Apple intros new Mac Pro with "Nehalem" Xeon processors - Page 7

It would depend on what it's being used for.

Someone else asked that question last night, and I gave the same answer, but he hasn't gotten back here.

The benchmarks will tell.

At any rate, since both Apple and Intel famously drive hard bargains, and Intel no longer has to offer great deals to woo Apple over, I'm sure Apple got the chips early in return for paying Intel lots of money. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if the machine costs more to make now, what with all of its fancy slide-out trays and the my-first-fabric motherboard architecture.

Besides, it's just natural that the Pro will retreat farther and farther into the high-end workstation market. Computational power has reached the point where you can do pro work on an iMac, or a MacBook Pro for that matter. For one thing, the hardware cards that were absolutely necessary 10 or even 5 years ago simply aren't now. For another, it's now possible to offer a 24" IPS panel, white LED backlit, 1920 x 1200 display for an eminently reasonable price.

Even in the last three years... I have what was the top of the line 17" PowerBook G4 three years ago and my jaw dropped when I saw what that machine has become. Software has a lot of catching up to do.

There are more differences than that ECC memory is one. The possible use of FB-DIMMs in four channels is another, though it's not likely, at least right now, that Apple will be using Becton. Additionally, the i7 parts currently are all 130 watt parts, while Gainstown, except for the not yet available 3.2 GHz part are either 80 or 95 watt parts.

Also 2 QPI links are used, not just one as in i7.

Whatever it might be, we still must use the right names. I don't see the purpose in deliberately confusing the issue, as you seem to want to do.

You say that based on what? Everything I have seen has said the i7 and xeon 3500 are the exact same chip with the only exception being that the i7 has ECC support disabled.

If there are other differences, what are they?


What difference does it make what the intention of the build is?

If performance is comparable, then comparing pricing is valid. The consumer has the choice of buying either of the two machines, period.


"The organizations that buy expensive workstations"? Aren't we talking about people buying mac pros? There are plenty of people buying these computers to run FCS or Photoshop or Logic or whatever, and if the $1300 machine runs it as well as the $2500 machine, then people are certainly going to notice that the $2500 machine is overpriced for their situation.

And aren't the organizations that buy expensive workstations going to avoid the MP quad anyway since ram is limited at 8 gigs?

Thanks. That and another reply really helped. I'll stick to my original plan (2x2.66). It'll hurt for now, but I'll get over it in no time. Although our other MP was cheaper, it was paid for in a matter of a week. This one? Two or three weeks.

Me? I'm a "pro," in that I make my living off of it and then some — certainly enough to more than justify a $3000 or so computer every few years, but my work (Illustrator and InDesign, mostly, but some photo retouching) doesn't require the gobs and gobs of RAM that some other applications do. Even if I had it, Adobe's software (CS4) only addresss two cores and 4 GB of RAM at a time, so it wouldn't help me much.

You're right, I'm apprehensive about the 8GB limitation, because I'd like for my next desktop to last me a good long while, and to take advantage of the large memory addressing that is supposedly coming in CS5. But regardless, this machine would be a huge step up from my dual 2GHz G5 (which, incidentally, still runs very nicely and has a "mere" 6GB of RAM in it, so maybe I don't really need more than 8GB of RAM after all)...

I would definitely consider one of the quads, were I in the market for one right now. (I'm not, but only because I just bought a 15" MBP a month ago. And I'll probably hold off on buying a new computer until it would actually give me a huge benefit — specifically, AFTER CS5 is available in a year or whenever.)

The processors are VERY good. Wait for the benchmarks: they will be smoking fast machines, faster than the similarly-priced Penryn 8-cores with the same amount of RAM.

And, yes, they ARE pro machines. Prices fall — and they rise, too. It happens. It's the cost of doing business. If the difference between a VERY good $3500 machine and an also-VERY-good $2500 is causing you grief, you're probably just a tech-savvy hobbyist, not actually earning your living off of your Mac. (Or maybe you have kids, or something. I don't mean to be as condescending as that sounds.) But it's really not that expensive, if you're earning your living off of your computer.

I answered that in the post above the one you made to me.


No, not true.

While the consumer might choose to buy a much more robust machine at a higher price, that's not where the machine is being marketed.

You have every right to complain that Apple doesn't MAKE a consumer tower. You would be right in that. I bemoan that fact as well.

But to complain that the Mac Pro isn't that machine is wrong.

You could sadly state that you wish you could afford it. That would make sense.

