or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Next-gen Mac Pro processors could arrive March 29
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Next-gen Mac Pro processors could arrive March 29 - Page 4

post #121 of 254
Quote:
There is nothing novel about AIO machines, we've had them since 1984. Speaking as an iMac G5 owner, I've come to realize that the AIO gives you the restrictions of a laptop with none of the portability benefits.

Heh.

I like the iMac. Soft spot in me wants one. But not if they can't include i7 and a decent gpu. It's a design quandry. I don't mind the iMac if it offers me a decent cpu and gpu but Apple are making it so thin it removes that possibility? Maybe a 28 inch version may find ways around that. But more annoying is that fact that Apple doesn't offer the i7 and desktop class gpu in ANY alternative. The iMac is to desktops what the MBA is to laptops. Gorgeous. Target market. Ticks boxes. But it in no way covers the broad spectrum of prices points and needs of consumers that it pretends to. Maybe artists and gamers are the 15% Apple don't want to tend with a mid-tower. And there is no doubt an updated iMac will sell. I'd rather they just can the computer behind the monitor and stick a nice cube next to it. Argument over.

Re: Mac Pro. Melgross. I'm getting worried. I'm actually agreeing with much of what you saying. Or maybe you're using gentler mood music in light of frazzled nerves around here re: the lack of desktop updates. (I've got nervous ticks I've been waiting that long...huddles in cradle position and rocks...) Sure. Apple are Apple. And we know their good bits. But accutely aware of their bad bits. And the desktop range, from mini to iMac to Mac Pro...without so much as memory, hd or gpu updates in the last year is poor. Pfft. That's where they get their bad rep' from. A PC user friend of mine takes me to Apple's shop page on the web...and I can't defend or explain the lack of gpu updates or lack of i7 option or mid-tower option or why the mini is 2 years out of date. I shuffle uncomfortably and go, 'YEs but...we have the X...m'boy...' Can't use the OS to defend poor out of date specs. Bad argument. The wrong argument.

I'd like a slightly new skin on the design. Black and silver to match the monitors. Functionaly, I don't think they can better, re: cooling and access to components. Inside or out. But I do wish for 'less bland' styling. It's missing some kind of visual dynamic. Having said that. It always looks gorgeous in person and is kind of 'timeless'. We'll see, I guess.

I DO wish they'd at least offer a range of 3 models below the 'Workstation' models using Xeons but offer the i7 desktop. It would allow another class of user to join the 'tower' part. Gamers. Graphic artists. Hard up PC owners outraged by the 'too much power, too much price' nature of the Mac Pro. That may be a cheaper option than designing a new 'mid-tower' case. Just drop in i7 cpu and motherboard and cut the damn price. We then have desktop for £1000-£1500 Mac Pro i7 and the Mac Pro Xeon above that. I guess we'd see who'd win in the iMac / Mac Tower face off. Personally, I think the people like Aunty Gladice that like the simplicity of the iMac will still buy it...and PC switchers and graphic artists would see a nice Mac Pro i7 at a fair price and get that.

But...Apple doesn't 'get that'. I guess. Anyone remember how much the G3 tower were?

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 #122 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Heh.
...

But...Apple doesn't 'get that'. I guess. Anyone remember how much the G3 tower were?

Lemon Bon Bon.

Well the B&W was $1599 to $2999 depending on the configuration.
post #123 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post

But haven't we known this for half a year now, if not longer? That the really yummy mobile CPUs will arrive Q4 2009?

Basically you will literally get twice the performance for the same price at the same battery life.

And this is just a dual core running 4 threads. Imagine if Intel releases a mobile quad-core with 8 threads? That'll be 4x as much CPU power as the currently fastest MacBook Pro...


Or in other words, it's just a bad time to buy a laptop that you intend to use for 3+ years.

1 1/2 years from now any current MacBook Pro will feel like a G3 PowerBook today...

No, Intel just now decided to delete the 45nm version in favor of the 32nm one. It states that quite clearly in the article. Those chips weren't scheduled until the 2nd quarter of 2010, or even the third or forth quarter, as with the 45nm mobile chips that have just now come out. This changes things around considerably.

And, by the way, for everyone who HASN'T read this article, it's about ALL of intel's plans, including those of the Xeons, so it's relevant to this thread.
post #124 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Well the B&W was $1599 to $2999 depending on the configuration.

In 2007 dollars (that's the latest year most inflation calculators go just now) $1599 equals $2026.03.

$2999 equals $3799.91

I went to 1998 rather than to 1999 to make up for the 2008 year which isn't available yet.

With these prices in mind, it gives a more realistic picture. Using old pricing is worthless in these discussions, as it makes people think that prices were lower than they actually were.

