or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Intel unleashes Mac-bound "Woodcrest" server chip
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel unleashes Mac-bound "Woodcrest" server chip - Page 11

post #401 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
In the UK, an iMac 20" is £1129. The current low end PowerMac 2.0 Dual is £1399. Pretty close. Back when they did the 1.8Ghz single CPU PowerMac it was even closer.

Of course, you don't get the monitor with the PowerMac so the iMac is a better deal if it's all you need anyway

Many of the the complaints factored in the cost of an extra monitor. Including the cost of the base Apple monitor, even the base PMG5s are considerably more expensive. iMac is the way to go if you don't need a 30" monitor, more than 2GB of RAM or I/O expansion.
post #402 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Um, I don't have an answer to that. My whole video world just crashed down. All 1 and 2/3 classes of it.

USB, like the internet, and Ethernet, is packet based. It DOESN'T support streaming data. Firewire will watch the information going across the bus, and give bandwidth priority to streaming audio, or video data streams. USB knows nothing about such things. All data to USB is equal.

In fact, true USB 2 (Fast) will take USB 1 (Full Speed) packets, and hold them until the USB 2 packet size is equalled, and then pass it down.

Because of the packet system, audio and video signals get mixed up with any other signals on the bus, including bus chatter. That doesn't happen with Firewire, or other professional standards.

It's also why USB is often a poor substitute for RS-232, 485, and so forth.

Serial does NOT mean that signals are streamed, only that one follows the other.

EH! I just realized that this stupid board doesn't pass the last post along with the new one.
post #403 of 566
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BradMacPro
Anybody want the desktop configuration like the Power Mac 7500-G3 had?



Wow. Like a monitor that sits on top of a rectangular casing? That's so retro, dude I like this as the midi-tower: (image below)

post #404 of 566
My line prediction:

$499 Mac Mini w/ 1.6 GHz Merom
$699-799 Mac Mini (Media Center) w/ Tuner & 1.83 GHz Merom

$1199 iMac w/ 2.13 GHz Conroe
$1499 iMac w/ 2.4 GHz Conroe

$1099 xMac w/ 2.13 GHz Conroe
$1599 xMac w/ 2.67 GHz Conroe

$1999-2099 Mac Pro w/ Quad-2.00 Woodcrest
$2499-2699 Mac Pro w/ Quad-2.33 Woodcrest
$3200-3500 Mac Pro w/ Quad-3.00 Woodcrest

iMacs could move to x1800s, same size HDDs, still 17" & 20"

xMacs are like iMacs in components, but have removeable video cards, a spare HDD slot, and maybe a x4 PCIe? And are a mini-tower shape. 4 dual-channel RAM slots.

Mac Pros are Quads w/ a free optical slot, 2-3 free HDD slots, maybe SLI in the event of a miracle, and 8-12 RAM slots.

xMacs are slightly higher margin than iMacs (probably). This line-up also avoids making everyone happy - no $999 computer, and no 2.4 GHz xMac. I'm sure all those prices are doable (except maybe the low-end Mini price cut).

Yeah, it's a bit of dream, but a doable one.
post #405 of 566
Thread Starter 
xMac AFA/APPLE/IC will cannibalize iMac sales.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #406 of 566
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski

$499 Mac Mini w/ 1.6 GHz Merom
$699-799 Mac Mini (Media Center) w/ Tuner & 1.83 GHz Merom

Although the Mini Media center is really what everybody wants to see.
And many would like to see it as a re-introduction of the cube.
I think it would be cool to give it 4 firewire ports. Why you say? To show what they could be for, which is for individual family members to plug their individual FW drive, and record up to four programs simultaneously for instance while on vacation. This could help bring firewire back into the buzz word category, and show it's speed benefits for certain media. Anyway, just a thought.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #407 of 566
Cool. What have you guys been smoking? I want some
"Media Centre Mac Mini w Tuner and personalised FW400 ports"???
post #408 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
I like this as the midi-tower: (image below)

[/B]


Two Cameras? They should be rounded squares too.

