or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Ripe in Cupertino: an Apple with 8 cores
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ripe in Cupertino: an Apple with 8 cores - Page 2

post #41 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by solsun

Clive, actually the time Apple took for C2D was completely warranted.. Until now, there simply were not enough C2D chips available from Intel..


It seems like it took them a long time to move to C2D because other companies had C2D machines out long before Apple. This is mainly because people dont relize that the Mobile C2Ds came out quite a bit after the desktop C2Ds. Apple isnt using any of the Desktop C2Ds, just the Mobile versions. They actually got the iMac with the mobile C2D out quite a bit before most companies, even Dell, had any machines (laptops) out with the chip.

I really did wish Apple would sell a machine with the Desktop version of the C2D instead of just sticking to the Xeon version of it in the Mac Pro.
post #42 of 184
*NEWS FLASH*

Apple will use the latest CPUs available from their supplier - just like every other Intel customer.

Yawn. Beefy systems are cool. But now it's just a matter of Apple keeping up with the Jones on the CPU side. More interesting would be news of graphics cards - an area where Apple lags.

- Jasen.
post #43 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasenj1

*NEWS FLASH*

Apple will use the latest CPUs available from their supplier - just like every other Intel customer.

Yawn. Beefy systems are cool. But now it's just a matter of Apple keeping up with the Jones on the CPU side. More interesting would be news of graphics cards - an area where Apple lags.

- Jasen.

Amen, on that brother... they seriously lag behind
post #44 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasenj1

*NEWS FLASH*

Apple will use the latest CPUs available from their supplier - just like every other Intel customer.

Yawn. Beefy systems are cool. But now it's just a matter of Apple keeping up with the Jones on the CPU side. More interesting would be news of graphics cards - an area where Apple lags.

- Jasen.

Amen, on that brother... they seriously lag behind.
post #45 of 184

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
post #46 of 184
Quote:
More interesting would be news of graphics cards - an area where Apple lags.
Amen, on that brother... they seriously lag behind

A $1,600 graphics card isn't good enough these days?
post #47 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

A $1,600 graphics card isn't good enough these days?

so on the very expensive, and overkill for most people, Mac Pro... you can get a nice video card...

but looking at the entire Mac product line... X1600s on most everything, and 7300 and 7600s on the 24" iMac. Some people like to actually run graphics top notch and fast, and all the midranged cards as the best options (if there is even an option) is sad.
post #48 of 184
Quote:
but looking at the entire Mac product line... X1600s on most everything, and 7300 and 7600s on the 24" iMac. Some people like to actually run graphics top notch and fast, and all the midranged cards as the best options (if there is even an option) is sad.

There are a couple of ways to look at this.

Which computers have the same size, weight, design and price of Apple computers that feature what you would consider a high end graphics card?

Which other computer company makes more money than Apple by supplying computers with said high end graphics cards by meeting consumer demand for them?

Which type of computer sells more: integrated graphics or dedicated graphics?
post #49 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

There are a couple of ways to look at this.

Which computers have the same size, weight, design and price of Apple computers that feature what you would consider a high end graphics card?

Which other computer company makes more money than Apple by supplying computers with said high end graphics cards by meeting consumer demand for them?

Which type of computer sells more: integrated graphics or dedicated graphics?

so no other company does it, so Apple shouldn't either? Heck what other company makes their own OS, maybe Apple should just use Windows too....

Many companies make more money, by attracting more customers with a wider range of options so they can at least feel they are getting what they want and not settling for whats available.

computers with integrated graphics sell more, but not because they have integrated graphics, but because they are ultra cheap low end machines for people who want to spend as little as possible. Most that buy these dont understand the limitations. I've had people buy $299 desktops then are stunned they find out there are things they simply cannot do with them, when they thought it would just be slower.


I dont see how it would hurt Apple to provide a few more options.
post #50 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister

Why don't they just sell an interfacethat would allow two or three or four or (you get the picture) MacPros to interconnect and make a mini cluster? If a super computer can be configured from 1100 Macs, why can't you configure 3 Macs and get that much power?

They do have software for that. But the programs themselves must be written so that they can work properly with it. It's used in scientific computing now.

I seem to have forgotten what it's called right now, but someone else will remember.

