or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Woodcrest to power Apple's next-gen Mac Pro desktops
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Woodcrest to power Apple's next-gen Mac Pro desktops - Page 3

post #81 of 226
[QUOTE]Originally posted by onlooker
You are so warped. That "Apple Tax" myth it's not even funny any more. Give it a rest. The so called Apple Tax has been disproved many times over, but for some reason people keep going on about it like it's a given truth. It's just PC weenie propaganda now.



I guess I'm not saying that it is true, I'm saying the perception of it still exists. Just look at all the "I can buy a Dell cheaper" and "I expected cheaper Macs with Intel" posts littering this thread...!

Look at Chucker's "woo $100 extra buys me soooo much wooooo" - which Chucker, sounds like there is an aspect of Apple in the Mac Mini which you do not feel there is value for money.

I guess that's what I'm referring to when talking bout the Apple Tax, not that it definitely exists, but what is clear is that there is a widespread perception for a number of people that they do not get value for money buying a Mac.
post #82 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by dmwogan
Woo, you should start selling your own computers since you have access to these wonderful prices that no one else does.

Oh, really? Last I checked, I didn't really have a potential customer base to buy components in stacks of hundreds of thousands, whereas Apple does.

Which, mind you, drives component prices down.

A lot.
post #83 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Look at Chucker's "woo $100 extra buys me soooo much wooooo" - which Chucker, sounds like there is an aspect of Apple in the Mac Mini which you do not feel there is value for money.

What is it with you guys reading the craziest of things into my posts? All I'm saying is that the Mac product line is no more and no less valuable than it was when it was entirely PowerPC. The Intel transition hasn't "reduced the Apple tax", "improved competitiveness" or "made Macs more comparable" (architectural similarities aside).

A PowerPC Mac mini was a great value. An Intel mac mini is a great value.
post #84 of 226
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sunilraman
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
You are so warped. That "Apple Tax" myth it's not even funny any more. Give it a rest. The so called Apple Tax has been disproved many times over, but for some reason people keep going on about it like it's a given truth. It's just PC weenie propaganda now.



I guess I'm not saying that it is true, I'm saying the perception of it still exists. Just look at all the "I can buy a Dell cheaper" and "I expected cheaper Macs with Intel" posts littering this thread...!

Look at Chucker's "woo $100 extra buys me soooo much wooooo" - which Chucker, sounds like there is an aspect of Apple in the Mac Mini which you do not feel there is value for money.

I guess that's what I'm referring to when talking bout the Apple Tax, not that it definitely exists, but what is clear is that there is a widespread perception for a number of people that they do not get value for money buying a Mac.

I see. I can't disagree with that. There are plenty of people that don't even look under the hood before buying a car. Most of them don't know what DOHC is, what 5.0 stands for, or even what a Turbo really is. There will always be the ignorance of those that shop for price reguardless of performance, or longevity.
Although, with todays gas prices and the condition of our planet my next car is going be a hybrid, or something a lot more eco friendly.
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 #85 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun
The cost for the mini's single-core Yonah was $209.

Single? 1000 rebate? 100,000 rebate? Magical random number?

Quote:
I still am looking for the cost of the G4, but I believe it was around $75.00.

FWIW, the KMC7447AHX1420LB (PowerPC 7447A, 1.42 GHz) is $505.4300 at Newark, Freescale's only listed US distributor for this part number.

Maybe this gives you an idea of how meaningless alleged "component prices" are.
post #86 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Oh, really? Last I checked, I didn't really have a potential customer base to buy components in stacks of hundreds of thousands, whereas Apple does.

Which, mind you, drives component prices down.

A lot.

You fail to see the sarcasm in my post. I'll spell it out for you: I was making fun of you.
David W.
The University of Texas at Austin
Mechanical Engineering | LBJ School of Public Affairs
www.davidwogan.us
Reply
David W.
The University of Texas at Austin
Mechanical Engineering | LBJ School of Public Affairs
www.davidwogan.us
Reply
post #87 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by dmwogan
You fail to see the sarcasm in my post. I'll spell it out for you: I was making fun of you.