Link to the Inflation Calculator.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
post #125 of 254
This link is to an Anandtech article about the new Xeon 5570 (the EP).

Very startling results running databases. But read the whole thing as it's relevant to our usage for the Mac Pro as well.

It seems that the more info and testing comes out, the stronger these Nehalems look.

http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=554
post #126 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

In 2007 dollars (that's the latest year most inflation calculators go just now) $1599 equals $2026.03.

$2999 equals $3799.91

I went to 1998 rather than to 1999 to make up for the 2008 year which isn't available yet.

With these prices in mind, it gives a more realistic picture. Using old pricing is worthless in these discussions, as it makes people think that prices were lower than they actually were.

Link to the Inflation Calculator.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

What do you expect when people can't even balance their own checkbooks to speculative markets costing trillions of theoretical value in markets disappear and people act as if they had no idea how?

I expect in ten years people will need to revisit inflation again but they'll spin this dead horse up as often as they do the lame car analogies.
post #127 of 254
Being poor FTL
Get a matte screen cover and quit whining...glossy displays rock.
Reply
Get a matte screen cover and quit whining...glossy displays rock.
Reply
post #128 of 254
Anand illuminates the Intel Roadmap

This is a must read folks. 2010 is going to be an interesting year for configurations.

Core i7 will be supplanted with a 6-Core 12-thread proc there will be no quad core 32nm product until Sandy Bridge

Lynnfield will perform very close to Core i7 so it's worth waiting for if an immediate purchase isn't going to be made.

So let's see

iMac 2010 would most likely use a Clarkdale proc but a high end version (the mythical 28" iMac) could use a 32nm 6 core Gulftown.

If analysts think a quad core iMac would cannibalize Mac Pro sales they're going to be in a tizzy regarding a 6-core iMac vs Mac Pro.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #129 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

What do you expect when people can't even balance their own checkbooks to speculative markets costing trillions of theoretical value in markets disappear and people act as if they had no idea how?

I expect in ten years people will need to revisit inflation again but they'll spin this dead horse up as often as they do the lame car analogies.

I know. It's unfortunate. It just bothers me that people will use old prices to compare that item to a current one, as though it actually means something.

It has the intentional purpose of making current products look worse than they really are. The cheapest iMac today, in standard config is $1199. That's only $400 less than the old low standard config price of the B/W Powermac, so it looks bad.

But at proper pricing, it's really $827.03 less, a big difference.

That changes the argument altogether.
post #130 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

[
So let's see

iMac 2010 would most likely use a Clarkdale proc but a high end version (the mythical 28" iMac) could use a 32nm 6 core Gulftown.

If analysts think a quad core iMac would cannibalize Mac Pro sales they're going to be in a tizzy regarding a 6-core iMac vs Mac Pro.

Sure, it's not just performance.

Already the 3.06GHz iMac outperforms the mid priced Mac Pro in Photoshop, as that doesn't use more than two cores yet, and the extra speed of the cpu's in the iMac allow the System Software to not bog the machine down.

Hopefully, Grand Central will allow the promise of parallelism to function much better, and those multi cpu, multi core, threading machines will get a leg up again.

But, the truth is that my daughters 3.06 iMac does a pretty darn good job with 100 MB files. Few people deal with bigger files than that, unless they use medium format or larger, or do large comping work. Everyone else will find iMacs to be more than good enough.
post #131 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I know. It's unfortunate. It just bothers me that people will use old prices to compare that item to a current one, as though it actually means something.

It has the intentional purpose of making current products look worse than they really are. The cheapest iMac today, in standard config is $1199. That's only $400 less than the old low standard config price of the B/W Powermac, so it looks bad.

But at proper pricing, it's really $827.03 less, a big difference.

That changes the argument altogether.

Hey, i was just answering a question.
post #132 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Hey, i was just answering a question.

I know. But the answer should be given with the explanation that the prices aren't meaningful to the argument, unless updated.
post #133 of 254
New clone maker out and they are offering Core i7:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41419/135/

When you look at the lower end, Apple's offerings don't really seem that bad. It's when you get to the serious high end machines that Apple not offering a proper desktop system means it's far more expensive than it needs to be to get some decent performance.

Their Ram bundles are terrible these days too. Just 2GB in a Mac Pro. Almost everything about the clone is better than the current Mac Pro at a fraction of the price.

This is the only reason these clone makers will make money. If you had to decide between the low end clones and the Macs, the savings are not really worth the effort but for high end use, it is very much worth it.
post #134 of 254
The thing is any seasoned Mac user will know Apple can release an update that will break compatibility with your hackintosh. And new switchers will only get frustrated at MacOS and Apple when it breaks due to an upgrade.
post #135 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

New clone maker out and they are offering Core i7:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41419/135/

When you look at the lower end, Apple's offerings don't really seem that bad. It's when you get to the serious high end machines that Apple not offering a proper desktop system means it's far more expensive than it needs to be to get some decent performance.