EDIT: Greer did! xGrid.
post #51 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaMac

Honestly, What's the problem here? Your going to cry because apple is keeping on the cutting edge of technology? It is a shame we would want others to be behind in technology just because of our own jealously.

From it software to its hardware Apple is about making the best product possible. There is no shame in that.

We always have this problem. Some people moan because Apple DIDN'T update every few months (they used to before the G4).

And we have those who moan because they ARE now updating every few months.

I just ignore them.
post #52 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

A $1,600 graphics card isn't good enough these days?

You don't think that we deserve a real selection?

I know that if the shoe was on the other foot, as it used to be years ago, when Apple had all of the good graphics and video cards, you would be talking about how Mac's have a much better selection than PC's, and that it's a good reason to get a Mac.

But several people make excuses about the extremely limited selection we have as though it's a good thing.

It's not.
post #53 of 184
Quote:
so no other company does it, so Apple shouldn't either?

There is a reason they don't.

Quote:
Many companies make more money, by attracting more customers with a wider range of options so they can at least feel they are getting what they want and not settling for whats available.

Which companies are those?

Quote:
I dont see how it would hurt Apple to provide a few more options.

I can agree Apple should offer more options in the Mac Pro

For the rest of its line.....for Apple to design its computers the way it does puts a limitation on the components inside the computer. They are limited by the amount of energy they can use, the amount of heat they can generate, and how much they cost.
post #54 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix

Mac Pro Dual (Xeon 5100/5300)
base model dual-dual 2.66 $2499
better model dual-quad 2.33 $2999
best model dual-quad 2.66 $3499
2GB FB-DIMM RAM standard, ATI X1900XT (or newer) standard

Mac Pro Single (Conroe/Kentsfield)
base model dual 2.66 $1499
better model quad 2.40 $1699
best model quad 2.66 $1999
1GB DDR2-800 RAM standard, nVidia 7300GT (or newer) standard

@ MacWorld SF January 2007

Conroe is fast than kentsfield.

More like:

Mac Pro Dual:
P965 Chipset
2.67ghz (E6700)
BTO: 2.4ghz (E6600), 2.93ghz (x6800)
1gb DDR2 667mhz
7300GT Standard
7600GT and X1900XTX optional for consumers
Quadro 560, 1500, 4500 optional for pros.
$1499

Mac Pro Quad
Current Mac Pro
Options for GeForce 7600GT, Quadro 560, and Quadro 1500 picked up.
$2499

Mac Pro (eight)
5000x chipset
2x 2.33ghz Xeon quad Standard
BTO: 2.66ghz
2gb FB-DIMM DDR2 ram standard
Quadro 560 standard
$3499

Available by thanksgiving. From prosumers to gamers to super pros, the perfect desktop lineup.
post #55 of 184
Quote:
But several people make excuses about the extremely limited selection we have as though it's a good thing.

I agree a wider selection for the Mac Pro would be better.

I was addressing the complaint that Apple lags behind in high end graphic card use across its entire line.
post #56 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugodrax


Intel is know to drop chip prices down 20% during a specific period etc.. I wonder if Apple will pass the savings down to the consumer or just keep that 20%

I think Apple will price it lower at launch, knowing the price will come down. I know this is not what Apple has done in the past, like the G5 was higher at launch to make greater profit from early adopters. Yet Apple seems bent on really impressing folks with the performance and value of the Mac Pro.
post #57 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

I think Apple will price it lower at launch, knowing the price will come down. I know this is not what Apple has done in the past, like the G5 was higher at launch to make greater profit from early adopters. Yet Apple seems bent on really impressing folks with the performance and value of the Mac Pro.

More like they'll price it higher at launch then pocket the difference when the price goes down.
post #58 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig

More like they'll price it higher at launch then pocket the difference when the price goes down.

I guess we wait and see what Apple does.
post #59 of 184
Quote:
You don't think that we deserve a real selection?

Also I'm wondering what constitutes a better selection.

A quick look through Dell's horrible website. As far as I can tell the top end workstation class graphics card offered by Dell is the nVidia Quadro FX 4500, same as with the Mac Pro.

Are you saying Apple should have a better selection of lower end cards?
post #60 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

There is a reason they don't.

Which companies are those?

I can agree Apple should offer more options in the Mac Pro

For the rest of its line.....for Apple to design its computers the way it does puts a limitation on the components inside the computer. They are limited by the amount of energy they can use, the amount of heat they can generate, and how much they cost.