But to say that their commercial workstation should be cheaper, or somehow be affordable to those Apple isn't making it for, isn't helpful. You can say it until you're blue in the face, and it won't help.

Other general purpose computer companies such as Dell and Hp do make consumer boxes. Boxx does not. Are you going to go to their site and log on to their forums to complain that they should make a $1,500 box for you?

If not, why not?


Most of these boxes are bought by companies or other organizations, not individuals. It was different many years ago, but not now.

For many of these uses an iMac suffices these days. You'd be surprised. Now with 8 GB RAM, I expect many more pros that are price limited to move to a 24" model. It has a very good screen, once calibrated.

The truth is that very few pros need 8 Gb RAM. People seem to like to think they do, but they don't.

That's correct. for someone who s actually making a "real' living, the cost will be written down quickly. For those who aren't making much, if any money off their machine, its different.

I did get the tick and tock thingie mixed up though, it's actually Intel's Tock right now. The tick is a new process. But that doesn't change what I said.

They're not going much more expensive than the i7 machines. Why because with the exception of ECC memory and Quadro/FirePro graphics, they are the consumer i7 machines in a different case.

Sorry to disturb you about the big Apple's pricing thing but...
Here in Belgium, if I go on the Dell's website and configure a Core i7 workstation, I've got this :

Dell XPS 730x
Core i7 Extreme Edition 965 - 3,20 GHz, 6,4 GT/s
Genuine Windows Vista SP1 Home Premium (64 BIT)
Microsoft® Works 9
Serial ATA 750 Go
3 GB SDRAM DDR3 1067 MHz (Max 6 GB !!!)
NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 280
DVD+/- RW 16X
Dell Keyboard & Mouse
1 Year Premium Warranty Support

... for 3.629,15 € incl taxes (21%)

Compare to the Mac Pro Quad...

Mac Pro 2009
Intel Xeon 3500 - 2,93 GHz, 6,4 GT/s
Mac OS X 10.5
Serial ATA 1 To
3 Gb SDRAM DDR3 1066 MHz (Max 8 GB)
ATI Radeon HD 4870
SuperDrive 18X
Apple Keyboard & Mouse
Airport Card
1 Year Warranty

... 3.064,00 € incl taxes (21%)


Found this on the net, can't remember where...
"If you’ve tried to research the differences between Intel’s top-end Core i7-965 Extreme Edition and the midrange 940 and budget 920 parts, you’re probably as confused as us. And we even have direct access to Intel. But the technical differences between these parts are enormously important for system builders when you consider the price disparity -- $1000 for a Core i7-965 compared to under $300 for a Core i7-920.
What we do know is that the Core i7-965 has unlocked multipliers going up and down (although we have to point out that we have not seen any motherboards with multipliers that let you actually set it higher. You can only do that by increasing the Turbo Mode ratio.)
One other known fact is that you cannot set the Turbo Mode ratios on the 940 and 920. OK fine. But what else is different? Intel told us as recently as two months ago that the QPI was locked at 4.8GT/s to prevent you from running it at the Extreme’s 6.4GT/s speed. Memory ratios, however, are supposed to be unlocked. But maybe not."

Intel QuickPath Interconnect

I hope you don't actually claim to be knowledgeable about this stuff, because that analogy is so far from the truth its pathetic. The Xeon 5xxx series and Core i7 ARE CUT FROM THE SAME LITERAL SILICON DIE. While they may pluck out the most stable and efficient units during verification to sell as server-grade Xeons and perhaps tweak the CPU frequencies, Cache, and QPI clocks, they are otherwise identical...

edit: I am not implying that a Xeon workstation should be compared to an i7 desktop in price.. Understandably, the Xeons are a lot more expensive.


We'll see about that considering MANY "prosumers" and enthusiasts buy the Mac Pro (or did).


Years ago? How about 2 months ago??? The new Mac Pro has exorbitantly increased in price while using components that are similar in cost -- particularly as the CPUs are actually CHEAPER than the old Harpertowns when they were released.

What in particular are you referring to? Beckton 8-core is 45nm and quad-socket only, while the replacement to the new Mac Pro CPUs is 32nm Westmere in 2010 but those are only 6-core.


Fat margins? sure.. I think we expect that from Apple. Again, this is about the huge INCREASE in margins over the last Mac Pro model. The new Nehalem platform and CPUs actually COST THE SAME OR LESS THAN THE PREVIOUS MODEL's HARPERTOWN QUAD-COREs(Before the new ones were released).

