or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › New Intel Xeons offer upgrade path for Mac Pro in early 2009
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Intel Xeons offer upgrade path for Mac Pro in early 2009 - Page 2

post #41 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

Except that's never been the roadmap. It may be what rumor sites that make crap up said (including this one), but the i7 has always been a vague "Q4" 2008 and the Xeon has always been Q1 2009.

I sort of figured Intel would launch a few Xeon models around the same time as the i7, since they're basically the same thing and that would allow Apple to introduce new Mac Pros sooner, but that was never reflected in any roadmap. That was just my thinking.

Well, more recently, Intel has made some adjustments to the roadmap. But, somewhere, I had links with their slides showing it. That was a while ago though. And Anandtech, ARs and others AREN'T rumor sites, they're pretty well respected tech sites.
post #42 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnaugha View Post

Um, what? I don't get you. I think I had it right the first time. The sites presumed the Xeons would be available first because for recent Q3/Q4 introductions it has been those first. Whether it's retail or or to System Builders has not made any difference to launch dates in the past.

While it itself isn't always accurate; you should trust Wikipedia before you trust other web sites.

Um, I trust Wikipedia only when I know the information is correct, which it often isn't.
post #43 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

Ben remember that there will be 4 different new "northbridges" (what you call X58). Some with one QPI link, some with two QPI links, some with 24 PCIe lanes, some with 36 PCIe lanes. While it is technically possible to build a motherboard ready for dual-cpus (that has dual QPI links, two sockets and two groups of RAM slots - one for each cpu) and use it as a single cpu motherboard, it may be confusing, since not only one socket will not be filled but also the second group of RAM slots will not be usable. Also if you decide to upgrade to a dual cpu configuration, you will need to change the previous processor for one with dual QPI links (more expensive) too. Also the dual QPI links "northbridge" will be probably much more expensive than a single QPI link one (given what we know about the price difference between a Core i7 cpu and a nehalem Xeon at similar clocks: a $700 average premium).

One way or the other, expect prices of Core i7/dual nehalem Xeon Mac Pros to be in the following range:
$1499 single quad 2.66 (Core i7 920) as base model
$1999 single quad 2.93 (Core i7 940) +500
$2499 single quad 3.20 (Core i7 965) +1000
$2799 dual quad 2.53 (2x X5540) as base model
$3499 dual quad 2.66 (2x X5550) +700
$3999 dual quad 2.80 (2x X5560) +1200
$4399 dual quad 2.93 (2x X5570) +1600
$4799 dual quad 3.20 (2x W5580) +2000

In italic, what some people may dream of (included me). In bold, Apple's probable choices. Apple tax included.
Pricing would be slightly different if Apple chooses a different base model.

Since estimations are that dual socket boards won't be too much more expensive than single socket boards, Apple MAY do what they've done before, and offer a single cpu in a dual board, to save on having to make two distinct lines of mobos.

Since Apple doesn't make their machines with the expectation that the user will upgrade the processors, they likely wouldn't care about the extra expense involved for someone to replace both.

As far as the memory goes, while you are correct again, Apple also wouldn't care much about that either, figuring that someone wanting the cheaper, slower machine wouldn't want all that memory anyway.

Interestingly enough, at least one site has found that the increase in bandwidth using three channels wasn't giving that much of a lift to performance, and that even one channel served pretty well. With one chip, the need for three channels of bandwidth is lessened.

Apparently, the 32 GB limit with current machines will be reduced to 24 Gb with three channels, using the 4 GB DIMMS.

And yeah, I do expect the prices to be higher than before.
post #44 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Since estimations are that dual socket boards won't be too much more expensive than single socket boards, Apple MAY do what they've done before, and offer a single cpu in a dual board, to save on having to make two distinct lines of mobos.

Since Apple doesn't make their machines with the expectation that the user will upgrade the processors, they likely wouldn't care about the extra expense involved for someone to replace both.

As far as the memory goes, while you are correct again, Apple also wouldn't care much about that either, figuring that someone wanting the cheaper, slower machine wouldn't want all that memory anyway.

Interestingly enough, at least one site has found that the increase in bandwidth using three channels wasn't giving that much of a lift to performance, and that even one channel served pretty well. With one chip, the need for three channels of bandwidth is lessened.