Their Ram bundles are terrible these days too. Just 2GB in a Mac Pro. Almost everything about the clone is better than the current Mac Pro at a fraction of the price.

This is the only reason these clone makers will make money. If you had to decide between the low end clones and the Macs, the savings are not really worth the effort but for high end use, it is very much worth it.

I've found the opposite to be true. Apple's higher-end spec comparisons put Apple's offering lower than other major vendors.

As for RAM prices in the Mac Pro, they use the more costly FB-DIMMs as they are required for those Xeons. That is not the case with Core i7.
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 #136 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Anand illuminates the Intel Roadmap

This is a must read folks. 2010 is going to be an interesting year for configurations.

Core i7 will be supplanted with a 6-Core 12-thread proc there will be no quad core 32nm product until Sandy Bridge

Lynnfield will perform very close to Core i7 so it's worth waiting for if an immediate purchase isn't going to be made.

So let's see

iMac 2010 would most likely use a Clarkdale proc but a high end version (the mythical 28" iMac) could use a 32nm 6 core Gulftown.

If analysts think a quad core iMac would cannibalize Mac Pro sales they're going to be in a tizzy regarding a 6-core iMac vs Mac Pro.

Upgrading the desktop Macs could be done without being so extreme, offering a nice range of products instead of a bunch underpowered/overpriced/overpowered products:

Q1 2009
Mac mini 25W C2D 2.00/2.40GHz 2C/2T
20" iMac 55W C2D 2.66/2.80GHz 2C/2T
24" iMac 65W C2Q 2.66/2.83GHz 4C/4T
Q2 2009
Mac Pro single Core i7 2.66/3.20GHz 3GB RAM 4C/8T
Mac Pro dual Xeon 2.66/3.20GHz 6GB RAM 8C/16T
Q3 2009 (with Snow Leopard)
20" iMac 65W C2Q 2.33/2.50GHz 4C/4T (the Q8300s @ 2.50GHz will be released in Q2)
24" iMac 65W C2Q 2.66/2.83GHz 4C/4T + improvements (RAM, GPU, HDD, display?)
---
Q1 2010
Mac mini 35W Clarksdale 2.13/2.40GHz 2C/4T
20" iMac 65W Lynnfield 2.40/2.53GHz 4C/8T
24" iMac 65W Lynnfield 2.66/2.80GHz 4C/8T
Q2 2010
Mac Pro single Gulftown 2.66/3.20GHz (or better) 6C/12T
Mac Pro dual Gulftown 2.66/3.20GHz (or better) 12C/24T
...
post #137 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

Upgrading the desktop Macs could be done without being so extreme, offering a nice range of products instead of a bunch underpowered/overpriced/overpowered products:

Q1 2009
Mac mini 25W C2D 2.00/2.40GHz 2C/2T
20" iMac 55W C2D 2.66/2.80GHz 2C/2T
24" iMac 65W C2Q 2.66/2.83GHz 4C/4T
Q2 2009
Mac Pro single Core i7 2.66/3.20GHz 3GB RAM 4C/8T
Mac Pro dual Xeon 2.66/3.20GHz 6GB RAM 8C/16T
Q3 2009 (with Snow Leopard)
20" iMac 65W C2Q 2.33/2.50GHz 4C/4T (the Q8300s @ 2.50GHz will be released in Q2)
24" iMac 65W C2Q 2.66/2.83GHz 4C/4T + improvements (RAM, GPU, HDD, display?)
---
Q1 2010
Mac mini 35W Clarksdale 2.13/2.40GHz 2C/4T
20" iMac 65W Lynnfield 2.40/2.53GHz 4C/8T
24" iMac 65W Lynnfield 2.66/2.80GHz 4C/8T
Q2 2010
Mac Pro single Gulftown 2.66/3.20GHz (or better) 6C/12T
Mac Pro dual Gulftown 2.66/3.20GHz (or better) 12C/24T
...