I ordered a Mac Pro last week and expected it here tomorrow. I received a call tonight from an Apple Rep offering to complete my order as spec'd or "upgrade' to the new configuration. There is about $400 difference in Apple's favor. I ordered the 3.0 Quad Xeon processor and now need to pay $100 more to get a 2.66. ($1000 less to go with the 2.26) 3.0 to 2.66 for more money seems like that's paying more for less. Am I missing something?

The rest is a push more memory (up 2G) More HD space 640GB (up from 500) faster Superdrive (18x up from 16x with added dual layer)

Apple Rep says I can have the machine I ordered or go latest and greatest. ($$$???) I am a illustrator designer and will be using everything(i.e. Photoshop, Flash, Final Cut, After Effects, Zbrush, Mudbox, etc...)

Opinions? Out with the old pay for the new or hold onto 3.0 processor and lose the extras...

Thanks!

Can you prove this? Are you are you speculating? I wasn't aware any of these prices had been announced yet?

Keep in mind these new cpu's have hyperthreading. So if you get a 2.26 you are getting 16 virtual cores. If I were you, I'd go with the new 8 core 2.26... it is going to last you much longer with snow leopard's GCD and OpenCL. Also the new cpu's offer virtualization... so better compatibility with VMWare running windows if that is a factor to you. It is to me because I have to test ie6 against web apps.

You know, I retract my last statement.... after looking at these benchmarks I have some other thoughts....

http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html

Ok so they are comparing a 3.2ghz (harpertown) to a 2.93ghz (nehalem). Most hte tests are roughly 1.5x faster.

So there is a 300mhz difference (give or take). And the speed is comparable. Well lets look at slower models.

If the 300mhz difference is roughly 1.5x faster and we look at the 2.26 (nehalem) vs the 2.8 (harpertown) we are now dealing with a 540mhz difference. That makes them relatively even using apple's own benchmarks.

You can pick up a octo 2.8 refurb for around 2200, that's almost a 1k difference for the same performance. I'm really considering just picking up a refurb instead.

Riight!

You'll see when they come out.

It doesn't matter that the basic chip is the same. The extra functions give it extra performance, they always do.

The point though is not even that, it's simply the point of calling things by their correct names. I just don't know why that's so difficult for you.

If you went to Ford, and asked for a Ford rather than a Mercury model, you would get the wrong one, even though they are mostly the same.


I don't know what you mean by "many". People who have the money will.


You missed that one entirely. I, and a couple of others here were talking about machines "years" ago. If you followed the posts, you would see what we meant.

I know it is, that's why I said that Apple isn't likely to use it. Intel indicated that they will also have two socket 8 core chips.


You don't know any of that. That's just something you are guessing at.

That's true. But there are other things to think about.

The older model is Express 1 and 2. Two slots each. The new one is all Express 2.

The new one has four FW 800 ports, etc.

It's not just the Cpus.

The 3000-series are server branded versions of desktop CPUs. The 5000-series are twin socket derivatives and the 7000-series is for more than two sockets.



Yes we will. Apple has put the Mac Pro out of reach for all but the highest echelons of pros. We'll see how many settle for an iMac (and be less than happy with it), how many stick with their current Mac a bit longer, and how many come to the conclusion that Apple no longer serves their needs and leave the platform.


Not only that, but going back to late 2005, the last 4 PowerMac/MacPro updates have had a price hike. ($500, $150, $150, $200). In the last four years, the entry price for a MacPro has risen $1000 from $1499 to $2499. The funny thing is the component cost for the new $2499 MacPro might not be much more than the old $1499 Mac Pro.


They were released a couple months back. A bit more expensive, but not so much to justify the price hikes as we got them. In fact, the both the 2.66ghz 3500 and the 2.26ghz 5500 are roughly $300 cheaper per chip than the 2.83ghz 5400 series xeon they replaced. Prices for the dual socket x58 boards that are trickling out are similar to 5400 chipset boards. There is something else at play whether it be Apple getting greedy or intel charging more for either getting them early or making Apple pay full price if they were giving them discounts before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...5B1.5D_.5B2.5D

speculating? Did you read the thread? I just posted in the prices..


Nope. We know the general costs of the CPU, RAM, and GPU, and the margins are much higher this time around. Refer to the pricing chart from the post of mine on page 4 or 5:

extra functions? Again, these are the same damn chips! The Core i7 extreme editions have literally IDENTICAL specifications of the Xeon 55xx series save for one of the QPI links being disabled. Same exact frequency multiplier, same exact Quickpath frequency, save exact memory controller and speed, etc.. They even all use DDR3 now!