If they do an xMac, I do hope they don't stick two optical drives and more ports than the curernt PowerMac on the front. It's already ugly enough. I also hope it's a lot smaller than that too.


I was looking through some of the initial Core 2 Duo Conroe machines from Dell and HP. Both come in at about $2000...

eg the Dell XPS 410

http://reviews.cnet.com/Dell_XPS_410...2.html?tag=nav

And HP d4600y

http://reviews.cnet.com/HP_Pavilion_...2.html?tag=nav

Both have got a lot of shit you don't want, like a card reader and a 2nd DVD-ROM drive and more USB ports than you can eat but both the Dell and the HP have two SATA drives in a RAID 1 config.

For mid range machines, that's surprising and makes me wonder if Apple will also go RAID in the MacPro.
post #409 of 566
two cameras for stereo / 3D imaging of user gestures.
The MACaholic
Reply
The MACaholic
Reply
post #410 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Two Cameras? They should be rounded squares too.

At that distance, it's should be hard to see they have rounded corners.

Quote:
Both have got a lot of shit you don't want, like a card reader and a 2nd DVD-ROM drive and more USB ports than you can eat but both the Dell and the HP have two SATA drives in a RAID 1 config.

For mid range machines, that's surprising and makes me wonder if Apple will also go RAID in the MacPro.

I would want that many USB ports. I have that many ports in use on my PowerMac.

I don't think it would have been any trouble for Apple to offer a shipping RAID 0 or RAID 1 several years ago, that's never required hardware not already included in the machines. But that means paying Apple's prices for the upgraded drives, for Apple's 2x 500GB (the biggest they offer), one can buy 2x 750GB.
post #411 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
[B]At that distance, it's should be hard to see they have rounded corners.



I would want that many USB ports. I have that many ports in use on my PowerMac.

I don't think it would have been any trouble for Apple to offer a shipping RAID 0 or RAID 1 several years ago, that's never required hardware not already included in the machines. But that means paying Apple's prices for the upgraded drives, for Apple's 2x 500GB (the biggest they offer), one can buy 2x 750GB.

Why are people always hoping that Apple will ship RAID, when they have already, for years?

Just go to Disk Utility, and you will see it there. Order a two drive config, and it takes all of five minutes to set up.

If you think that Apple charges too much, buy the second drive from Newegg.com.
post #412 of 566
Software RAID is a far cry from hardware RAID.
post #413 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
xMac AFA/APPLE/IC will cannibalize iMac sales.

Yeah, but as I said, it's probably higher margin. You save a decent bit on that screen and an iSight, and on engineering (less cooling b/c it's bigger).
post #414 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Why are people always hoping that Apple will ship RAID, when they have already, for years?

Because they don't ship it preconfigured as a standard option. HP and Dell are shipping this as STANDARD. Unusual for a mid level desktop worker-bee config.
post #415 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
Yeah, but as I said, it's probably higher margin. You save a decent bit on that screen and an iSight, and on engineering (less cooling b/c it's bigger).

I'd be very surprised if an iSight costs Apple more than $5. It's basically a cheap phone camera lens and a bit of ribbon cable.
post #416 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
My line prediction:

$499 Mac Mini w/ 1.6 GHz Merom
$699-799 Mac Mini (Media Center) w/ Tuner & 1.83 GHz Merom

Don't cream your pants.
Don't expect Merom in a Mac mini before 2007 or ever.
Yonah is good enough for this computer.
So 1.67 and 1.83 Ghz Core Duos and a price reduction at best.
No tuner. TV is teh mindkiller.
Quote:
$1199 iMac w/ 2.13 GHz Conroe
$1499 iMac w/ 2.4 GHz Conroe

No price reduction with such specs.
Maybe a 1.83Ghz and 2.16Ghz Conroe.
For this revision.
Quote:
$1099 xMac w/ 2.13 GHz Conroe
$1599 xMac w/ 2.67 GHz Conroe

