Next-gen Mac Pro processors could arrive March 29 - Page 6

So you're quoting yourself, and responding to your own post?

I notice that you studiously ignore each part of the post where I talk about the xMac. Is it possible that you don't read the lines where I agree that there should be one?

I've been thinking of asking him to remove the sig from the bottom of the posts because it's annoying to respond to with it there. It has to be removed for the flow. If it said something, that would be different.

You're repeating the same assumptions, that you can't support.

You are making up some numbers, and using others that aren't relevant.

As I mentioned earlier, you can;t use numbers from the end of a chip line to numbers at the beginning of a chip line. The old chips have been dropped in price several times, while the new ones are at the highest they will ever be.

Also, you are forgetting that Apple rarely lowers the price of its models once released, unless they make major changes during that time.

It's very dangerous to make assumptions based of numbers that may not have anything to do with Apple's prices. You don't know how much Apple pays for these chips. Prices released are for bin quantities. Apple, and other large manufacturers, buy many bins of these chips, bringing the prices down a long way.

It's very possible that Apple's price for these chips is no more than half the numbers you quote, and therefor, make up a much smaller percentage of the machines cost than you assume.


Perhaps you didn't notice it, but the last column in which the prices are given are clearly headed "Release Prices". They don't reflect current pricing.


The only correct thing here is the part about the 2.4 GHz part.


You are under the impression that Apple WILL release an i7 Mac Pro? They won't.

There is NO Xeon labeled i7. The i7 is purely a desktop chip designation. Xeon is a server and workstation designation. The two are not interchangeable.


95%? As far as you understand? Where did you get that understanding from? A guess? I've never seen any analysis of Apple's desktop sales that have come anywhere close to that number. 60 to 75% possibly.


According to your "understanding" I'm surprised you aren't simply calling for its discontinuance.

Studiously ignore? It's obvious. Is there anyone who DOESN'T want an X-Mac?!

Amnesia? We've agreed about this in the past. I guess you forgot? I presume it hasn't changed? X-Mac or a 'Low-end' Mid-tower. It isn't hard to grasp. Put the i7 in the Mac Pro case. Drop the price and offer artists, gamers and pros (presumably there are some out there you balk at Apple's prices and wouldn't mind getting great performance at a sane price.)

I'd even vouch that there is a bigger market for tower buyers at the 'sane' side of the market for gamers, small business artists, Pro's with smaller wads. I'd say at least 10% for an entry level single cpu Mac Pro range vs 5% for the dual Mac Pro. With the steeper price for the 'i7' Xeons then I'm guessing the new model (when it comes!) will finally have priced the Mac Pro into irrelevance. Any bets for the entry model costing £2000? There's no denying the dual Mac Pro's chosen market but there's almost a yawning gap of £1000 from £1000-£1700 (£1850 by the time you put in the ancient 8800GT...) for a supposed 'low end' Mac Pro. The 'facts' as I see them don't back you up at all. HEh. The fact that Apple offer a single cpu Xeon option says they have a slither of a conscience...and that they recognise the need for something more affordable tower. Offer a cheaper Mac Pro based on the i7 chipset. Simple.

Just because Apple hasn't offered something in the past is no indicator as to whether they will in the future. You're playing the probability game. In that sense, you're no more sage like than me, the analysts or anyone else. But I can want it. And I've spammed Apple a 'couple of times' with my suggestions.

Apple's problem is that they have historically chased the dollar. It's great when it's great but it's clearly clouding their thinking on desktops. It's flawed. It is my opinion. But clearly plenty of PC buyers and others on this forum agree with those sentiments.

It's great when the desktops get updated...looks ok. But it looks really bad when they haven't even received a minor specs bump in the same year, or 2 or 3 years in some instances. It looks like a company that are taking their eye off the ball. The problem is that they have too few products covering too wide a price point.

As for wandering? Why not. Their desktop strategy is a desert. There are a few chasms to wander inbetween. Notably between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro. And the iMac doesn't fill it, I'm afraid. There's plenty to pontificate about as our posts counts will testify to.

