Originally Posted by hmm
I disagree here. These chips are shared between servers and workstations. In both cases intel tends to be very conservative in favor of stability. Note how many things pushed them back already. They have high margins and limited competition in this segment.
The volumes here are low too though:
Worldwide server shipments in 2011 were just over 8 million. That's around 2 million per quarter. That makes server and workstation volume worldwide just 3 million units per quarter. That's 12 million servers and workstations vs 340 million desktop/laptops - 3.5%. Intel would be much better off trying to get these fast chips into more mainstream form factors and lower price points.
A lot of the server chips aren't priced any higher than desktop ones so their margins can't be higher in all cases.
Originally Posted by hmm
I forgot to add, it might fit in an imac in terms of tdp, yet they still won't use the same board. They didn't use Ivy Bridge E3s either. We'll see what actually happens, but I don't expect Apple to design extra logic boards just to accommodate a slightly wider range of cpu offerings in the imac. I could be wrong as they've turned less conservative on hardware choices lately.
They have to design the boards as it is though. The leaked model ID MP60 suggests they'll retain the headless form factor for now but Intel has no reason to show much interest in this segment:
"Furthermore, we've been told that the company is currently planning to change its media policy on the sampling side, as Intel would like to change the perception of the company from a component provider into a solutions provider. Naturally, this leaves the high-end desktop/workstation in a bit of a tight fit, as the roadmap will show."
Intel doesn't like allowing their rival companies to profit from their work:
That says Intel was required by the FTC to support PCIe until at least 2016 but they obviously tried to avoid it in the Atom machines at one point. Obviously motherboard manufacturers can put in their own PCIe support but imagine when Intel goes the solutions route instead of the component route and just ships the board with the CPU stuck to it.
This is where Thunderbolt comes in because that also blocks AMD for high-end peripherals.
That's the way all the companies will go too all the way up to servers and workstations. An SoC means you have to use their tech and soldered components means you can't just plug in a new upgrade and not buy another chip from Intel. Intel doesn't want you to keep a Mac Pro for 6 years and give money to NVidia to prolong its usefulness:
"It's a move that could make PC OEMs happy too. Soldering a component to a motherboard is cheaper than soldering a socket and then fitting that processor into the socket. The difference might only be pennies, but spread over millions of PCs, those pennies add up.
As far as the PC OEMs are concerned, killing off the PC upgrade market would be a good thing because it would push people to buy new PCs rather than upgrade their existing hardware. The PC industry is currently stagnant, partly because consumers and enterprise are making existing hardware last longer."
Originally Posted by wizard69
Both users will eventually have to realize that Apple needs to do something to assure desktops in the future.
I don't think it's a good idea to have the same chassis for both Mini and Pro. The Mini is designed as a low power desktop and server. The Mac Pro is designed as a high-end machine. When you try to pull them together, you obviously try to create the mid-range tower again but they won't do that.