You must be arguing with the wrong person here. I agree with you on this point, and have never used Core i7 and Xeon 55xxx/Gainestown interchangeably...


I disagree. I would recommend getting the 2.66 Ghz CPUs. Nehalem is indeed fast, but based on the Core i7 reviews I've seen, I'd be surprised if the 2.26Ghz is to going to outrun the older 3.2Ghz Harpertown. I may be wrong however. I'll get back to you on this after some Googling..

Yep.. Am I missing something here? Did I make a typo somewhere?

You are so right, and I try to tell people the same thing. You know what's crazy, is how I have delegated my machines now days. I used to separate projects I used to work on to whatever computers were available. But, now days there is a big difference on my Mac Pro, I got up to a 25 GB MPEG-2 file this week, not bragging, but I wouldn't touch that with my G4s or my MacBook. Even if I had another 25 GB file in a queue I would just wait for the Mac Pro to free up. I wouldn't think of putting it on the other machines...

So now days there are systems for thick files and thin files... and thick is not something everybody gets into. There is a big difference between a 2 Core Mac with 4 GB of RAM and 16-Core Mac (Virtually) with 32 GB of RAM.

Laters...

p.s. bored while mac pro is rendering/compressing, ugh

You don't know the cost to Apple or any other company in the amounts they buy them. All you know is the single bin price.

You also don't know the cost to produce the machine itself, or whatever R&D cost they may add in. Then there is the overhead.

I would love to know these numbers, but none of us do. It's possible that Apple is selling less, so they have to charge more as component pricing isn't as low as it would otherwise be. We are just speculating.

[QUOTE=winterspan;1385409]extra functions? Again, these are the same damn chips! The Core i7 extreme editions have literally IDENTICAL specifications of the Xeon 55xx series save for one of the QPI links being disabled. Same exact frequency multiplier, same exact Quickpath frequency, save exact memory controller and speed, etc.. They even all use DDR3 now!/quote[

I pointed out other differences. They do exist.


Well, possibly, so many are doing this its getting hard to sort them all out.


I agree on this as well. It's one reason I ordered the dual 2.66 model.

I will agree to a very small extent. Certainly I'm not claiming to know their exact figures, but unless there are some very strange circumstances, I can't see how their bill of materials for the new model could come anywhere close to justifying the massive price hike. I'm sure they do factor in R&D and other things, but at the moment I am only comparing the new Mac Pro to the old model, not to PC workstation manufacturers..


What are they? I acknowledged that depending on the particular generation, there can be differences in clock, cache, FSB/Quickpath clock, memory support, etc. BUT, in this case the Core i7 extreme editions have literally the exact same specs as their Xeon (35xx) counterparts. The only difference both of them have with the Xeon 55xx is the fact that Intel disabled the second QPI link after manufacturing. There is no other difference whatsoever other than to be binned differently in testing for power consumption and stability. There should not be any major difference in performance..


understood -- I know the feeling

BTW, I apologize if I come across as an ass sometimes. I always visit these forums after a long day at work and can seem quite aggro. I honestly mean no harm, and greatly enjoy the discussion.

Mel', I'm not suprised at you. I agree with Hmurch' completely.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Sure, I'll go back.


We're comparing to the xeon 3500 series here, not to future chips intel isn't shipping and apple isn't using.

So no four channel memory.

And from what I have read, it looks like the xeon 3500s only have one QPI link, just like the i7. If you find documentation otherwise, I'll stand corrected.

So the only differences are ECC and using a bit less power, neither of which are going to make a difference in real world performance - the two machines will run a given app the same, the user is just paying twice as much for ECC and to use a bit less power. Oh, and for twice the price you get the ability to use LESS ram.


Funny, with a ram limit lower than an $899 dell and about the same performance, it sure looks like the Mac "Pro" quad IS a consumer tower. Apple is just charging double for it.

And I'm not asking for a consumer machine, I AM asking for a pro machine. I just don't define "pro" as a machine built with sturdier parts but consumer level performance (or worse).

I'd be happy with a consumer machine at a consumer price. Or with a pro machine at a pro price. Apple doesn't seem to hit either market.


Either way, it is bought for someone to sit in front of it and run apps. You really think that the majority of these buyers are willing to pay twice as much for "workstation parts" but don't care if performance is no better than a machine half the price?