Quite the contrary. You fail to see the sarcasm in my post. I'll spell it out for you: your making fun of me was low.
post #88 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker

A PowerPC Mac mini was a great value. An Intel mac mini is a great value.

Still you have to see that with a Single core Yonah at $209 and the G4 chip somewhere below $100. The Intel mini is a much better buy. Apple didn't just raise the price $100 for the hell of it, they raised the specs across the board. In doing so, the components (mainly the chip) cost more to manufacture. For the consumer, all of the improvements are well worth $100, regardless of what Apple's actual costs are.

So yeah, the cost of the Intel mini is $100 more, but I'd be willing to bet that Apple's profit margin is lower, which esentially means Apple is getting more price competitive.
post #89 of 226
What were we talking about again?
David W.
The University of Texas at Austin
Mechanical Engineering | LBJ School of Public Affairs
www.davidwogan.us
Reply
David W.
The University of Texas at Austin
Mechanical Engineering | LBJ School of Public Affairs
www.davidwogan.us
Reply
post #90 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun
Still you have to see that with a Single core Yonah at $209 and the G4 chip somewhere below $100. The Intel mini is a much better buy.

Look above. Assuming your Yonah price quote is for one unit, the G4 is almost two and a half times as expensive.

Quote:
Apple didn't just raise the price $100 for the hell of it.

Well, no. I never claimed they did.

Quote:
They did it because the components (mainly the chip) cost more to manufacture.

I don't undersand why they add features, then realize they can't sell it for the old price, then ditch the previous mid-end model and raise the low-end price to that.

If all these extras like the Remote, WiFi and Bluetooth, GigaBit Ethernet, two more USB ports (woopdeedoo) really are worth $100, why doesn't Apple offer a $499 machine that doesn't have them?

(That's not a rhetorical question.)
post #91 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by dmwogan
What were we talking about again?

Woodcrest in the Mac mini.

or something.
post #92 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by DHagan4755
Finally some news on the Mac Pro. This is all good news. I can't wait until Monday, August 7. Only 26 days to go, but who's counting?!

SOMEBODY MAKE A WIDG-

oh wait, somebody did.
post #93 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Look above. Assuming your Yonah price quote is for one unit, the G4 is almost two and a half times as expensive.



Well, no. I never claimed they did.



I don't undersand why they add features, then realize they can't sell it for the old price, then ditch the previous mid-end model and raise the low-end price to that.

If all these extras like the Remote, WiFi and Bluetooth, GigaBit Ethernet, two more USB ports (woopdeedoo) really are worth $100, why doesn't Apple offer a $499 machine that doesn't have them?

(That's not a rhetorical question.)

That's a good question, but I personally believe that Apple is raising the bar and setting up for some un-released service or feature where things like wi-fi, bluetooth, iSight cams etc. will be required.
post #94 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by mwswami
I am a systems software developer and I like the 2x2Ghz option because it gives me good concurrency at a very cheap price ($315/Socket). Speed of the processor is less important to me. Of course, I may be in the minority ...

For a single socket (2 cores) machine, its better to go with Conroe - it will save you hundreds of dollars in cheaper motherboard, CPU, and memory.

You're out of your mind. There will be several single-processor configurations. In many cases, people will be running apps that only take advantage of two processors, or even one. So the more cores there are, the more money they're wasting. Expecting an all-quad lineup is a little too much.

I think there should be as much choice as possible, though, in the BTO configuration. As in, select the number of processors you want, select their speeds. That way nobody gets pushed into buying too much or too little power for themselves.
post #95 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Woodcrest in the Mac mini.

or something.