Apparently, the 32 GB limit with current machines will be reduced to 24 Gb with three channels, using the 4 GB DIMMS.

And yeah, I do expect the prices to be higher than before.

corei7 is 3 channels per cpu. At the mini you will want 1-2 dimms per cpu.

and you save a lot with a 1 cpu board over a 2 cpu one as you only need 1 ram bank and 1 qpi link vs 2 ram banks and 3 qpi links.
post #45 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post

corei7 is 3 channels per cpu. At the mini you will want 1-2 dimms per cpu.

and you save a lot with a 1 cpu board over a 2 cpu one as you only need 1 ram bank and 1 qpi link vs 2 ram banks and 3 qpi links.

From tom's hardware review of a few days ago, which I've seen stated elsewhere as well:

Quote:
QPI brings a fascinating possibility to the table: in order to create a dual-CPU motherboard, a company simply has to solder a second processor socket onto its PCB. Since the processors can communicate with each other directly, this option is independent of the chipset, making it very simple, not to mention inexpensive.

Link to (long) article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...alem,2057.html
post #46 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnaugha View Post


While it itself isn't always accurate; you should trust Wikipedia before you trust other web sites.

This is the opposite of what anyone should do. That is, trust Wikipedia.
post #47 of 92
Xeon Prices will drop once AMD Shanghai Server and later Desktop variants hit the general server and consumer spaces in the first quarter of 2009.

Apple won't release a Mac Pro until after this occurs and after they have secured pricing drops to meet this new competition from AMD.

Be thankful AMD is coming back. It will force Intel to lower their price points if they want to continue their dominance in total revenue sales.
post #48 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

From tom's hardware review of a few days ago, which I've seen stated elsewhere as well:



Link to (long) article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...alem,2057.html

but you still need 2 link cpus vs 1 link cpus.
post #49 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

From tom's hardware review of a few days ago, which I've seen stated elsewhere as well:



Link to (long) article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...alem,2057.html

Yes and no. Both the CPU and Northbridge need to have two quickpath links each. At this time, quick path is brand new technology and adding the second link is pretty expensive, but I would venture to say that within a year or two, the distinction between single and dual CPU machines will be gone.
post #50 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelcruncher View Post

Please show the pros you still care Apple, please, please, please. A beefy update to FCS at NAB would be just swell, too. Super swell. I cannot express the level of swellness that would be felt by many in this industry. Giant amounts of swell.

I'm feeling awfully seasick just thinking about it.
Aside from that bag of hurt, Mrs Lincoln, what did you think of the play?
Reply
Aside from that bag of hurt, Mrs Lincoln, what did you think of the play?
Reply
post #51 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Yes and no. Both the CPU and Northbridge need to have two quickpath links each. At this time, quick path is brand new technology and adding the second link is pretty expensive, but I would venture to say that within a year or two, the distinction between single and dual CPU machines will be gone.

No dual cpu needs more board space. More ram slots / banks. More on board links and power. Higher end chipsets with the links for 2 cpus. More heat to deal with. Even if one 1 cpu on a dual board you still have the other parts that are need to run cpu2 on the board that are not part of the cpu.
post #52 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Hahahahahahahahahah. You're kidding right?

See my tag-line.

After a whole year, Apple haven't got anywhere near competitive with their GPUs on their overpriced Mac Pro kit. They (strangely) don't give the user the choice. But PC users can buy £1000 rigs with better GPUs in than the Mac Pro costing £600+ more. Once PC rig from OVerclockers.co.uk for £1100 has a Radeon 4870x2 with 2 gigs of Ram onboard. That's as much crappy system ram as Apple gives you in the Mac Pro. Eg where's the 9000 series Nvs? Nvs 280 series? Or the Ati 4800 series? Any of these smack the bitch up of the 8800GT, an old card from even older technology that has been out years now.

Disgrace? Insert word of your choice here:

Lemon Bon Bon.

he/she is kidding? I doubt it, you make it sound like you disagree, then you go on to say the same thing. maybe you misread the post which was saying that Apples graphics card options totally stink and are like 2 year old technology when they are "new."
post #53 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post

No dual cpu needs more board space. More ram slots / banks. More on board links and power. Higher end chipsets with the links for 2 cpus. More heat to deal with. Even if one 1 cpu on a dual board you still have the other parts that are need to run cpu2 on the board that are not part of the cpu.

