happen though.

I don't see why this would be insane. It's just a logical progression. Yes I agree it will be impressive , but processor clock speeds used to evolve much faster than they do these days.

[ahireasu]

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

New iMac 20" and 24" should be 2.2ghz and 2.4ghz respectively, with 2GB RAM each. Same as MacBookPros. Not likely to have LED Backlight screens, though I don't know... Anyways all this my instinct for now.

I was expecting the same thing for the new iMac,but after all this hype about new redesign iMacs i am not so sure this will be the case,Steve always has a way to surprise us and maybe this is one of those times.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by iPeon

This would be perfect for the consumer desktop Macs. Come on Apple, give us a comsumer tower already...

Originally Posted by SpinDrift

I don't see why this would be insane. It's just a logical progression.

You do realize that the suggestion was to put a Xeon in a consumer machine? That's definitely insane. If you want a Xeon-based machine, then the Mac Pro is a pretty good deal.

Yes I agree it will be impressive , but processor clock speeds used to evolve much faster than they do these days.

There wasn't as much of a concern about power use either because not much power was consumed, but now, chips consume a lot of power because of the clock speed. Now, clock speed gains have to be made with process shrinks to keep a lid on power consumption.

[backtomac]

I can't help but bring up a sore subject and that is the big mistake(IMO) on designing the iMac such that it requires mobile parts. With intels new price cuts it's now possible to get either a 3 ghz core 2 chip or a 2.4 ghz quad core chip for less than the 2.4 ghz merom that is likely to make it's way into the high end iMac. I seriously doubt the 2.6 ghz merom gets chosen for cost reasons.

The iMac is an attractive design but let's make it such that there isn't such a performance and cost penalty when you choose this computer.

I know this is likely to start a big flame war but so be it. I had to get this off my chest.

[mjteix]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

You do realize that the suggestion was to put a Xeon in a consumer machine? That's definitely insane. If you want a Xeon-based machine, then the Mac Pro is a pretty good deal.



There wasn't as much of a concern about power use either because not much power was consumed, but now, chips consume a lot of power because of the clock speed. Now, clock speed gains have to be made with process shrinks to keep a lid on power consumption.

Well, don't forget that there will be:
- at least 3 low-voltage Xeons released: one 3.16 dual-core and two 2.33/2.66 quad cores at respectively 40 and 50W,
- a new entry level chipset (San Clemente) that uses standard DDR2 RAM (instead of FB-DIMMs) and a lower cost southbridge (ICH9R) that can also be found on some desktop 30 series chipsets.

If the trend was not to make the iMac thinner and thinner, I think that it would be a possibility... IMO, the 17" iMac is a/the consumer machine, the 24" is already a luxury item the 20" is in between.

Current prices for low voltage Xeons (65nm) are between $455 and $519 while 2.2/2.4GHz 800FSB Meroms are priced at $316 and $530 and extreme editions are $851. So in terms of cost of goods, using LV Xeons or high-end Meroms is similar, the Xeons with faster FSB and clock bringing more power to the machine.

So if the iMac could cope with 40/50W, I think it could be a good thing in terms of making the iMac look and feel more like an AIO workstation than a mobile-on-desktop computer.

I'm not saying they should do it, but it would make the iMac stand even more apart from PCs, in a very good way. MWSF 2008.

[noirdesir]

Originally Posted by mjteix

Well, don't forget that there will be:
- at least 3 low-voltage Xeons released: one 3.16 dual-core and two 2.33/2.66 quad cores at respectively 40 and 50W,
- a new entry level chipset (San Clemente) that uses standard DDR2 RAM (instead of FB-DIMMs) and a lower cost southbridge (ICH9R) that can also be found on some desktop 30 series chipsets.
[...]

You are overlooking the obvious. If notebook processors are too slow for your liking for an iMac, the logical thing is to move to the desktop processors (not directly to the server ones).

The desktop processors are now (or in the near future) also available as quad-core chips. They run as fast if not faster than the server ones (in clockspeed). And they are cheaper and use cheaper memory than the Xeons.