Touche.
David W.
The University of Texas at Austin
Mechanical Engineering | LBJ School of Public Affairs
www.davidwogan.us
Reply
David W.
The University of Texas at Austin
Mechanical Engineering | LBJ School of Public Affairs
www.davidwogan.us
Reply
post #96 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Single? 1000 rebate? 100,000 rebate? Magical random number?



FWIW, the KMC7447AHX1420LB (PowerPC 7447A, 1.42 GHz) is $505.4300 at Newark, Freescale's only listed US distributor for this part number.

Maybe this gives you an idea of how meaningless alleged "component prices" are.

It is simply not logical that Apple paid $505 for a chip that went into a $499 computer.

I wish I could find the article, but I clearly remember Apple's cost being $75 for the G4 and $209 for the Yonah.
post #97 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by krispie
I don't understand this comment.

Apple competes with Windows PC manufacturers no more, or less, than it did before. We can, IMO, neglect the small number of people that would buy an Apple computer but use Windows as the primary OS.

The competition is between Windows and OS X, and changing the hardware hasn't affected that.

They can't say "MY MAGICAL 2GHz PROCESSOR BEATS YOUR 4GHz THROUGH MAGIC QUANTUM-PHYSICAL LAWS THAT ONLY APPLY TO COMPUTERS PLACED IN STEVE JOBS' OFFICE" anymore, because they're using the same processor type as the competition.

Like, look at it this way: they had some benchmarks of questionable real-world validity with the G5. If they try the same shit with an Intel processor, it's going to look stupid. People are going to say "hay the Dell has the same proc for $500 less than the mac", where as before, there was a certain level of ambiguity in that mysterious rift between the land of PPC and the land of x86, wherein it could be claimed that the Mac is faster.

Personally, I have faith that Mac OS X is the faster OS when multiple cores and processors are involved, and the Mac Pro will show this.
post #98 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun
It is simply not logical that Apple paid $505 for a chip that went into a $499 computer.

Of course not. That's why I said:
Quote:
Maybe this gives you an idea of how meaningless alleged "component prices" are.

Even if we did know the exact prices Apple paid Freescale and now pays Intel, we still wouldn't know additional costs such as R&D. The G4 R&D is probably far lower than the Intel R&D, simply because they had years and years of G4 experience.

Heck, the Mac mini was the first integrated graphics Mac, so a lot of R&D probably went into optimizing that. THAT kind of stuff justifies the price bump. Not a completely hypothetical "the CPU is more expensive" idea.

Quote:
I wish I could find the article, but I clearly remember Apple's cost being $75 for the G4 and $209 for the Yonah.

No article has proper sources. These kinds of deals are inked directly, with no outside information. Any such article would be based on statistics, speculation and perhaps some wishful thinking. Not on information.
post #99 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Even if we did know the exact prices Apple paid Freescale and now pays Intel, we still wouldn't know additional costs such as R&D. The G4 R&D is probably far lower than the Intel R&D, simply because they had years and years of G4 experience.

Heck, the Mac mini was the first integrated graphics Mac, so a lot of R&D probably went into optimizing that. THAT kind of stuff justifies the price bump. Not a completely hypothetical "the CPU is more expensive" idea.


Still, it doesn't require a rocket scientist to see that these upgrades resulted in a more expensive machine for Apple to manufacture.

- the Intel chip cost considerably more than the g4 chip that it replaced.
- Bluetooth and Wi-Fi added standard (previously $100 upgrade)
- Front Row and Remote added
- Gigabit ethernet added
- Max Ram capacity was increased from 1 to 2 gig
- Extra USB ports (2) added
- digital and analog audio in/out added
- Faster HD (5400 rpm vs. 4200 rpm)
- Larger HD (60 gig vs. 40 gig)
- Faster RAM used
post #100 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun
Still, it doesn't require a rocket scientist to see that these upgrades resulted in a more expensive machine for Apple to manufacture.

Assuming it would have been manufactured at the same moment as the original one, that may be true. However, there was a gap of about 14 months.

Quote:
- the Intel chip cost considerably more than the g4 chip that it replaced.