The only reason they don't is because its cheaper. Apple already spends a lot on R&D and designs things no other company designs in such packages. I dont think it would cost them that much more to design from the beginning to think about this. Yes there is plenty of room in the 24" iMac to be able to propery cool a desktop C2D and a Geforce 7900. Its pushing it in a 20" and no way for a 17". So all the lines suffer so one doesnt stand out from the others.

More options in the Mac Pro would fix everything, not just video card options, but many options.

The reason we dont have better machines, video cards or not, is because Apple does not make any desktop level machines. They make a Workstation grade (expensive) machine, and then a bunch of 'laptop' level machines with full 'laptop' parts... They could fix a lot of complaining by just having a lower end Mac Pro with a single dual or quad core, with 3 or 4 video options stepping from low to high performance.
post #61 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

Also I'm wondering what constitutes a better selection.

A quick look through Dell's horrible website. As far as I can tell the top end workstation class graphics card offered by Dell is the nVidia Quadro FX 4500, same as with the Mac Pro.

Are you saying Apple should have a better selection of lower end cards?

as for current selections, the 7300 is quite low end, its not a midranged card.

the X1900XT is a fine higher end card.

It would be nice to have something as a step between.

I'm not really sure who wants higher end cards currently.

The quadro 4500 is waste of money for almost everyone who wants to buy a Mac Pro. You can barely tell a difference in benchmarks between the X1900XT and the Quadro 4500. Youll only really be able to notice a difference (and itll be a minor one) if you are doing a lot of CAD type work. spending an extra $1400 to go from a X1900XT to a Quadro 4500 is quite crazy.

Its just odd that its either 2 higher end almost equal cards (in performance, definitely not price), and a low end basically entry level card.

Beyond all that i personally dont have much of a problem with the current cards offered for the Mac Pro, though there are slightly faster cards, or Crossfire or SLI single slot cards that would be nice, when the OS supports them. The thing that makes it so expensive is needing 2 sockets, which also forces FB-DIMMs.
post #62 of 184
Quote:
Yes there is plenty of room in the 24" iMac to be able to propery cool a desktop C2D and a Geforce 7900. Its pushing it in a 20" and no way for a 17". So all the lines suffer so one doesnt stand out from the others.

I agree with that. Apple should offer an option for the best graphics card that can fit within heat tolerances.

Quote:
They could fix a lot of complaining by just having a lower end Mac Pro with a single dual or quad core, with 3 or 4 video options stepping from low to high performance.

I agree. Apple would not sell such a computer at $999 though.
post #63 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

I agree. Apple would not sell such a computer at $999 though.

of course they couldnt sell one like that for $999, anyone who asks for a price like that is being unreasonable. Well... techinically they could make a config that could sell even lower then 999 using the same parts, but it would be a low end C2D desktop chip and integrated graphics.

but they could make a decent lower end Mac Pro that ranges from $1500 - $2500 depending on options.
post #64 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

Also I'm wondering what constitutes a better selection.

A quick look through Dell's horrible website. As far as I can tell the top end workstation class graphics card offered by Dell is the nVidia Quadro FX 4500, same as with the Mac Pro.

Are you saying Apple should have a better selection of lower end cards?

Selection isn't just about getting the highest performance unit, it is about getting what fits the user as the user sees it.

Should Apple increase the selection for the Mac Pro? Yes, I think so. Dell offers at least half a dozen different cards for their workstations.

I really don't think it makes much sense to frame the argument around what Apple is offering because they really only effectively offer three consumer computer models and three pro computer models, which is pretty limited given how many computers they sell.
post #65 of 184
Quote:
of course they couldnt sell one like that for $999, anyone who asks for a price like that is being unreasonable.

Yes there were people saying Apple should sell a desktop with expandable GPU and open PCIe slot for $999.

Quote:
Selection isn't just about getting the highest performance unit, it is about getting what fits the user as the user sees it.

Perhaps it was my misunderstanding when I got into this debate I thought they were saying Apple lags in high end graphics cards. So I asked isn't a $1600 card high end enough.

Quote:
Dell offers at least half a dozen different cards for their workstations.

The potential problem with this business model is the expense of buying several different types of graphic cards and the risk of being stuck with an excess inventory of the least popular card.
post #66 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

Also I'm wondering what constitutes a better selection.