[Joe_the_dragon]

Originally Posted by mjteix

Well, don't forget that there will be:
- at least 3 low-voltage Xeons released: one 3.16 dual-core and two 2.33/2.66 quad cores at respectively 40 and 50W,
- a new entry level chipset (San Clemente) that uses standard DDR2 RAM (instead of FB-DIMMs) and a lower cost southbridge (ICH9R) that can also be found on some desktop 30 series chipsets.

registered ddr2 not ddr2 and more pci-e lanes

[melgross]

Originally Posted by SpinDrift

I don't see why this would be insane. It's just a logical progression. Yes I agree it will be impressive , but processor clock speeds used to evolve much faster than they do these days.

It isn't insane. We simply won't see any chips that aren't low power in the iMac, or the Mini, until Apple feels as though they can meet their requirements for size and coolness. These chips are not designed for that. They use too much power, and require too much in the way of cooling.

Possibly, slower chips in the line *could* be used, such as 2.66 GHz, which use less power. But, even then...

[melgross]

Originally Posted by backtomac

I can't help but bring up a sore subject and that is the big mistake(IMO) on designing the iMac such that it requires mobile parts. With intels new price cuts it's now possible to get either a 3 ghz core 2 chip or a 2.4 ghz quad core chip for less than the 2.4 ghz merom that is likely to make it's way into the high end iMac. I seriously doubt the 2.6 ghz merom gets chosen for cost reasons.

The iMac is an attractive design but let's make it such that there isn't such a performance and cost penalty when you choose this computer.

I know this is likely to start a big flame war but so be it. I had to get this off my chest.

I think that what's being forgotten by some here, is that even the Meroms are powerful enough, esp. in that they are dual core, that they can preform most tasks people buying an iMac could really need, with more than enough speed.

These machines, after all, are not intended for high end cpu intensive tasks. It appears as though some people expect Apple to make consumer, and business class machines (which the iMac is), to equal the performance of their pro machines.

That will never happen.

Performance has increased so much since the Intel conversion that even with new versions of programs, and I can testify to the results for CS3 and FC Studio, that even though newer upgrades, with their more complex algorithms used for higher quality, the speeds are greater than they ever were before, which is a break from the past.

The speeds with a top iMac equals, or moves past, the speeds attained with the fastest dual config G5 machines. That's saying something, esp. considering that those were pretty fast.

In another year, or less, they will equal, or surpass the Quad G5, and even the dual Intel Pro's available at the beginning of 2007.

That's progress!

I really feel as though the complaints are unfounded.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by mjteix

Well, don't forget that there will be:
- at least 3 low-voltage Xeons released: one 3.16 dual-core and two 2.33/2.66 quad cores at respectively 40 and 50W,
- a new entry level chipset (San Clemente) that uses standard DDR2 RAM (instead of FB-DIMMs) and a lower cost southbridge (ICH9R) that can also be found on some desktop 30 series chipsets.

If the trend was not to make the iMac thinner and thinner, I think that it would be a possibility... IMO, the 17" iMac is a/the consumer machine, the 24" is already a luxury item the 20" is in between.

Current prices for low voltage Xeons (65nm) are between $455 and $519 while 2.2/2.4GHz 800FSB Meroms are priced at $316 and $530 and extreme editions are $851. So in terms of cost of goods, using LV Xeons or high-end Meroms is similar, the Xeons with faster FSB and clock bringing more power to the machine.

So if the iMac could cope with 40/50W, I think it could be a good thing in terms of making the iMac look and feel more like an AIO workstation than a mobile-on-desktop computer.

I'm not saying they should do it, but it would make the iMac stand even more apart from PCs, in a very good way. MWSF 2008.

Check the power requirements of the Meroms, you will find a big difference still. Then remember that they are still 65nm, and that they will also be moving to 45nm.

The relative difference in power will remain. Lower power isn't a philosophical concept. It isn't just a difference in power used by the chip, or the heat produced. It also results in a smaller power supply, which also gives off heat. It's the difference between a large external brick, and a smaller, cooler, internal supply. It also results in a different arrangement of the parts inside, wasted space needed for extra cooling paths, etc. This all contributes to the usability of the machine, as well as the manufacturing cost. Using a slightly cheaper cpu (which may not even be true, as Intel will be making another round of price cuts within a few weeks), could easily be offset by the other required expenses, which would possibly require a complete re-design.

With Apple supposedly not only making these new machines even thinner, but reducing the "chin" height, where most of the electronics have been located, along with the power supply, these chips would be counterproductive.