Again, not proven. Could be cheaper, could be roughly the same price.
post #101 of 226
Upchucker,

The gap was not 14 months. The gap was one day.

The day before the Intel Mini was announced, Apple charged $100 for wifi and bluetooth.

One day later, they said they were including it, an intel processor, front row with remote, Gigabit ethernet upgrade, updated RAM motherboard, more USB ports, digital audio, faster and larger HD, and improved RAM -- all for the that same amount.

If you're trying to argue something completely different, that Apple should offer an even cheaper, lower priced consumer desktop -- than this is the wrong thread for that and you're simply trolling.
post #102 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by mugwump
Upchucker,

[..] you're simply trolling.

At least I don't insult people by mangling their names and accusing them of trolling.
post #103 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Well, there is a Yonah-based Celeron M; somewhat retardedly/confusingly named, of course. Not sure if it's the 430.

300 series are Pentium-M based
400 series are Yonah based.
post #104 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
You said the magic words: could, and wanted to.

It's not that they can't. It's that they won't.

Exactly, Apple is a premium computer maker. They're leaving that market to HP, Dell, and the likes.
post #105 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by mugwump

Upchucker,
[..] you're simply trolling.



Originally posted by Chucker
At least I don't insult people by mangling their names and accusing them of trolling.

Chucker, I appreciate the above quote, and I do apologize for the ad hominem personal attack.
post #106 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Often claimed and always proved wrong.

They said all consumer Macs would get cheaper with the Intel switch. They didn't. Now you're saying the pro desktop will get cheaper with the Intel switch. It won't.

Hate to admit it but you seem to be right so far.
post #107 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross


PPC's were CHEAPER that Intel's chips are. People keep forgetting this as well.

You're going a bit overboard here. The Intel chips APPLE chooses to use are more expensive than ppc chips. The netburst pent ds and celerons are a different matter.
post #108 of 226
Does it really matter what the bill of sales were for PPC parts vs. Intel parts? I think not, so long as it doesn't translate into higher priced products, which hasn't happened so far. Tragically that could change in regards to the Mac Pro line. We shall see.
post #109 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by mugwump
Chucker, I appreciate the above quote, and I do apologize for the ad hominem personal attack.

Apology accepted.

So, here goes my "proper" answer.

Quote:
Originally posted by mugwump
The gap was not 14 months. The gap was one day.

With all due respect, that's silly. In terms of prices Apple charges customers, yes, the gap is one day. In terms of prices Apple pays, however, no. They keep buying components every few months, if even that infrequently; probably sometimes as often as multiple times a month, and needless to say, component prices have fallen a lot during that time span. So, assuming the $100 difference is mostly these "auxiliary" components (and *not* changed chipset/motherboard/RAM/CPU), those components were probably worth half or even less in late February 2006 than what they were in January 2005.

Quote:
If you're trying to argue something completely different, that Apple should offer an even cheaper, lower priced consumer desktop

No. I have long and consistently argued that Apple won't and shouldn't offer a low-end desktop. Their current Mac mini / iMac / (soon Mac Pro) line-up is perfectly fine. I'm also not dissatisfied at all with the Mac mini, although the recent low-end education iMac offer makes me hope the Mac mini could get bumped. With the MacBook all dual-core, perhaps Apple could ditch the Core Solo and go 1.67 Duo and 1.83 Duo instead.
post #110 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by Foo Fighter
Does it really matter what the bill of sales were for PPC parts vs. Intel parts? I think not, so long as it doesn't translate into higher priced products, which hasn't happened so far.

Precisely my point.
post #111 of 226
I think they'll be "competitively priced".
post #112 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
I'm also not dissatisfied at all with the Mac mini, although the recent low-end education iMac offer makes me hope the Mac mini could get bumped. With the MacBook all dual-core, perhaps Apple could ditch the Core Solo and go 1.67 Duo and 1.83 Duo instead.