Pfft. You accuse me of being selective. Bah. You can talk.

Lemon Bon Bon.

PS. My sig'? Edit it out. It can't be that difficult. I edit bits out when I reply to you. Especially all the lengthy bits you're wrong about.

But that doesn't make it right or competitive. ie the fact that they don't. It just makes their desktop look out of date, stupid and irrelevant. And expensive. That's their perogative, I guess. Oh for some competition in the Apple space?

Lemon Bon Bon.

PS.
Eh. How do you know that. Do you have insider information? Or are you guessing based upon previous performance as guidance?

Nobody can forget anything about Apple. Especially the prices! ie the fact that they, infamously, DON'T change them even when the specs are years old.

I doubt he forgot at all.

Lemon Bon Bon.

I disagree. It is competing with i7 desktops out there. i7 desktops that cost less, perform better, have better gpus, better ram, better hd and even have the 'world of hurt' blue ray in there.

Sure. It's competing 'directly' with the other workstations. But do any of the other workstations have 2 gigs of ram, a small hd and a 2600 pro as standard. (I have my chocolate hat on standby.)

Why did Apple use only Xeons. Urh. You got me on that one. Stubborness? Greed? Unneccessarily pricing the tower range beyond the average buyer?

In the same way they use an over priced and underperforming dual core laptop processor in the 'desktop' iMac which I guess 'isn't' competing directly with quad i7 desktops, eh?

The 'desktop' disease affects the entire range. I can't look at the Mac Pro in isolation. They could have used higher performing chips and higher performing gpus such as the Nvidia 280 in the Mac Pro long before now. Why not?

'Only Apple.'

Lemon Bon Bon.

(1) I think you're the one making most of the assumptions, without any proof or irrelevant links than don't concern the Mac Pro Xeons. See below.

The only numbers I may have made up are:
- the price of the server chipset ($100): this is based on the knowledge of the price of mobile/desktop chipsets that can be found easily and that are priced between $20 and $70. A server chipset is of course more expensive, but doesn't compare to the price of 2 high-end server cpus which Apple uses on the Mac Pro.
- the % of Mac Pro+Mac mini va iMac sales. See below.

(2) End of the line or not, if you took the time to look at Intel's price list, you would have seen that the list price of the Xeon cpus for the Mac Pro has not decreased. In fact, most of the DP-Xeon cpus have not seen their list price change since their launch (woodcrest included). So, unless you have actual documents that prove your point, I trust Intel's price list over your assumption.

(3) Of course not I'm not forgetting. The fact is that since the Intel switch, Apple keeps increasing the entry price points on all their models: Mac mini was $499 now $599 (and old), MB was $999 then $1090 now $1299, iMac was $999 then $1199, Mac Pro $2199/2499 then $2299/2799. I'm the one thinking that Apple will increase again the entry price point of the Mac Pro to (probably) +$3K for a dual 2.66 models with 6GB RAM. Now if Apple chooses another cpu or a different RAM configuration, price may differ.

(4) Of course Apple doesn't pay the list price. But I think you shouldn't apply your general guess of "no more than half" on the Mac Pro. Apple is not selling millions of them, so they are not buying millions of xeons. The discount may not be as much as you think. But no matter what the discount is, if the list price for a chip "A" is higher than the one of a chip "B", if Apple buys the same quantities, they will pay more for the chip "A" than for the chip "B".

(5) That's exactly why i linked those list. They show that the "Release Prices" and the current prices are the SAME for the xeons used in the Mac Pro. If you had bothered to open Intel's list price, you would have seen that.

(6) The only correct thing here is... well you couldn't even get this right.

(7) No I'm not, I think a Core i7/W3500 Mac pro would be a nice addition to the Mac Pro family. I've never said Apple will make a Core i7 Mac Pro, I think they should.