Don't think so,
x-whateverMac will probally be a cheaper MacPro with higher prices and/or lower specs than your 2.67Ghz Conroe
Quote:
$1999-2099 Mac Pro w/ Quad-2.00 Woodcrest
$2499-2699 Mac Pro w/ Quad-2.33 Woodcrest
$3200-3500 Mac Pro w/ Quad-3.00 Woodcrest

$1,999 Mac Pro 2.0Ghz Xeon
$2,499 Mac Pro 2.33Ghz Xeon
$3,299 Mac Pro 2.67Ghz quadcore Xeon

Maybe a BTO 3.0Ghz quadcore

It's quite possible it turns out worse: $1,999 Mac Pro 2.4Ghz Conroe.
Quote:
Yeah, it's a bit of dream, but a doable one.

In 2007 or 2008.
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #417 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Why are people always hoping that Apple will ship RAID, when they have already, for years?

Just go to Disk Utility, and you will see it there. Order a two drive config, and it takes all of five minutes to set up.

If you think that Apple charges too much, buy the second drive from Newegg.com.

The capability has been shipping for years, but not preconfigured. It doesn't take long to set up a stripe or mirror, but that means reinstalling the OS if you are striping the system volume.

I was more or less saying one is better off just getting the stock unit, dumping the stock drive with two drives from elsewhere.
post #418 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by gar

$1,999 Mac Pro 2.0Ghz Xeon
$2,499 Mac Pro 2.33Ghz Xeon
$3,299 Mac Pro 2.67Ghz quadcore Xeon

Maybe a BTO 3.0Ghz quadcore

It's quite possible it turns out worse: $1,999 Mac Pro 2.4Ghz Conroe.

2.0 and 2.33 GHz Xeon? I hope you mean two-processor for all of those, because a 2.3 GHz single-processor will get spanked by any computer over $1200. Remember that a Woodcrest is only 5% faster than a Conroe clock-for-clock, if that.

Same thing with a 2.4 GHz Conroe. Anything around $1500 with a Conroe will be similar performance-wise, and it'll look silly next to $1800 XPSs with 2.67 GHz Conroes.
post #419 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Software RAID is a far cry from hardware RAID.

Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. There are advantages to each. Hardware RAID isn't even faster all of the time. And the new software RAID's are just as reliable. It would be nice if Apple added more modes to it though.
post #420 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Because they don't ship it preconfigured as a standard option. HP and Dell are shipping this as STANDARD. Unusual for a mid level desktop worker-bee config.

I agree. But, truthfully, anyone who really needs RAID shouldn't use that as an excuse not to set it up. As I said, it only takes five minutes. And anyone who really knows enough to need it can figure it out without any problem.
post #421 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
The capability has been shipping for years, but not preconfigured. It doesn't take long to set up a stripe or mirror, but that means reinstalling the OS if you are striping the system volume.

I was more or less saying one is better off just getting the stock unit, dumping the stock drive with two drives from elsewhere.

I answered the first part to Aegis.

I agree with the second part. I said that as well.
post #422 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. There are advantages to each. Hardware RAID isn't even faster all of the time. And the new software RAID's are just as reliable. It would be nice if Apple added more modes to it though.

Dell and HP aren't doing it for speed. They're doing it for reliability. Drives are getting cheap enough now it seems that sticking an extra one in as a mirror is a feature that an average mid range user wants. We're not talking about gamers or video pros here.

Then again, if you're running Windows on it, mirroring is probably a good idea.
post #423 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Dell and HP aren't doing it for speed. They're doing it for reliability. Drives are getting cheap enough now it seems that sticking an extra one in as a mirror is a feature that an average mid range user wants. We're not talking about gamers or video pros here.

Then again, if you're running Windows on it, mirroring is probably a good idea.

Heh heh. Probably.
post #424 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
2.0 and 2.33 GHz Xeon? I hope you mean two-processor for all of those, because a 2.3 GHz single-processor will get spanked by any computer over $1200. Remember that a Woodcrest is only 5% faster than a Conroe clock-for-clock, if that.

Same thing with a 2.4 GHz Conroe. Anything around $1500 with a Conroe will be similar performance-wise, and it'll look silly next to $1800 XPSs with 2.67 GHz Conroes.