Right. Actually Intel is offering lower versions of the Core Duo to some OEMs: T2050 and T2250, dual core 1.60 and 1.73GHz with a reduces FSB to 533 instead of 667. Although it may look like a downstep (in terms of FSB) the T2250 is supposed to be faster, overall, than the standard T2300@1.67 and 667FSB. It also allows for lower-cost memory, I believe. It could be a good way to bring all the Mac minis dual-core and at the original price points $499/699. That or wait for better prices on Core Duo and speedbump to 1.67 and 1.83, i agree.
Now about the Woodcrest workstations. I truly think that Apple should split the line in two in maybe offering 2 Conroe Towers (dual-core) and 2 Woodcrest Towers (dual dual-core):
$1499 2.67Ghz Conroe, smaller enclosure, 2HD, 2/3 PCIe slots
$1999 2.93Ghz Conroe (X6800), idem above
$2499 2x 2.33Ghz Woodcrest, big enclosure, 4HD, 5/6 PCIe slots
$3499 2x 3.00Ghz Woodcrest, idem above
All with 1GB of RAM, 250GB HD, Superdrive, and mid-range GPUs.
For the iMacs, I don't see them with Conroe CPUs because of the heat and the noise induced. I also think people would like to be able to buy the 17" edu model too even at $999.
$999 17" 1.83Ghz Core Duo, integrated GPU, 512RAM, 160HD
$1299 20" 2.00Ghz Core Duo, integrated GPU, 512RAM, 160HD
$1699 20" 2.16Ghz C2D Merom, dedicated GPU, 1GBRAM, 250HD
$2299 23" 2.33Ghz C2D Merom, dedicated GPU, 1GBRAM, 250HD
That's it for the desktop line-up IMO.
post #113 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Apology accepted.


No. I have long and consistently argued that Apple won't and shouldn't offer a low-end desktop. Their current Mac mini / iMac / (soon Mac Pro) line-up is perfectly fine. I'm also not dissatisfied at all with the Mac mini,

I'm confused, if you are not dissatisifed with the Mac mini, Then why were you criticizing the price increase and discounting the features added earlier in the thread with comments like " Wooo, costs Apple 50 cents" and "Is bluetooth/wi-fi really worth $100," and "What extra features."
post #114 of 226
Quote:
No. I have long and consistently argued that Apple won't and shouldn't offer a low-end desktop. Their current Mac mini / iMac / (soon Mac Pro) line-up is perfectly fine.

I think we do. I would not call it a cheap desktop necessarily. More of an iMac with no monitor. Its pretty limiting to have the Mac Pro as the only desktop with any expansion at all. Many people don't need that much power or want to pay that price.

This is the point where the Cube would have been perfect. The form factor was small stylish and a feat of engineering to fit an entire computer into such a small space. The Cube with Conroe Extreme, one expansion slot, priced around $1500 to $1700.

That would be a great computer right now.
post #115 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
I think we do. I would not call it a cheap desktop necessarily. More of an iMac with no monitor. Its pretty limiting to have the Mac Pro as the only desktop with any expansion at all. Many people don't need that much power or want to pay that price.

This is the point where the Cube would have been perfect. The form factor was small stylish and a feat of engineering to fit an entire computer into such a small space. The Cube with Conroe Extreme, one expansion slot, priced around $1500 to $1700.

That would be a great computer right now.

And like the original cube, under featured and overpriced for its target audience to sell many.
post #116 of 226
How exactly is the theoretical Intel Cube under featured and over priced?

The original Cube had 500Mhz G4, 20GB hard drive, ATI Rage 16MB GPU, and cost $1800.

EDIT:

The Conroe Duo Extreme clocks at 2.93GHz, 4MB of cache and is listed at $999. That is magnitudes better than the G4 in performance and surely much more expensive.