This looks good but I think we're getting too much life out of C2 product. How about this

Q1 '09

Mac mini C2D 2.13Ghz, 2.4Ghz
20" iMac C2D 2.53Ggz 45nm
24" iMac 2.6Ghz 9400s C2 Quad

Q2 '09

Mac Prosumer - 2.66Ghz Core i7
Mac Pro - 2.66Ghz 3.2Ghz Xeon

Q3 '09

20" iMac -2.66Ghz (est) Core i5 Lynnfield
24" iMac - 2.93Ghz (est) Core i5 Lynnfield

Macbook Pro - 2.53Ghz Clarskfield 2.66Ghz 17"
Macbook 2.13Ghz Clarksfield 2.4Ghz Clarksfield step up model

Q1 '10

Mac Prosumer - 2.92 Gulftown
Mac Pro - 3.2Ghz and 3.4Ghz Xeon

Q2 "10

iMac Clarkdale
Macbook and Macbook Pro and Mini Arrandale

This way we transition away from C2 and deliver Nehalem with threading and Snow Leopard on all computers announced after Q2 and on of this year.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #138 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

New clone maker out and they are offering Core i7:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41419/135/

When you look at the lower end, Apple's offerings don't really seem that bad. It's when you get to the serious high end machines that Apple not offering a proper desktop system means it's far more expensive than it needs to be to get some decent performance.

Their Ram bundles are terrible these days too. Just 2GB in a Mac Pro. Almost everything about the clone is better than the current Mac Pro at a fraction of the price.

This is the only reason these clone makers will make money. If you had to decide between the low end clones and the Macs, the savings are not really worth the effort but for high end use, it is very much worth it.

I agree.

I do think that with the new Mac Pro, we will see 3 GB RAM being offered as standard. With the three channels of memory, Apple would have to give 1 GB per channel, unless they were to give 512 MB per channel, which would be ridiculous.
post #139 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I've found the opposite to be true. Apple's higher-end spec comparisons put Apple's offering lower than other major vendors.

As for RAM prices in the Mac Pro, they use the more costly FB-DIMMs as they are required for those Xeons. That is not the case with Core i7.

True, but remember that the processors will be the Xeon, not the i7.
post #140 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

Upgrading the desktop Macs could be done without being so extreme, offering a nice range of products instead of a bunch underpowered/overpriced/overpowered products:

Q1 2009
Mac mini 25W C2D 2.00/2.40GHz 2C/2T
20" iMac 55W C2D 2.66/2.80GHz 2C/2T
24" iMac 65W C2Q 2.66/2.83GHz 4C/4T
Q2 2009
Mac Pro single Core i7 2.66/3.20GHz 3GB RAM 4C/8T
Mac Pro dual Xeon 2.66/3.20GHz 6GB RAM 8C/16T
Q3 2009 (with Snow Leopard)
20" iMac 65W C2Q 2.33/2.50GHz 4C/4T (the Q8300s @ 2.50GHz will be released in Q2)
24" iMac 65W C2Q 2.66/2.83GHz 4C/4T + improvements (RAM, GPU, HDD, display?)
---
Q1 2010
Mac mini 35W Clarksdale 2.13/2.40GHz 2C/4T
20" iMac 65W Lynnfield 2.40/2.53GHz 4C/8T
24" iMac 65W Lynnfield 2.66/2.80GHz 4C/8T
Q2 2010
Mac Pro single Gulftown 2.66/3.20GHz (or better) 6C/12T
Mac Pro dual Gulftown 2.66/3.20GHz (or better) 12C/24T
...

No i7s in the Mac Pro. Only Xeons.
post #141 of 254
Any reasons why the top, top-end Core i7 can't give the existing and new Xeons a run for their money? Also so that they just use DDR3 not all this FB-DIMM stuff. I mean, could you have a two Core i7 CPUs? That's 16 logical cores. Surely that whips butt? Coupled with up to 64GB in triple channel DDR3...

If nothing else Apple can still enjoy premium margins on the top Mac Pros while fitting them with powerful but cheaper-than-Xeons CPUs.

I'm sorry I'm a n00b when it comes to Intel roadmaps so somebody correct me if needed.

My main question is, what will be the best Core i7 CPU that will still use DDR3. Can it dual CPUs so that there's 16 cores. Coupled with Snow Leopard Grand Central, Xeons should only be in the XServe, right?
post #142 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Any reasons why the top, top-end Core i7 can't give the existing and new Xeons a run for their money? Also so that they just use DDR3 not all this FB-DIMM stuff. I mean, could you have a two Core i7 CPUs? That's 16 logical cores. Surely that whips butt? Coupled with up to 64GB in triple channel DDR3...

If nothing else Apple can still enjoy premium margins on the top Mac Pros while fitting them with powerful but cheaper-than-Xeons CPUs.

I'm sorry I'm a n00b when it comes to Intel roadmaps so somebody correct me if needed.

My main question is, what will be the best Core i7 CPU that will still use DDR3. Can it dual CPUs so that there's 16 cores. Coupled with Snow Leopard Grand Central, Xeons should only be in the XServe, right?

The Xeon 5500 series won't need fully buffered DIMMs. Either DDR3 or most likely DDR3 with ECC. And the Core i7 only has 1 QPI bus and it needs to use that to connect to the X58 controller. The Xeon's cores are functionally the same as the i7 but the have 2 QPI buses; one to connect to the Tylersburg controller and the other to connect to the other processor's memory controller.