For regular use, there shouldn't be any speed difference between the same clock Conroe and a single Woodcrest. However, there may be a stability difference, and there certainly is a difference in system scalability.
post #425 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
For regular use, there shouldn't be any speed difference between the same clock Conroe and a single Woodcrest. However, there may be a stability difference, and there certainly is a difference in system scalability.

That's my point - a single Woodcrest at 2.0 or 2.33 GHz is absolutely useless. Worse than a 2.4 GHz Conroe. Only in dual-socket is Woodcrest going to work.
post #426 of 566
The Intel chipset won't do hardware RAID, but with Apple's chips it should do software RAID OK like before. Also, about the mirroring being useful for Windows users, as the data would be identical on both drives, there would not be any advantage as one would be just as messed up as the other. Mirroring would help Macs or PCs the same in case of physical failure of one drive. With decent cooling that shouldn't happen much any more. MTBF has gotten better over the years. I just wish Apple would cool the drives better than they do now. Oh and one more comment, the quad core is not a Woodcrest but a Kentsfield. They won't be ready for a while, but Intel has CPU upgrades schedules every three months. That makes it even harder to make a purchase decision, if Apple can introduce a better model every 3 months. I could sleep well that my G5 was the top of the line for a year. I think sales will be poor anyway until Adobe ships Creative Suite 3.
The MACaholic
Reply
The MACaholic
Reply
post #427 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
That's my point - a single Woodcrest at 2.0 or 2.33 GHz is absolutely useless. Worse than a 2.4 GHz Conroe. Only in dual-socket is Woodcrest going to work.

That's not true. Woodcrest has a much better memory technology in FB-DIMMS, it also has a faster bus to help take advantage of the higher bandwidth of those DIMMs. Its memory model is therefore faster, wider, and overall, better.
post #428 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
That's not true. Woodcrest has a much better memory technology in FB-DIMMS, it also has a faster bus to help take advantage of the higher bandwidth of those DIMMs. Its memory model is therefore faster, wider, and overall, better.

Which is a 5 percent advantage clock for clock (or so someone else said on this forum), placing it behind the 2.4 GHz Conroe, and definitely the 2.67 GHz Conroe. I'm not saying that given a choice between equally clocked chips for the same price, I wouldn't take a Woodcrest. But a 2.0 GHz single Woodcrest will compare to a 2.13 GHz Conroe, which'll be on the market in $1000 computers.

If a Mac Pro at $2k has a single 2.33 or 2.00 Woodcrest, it'll get it's pants beat off by higher-clocked, cheaper Conroe machines, except in extremely memory-intensive tasks. And if you're putting 8+ GB of RAM in, you probably aren't using the low-end Mac Pro.
post #429 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
But a 2.0 GHz single Woodcrest will compare to a 2.13 GHz Conroe, which'll be on the market in $1000 computers.

The only sub $1000 Conroes I've seen are 1.83Ghz and those weren't from Tier 1 manufacturers. You might see 2.13Ghz in some of the back street system builders or home built systems but those generally don't compare in other ways - like warranty, reliability, design, noise...


Quote:
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
If a Mac Pro at $2k has a single 2.33 or 2.00 Woodcrest, it'll get it's pants beat off by higher-clocked, cheaper Conroe machines, except in extremely memory-intensive tasks. And if you're putting 8+ GB of RAM in, you probably aren't using the low-end Mac Pro.

Yep. And so far $2000 PCs seem to be coming in as 2.4Ghz Conroes from the big suppliers as I mentioned earlier in this thread. That's what Apple is up against. I'd much rather have a 2.4Ghz Conroe than a similarly clocked Woodcrest even at the same price. FB-DIMMS are about twice the price of normal DDR2 RAM and I'd rather have twice the RAM than something a little faster. Then again, if they use a single Woodcrest on a dual socket motherboard on their low end system, it'd be a nice upgrade later on.
post #430 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
Which is a 5 percent advantage clock for clock (or so someone else said on this forum), placing it behind the 2.4 GHz Conroe, and definitely the 2.67 GHz Conroe. I'm not saying that given a choice between equally clocked chips for the same price, I wouldn't take a Woodcrest. But a 2.0 GHz single Woodcrest will compare to a 2.13 GHz Conroe, which'll be on the market in $1000 computers.