Even with specs similar to the iMac the theoretical Intel Cube would have at least 128MB dedicated GPU, 250GB HDD, wireless communication, gigabit ethernet, optical audio, should be able to expand to 4GB of system memory.
post #117 of 226
I absolutely love my dual core Mac Mini. In fact I am giving away my dual 2.5 G5 to my wife ...
post #118 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
How exactly is the theoretical Intel Cube under featured and over priced?

The original Cube had 500Mhz G4, 20GB hard drive, ATI Rage 16MB GPU, and cost $1800.

It's basically an iMac without a display that is more expensive. That really defeats the purpose of the machine. Compared to prosumer PCs it would be 80% more in base price, have very limited expansion, lack of ports, and a slow notebook drive. I'm sure it would look really cool and the three or four people who bought the original cube would buy it, but also like the original cube it would only sell to those three or four.

What would sell:

Mac
Core 2 Duo E6200 @ 1.6ghz
$899
128mb GeForce 7300LE with dual DVI with PCI-Express x16 slot
3 PCI x1
16x Superdrive (2 5.25" bays)
80gb Hard drive (2 3.5" bays)
8 USB 2.0 (2 Front, 6 back)
2 Firewire 400 (1 back, 1 front)
Card reader

Mac
$1099
Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 1.8ghz
128mb GeForce 7300GT with dual DVI with PCI-Express x16 slot
3 PCI x1
16x Superdrive (2 5.25" bays)
160gb Hard drive (2 3.5" bays)
8 USB 2.0 (2 Front, 6 back)
2 Firewire 400 (1 back, 1 front)
Card reader

Mac Media
$1299
Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 1.8ghz
256mb GeForce 7600GS with dual DVI with PCI-Express x16 slot
PCI-express tuner card with ultra remote
2 PCI x1
16x Superdrive (2 5.25" bays)
80gb Hard drive (2 3.5" bays)
8 USB 2.0 (2 Front, 6 back)
2 Firewire 400 (1 back, 1 front)
Front RCA/S-video jacks.
Card reader

Mac Media
$1599
Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.1ghz
256mb GeForce 7600GT with dual DVI with PCI-Express x16 slot
PCI-express tuner card with ultra remote
2 PCI x1
16x Superdrive (2 5.25" bays)
80gb Hard drive (2 3.5" bays)
8 USB 2.0 (2 Front, 6 back)
2 Firewire 400 (1 back, 1 front)
Front RCA/S-video jacks.
Card reader

Options:
256mb Geforce 7900GS
post #119 of 226
Nice lineup, BenRoethig. It makes so much sense there's no way Apple would do it.

A couple of things I'd change would be get rid of one of the 5 1/4" bays, and add a Firewire 800 port. I suspect that you wouldn't see an integrated card reader, either, 'cause Steve thinks they're ugly.

(Also-- bump the HD specs on the top two machines-- I don't think they'd start out with 80GB HDs.)
post #120 of 226
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun
Still you have to see that with a Single core Yonah at $209 and the G4 chip somewhere below $100. The Intel mini is a much better buy. Apple didn't just raise the price $100 for the hell of it, they raised the specs across the board. In doing so, the components (mainly the chip) cost more to manufacture. For the consumer, all of the improvements are well worth $100, regardless of what Apple's actual costs are.

So yeah, the cost of the Intel mini is $100 more, but I'd be willing to bet that Apple's profit margin is lower, which esentially means Apple is getting more price competitive.

It could mean that. That has a lot to do with projected sales figures. (although the case design was paid for by then, and cheaper to manufacture) If Apple projected sales figures were doubling of what the original mini was I think they can significantly cut prices because they would be buying more parts in bulk, and that cuts costs right there. If they are buying from one of the same companies that makes other parts for other Apple products (like the iPod) They can also negotiate on prices there. LIke "well buy X amount of hard-drives from you at this price in the next 6 months if you sell us double what we ordered last time on this product at X amount.

Quote:
So yeah, the cost of the Intel mini is $100 more

But I hear they feel about $1000.00 faster.
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Woodcrest to power Apple's next-gen Mac Pro desktops