So basically the i7 can't work in a dual processor configuration. That's why the Nehalem EP (Xeon 5500 series) was made.

The best Core i7 is yet to come. It's called Gulfton or something like that and it will have 6 cores but will still be only for 1 processor systems.
post #143 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Any reasons why the top, top-end Core i7 can't give the existing and new Xeons a run for their money? Also so that they just use DDR3 not all this FB-DIMM stuff. I mean, could you have a two Core i7 CPUs? That's 16 logical cores. Surely that whips butt? Coupled with up to 64GB in triple channel DDR3...

If nothing else Apple can still enjoy premium margins on the top Mac Pros while fitting them with powerful but cheaper-than-Xeons CPUs.

I'm sorry I'm a n00b when it comes to Intel roadmaps so somebody correct me if needed.

My main question is, what will be the best Core i7 CPU that will still use DDR3. Can it dual CPUs so that there's 16 cores. Coupled with Snow Leopard Grand Central, Xeons should only be in the XServe, right?

No, you can't use dual i7s. The dual-socket Nehalem Xeon will use DDR3, however.
post #144 of 254
I beg to differ, a current MacBook Pro can last at least 2.5 strong years. Don't forget its pretty darn powerful 9600M GT which will really help in all that GPGPU stuff.

So a dual core CPU and strong discrete GPU, with OpenCL and CUDA on the PC side, I think there is some reasonable longevity in dual core CPUs.

Getting a decent affordable mobile quad core will take at least until middle of the year.

You can also upgrade in 1.5 year's time your hard disk with a SSD drive which should be fast, large and reasonably affordable by that time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post

But haven't we known this for half a year now, if not longer? That the really yummy mobile CPUs will arrive Q4 2009?

Basically you will literally get twice the performance for the same price at the same battery life.

And this is just a dual core running 4 threads. Imagine if Intel releases a mobile quad-core with 8 threads? That'll be 4x as much CPU power as the currently fastest MacBook Pro...


Or in other words, it's just a bad time to buy a laptop that you intend to use for 3+ years.

1 1/2 years from now any current MacBook Pro will feel like a G3 PowerBook today...

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

A bit off topic, but that's why I refuse to buy an iMac with a dual core processor now.

Its analogous to buying a pentium 4 machine 3 years ago.
post #145 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

The Xeon 5500 series won't need fully buffered DIMMs. Either DDR3 or most likely DDR3 with ECC. And the Core i7 only has 1 QPI bus and it needs to use that to connect to the X58 controller. The Xeon's cores are functionally the same as the i7 but the have 2 QPI buses; one to connect to the Tylersburg controller and the other to connect to the other processor's memory controller.

So basically the i7 can't work in a dual processor configuration. That's why the Nehalem EP (Xeon 5500 series) was made.

The best Core i7 is yet to come. It's called Gulfton or something like that and it will have 6 cores but will still be only for 1 processor systems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

No, you can't use dual i7s. The dual-socket Nehalem Xeon will use DDR3, however.

OK thanks that makes sense then.

Isn't there still a debate out there about whether ECC is really that important?
post #146 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

I beg to differ, a current MacBook Pro can last at least 2.5 strong years. Don't forget its pretty darn powerful 9600M GT which will really help in all that GPGPU stuff.

So a dual core CPU and strong discrete GPU, with OpenCL and CUDA on the PC side, I think there is some reasonable longevity in dual core CPUs.

Getting a decent affordable mobile quad core will take at least until middle of the year.

You can also upgrade in 1.5 year's time your hard disk with a SSD drive which should be fast, large and reasonably affordable by that time.

I confused nvidia2008. What part of my post don't you agree with?
post #147 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I confused nvidia2008. What part of my post don't you agree with?

It's late for me so apologies if I am not making sense right now...

I think I am saying, dualcore CPU laptops are still worthwhile, if they have reasonable discrete GPUs. Because, remember you have CPU and also GPU powering all sorts of apps over the next few years. In some cases, a reasonable discrete GPU absolutely destroys CPUs for some tasks like video encoding (eg. Badaboom application).

Dualcore CPU laptops are also still worthwhile to purchase, because, you can also upgrade the hard disk to SSD a year or two down the line, this will bring about overall speed improvement as well.

Intel's marketing right now is very, very good. I would say though, do not *overestimate* the importance of the CPU when considering the overall, all-round performance of a computer.
post #148 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

It's late for me so apologies if I am not making sense right now...