The whole point to Quickpath is that they DON"T need all of what was needed before. You also don't need three channels of memory, and most of the new chips will only be capable of addressing two anyway.

I tend to trust the various tech sites that have been testing the new chips and boards, and who do this for a living. When they say it won't cost much more, I would tend to trust what they say.
post #54 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The whole point to Quickpath is that they DON"T need all of what was needed before. You also don't need three channels of memory, and most of the new chips will only be capable of addressing two anyway.

I tend to trust the various tech sites that have been testing the new chips and boards, and who do this for a living. When they say it won't cost much more, I would tend to trust what they say.

Holy crap. Let's not make this complicated. Quickpath is Intel's response to Hypertransport, no more no less.

Done.
post #55 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The whole point to Quickpath is that they DON"T need all of what was needed before. You also don't need three channels of memory, and most of the new chips will only be capable of addressing two anyway.

I tend to trust the various tech sites that have been testing the new chips and boards, and who do this for a living. When they say it won't cost much more, I would tend to trust what they say.

each cpu has 3 ram links on it vs ram link at the chip set.

so the mini should be 2 per cpu.

Be for they had each cpu had it's own link to the chip set. QPI adds cpu to cpu links + ram that is linked to cpu with out needing to use the chipset for cpu to cpu and cpu to ram traffic. Amd got a big boost by useing this.

Also this will let you have more chip set choice on 2 + cpus boards.

Nvidia had there own chipsets on 2 way + amd boards.
post #56 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post

No dual cpu needs more board space. More ram slots / banks. More on board links and power. Higher end chipsets with the links for 2 cpus. More heat to deal with. Even if one 1 cpu on a dual board you still have the other parts that are need to run cpu2 on the board that are not part of the cpu.

I'm not saying it won't need more board space for the second socket and DIMM slots, I'm saying that eventually adding that second quick path link is going to be cheap enough where they won't have to make separate versions with one or two quickpath links. If both the chip and northbridge already have twin quickpath links, a dual socket motherboard would be much closer in price to a single socket motherboard than it is now. The only real difference between bloomfield and gainestown with the single and dual socket version of tylersburg is a second quickpath link.
post #57 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

I'm not saying it won't need more board space for the second socket and DIMM slots, I'm saying that eventually adding that second quick path link is going to be cheap enough where they won't have to make separate versions with one or two quickpath links. If both the chip and northbridge already have twin quickpath links, a dual socket motherboard would be much closer in price to a single socket motherboard than it is now. The only real difference between bloomfield and gainestown with the single and dual socket version of tylersburg is a second quickpath link.

Wouldn't they just fab them with the extra links and just not connect all the pins to the outside world to make the "lesser" product version? I would expect that the price difference would still remain whether or not this is true. As far as I understand, this is a common practice for electronics.
post #58 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Wouldn't they just fab them with the extra links and just not connect all the pins to the outside world to make the "lesser" product version? I would expect that the price difference would still remain whether or not this is true. As far as I understand, this is a common practice for electronics.

Yes. All the diagrams I've seen of i7 processors- the single-socket desktop CPU- show a second disabled QPI link. The silicon is the same.
post #59 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Holy crap. Let's not make this complicated. Quickpath is Intel's response to Hypertransport, no more no less.

Done.

Actually, QPI is thought of as being better than HT.
post #60 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Wouldn't they just fab them with the extra links and just not connect all the pins to the outside world to make the "lesser" product version? I would expect that the price difference would still remain whether or not this is true. As far as I understand, this is a common practice for electronics.

They can certainly do that. The difference in the cost of the board itself would be negligible.
post #61 of 92
Quote:
Apples graphics card options totally stink and are like 2 year old technology

I agree.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #62 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

Yes. All the diagrams I've seen of i7 processors- the single-socket desktop CPU- show a second disabled QPI link. The silicon is the same.

So, they're more or less just jacking up the price on the xeons.
post #63 of 92
Well, my PC owning buddy is going from an Athlon to a Nehalem soon (heh, soon lost his Athlon fan-boi ness when he saw what Core 2 and Nehalem i7 can do...).