The ultra-low power chips are also not intended for performance, and likely are even slower (lower performance) than the Meroms.

Also, a faster FSB, contrary to popular opinion, has been shown to add little to the practical speed of most operations, giving possibly a 5% speed boost overall. Not much.

[donebylee]

Originally Posted by melgross

Performance has increased so much since the Intel conversion that even with new versions of programs, and I can testify to the results for CS3 and FC Studio, that even though newer upgrades, with their more complex algorithms used for higher quality, the speeds are greater than they ever were before, which is a break from the past.

Melgross,

Are you currently running CS3 on an iMac? I have been considering it as a lower cost alternative to a Mac Pro and was wondering how the performance stacked up.

Specifically, I would be using it to create illustrations in both Illustrator and PhotoShop. Some InDesign and Dreamweaver work also, but primarily Illustrator and PhotoShop.

Any feedback is appreciated.

Thanks.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by mjteix

Well, don't forget that there will be:
- at least 3 low-voltage Xeons released: one 3.16 dual-core and two 2.33/2.66 quad cores at respectively 40 and 50W,
- a new entry level chipset (San Clemente) that uses standard DDR2 RAM (instead of FB-DIMMs) and a lower cost southbridge (ICH9R) that can also be found on some desktop 30 series chipsets.

I don't think that matters. The Xeon CPUs and workstation chipsets are too expensive to put into consumer machines. It still requires registered memory, so you won't be able to buy your memory upgrades at Best Buy or wherever it's on sale.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by donebylee

Melgross,

Are you currently running CS3 on an iMac? I have been considering it as a lower cost alternative to a Mac Pro and was wondering how the performance stacked up.

Specifically, I would be using it to create illustrations in both Illustrator and PhotoShop. Some InDesign and Dreamweaver work also, but primarily Illustrator and PhotoShop.

Any feedback is appreciated.

Thanks.

I'm not. I don't have one. But, several people I know, are. As a result, I've used it on two iMacs. The performance is more than credible.

Can you do better on a Mac Pro? Of course. But, these people are professionals, as I was before I retired. They are quite pleased with their units (two 24" and one 20").

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by melgross

I think that what's being forgotten by some here, is that even the Meroms are powerful enough, esp. in that they are dual core, that they can preform most tasks people buying an iMac could really need, with more than enough speed.

These machines, after all, are not intended for high end cpu intensive tasks. It appears as though some people expect Apple to make consumer, and business class machines (which the iMac is), to equal the performance of their pro machines.

That will never happen.

Performance has increased so much since the Intel conversion that even with new versions of programs, and I can testify to the results for CS3 and FC Studio, that even though newer upgrades, with their more complex algorithms used for higher quality, the speeds are greater than they ever were before, which is a break from the past.

The speeds with a top iMac equals, or moves past, the speeds attained with the fastest dual config G5 machines. That's saying something, esp. considering that those were pretty fast.

In another year, or less, they will equal, or surpass the Quad G5, and even the dual Intel Pro's available at the beginning of 2007.

That's progress!

I really feel as though the complaints are unfounded.

I agree that cpu power and performance has really progressed nicely since the Intel transition. It's definitely noticeable on the notebook side. Perhaps the mobile cpus offer all the performance that the 'average' iMac user needs, that is certainly possible. Yet Apple could deliver more for less. Perhaps there could be some tradeoffs in design to accommodate the faster but hotter desktop cpus.

It seems to me that as users work more and more with audio, video and photographic media they'll always appreciate greater processing power. In the not to distant future I suspect that the Mac platform will be attacked by viruses and spyware and we'll all be running protection programs in the background. That'll use up a core right there.

iMacs with either a 2.4 ghz quad core chip or the 3.0 ghz core 2 dual core chip would offer significantly better performance than current iMacs but still lag the current Mac Pros. They would slot in nicely IMO because they would open up some room for the mini to be upgraded but keep it form bumping into the iMac.

In the PPC days Apple was limited by the choices that IBM and Freescale offered. Intel has a tremendous product variety in their cpus but Apple are only using two chips at three different speeds. If Apple wants to differentiate their products they would be wise to use a greater variety of chips that are available.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by backtomac

I agree that cpu power and performance has really progressed nicely since the Intel transition. It's definitely noticeable on the notebook side. Perhaps the mobile cpus offer all the performance that the 'average' iMac user needs, that is certainly possible. Yet Apple could deliver more for less. Perhaps there could be some tradeoffs in design to accommodate the faster but hotter desktop cpus.