I think I am saying, dualcore CPU laptops are still worthwhile, if they have reasonable discrete GPUs. Because, remember you have CPU and also GPU powering all sorts of apps over the next few years. In some cases, a reasonable discrete GPU absolutely destroys CPUs for some tasks like video encoding (eg. Badaboom application).

Dualcore CPU laptops are also still worthwhile to purchase, because, you can also upgrade the hard disk to SSD a year or two down the line, this will bring about overall speed improvement as well.

Intel's marketing right now is very, very good. I would say though, do not *overestimate* the importance of the CPU when considering the overall, all-round performance of a computer.

Well time will tell how powerful open cl is and how much improvement it makes in regards to performance. No doubt the potential is there.

But by the end of the year, Quad core will be the new dual core.
post #149 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

OK thanks that makes sense then.

Isn't there still a debate out there about whether ECC is really that important?

For critical work, such as financial transactions and such, it's critical.

For most other more mundane work, it's not.
post #150 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

It's late for me so apologies if I am not making sense right now...

I think I am saying, dualcore CPU laptops are still worthwhile, if they have reasonable discrete GPUs. Because, remember you have CPU and also GPU powering all sorts of apps over the next few years. In some cases, a reasonable discrete GPU absolutely destroys CPUs for some tasks like video encoding (eg. Badaboom application).

but then you should have the gpu with there own ram not useing slower system ram.
post #151 of 254
Quote:
When you look at the lower end, Apple's offerings don't really seem that bad. It's when you get to the serious high end machines that Apple not offering a proper desktop system means it's far more expensive than it needs to be to get some decent performance.

Their Ram bundles are terrible these days too. Just 2GB in a Mac Pro. Almost everything about the clone is better than the current Mac Pro at a fraction of the price.

Yeah. The PearC 'professional' option looks good by comparison, eh? This just goes to show how bad Apple's ram, hd and gpu options look at really inflated prices.

Geeze. How hard is it to update these components? What's with the once a year thing? One major and one minor revision per year would make more sense.

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 #152 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

This looks good but I think we're getting too much life out of C2 product. How about this
Q1 '09
Mac mini C2D 2.13Ghz, 2.4Ghz (1)
20" iMac C2D 2.53Ggz 45nm
24" iMac 2.6Ghz 9400s C2 Quad
Q2 '09
Mac Prosumer - 2.66Ghz Core i7
Mac Pro - 2.66Ghz 3.2Ghz Xeon
Q3 '09
20" iMac -2.66Ghz (est) Core i5 Lynnfield (2)
24" iMac - 2.93Ghz (est) Core i5 Lynnfield
Macbook Pro - 2.53Ghz Clarskfield 2.66Ghz 17" (3)
Macbook 2.13Ghz Clarksfield 2.4Ghz Clarksfield step up model
Q1 '10
Mac Prosumer - 2.92 Gulftown (4)
Mac Pro - 3.2Ghz and 3.4Ghz Xeon
Q2 "10
iMac Clarkdale (5)
Macbook and Macbook Pro and Mini Arrandale
This way we transition away from C2 and deliver Nehalem with threading and Snow Leopard on all computers announced after Q2 and on of this year.

(1) Unless I'm mistaken there is no T/P series 2.13GHz mobile cpu in Intel's plans (2.26/2.40GHz cpus cost the same today).

(2) Lynnfield will be a 4C/8T 95W cpu in Q3, no way it's going in any iMac

(3) Clarksfield will be a 4C/8T 55W cpu in Q3, no way it's going in any MacBook. And too expensive ($350-1,050)

(4) Gulftown won't be available in Q1 2010, nor 6C Xeons

(5) Arrandale/Clarksdale will be available in Q1. Why push the release to Q2? Furthermore, going from Lynnfield/Clarksfield (4C/8T cpus) to Arrandale/Clarksdale (2C/4T cpus) is certainly not an upgrade, it's a downgrade.

FWIW, I think the notebook updates will be (probably just cpu/hdd upgrades):
Q3 2009
2.40GHz white MacBook (P8600 w/3MB cache)
2.40/2.66GHz unibody MacBook (P8600/P8800 w/3MB cache)
2.66/2.80/3.06GHz 15" MacBook Pro (P8800 w/3MB cache, T9600/9900 w/6MB cache)
2.80/3.06GHz 17" Macbook Pro (T9600/9900 w/6MB cache)
1.86/2.13GHz MacBook Air (SL9400/9600 w/6MB cache)

Q1 2010
Arrandale for all MacBooks, Intel has still to come up with a replacement for the T series... I didn't see anything in the roadmaps that would replace the T9600/9900 cpus, yet. There were some rumors of fast 2C/4T cpus without IGP (to keep the TDP low)...

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

No i7s in the Mac Pro. Only Xeons.