The spec for an i7 2.66 desktop with, 3 gigs of ram, a 1TB HD and a Radeon 4870, no OS, blue ray etc is around £1300-ish inc VAT.

If that was a Mac Pro? I'd pay it. He's umming and ahh-ring. With Sterling falling against the dollar, that rig he's been waiting for isn't going to get cheaper.

And I suspect he's pining for more ram (+£150), the Radeon 4870 x2 (+£150) and a cooler running case (ironic but +£100) and I guess he'll want his future proof Vista 64bit at (+£50-100 whatever it is...) and the price I came out with at Overclockers for his 'dream rig' is around £1945-ish inc VAT. I told him to buy before X-mas and be happy. Play his Conan Mmorg. Be content. But he's going to have to pay to be fashionable. And that's the desktop version.

On the other hand...he could get a 3 gig quad core PEnryn with loads of ram and an x2 4870 with 2 gigs of on board ram...for about a £1000-ish.

Fashion costs I guess.

Still., that's his choice. Mine will have to be a Mac Pro. Here's hoping for Jan'.09.

I did point out to him that for the money he wants to pay he may as well get a Mac Pro.

But I don't think he can see it.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #64 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

I did point out to him that for the money he wants to pay he may as well get a Mac Pro.

But I don't think he can see it.

Unless he's installing it with all free/stolen SW and/or needs some unusual HW configuration, the Mac Pro is competitively priced.

Here is an example from a real tech site doing a comparison, though in all honestly many longtime AnandTech readers do feel he's a bit of an "Apple fanboy" with his growing preference toward using Macs for everyday tasks.
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #65 of 92
The mac pro is competitively priced in the $2220 + market but not for the $1000 to $1900 one. The video is a little weak there. They should boost the ram to 4gb but FB-dimms cost a lot.
post #66 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

So, they're more or less just jacking up the price on the xeons.

The Xeons are subsidizing their cheaper processors. And since Nehalem Xeons will be the fastest server processors ever made, businesses will pay whatever.
post #67 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post

The mac pro is competitively priced in the $2220 + market but not for the $1000 to $1900 one. The video is a little weak there. They should boost the ram to 4gb but FB-dimms cost a lot.

It's not priced competitively in the $1,000 to $1,900 market, because it isn't IN that market. It doesn't compete there, so it can't be compared with what does compete there.

That's like saying that a truck doesn't compete in the sedan market. Well, of course not! It's not a sedan.

The Mac Pro isn't a "home" computer, nor is it a low end enthusiasts computer.

It's a serious workstation, for users who need such a thing, and for those who are simply willing to pay for one.

It competes with comparable machines from other makers.

Look, we all know that Apple has a hole in its line-up. But pretending that the Mac Pro is intended to be all things to all people, but is just priced too high, and so doesn't compete, doesn't help the argument.

Who knows, maybe Apple is signaling something to us when it announced the new 24" monitor. That doesn't seem to fit into their normal line of monitors. I can't believe it's just there for the MB. Very few MB owners buy a 24" monitor as well. And if they did, it wouldn't likely be one for $900!
post #68 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's not priced competitively in the $1,000 to $1,900 market, because it isn't IN that market. It doesn't compete there, so it can't be compared with what does compete there.

That's like saying that a truck doesn't compete in the sedan market. Well, of course not! It's not a sedan.

The Mac Pro isn't a "home" computer, nor is it a low end enthusiasts computer.

It's a serious workstation, for users who need such a thing, and for those who are simply willing to pay for one.

It competes with comparable machines from other makers.

Look, we all know that Apple has a hole in its line-up. But pretending that the Mac Pro is intended to be all things to all people, but is just priced too high, and so doesn't compete, doesn't help the argument.

Who knows, maybe Apple is signaling something to us when it announced the new 24" monitor. That doesn't seem to fit into their normal line of monitors. I can't believe it's just there for the MB. Very few MB owners buy a 24" monitor as well. And if they did, it wouldn't likely be one for $900!

That is the problem. Apple plugged the void left by the 9000-series PowerMac with the Mac Pro, but they created another below that in a market they were previously very successful in with the G3,4,and 5 series. The question is what should we do about it. Should we run off loyal Mac users, call them whiners, and expect them to conform to hardware like the iMac which is below their needs or the Mac Pro which is well above both their needs and budget because Apple chose to abandon them? Or should we put the pressure of Apple on offer some them sort of solution?
post #69 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

The Xeons are subsidizing their cheaper processors. And since Nehalem Xeons will be the fastest server processors ever made, businesses will pay whatever.