(8) You've got it the other way around. That shows how much you are paying attention. The current X3300 series of Xeon chips are in fact desktop Q9000 series cpus with a Xeon label. They have the SAME SPECS, the SAME PRICES and the SAME PRICE CUTS. Go to the Intel site and see for yourself. The future W3500 series of Xeon chips will be in fact the desktop Core i7 cpus with a Xeon label. They have the SAME SPECS and the SAME PRICES.

(9) Since Apple doesn't disclose model numbers, your GUESS is as good/bad as mine. I'll tell you that my "guess" was based on unofficial numbers for the year 2007 that gave 3% for the Mac mini and 8% for the Mac Pro. My "assumption" for the last 2 quarters is that those numbers were even worse, hence 90-95% (not just 95%) for the iMac. Even Tim Cook said that the Mac Pro was not a significant part of the desktop business. I'd be happy if you could share actual numbers...

By the way, since english is not my mother tongue, I may sometimes use expressions in an odd way...

(10) No I'm not. I think that there is a lot more to do in the desktop business, and for me, the numbers from last quarter just show how bad things can get when you don't take care of it (the desktop business). What I would like is for Apple to release new/updated models as soon as possible.

Come on Lemon that's rhetorical. Apple chose Xeons because they support dual socket and perform like a workstation should. Though it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a single socket Mac Pro.

And there's always the Xeon 3500 series. It's designed for single socket motherboards and is priced more reasonably. Plus you get a few advantages over the almost identical Core i7, namely ECC memory and faster memory (1,600MHz) support.

Well, I won't edit this one at all.

I don't think we can just pull one cpu and revise the mobo. This would have to be a smaller machine altogether. I designed one when the first G5 tower came out, to sell for $995. I used my experience as a designer of pro audio electronics to do that. My friends at Apple told me that it would work, but that management would not be interested in such a machine. I don't know if I even have the designs in my backups anymore it seems so long ago. It had one double width slot for graphics, and one other 16 lane slot, with 4 memory sockets on one slide out board, as the pro machines have. A smaller power supply, no bottom "feet, and a few other simplifications.

If it were not going against Apple's copyrights, as we see now, I might have even produced it, but I'm not interested in testing that out.

I don't agree, or not agree on that one. It's just what they do.

People are not realizing that Apple's margins are good, but not particularly high. Somehow, they seem to think that Apple makes unreasonable profits, when their profits are in the middle of the field.

Many companies have much higher margins and profits than Apple.

We don't actually know what their costs are. My bet, from having been a manufacturer, is that they don't make much profit when their new models come out, but that profit rises as it progresses, to give us what we see in the quarterlies. So the average profits are 10 to 11% or so. Again, good, but not outstanding.

It seems to me that if they did continually drop their prices on the same model as the year went on, we would see margins and prifots erode as well. Then no one would be happy.

They make far more profit on their software and services than they make on their hardware, which is always the case. That's why MS, for example, can invest so many billions in areas in which they lose so many billions. Their software margins are around 80+%.


Mostly from past performance. But also from what their market for the machines are. I linked to BOXX in another post. I don't know if you read that. Their single chip i7 workstation costs close to $7,000, and is the CHEAPEST competitor in that market when compared to other well known names.

That makes the Mac Pro positively miserly. You should see some of their dual Xeon models!

This is why I don't think Apple is interested in going to i7 for the Mac Pro. They actually have an edge in that market in performance AND price.

I don't recall what that was about. You need to include more in a quote, and who said it.

You say it's competing against single chip desktops, but you would have to provide evidence for that as it's a bit of a stretch.

As Apple doesn't market it that way, and most of its sales don't come from people buying it as just another desktop because of its size and cost, that puts the load on you this time.

You would have to look at what other workstations come with. But it doesn't matter what the base configuration is. What matters is what it can be brought up to.

They use only Xeons for the reasons I gave. Those buying these machines want the highest performance and that requires more than a one chip desktop cpu these days.