If a Mac Pro at $2k has a single 2.33 or 2.00 Woodcrest, it'll get it's pants beat off by higher-clocked, cheaper Conroe machines, except in extremely memory-intensive tasks. And if you're putting 8+ GB of RAM in, you probably aren't using the low-end Mac Pro.

I don't go by what "someone else" said. The difference is considered to be significent by those who know better. Read ARs or other sites where the experts have written.

Certainly, a 2.33 Woodcrest is equal to a 2.67 Conroe in operations that matter. A 1,333 bus with faster memory vs a 1066 bus makes a difference.

Pricing is something else. We'll just have to see.
post #431 of 566
[QUOTE]Originally posted by aegisdesign
...FB-DIMMS are about twice the price of normal DDR2 RAM and I'd rather have twice the RAM than something a little faster. Then again, if they use a single Woodcrest on a dual socket motherboard on their low end system, it'd be a nice upgrade later on...



Yeah the Conroe DDR2 RAM vs Woodcrest FB-Dimms puts a cost issue into the mix re: Mac Pros. 2nd point: Will it be really possible to pop in an extra Woody into the available socket in a single-Woody Mac Pro? Million-dollar question there. Or, $2000-$3000 question.
post #432 of 566
[QUOTE]Originally posted by melgross
I don't go by what "someone else" said. The difference is considered to be significent by those who know better. Read ARs or other sites where the experts have written. Certainly, a 2.33 Woodcrest is equal to a 2.67 Conroe in operations that matter. A 1,333 bus with faster memory vs a 1066 bus makes a difference....Pricing is something else. We'll just have to see.



Well, in terms of OS X we'll have to see if there's a Mac Conroe. Then take that up against a single-Mac Woodcrest, or Dualie Woodcrest with 1 CPU disabled. Then benchmark the hell out of that. Then we'll see real-world performance differences.

It's interesting, Opterons vs Athlons were considered in very different classes in the past few years. I wonder if Woodcrest vs Conroe are nearer each other in terms of performance - as is relevant to Bootcamp Windows in Mac Pros or simply in Windows PCs. But yeah, I'll have to review the Conroe vs. Woodcrest data. Just finished digesting the Conroe vs AthlonX2 data...!

Re: Pricing: Well we are talking about how Apple is going to position the Mac Pro models. Then we have to see what software suites they are going to focus on as the main selling point for the Mac Pros. I call Final Cut Studio and Shake as the main push. Hush-hush about Adobe/Macromedia.

If Apple doesn't release a single-core Woodcrest AND Conroe model then the Woodcrest vs. Conroe performance is a moot point.

My feeling at this stage is
Good - Mac Pro . 1xConroe (Dualie)
Better - Mac Pro . 2xWoodcrest (Quad) - mid end of 2ghz
Best - Mac Pro . 2xWoodcrest (Quad) - high end of 2ghz

Once the Conroe goes into the iMac the next gen or the gen after that, the "Good" Mac Pro may go low-mid end of 2ghz Woodcrest (Quad).

Anyway, brain a bit fuzzy after slight jet lag and 10-12 hour trip to Australia (yeah not as bad as 20 hours or crazy trips like that, but brain is fuzzy nonetheless).
post #433 of 566
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
[

My feeling at this stage is
Good - Mac Pro . 1xConroe (Dualie)
Better - Mac Pro . 2xWoodcrest (Quad) - mid end of 2ghz
Best - Mac Pro . 2xWoodcrest (Quad) - high end of 2ghz



Apple will have a 3GHz Dual Woodcrest. Don't doubt it for a second. I think you know why.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #434 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
Apple will have a 3GHz Dual Woodcrest. Don't doubt it for a second. I think you know why.