Based on the initial reports, they're not much faster per megahertz than the Yorkfield/Harpertown line.
post #70 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

That is the problem. Apple plugged the void left by the 9000-series PowerMac with the Mac Pro, but they created another below that in a market they were previously very successful in with the G3,4,and 5 series. The question is what should we do about it. Should we run off loyal Mac users, call them whiners, and expect them to conform to hardware like the iMac which is below their needs or the Mac Pro which is well above both their needs and budget because Apple chose to abandon them? Or should we put the pressure of Apple on offer some them sort of solution?

This has become an old argument. Apple has never had a run of such epic proportions as it's been having the past few years. With people moving to the Mac in record numbers, and Apple's products in general, it's difficult to really say they've made a mistake here. That would have to be proven, and without the so called xMac around to compare sales to, we really have no idea.

Would I have replaced my daughters G4 Powermac with another less expensive tower rather than the 3.06 GHz 24" iMac this year? Maybe.

But, really, what would that have accomplished for Apple? Nothing in my case.

One would still have to prove, an impossible task, that Apple is losing significant sales because of this lack.

And if Apple has good reason to believe that such sales would come at the expense of the lesser Mac Pros, they may have good financial reasons for not having them. The Mac Pro is their most profitable machine after all.

Apple isn't trying to be all things to all people. As long as we understand that, we can stop fighting about what they do and don't sell.

Without any of us here being privy to Apple's internal information, we don't know if such products would be good or bad for them.

I know what I would like to see, but Apple apparently sees it differently.

While I'm not defending their product line, I am saying that they have their reasons, and we don't know what they are, or how it affects them.

As long as sales are better than the PC industry in general, as they've been, by far, we do have to wonder if their judgement isn't correct after all.

It's a lot like the iPod. People were saying that they couldn't do that well because they lacked FM, Ogg Vorbis, easy voice recording, etc.

They were all wrong, because while they were, and still are, very vocal about it, they are also a small number of people.

The same thing may be true here as well.
post #71 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Based on the initial reports, they're not much faster per megahertz than the Yorkfield/Harpertown line.

About 25%, on average.
post #72 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Based on the initial reports, they're not much faster per megahertz than the Yorkfield/Harpertown line.

Initial reports? Quite a few sites have been benchmarking the production desktop chips for a couple of weeks now. Ars Technica has a good review, as always. The performance improvement is impressive, to me at least. Considering how efficient the Penryn architecture is.
post #73 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Actually, QPI is thought of as being better than HT.

Thought of? Please. They are solutions to the same problem, from slightly different approaches.

Intel has a vested interest in PCI-Express and QPI dominating the market, regardless whether or not it's best of breed.

Fortunately for HyperTransport 3, Intel is playing catchup and won't even be on-par, but HT 3.1 is about to enter into the picture with HTX3 slot connector that is compatible with PCI-Express.

http://www.hypertransport.org/defaul...Specifications

HTX3:
http://www.hypertransport.org/defaul...Specifications

Having Hypertransport around gives Apple future options, not to mention keeps AMD and it's upcoming CPU options extremely competitive with Intel.

This White Paper (PDF) explains how come HTX is important:

http://www.hypertransport.org/docs/u...hite_Paper.pdf

This is what they've improved on for HTX3:

http://www.hypertransport.org/docs/u...ifications.pdf

What get's real tiresome in this industry is that 5 years is nearly 20 years in technology.

We'll be tossing hardware out as archaic in 5 years that we now think is the cat's meow.

We're still not making the amount of work we accomplish anywhere near as vast as these changes in hardware.

We see advanced IPS displays introduced in 1996 and we're still milking them in 2008 and have flooded the market with inferior products to reduce "sale price."

I can't wait to see how they the typical $4k for a decent OLED 22" display or 27" display when they surface.

It get's f'n old.
post #74 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Thought of? Please. They are solutions to the same problem, from slightly different approaches.

Intel has a vested interest in PCI-Express and QPI dominating the market, regardless whether or not it's best of breed.