Why not? It's not like the Mac Pro is selling like hot cakes. Offering more affordable configurations (powerful and with great margins, yet) wouldn't hurt. And it's not like the 2 platforms are that much different. Nehalem Xeons will cost a lot more than the current Harpertown Xeons at the same clock and offering single Xeon cpu models would be ridiculously expensive and useless. Even if Core i7 Mac Pros with their lower prices ($1499/2299 est.) would cannibalize some iMac sales, they would generate probably more margins than those iMacs. FWIW, I expect the dual Xeon Mac Pros I've listed to cost $3199/4999.

Quote:
Originally Posted by myself

Q1 2010
Mac mini 35W Clarksdale 2.13/2.40GHz 2C/4T

I meant: Mac mini 35W Arrandale 2.13/2.40GHz 2C/4T
post #153 of 254
Quote:
Apple not offering a proper desktop system means it's far more expensive than it needs to be to get some decent performance.

This bit stands out.

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 #154 of 254
Quote:
Why not? It's not like the Mac Pro is selling like hot cakes. Offering more affordable configurations (powerful and with great margins, yet) wouldn't hurt. And it's not like the 2 platforms are that much different. Nehalem Xeons will cost a lot more than the current Harpertown Xeons at the same clock and offering single Xeon cpu models would be ridiculously expensive and useless. Even if Core i7 Mac Pros with their lower prices ($1499/2299 est.) would cannibalize some iMac sales, they would generate probably more margins than those iMacs. FWIW, I expect the dual Xeon Mac Pros I've listed to cost $3199/4999.

Game. Set. And Match.

Quote:
Why not? It's not like the Mac Pro is selling like hot cakes. Offering more affordable configurations (powerful and with great margins, yet) wouldn't hurt.

That bit stands out. Y'know. The idea that Apple could boost Mac Pro sales by offering, gasp...a cheaper platform? It wouldn't hurt at all to put the i7 in the entry 'Pro' and you'd have a fantastic value Mac Pro. Apple's choice. They can't blame Moto' or IBM this time. They're making a clear choice not to use a powerful, affordable cpu in their entry tower...one that is in machines for half the cost of the Mac Pro and cheaper! It's insane.

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 #155 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

(1) Unless I'm mistaken there is no T/P series 2.13GHz mobile cpu in Intel's plans (2.26/2.40GHz cpus cost the same today).

(2) Lynnfield will be a 4C/8T 95W cpu in Q3, no way it's going in any iMac

(3) Clarksfield will be a 4C/8T 55W cpu in Q3, no way it's going in any MacBook. And too expensive ($350-1,050)

(4) Gulftown won't be available in Q1 2010, nor 6C Xeons

(5) Arrandale/Clarksdale will be available in Q1. Why push the release to Q2? Furthermore, going from Lynnfield/Clarksfield (4C/8T cpus) to Arrandale/Clarksdale (2C/4T cpus) is certainly not an upgrade, it's a downgrade.

Q1 2010
Arrandale for all MacBooks, Intel has still to come up with a replacement for the T series... I didn't see anything in the roadmaps that would replace the T9600/9900 cpus, yet. There were some rumors of fast 2C/4T cpus without IGP (to keep the TDP low)...

I'm basing my Lynnfield iMac on the fact that there's no North/South bridge just the CPU and PCH so while Lynnfield is 95W it ought to be closer to the 64W C2 Quad that is likely eating up another 20W in North/South bridges.

My consertive Arrandale is based on Apple peculiarities that will have them delay machines despite having processors available (like today's pending mini and iMac refresh)
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #156 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Game. Set. And Match.

That bit stands out. Y'know. The idea that Apple could boost Mac Pro sales by offering, gasp...a cheaper platform? It wouldn't hurt at all to put the i7 in the entry 'Pro' and you'd have a fantastic value Mac Pro. Apple's choice. They can't blame Moto' or IBM this time. They're making a clear choice not to use a powerful, affordable cpu in their entry tower...one that is in machines for half the cost of the Mac Pro and cheaper! It's insane.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Well i'm going to call the single socket Mac Pro the Mac Prosumer because that's what it would appeal to IMO.

Sure it would eat some Mac Pro sales but it could be a higher margin (than iMac) higher volume model that sits perfectly between the two. Apple could beef up the base specs of the Mac Pro so that $2999 is the starting price with gobs of RAM and a nice GPU.

It's really time to stop protecting the dwindling desktop lineup. An iMac is going to do me no good if I need to toss in a Kona card and UAD-2 card along with a fat GPU.

Some people need this yet they don't need a 2-socket workstation.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #157 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Game. Set. And Match.