Before many other companies were able to provide dual chip solutions at lower price levels, Apple provided a low end single cpu machine. Now that the other competitors in the workstation market provide two chip machines at those levels, Apple must as well. It;s pretty simple, you don't have to go looking for conspiracies on Apple's part to find an answer.

iMacs are a different case. Those are used mostly in homes and schools, where the complete silence is a major factor. We have two Mac labs in my daughters school. All are iMacs, and the room is silent. We also have one Dell lab, and the room is anything but. This seems to be a major consideration on Apple's part.

We now see rumors that Apple may have a quad core iMac soon. Let's wait to see if that's true before continuing on this avenue.

I have to agree with much of what Mr. Bon Bon is saying... that there is a latent need going unmet.

As a defector from Windows to OS X (as far as a laptop is concerned), I'm finding myself in a situation where there's no desktop hardware solution that meets my needs. I want a system that is powerful enough to do some high-def video editing, that allows me the flexibility to select/upgrade the graphics system, and boot Windows to do some gaming.

The iMac lacks performance and flexibility while the Mac Pro is way too much CPU power and money for my needs while completely defeating itself on the GPU flexibility.

While Apple may be consciously ignoring the market segment that I represent, they may be missing out on a significant opportunity. I know I'm not the only Windows user in this situation.

Ironically, not much has really changed in 20 years. As was the case then, I guess I'm looking at another PC.

I wonder whether Steve Jobs' self-imposed recovery time also leaves him enough time to rethink Apple's product lines. Taking into account recent shifts in user needs, why certain Mac products do better than others, emerging technologies, etc.
He might even find some time to browse these forums (yeah, right... ).

Yet I wouldn't be surprised if he comes back full of ideas on what to do next. And in that respect his recovery time could be the best thing that happened to Apple since the iMac.
I wouldn't be surprised.


With rumors of Apple introducing a TV set of their own with built in Apple TV I wonder whether this heralds the break up of the iMac line into 3 products:

- Apple TV set with built in 'Apple TV', perhaps DVD or Blu-Ray player, plus online movie rentals
- 19" or 20" laptop for people who want (some) mobility but a larger screen
- midrange tower, something with a single quad-core CPU and one or two PCI slots and which can plug into the Apple 24" LED display (and perhaps a 30" LED once introduced).


I really think the days of the iMac should be numbered.
To watch movies LCD TVs are cheap enough these days and they're bigger.
People who don't have the desk space for a tower look to a laptop + external LCD monitor.
And people who want a small modular system don't have an offering in the iMac at all.

A revival of the cube would be nice. Slightly bigger to fit high-end GPUs, yet something elegant, distinct while still being mid-range.

My hat is off to everyone here. You seem to have tremendous insight and I'm impressed.

That being said LBB and VirtualRain hit the nail on my head (as far as my situation). I am DESPERATELY looking to convert from Windows to OS X and yet there is no desktop solution that meets my needs. The mini is too outdated. The iMac has other issues (and I don't want an all-in-one). Mac Pro's are too expensive and too outdated. I'm waiting with baited breath for something that is reasonably priced (I know it's going to be more than a PC) that I can purchase.

Like others have said before me, there is a need that is not being met. Of course, I have no idea how big a market share this need represents.

I agree with almost everything here save for one point. Mac Pros are still state of the art for dual processor workstations until workstations based off of Nehalem Xeons come out.

Yeah...I didn't express myself very well. As far as the Mac Pros, and this is only as it relates to my needs and wants, the cost / performance / GPU options just don't work out. I realize that I am probably (possibly?) not the best target market for Apple.

The back of the iMac is in the order of 1/4 of a square meter, if made in aluminium that is plenty to cool of both a CPU and GPU of quite a number of watts combined. So the iMac can still be made quite and very fast

I want my xMac

Well, lookee here. Someone who doesn't subscribe to Melgross' world view.

There must be a few of them about otherwise Apple's desktops wouldn't have fallen 25% in unit sales. But I suppose that has nothing to do with lack of choice, out of date hardware, obscene prices or the lack of even a minor spec bump over the last year or so. I'm so glad we found you. You're evidence that Apple isn't doing its job right. Join the club. Prepare to grow a very long beard waiting...