A quick look through Dell's horrible website. As far as I can tell the top end workstation class graphics card offered by Dell is the nVidia Quadro FX 4500, same as with the Mac Pro.

Are you saying Apple should have a better selection of lower end cards?

Not every graphics pro has a $4000 budget. That's why Nvidia makes more than one Quadro card.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

The potential problem with this business model is the expense of buying several different types of graphic cards and the risk of being stuck with an excess inventory of the least popular card.

And problem with Apple's business model is that since they don't have these options, they give their business to Dell instead. The pro graphics segment Apple could pick up easily if they'd quit being so conservative all the time.
post #67 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by baygbm

Im all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. Its also disrespectful to consumers.

I dont have a Mac pro, but Id be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???


I think the main issue is that for Apple updates like these were normally taken as larger news so it was regarded more as apples moving in the right direction. Now they're sort of following the PC market with updates on a regular basis so people are bit less used to all these speed bumps. ALSO this is a transitioning time for apple. They've movied to Intel cpus and AMD is grabbing a hold to ATI so that means fewer ATI cards in our macs too. Good bye radeon. Hello Geforce. Or...GMA 950's if your on the other end of the spectrum.

IMO I dont care all too much about this. 8 cores is nice but is there ANY software that takes full advantage off this power? And I'm a cheap bastard anyway so I think once I'm done with this eMac and run it into the ground (or just throw fedora core on it) I might go with a Mac Book.
post #68 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

I agree a wider selection for the Mac Pro would be better.

I was addressing the complaint that Apple lags behind in high end graphic card use across its entire line.

They do though.

For every card they have, a better, or at least a newer one, is available for the PC.

We also don't get the various options PC users have.

Do you want a slightly higher gpu clocked card, or a slightly higher memory card instead? Do you want one that is clocked higher in both areas? Do you want a card with more memory? Are you prepared to pay more for that, or are you willing to accept a slightly lower clocked version with more memory, etc. etc.

ATI or Nvidia? At least.

There are over 350 graphics cards available to PC users. We have, what four or five?

That's not a selection. One for each category of work or play. And by no means the best one. And certainly not the newest.
post #69 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

Yes there were people saying Apple should sell a desktop with expandable GPU and open PCIe slot for $999.



Perhaps it was my misunderstanding when I got into this debate I thought they were saying Apple lags in high end graphics cards. So I asked isn't a $1600 card high end enough.



The potential problem with this business model is the expense of buying several different types of graphic cards and the risk of being stuck with an excess inventory of the least popular card.

A point that you are missing here is that it doesn't matrter what cards Dell offers, or Hp, or for that matter, Apple.

What matters is the cards you can buy. You don't have to buy what Dell or Hp offers. You can buy whatever card is on the shelf.

We can't.
post #70 of 184
Quote:
What matters is the cards you can buy. You don't have to buy what Dell or Hp offers. You can buy whatever card is on the shelf.

We can't.

Seems like you are giving me half the story why is it like that?

At this point this sounds like software issue more than a hardware one.

Whose responsibility is it to write the drivers? Nvidia/ATI or Apple?
post #71 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

Seems like you are giving me half the story why is it like that?

At this point this sounds like software issue more than a hardware one.

Whose responsibility is it to write the drivers? Nvidia/ATI or Apple?

Responsibility is in the eye of the beholder, as the expression goes.

Apple writes the drivers for it's OEM cards, using code supplied by either ATI or Nvidia.

When ATI has retail boards for us, the code is all their own, and is far more feature complete than Apple's, which is another bone of contention.

Apple almost never gives a feature complete software bundle for their cards. They are always lacking some major features. We know this well.

You can look to the Software ATI supplies for their Mac boards, vs. the software Apple doesn't supply.

The same thing is true for Nvidia.

Apple's Nvidia cards don't include all of the features that the PC versions do.

So, we lose there as well.

Apple includes all of the features THEY think we need. But, not the ones we WANT.
post #72 of 184
Quote:
Apple writes the drivers for it's OEM cards, using code supplied by either ATI or Nvidia.

Since Nvidia and ATI can write drives for a wider use of cards on the Mac Pro it seems this would be more a priority for them since they are the ones who sell the graphic cards.