Fortunately for HyperTransport 3, Intel is playing catchup and won't even be on-par, but HT 3.1 is about to enter into the picture with HTX3 slot connector that is compatible with PCI-Express.

http://www.hypertransport.org/defaul...Specifications

HTX3:
http://www.hypertransport.org/defaul...Specifications

Having Hypertransport around gives Apple future options, not to mention keeps AMD and it's upcoming CPU options extremely competitive with Intel.

This White Paper (PDF) explains how come HTX is important:

http://www.hypertransport.org/docs/u...hite_Paper.pdf

This is what they've improved on for HTX3:

http://www.hypertransport.org/docs/u...ifications.pdf

What get's real tiresome in this industry is that 5 years is nearly 20 years in technology.

We'll be tossing hardware out as archaic in 5 years that we now think is the cat's meow.

We're still not making the amount of work we accomplish anywhere near as vast as these changes in hardware.

We see advanced IPS displays introduced in 1996 and we're still milking them in 2008 and have flooded the market with inferior products to reduce "sale price."

I can't wait to see how they the typical $4k for a decent OLED 22" display or 27" display when they surface.

It get's f'n old.

Yeah, I read those. It doesn't matter though. AMD now has no advantages left over Intel. None at all. The i7's even have better memory bandwidth, and less latency.

AMDs new chips barely equal Intel's fading generation. They aren't close to the i7. Ther are plenty of tests around now that the NDA is up. They all show the same thing. Nothing AMD has can keep up. They are even behind in power efficiency now.

They have a while until Intel replaces it's last Penyrn chips with the new ones.
post #75 of 92
FWIW, Dell has launched its Studio XPS desktop, with Core i7 920/940 cpus, 3GB RAM starting at $949 @2.66GHz, +$470 for 2.93GHz. Other specs = 500GB HDD, 256MB ATI Radeon HD 3450, "superdrive", Vista home premium SP1 64-bit (whatever that means).

It's true that there is absolutly no sign that Apple will add anything to the current desktop lines, but I wouldn't mind paying $1499 for a Core i7 920 based Mac "Pro" with the hardware specs above.
post #76 of 92
Quote:
It's not priced competitively in the $1,000 to $1,900 market, because it isn't IN that market. It doesn't compete there, so it can't be compared with what does compete there.

That's like saying that a truck doesn't compete in the sedan market. Well, of course not! It's not a sedan.

The Mac Pro isn't a "home" computer, nor is it a low end enthusiasts computer.

It's a serious workstation, for users who need such a thing, and for those who are simply willing to pay for one.

It competes with comparable machines from other makers.

Look, we all know that Apple has a hole in its line-up. But pretending that the Mac Pro is intended to be all things to all people, but is just priced too high, and so doesn't compete, doesn't help the argument.

Who knows, maybe Apple is signaling something to us when it announced the new 24" monitor. That doesn't seem to fit into their normal line of monitors. I can't believe it's just there for the MB. Very few MB owners buy a 24" monitor as well. And if they did, it wouldn't likely be one for $900!

Car analogies suck. Your last paragraph is intriguing. A bit of expansion on what kind of 'hint' you think it is? Mind you, I can't put it past Apple to make the 24 incher the 'middle' of it's new all LED line up. £550 quid for a 24 inch monitor is outrageous. I may as well plump the rest down for a 30 incher...and suck it up.

Mac Pro being a workstation is an obvious statement. It is. And it is more than competitively priced against other vendors.

However, I disagree that it doesn't have competition. Every desktop has competition of monies. Do I go for the iMac or the Pro. Or ideally the hole in the middle supplied by the Dell i7 that's recently become available. Said desktop will comfortably beat the iMac to snot and give the Mac Pro a fringe pull.

Is it competition? I think it is. And if Apple offered it in it's line up alongside the 'ageing' Mac Pro I think that competition would elect i7 desktop the winner. Meh. It's an academic argument.

And your iPod comparison holds some water. If Apple sells giant iPod iMac Macs to consumers who are feeling the spa waters of the Mac experience then who says they're wrong, eh?

Just me and the other handful of Mini-tower wannabees.

*Watches sky for Mac Pro update.

Lemon Bon Bon. *(Now wearing a very long beard waiting for his 9-year and waiting Mac of his dreams....)