Lemon Bon Bon.

PS.
Hey, I knew there was somebody that subscribed to my 'world view' somewhere...I'm so glad I finally met you.

Well. I'd argue that the 'X-Mac/Mid-Tower' Mac should be where the Mac Pro used to be and where the iMac high end currently is.

Apple sneakily drifted the Mac Pro's entry price with the G5 and the hike went further with Intel. Guess what sneaked up hill with it. The iMac.

There's a yawning gap of £1000-£1700 where the real tower Mac should be. Plenty of room for PC tower switchers, artists, small business etc to buy a machine that won't tear off your arm or force you to dig up your granny.

Melgross can state teh Mac Pro is this and that. It probably is. Nothing like stating the obvious. We all waxed lyrical about how we didn't have enough cpu choice with the G5/G4. Now we have that choice Apple is playing the oddball again. Offering a differing mobo/cpu in teh same case can't be that costly. The components are there. Use them and give buyers the choice.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Well. It seems Apple would rather sell fewer towers at an obscene profit...and even fewer now there's a credit crunch. They just don't seem to 'get it'. They could offer a 'Mac Pro' for people who are living in the real world. It's credit crunch time. The fact that I'd like a Mac Pro based on the cheaper but better performing bang for buck i7 doesn't make anyone any less a 'Pro' than Melgross or anyone else. I've known plenty of 'Pros' (musicians, artists..) who don't subscribe to paying through the nose for it just because Apple says they have to.

None of what I said invalidates the dual processor market at the top end. Equally so. The Xeon doesn't invalidate the need for a tower for mortals.

Lemon Bon Bon.

PS.
Well. The cpus are. The ram, hd and gpus suck. Ergo: my sig'.

Valid arguments. Your 1st argument hit the nail on the head. I don't think Steve can see past the iPhone. The Mac desktop line has stagnated...not just in specs, price etc...but the line up is...well. Stale. It doesn't meet the needs of all the switchers they are gaining the interest of with iPod/iPhone etc.

Interesting ideas. I agree with the latter one so much. Lament the Cube. Lament.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Ok. Hats off. You kinda of said it with less waffle than I. You nailed the Mac Pro to the cross.

What's really damning to Apple's desktop strategy is the fact you say not much has changed in 20 years (re: Apple and Desktops...not when it comes to choice.)

Yeesh. It's kinda true. Disappointing when you consider the same company makes the iPhone...

Lemon Bon Bon.

That's ironic.

Lemon Bon Bon.

I want my xMac because all I need to upgrade is the GPU (besides RAM and HD). But seeing the limited GPU options for the Mac Pro anyways... I don't think the xMac is going to happen.

Why can't Apple just update the iMacs with Nvidia 9600 already!!!! And the Mac Mini with 9400M!!! ARHGHG

Oh, congrats melgross on your new moderator powers! Use them wisely...

Well, Apple has been making good strides with iPod and iTunes Store. The iPhone was a big gamble and it is fantastic. They haven't forgotten the Mac line, but their thoughts on focusing so much on laptops, yeah, the Mac desktop has been left to dwindle this past year.

Like I said, all Apple needs to do is bring the Mac Mini to DDR3 9400M chipset, iMac to 9400M with 9600 and 22" LED backlit.

No need to invent a whole new manufacturing paradigm or re-engineer their entire karmic universal philosophy.

JUST SIMPLE UPDATES TO THE BLOODY MAC MINI AND IMAC. That's all I'm asking for. Simple.

It won't be enough, I'm afraid. The next mini, or mini replacement, needs to be a radical update to make up for it being ignored for so long. The iMac can get away with the minor speed bumps people have been clamoring for. The mini is just too small to take any decent processor that doesn't cost an arm and a leg (mobile processors).

Back on topic, I hope Apple lets people get the Quadro CX for it's Mac Pros.