Quote:
Apple's Nvidia cards don't include all of the features that the PC versions do.

So, we lose there as well.

Where exactly do we loose out in our practical everyday computing experience?
Not my intention to sound condescending, tone does not translate well in the written word.
post #73 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

Since Nvidia and ATI can write drives for a wider use of cards on the Mac Pro it seems this would be more a priority for them since they are the ones who sell the graphic cards.

I'm not blaming Apple directly for this problem, though they could make up the lack in third party cards, as we see happening in the PC world, by producing more of their own.

But, because of the lack of graphic card replacable computer sales in the Mac market, those companies don't find it desirable to do this. That's why Apple should do more.

Quote:
Where exactly do we loose out in our practical everyday computing experience?
Not my intention to sound condescending, tone does not translate well in the written word.

If you don't know how we lose out, it isn't possible to explain it, as many here have tried to do just that already, and it doesn't seem to have helped.

All I can say, is for you to ask a PC owner who does activities for which (s)he has bought an after market card, and perhaps upgraded those cards several times.

Ask why. Ask how the decision was made.

Ask how (s)he would feel if the only cards offered were the one's Apple offers.

Wait for the snickering to end for the answer.
post #74 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by davebarnes

I don't care.
I want a Mac box that is between the Mac Pro and Mini. Similar power to the iMac, but upgradeable, expandable.

,dave

I'm with you Dave. Where's that $1500 Mac Pro?
post #75 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell


The potential problem with this business model is the expense of buying several different types of graphic cards and the risk of being stuck with an excess inventory of the least popular card.

I don't believe business works that way any longer. Amazon does not stock every book they sell. Apple needs to stock only the most popular options, and show a longer lead times for the others.
post #76 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by baygbm

I’m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It’s also disrespectful to consumers.

I don’t have a Mac pro, but I’d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???

There seems to be two camps on this. Those who want Apple to upgrade their machines as fast as the 3-parties release their goods and those who want them to wait a least 6-12 months intervals so that they don't feel "robbed" for buying a machine, only to have it upgraded a couple months later. What's Apple to do?
I say Apple should stay on the cutting edge if they want to be the leaders in technology and gain PC converts/switchers.
post #77 of 184
Quote:
But, because of the lack of graphic card replacable computer sales in the Mac market, those companies don't find it desirable to do this. That's why Apple should do more.

I agree. And is another reason why Apple should offer a lower cost midrange tower.

Quote:
If you don't know how we lose out, it isn't possible to explain it, as many here have tried to do just that already, and it doesn't seem to have helped.

Perhaps I'm being obtuse but I haven't really seen any one explain in real world terms what they are missing out on with Apple's current system. Well outside of gaming of course.

Quote:
All I can say, is for you to ask a PC owner who does activities for which (s)he has bought an after market card, and perhaps upgraded those cards several times.

I'm sure this can be true under certain circumstances. I'm asking what circumstances are those.

I have friends who work with Macs configured into quarter million dollar workstations. I have not heard them complain about graphic card limitation.
post #78 of 184
I have a Pro...it replaces a 2005 Precision with the old P4 based Xeon (talk about suckage)...that an Mac Pro octo will appear is wonderful.

Vinea
post #79 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

Also I'm wondering what constitutes a better selection.

A quick look through Dell's horrible website. As far as I can tell the top end workstation class graphics card offered by Dell is the nVidia Quadro FX 4500, same as with the Mac Pro.

Are you saying Apple should have a better selection of lower end cards?

I think whatever card Nvidia or ATI makes should be available on the Mac as well not just friggin Windows. Cause right now if you go to there sites, there selection on the mac side is very slim. I want a large selection to choose from! Not just 3 damn cards. (nvidia side) ATI seems to offer a lot more.
post #80 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig

That's why Nvidia makes more than one Quadro card.

Nvidia does not make graphics cards, they make GPUs and sell them to Gfx card manufacturers. Go check out their online store, not a single Gfx card.

ATi does both.

That's why we don't see many Gfx cards. The PC Nvidia graphics card universe is entirely third party boards with the small exception of mobile GPUs which Nvidia does sell as a motherboard solder on. Apple actually manufactures the Nvidia Gfx card for Apple machines. How thin do you want to spread Apples in-house engineering department?
.
Reply
.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Ripe in Cupertino: an Apple with 8 cores