Of course.
But it can be a BTO.
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #435 of 566
[QUOTE]Originally posted by onlooker
Apple will have a 3GHz Dual Woodcrest. Don't doubt it for a second. I think you know why.



I know. 3ghz is a huge glowing Number in my brain. I was trying very hard to resist it when putting in my "Best" prediction*. Okay, brain fuzzy again, I stop now. Carry on, peoples.

*edit: Because of cost. I believe it will be build-to-order option but not the default "Best" config.
post #436 of 566
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sunilraman
Quote:
[i]
My feeling at this stage is
Good - Mac Pro . 1xConroe (Dualie)
Better - Mac Pro . 2xWoodcrest (Quad) - mid end of 2ghz
Best - Mac Pro . 2xWoodcrest (Quad) - high end of 2ghz

The low-end Mac Mini isn't a Celeron D. The low-end iMac isn't a Pentium 4. The low-end Macbook Pro isn't a Pentium M.

I doubt they'd make that significant of a change at the lowend. Especially since it would reduce the bulk they can buy motherboards in since they'd no longer be unified.
post #437 of 566
Just what is the price difference between a Yonah and a Merom chip for the Mac Mini and other lower end Macs? If it's significant, in order to better separate the MacBook Pro and MacBook, Apple could keep the MacBook at Core Duo (Yonah) and upgrade the MacBookPro to the new Core 2 Duo. The Mac mini could have Yonah in the $600 model, but Merom in the top model. Not too sure what Apple's thinking about the iMac, but I hope a low end conroe should go in there. It is a desktop computer after all.
The MACaholic
Reply
The MACaholic
Reply
post #438 of 566
Merom debuts at Yonah debut price levels, I have heard. I don't think official prices are out yet.

But Yonah has already had at least 1 price cut, and may get a 2nd in a month (when Merom is shipping in volume). That'd make Yonahs cheaper than Meroms.

But this won't be G4/G5 - where the older processors stay in production for a while. Intel will want to re-tool those Yonah fabs to making something else, so don't expect Yonah to last for more than 6 months or so beyond Merom. Similarly, I don't think P4s or P-Ds are long for this world. By this time next year, there won't be any Pentiums or Yonahs sold in new computers, I bet.
post #439 of 566
I'd bet that Apple will keep the Yonah around for the first go 'round. By the time the Merom's are speed bumped, then the Yonah's will finally be replaced with price cut Merom. Of course it could be a bit different for the MacBook if Apple wants to use the Merom to boost battery life and not speed.

Back to the big boys: How many readers of this Forum would really buy a Quad Woodcrest, or would be reasonably happy with a nice Conroe Extreme Edition dual Mac Pro? Nice as in >=2GB of RAM and >=250GB disk space. It would have a faster clock rate to brag about and we might still have enough money for gasoline.
The MACaholic
Reply
The MACaholic
Reply
post #440 of 566
Quote:
Originally posted by BradMacPro
I'd bet that Apple will keep the Yonah around for the first go 'round. By the time the Merom's are speed bumped, then the Yonah's will finally be replaced with price cut Merom. Of course it could be a bit different for the MacBook if Apple wants to use the Merom to boost battery life and not speed.

Merom's a 20-40 percent speed bump. There's no avoiding it in the Macbook Pros. They can't wait until Santa Rosa platform in March, simply because laptops are the mainstay of Apple's lineup. They have a lot larger notebook marketshare than laptop marketshare. The Macbook Pro is as important (if not more so) to Apple right now than the Mac Pro. They can't stiff it performance-wise and survive.

As to Mac Pros, I really want a Quad. Since I don't have $3k, it'll probably be a 2.0 GHz Quad. Not because it's faster than a 2.67 GHz Conroe at everything, but because I like multi-tasking, and I want to use some OSS production apps that are multi-threaded. Additionally, I think two-socket offers a lot better upgrade path, if only to put 2.6 GHz Quads in each socket in 3 years.

Also, I think that between Paralells, Microsoft, and Apple, someone will have decent graphics performance in a VM by this time next year. Remember that that's a must for Vista in virtualization.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Intel unleashes Mac-bound "Woodcrest" server chip