It seems to me that as users work more and more with audio, video and photographic media they'll always appreciate greater processing power. In the not to distant future I suspect that the Mac platform will be attacked by viruses and spyware and we'll all be running protection programs in the background. That'll use up a core right there.

iMacs with either a 2.4 ghz quad core chip or the 3.0 ghz core 2 dual core chip would offer significantly better performance than current iMacs but still lag the current Mac Pros. They would slot in nicely IMO because they would open up some room for the mini to be upgraded but keep it form bumping into the iMac.

In the PPC days Apple was limited by the choices that IBM and Freescale offered. Intel has a tremendous product variety in their cpus but Apple are only using two chips at three different speeds. If Apple wants to differentiate their products they would be wise to use a greater variety of chips that are available.

As all chips get better, we will se that performance increase across the line.

Intel has stated that 4 core mobile chiops will be coming. When they do, we will see them in the iMac, and any other consumer machine Apple may havw out at the time.

My contention is that having come from a far more primitive past of Apple machines, I can see some trends that other, younger users may not appreciate.

My company, was among the first to go digital, in the '80's.

We had bought an English system called the Crossfield. It did what Photoshop did somewhat later on. This system cost in the six figures.

When PS was able to compete with that feature-wise, I talked to Adobe, and received several copies to try.

It was pretty damned slow!!! But, I went with it as a side to the Crossfield for a couple of years, and charged less for the less demanding work.

By the time I bought my first 950, fully equipped, for $16,000, in 1992, I think it was, I was about ready to cross over.

Let me tell you something.

That machine was the most powerful personal computer in the world, truly! No PC came even close.

It was so fast, that when we applied a Gaussian Blur to a 10 MB file, we barely had time to go get a cup of coffee, put our sugar in, plus milk, get back to the desk, and almost finish it, before the machine completed the task, and the bell rang!

That was how fast that machine was. Nothing else could touch it.

Considering that today, I can do the same blur to a 50 MB image, on an iMac, and have to wait no more than a couple of seconds, my distain for people who think that every command MUST be instantaneous is unavoidable.

That doesn't mean that I dislike progress. Far from it.

But, I've found that on a 2.33 GHz 24" iMac, most commands in PS, on a reasonable sized image, say 30 MBs in size, take place in one second, or less. To me, that's instantaneous. You don't really have time to do anything else before that command completes. Most other commands finish within two seconds, still close to instant, and some within five seconds, still pretty quick. Just a few take longer.

Even an eight core Mac Pro doesn't cut those times down by more than half.

The only time you would NEED a Mac Pro, is when doing work on much more demanding file types, or sizes. We often did work on 500 MB images, and, sometimes, on composites that exceeded 1GB.

I wouldn't recommend an iMac for those today, even though we did them on dual G4's, and later, dual G5's (we later sold the business).

But, anyone who does work on high end productions, as we did, charges enough to afford (and requires) a Mac Pro, fully equipped. I charged $275 an hour for my private work, and we charged, as a company, $350. That was three years ago. colleagues of mine, today, charge even more.

If someone has to ask if they need a Mac Pro, and then also mentions cost, then they don't need it.

[iPeon]

Originally Posted by melgross

It appears as though some people expect Apple to make consumer, and business class machines (which the iMac is), to equal the performance of their pro machines.

What I expect is a desktop Mac to have a desktop CPU. All desktop Macs have had desktop CPUs in the past. It was the Intel transion that changed this. Now all Macs but the Mac Pro have laptop CPUs.

[takemura]

I hope “new Xeons” means “new Mac Pro”, as it would be completely illogical to give iMac a xeon processor as the target market is different, more over xeon processors give efficiency in professional applications targeted for workstation market not for home users.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by iPeon

What I expect is a desktop Mac to have a desktop CPU. All desktop Macs have had desktop CPUs in the past. It was the Intel transion that changed this. Now all Macs but the Mac Pro have laptop CPUs.

Big deal.

For whatever reason, Apple won't make a machine that would benefit from a desktop chip. The iMac won't, so it's a no go.