That bit stands out. Y'know. The idea that Apple could boost Mac Pro sales by offering, gasp...a cheaper platform? It wouldn't hurt at all to put the i7 in the entry 'Pro' and you'd have a fantastic value Mac Pro. Apple's choice. They can't blame Moto' or IBM this time. They're making a clear choice not to use a powerful, affordable cpu in their entry tower...one that is in machines for half the cost of the Mac Pro and cheaper! It's insane.

Lemon Bon Bon.


And just think how many times people on these forums blamed "Moto' or IBM". And how, by going with Intel, we were going to have such a wide variety and choice of Apple computers............. Perhaps the criticism should have been leveled at Apple as it is now.
2009 Quad 2.66 Mac Pro, 12 GB OWC RAM, ATI 4870, Wi-Fi Card 802.11n, AppleCare, 4 WD Caviar Black 1TB HD's, 2 SuperDrives, 24" Apple LED Display.
Reply
2009 Quad 2.66 Mac Pro, 12 GB OWC RAM, ATI 4870, Wi-Fi Card 802.11n, AppleCare, 4 WD Caviar Black 1TB HD's, 2 SuperDrives, 24" Apple LED Display.
Reply
post #158 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

I'm basing my Lynnfield iMac on the fact that there's no North/South bridge just the CPU and PCH so while Lynnfield is 95W it ought to be closer to the 64W C2 Quad that is likely eating up another 20W in North/South bridges.

My consertive Arrandale is based on Apple peculiarities that will have them delay machines despite having processors available (like today's pending mini and iMac refresh)

The 65W quad cpus can use nvidia's single chip desktop 9300/9400 chipset. Which Apple's is already familiar with. No need to use Intel's N/S bridges. There is still about 30W difference in overall TDP.

I wasn't talking much about the delay, but your choice of using 4C/8T cpus in Q3 2009 for the iMac and MacBooks and then move back to 2C/4T cpus in Q1/Q2 2010. Even if Arrandale is a 32nm cpu, it's just dual-core (4 threads) while the 45nm Lynnfield/Clarksfield are quad-core (8 threads). It's not an upgrade, it's a downgrade. Anyway, I don't think Apple will ever use 95W Lynnfields in the current iMac form factors, nor the 55W Clarksfield in the MacBooks, even the Pro models.
post #159 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

Why not? It's not like the Mac Pro is selling like hot cakes. Offering more affordable configurations (powerful and with great margins, yet) wouldn't hurt. And it's not like the 2 platforms are that much different. Nehalem Xeons will cost a lot more than the current Harpertown Xeons at the same clock and offering single Xeon cpu models would be ridiculously expensive and useless. Even if Core i7 Mac Pros with their lower prices ($1499/2299 est.) would cannibalize some iMac sales, they would generate probably more margins than those iMacs. FWIW, I expect the dual Xeon Mac Pros I've listed to cost $3199/4999.

The Mac Pro isn't competing with the lower priced i7 machines that are out there, or will be out there. They compete with workstations that cost about the same. You could have said the same thing about the old Mac Pros. Why did Apple only use Xeons in them?

In addition, why would Apple wait so long after the i7 comes out before releasing a Mc Pro based on it? They've never done that before, so why would now be different?

Why Apple hasn't updated their machines more often lately, is something I don't know. They obviously have some reason.

None of Apple's desktop models are "selling like hotcakes" lately. The Mac Pro isn't the only one.

Nehalem Xeons will cost about the same, possibly even less that the current Harpertown models when everything is taken into account. You have to figure in all that Apple doesn't have to pay for as well as the actual price of the cpus. They don't need the separate memory controller, which is expensive. They don't need the extra power supply parts. They don't need the extra real estate on the mobo, etc. This simplifies the design process. It allows for a less expensive board. Simpler testing, etc.

Overall, the costs should be about the same. This is what sites such as Anandtech are finding, even though only high end boards can be used, that's no different from before.

As for your pricing, I don't see it as being as high as that. It's possible that prices may be a bit higher than today, as each generation seems to gain a bit because of inflation. If Apple adds features, then pricing may go higher.
post #160 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Nehalem Xeons will cost about the same, possibly even less that the current Harpertown models when everything is taken into account. You have to figure in all that Apple doesn't have to pay for as well as the actual price of the cpus. They don't need the separate memory controller, which is expensive. They don't need the extra power supply parts. They don't need the extra real estate on the mobo, etc. This simplifies the design process. It allows for a less expensive board. Simpler testing, etc.

Overall, the costs should be about the same. This is what sites such as Anandtech are finding, even though only high end boards can be used, that's no different from before.

Would mind going into further detail about this. Assuming Apple is getting the same discount as before the costs of the new Xeons should be more. Except for the ability not to use FB RAM I don't understand where they will be saving money to make the cost equivalent as before.
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Next-gen Mac Pro processors could arrive March 29