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #77 of 92
Hey, I got one. That's like saying a 'Fairy Cake' isn't a Momma Poppa sized Coffee cake.

Sure Fair Cakes aint as good as Coffee cakes. But hey, I'm the only person who thinks in the niche of hundreds of millions of PC desktop tower users so I must be wrong. Ask Apple.



Lemon Bon Bon.

PS. Hey. It's tastier than his car story.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #78 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Car analogies suck. Your last paragraph is intriguing. A bit of expansion on what kind of 'hint' you think it is? Mind you, I can't put it past Apple to make the 24 incher the 'middle' of it's new all LED line up. £550 quid for a 24 inch monitor is outrageous. I may as well plump the rest down for a 30 incher...and suck it up.

I normally don't like them either, but sometimes they do work, if they are stated properly. I think this one works.

We can't be making comparisons between LED BL monitors and non LED BL monitors, because of the large price difference.

Apple's "packaging" of the monitor costs too. The aluminum foot, shell, and removable glass front certainly add to the cost. even the more complex stands of some other models don't cost as much to build.

Quote:
Mac Pro being a workstation is an obvious statement. It is. And it is more than competitively priced against other vendors.

Yes it should be, but to some people, you just have to say it. This was for the forum in general, not to you particularly.

Quote:
However, I disagree that it doesn't have competition. Every desktop has competition of monies. Do I go for the iMac or the Pro. Or ideally the hole in the middle supplied by the Dell i7 that's recently become available. Said desktop will comfortably beat the iMac to snot and give the Mac Pro a fringe pull.

I didn't say it doesn't have competition, just that the competition is mostly from other workstations.

Sure, a very few might upgrade from the idea of buying an iMac, and far less likely, from a Mini, but most people won't. In general, it's not competition for either of those.

Is it competition? I think it is. And if Apple offered it in it's line up alongside the 'ageing' Mac Pro I think that competition would elect i7 desktop the winner. Meh. It's an academic argument.

Quote:
And your iPod comparison holds some water. If Apple sells giant iPod iMac Macs to consumers who are feeling the spa waters of the Mac experience then who says they're wrong, eh?

Exactly!

Quote:
Just me and the other handful of Mini-tower wannabees.

Now, you see, you are talking to one of the very first to call for a mini tower version of the Powermac G5! I even gave some plans I drew up to a couple of my friends in Apple's engineering management. Since they know my background, they looked them over, and said it would work, but was not in the plans of Apple to do one.

Quote:
*Watches sky for Mac Pro update.

As you know by now, me too!

I've been wondering if this new monitor may just signal a new line of machines, perhaps the very ones we've been talking about for so long now.

It does seem expensive for a MB buyer. If the Mini gets the interface, it would be expensive for it as well.

It's not expensive for the MBP of course, but that seems to me to be such a limited market for a new monitor, I can't help but wonder.

I suppose it would be good for new Mac Pros, and they, along with other machines, will be available shortly.

New Intel cpu's, but not i7's will be out in early January, which could indicate new iMacs and Mini's about the time of Macworld, second week of January.

It wouldn't be uncommon for Apple to announce new machines for a few weeks after the announcement.
post #79 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Hey, I got one. That's like saying a 'Fairy Cake' isn't a Momma Poppa sized Coffee cake.

Sure Fair Cakes aint as good as Coffee cakes. But hey, I'm the only person who thinks in the niche of hundreds of millions of PC desktop tower users so I must be wrong. Ask Apple.



Lemon Bon Bon.

PS. Hey. It's tastier than his car story.

Sigh! Tsk, tsk.
post #80 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Sure, a very few might upgrade from the idea of buying an iMac, and far less likely, from a Mini, but most people won't.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. We don't know how many buy the iMac because they really want an iMac and how many bought one because Apple gave them no other option in their price range. Trust me, I didn't buy the iMac for the elegance and simplicity of an all in one. And if I had an option of another form factor, I would have taken it in a heartbeat. No matter how good you try and make it, an all in one will always have certain weaknesses. Many of the things I did not like about my performa 5200 are still there 13 years later in the iMac.

The advantage of shoehorning your users into where you want them to be is that it makes it very easy to justify your own philosophy. They can't make a decision other than the one you want if you don't give a choice.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › New Intel Xeons offer upgrade path for Mac Pro in early 2009