What I do want Apple to do is drop the prices a little on Macbook Alu and update the Mac Mini, Mac Mini can stay at the same price point.

I'm just *not* seeing real value in the Mac line at this time. Only thing is the 9400M MacBook White. But I really don't want another white Mac... ever.

They can just update the Mini to a 2.0ghz Penryn and GPU 9400M, DDR3 board and RAM. That is still a viable, viable, fast machine. For what it needs to do. Forget about the two models and just have one with 2ghz Penryn and SuperDrive. 2ghz Penryn, 4GB RAM max, 9400M, DDR3, that's a decent, slim, portable machine right there! In the face of all sorts of crazy big power hungry ugly CPU boxes.

Why hasn't the Mac Pro been released with an Nvidia GTX 280 or 260 option? Between 8800GT and a Quadro is a hell of a big price/performance gap. Or an ATI 4870 should be an option. *sigh* ...There is that argument for Pro level stuff the Mac Pro is just designed to do what it's meant to do for years and years, don't mess with it too much. Still...

I agree...In the next revision Apple has to put in a HI-end Nvidia card. Given Apple's pnchant for going with midrange cards in the lastest generation (then skipping the next generation...LOL), I'd say that It will be the GTX 260.

The bizarre thing to me is that Nvidia has had unified drivers on the PC side for years (one driver supports all cards over several generations). I don't understand why this can't be done on the OSX side.

I also don't understand why NVidia can't write drivers for OSX and leave Apple out of the picture. Are the graphics drivers that integrated into the OS that they can't be patched/updated without a recompile of the kernal or something?

Perhaps with Apple adopting Nvidia chips on the Macbook products, and then hopefully with the iMacs, we will see a unified Nvidia driver for OSX that covers the entire range of Nvidia graphics platforms with updates in every release of the OS.

That makes great sense. Which in the Apple world, tragically, means it's not going to happen.

Seriously though, it could happen in Snow Leopard, what is Snow Leopard's strategy when it comes with drivers? Download on demand or something, right? So it doesn't need to install 3GB of printer drivers or somethin...

That's fair comment.

Lemon Bon Bon.

And that's part of my biggest beef for a machine that's offering supposedly 'Pro Power' when it can't get out of bed for the latest gpus. It's not like the 4850 isn't dirt cheap. It should be included as standard. WHERE are the 280s? Yeesh. So. i7 server isn't ready. What stopped Apple offering BTO for a 280 8 months ago?!?

I can't defend that to my PC owning friend. No wonder he went with 'another' PC. Sigh.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Shrugs. WHo knows... They have industry standard parts now. Ram. HD. What's keeping us from just plopping ANY Nvidia card in there? :/

Obtuse Apple. That's what.

I'm hoping that Tim Cook will have a fresh look at the product lines. Desktop particularly. It's antiquated in industry terms. It needs a fresh perspective.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Let's make our kit so small and slender for desktops that we can't use cheap, powerful parts. But instead charge are customers extra because we look 'Kool'. Fine for laptops. Not as fine for desktops. It would be fine for desktops if that didn't exclude the said option for cheaper and more powerful boxes.

Make the desktops slightly bigger. Offer the i7 desktop. Make the desktop cheaper. They can still make a profit on selling the LCDs they charge too much for. They can still look 'Kool'. An Alu 8x8 cube...a slightly shrunk Mac Pro tower option. They are a 25 billion company for Pete's sake.

Apple and desktops? Look at their ancient Cinema display line. That says it all.

Lemon Bon Bon.

PS. I'll probably be appeased when the iMac and Mac Pro are released next month? But it won't invalidate many of these arguments on this forum.

LBB, I don't know how long you've been at this, but you might as well just realize, that in the last 20 years, Apple has refused to offer an affordable (albeit premium) flexible product similar to what PC users have been enjoying since it's debut.

While I completely agree with you, that they are missing out on a significant market segment... I honestly don't think they will ever do it. Otherwise, they could have done so long before now.