But don't "very few" people really need a workstation class machine in the first place? You insist there are enough people who need ECC and whatever else allegedly makes this a Workstation...yet you don't seem to think that that is the same group that may need more than 8 gigs?

When it comes to ECC ram and the other excuses for the pricing, this machine is aimed at the small group of Professionals who can't settle for a consumer machine and insist on only the best.

But when it comes to ram limitations, then the market for this machine suddenly becomes those guys who really don't need anything that special and can settle for something LESS than what some cheap consumer boxes are offering?

I don't see how that's not a contradiction.

And for the record, I am one of those who can take advantage of more than eight gigs of ram, I have more than that in my current machine already.


I'm dying to see your response when the benchmarks are out and the i7 and xeon 3500 have negligible differences at the same clock speed. ECC isn't going to boost performance, is it? Nor lower power use?

So what IS going to make the 3500 faster than the i7 at the same clock speed?

Please clarify...

Is the Nehalem 5500 Xeon proc the same as the "i7"? I see both names referencing the same CPU class. If you Google Nehalem you will see a lot of confusing info.

I thought the i7 was the replacement of the Core 2 Duo proc class, not the Xeon proc class, right?

And in the case of the 35xx series, if what I have read is correct, that xeon has one QPI link disabled as well.


True. But when the price to the public is lower, it's a safe assumption that the price to Apple drops as well.

If a new chip sells publicly for less, but Apple ends up paying more than the previous generation, then they are doing something wrong.


Well, one of the differences doesn't exist in shipping chips. A second one doesn't seem to exist in the 3500 series. And the other differences aren't ones that would have any effect on performance.


Aside from the ECC you mentioned and the 2 qpi (which looks like it's 55xx only, not in the 35xx), it looks like the only other difference is lower power use.

And he listed more memory channels...which is only in a chip that apple is NOT using yet.

The 5500 allows use of ECC memory, it has two QPI channels instead of one, and it uses less power. I also assume the i7 is only supported in single chip (4 core) configurations, but I could be wrong.

Otherwise the chips are identical.

Core i7: Bloomfield 1 quickpath link Nehalem core without ECC support.
Xeon 3500: Bloomfield 1 quickpath link Nehalem core with ECC support. Same price as the core i7 branded chips.
Xeon 5500: Gainestown. Essentially bloomfield with a second quickpath link for multi-processing. Intel is also making these in more clock speeds than the bloomfield chips.

OK, so does that mean the i7 will find its way into the iMacs and Mac minis?

Does the i7 have a series number like the Nehalem (5500) and Woodcrest (5400)?

If the i7 and Nehalem are similar, does that the mean the Xeon 5400s are similar to the Core 2 Duos?

What will be in the future MacBooks? The Atom? The i7?

The Core 2 Duos that are in the current iMacs are a mobile (low power low heat) proc, right?

Does the i7 have a low heat/mobile version?


This wiki is a good source of info, but it doesnt explain Apple's strategy and branding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_(microarchitecture)

One thing I've found over the past five or six year or so is that the higher end machines are getting more expensive from every manufacturer, not just Apple. Workstations have risen in price and servers have risen in price.

With consumer machines, we see that companies make cheaper, smaller machines all the time, and that makes it seem as though prices are going down, but they are not. Those cheaper machines are lower spec'ed all around. But the $1,000 machines are still there. The $1,500 machines are still there, etc, all the way up. Alien still has consumer grade machines for $3,000, as do others.

I'm surprised the new Mac Pros have gone up as much as they have. I expected a small increase. but I doubt if Apple is being nasty. When other comparable Xeon machines arrive, they will also be expensive. This has been true for Harpertown machines, and those further back.

Look at workstan manufacturers to see this. I mentioned a well known one Boxx. You idn't respond to that. This is what Apple is competing with, and their prices are higher than Apple's are by mre than a small bit.

Even looking at the home built model shown here doesn't use the best parts. There are much more expensive cases, power supplies etc.


The difference in the 35xx parts are marginal, I know, except for ECC support. But that just shows the base cost of the machine itself. Again, these are workstations, built to a much higher standard. Why do they cost more? WE don't know. You can't assume that Apple simply decided to raise prices for no reasons of cost to them. If that were true, then their competitors, who are not the consumer manufacturers, come out with their machines, Apple will be at a competitive disadvantage. That hasn't happened in the workstation space before, and I see no reason why it would be true today.


Believe it or not we ALL come across as asses at times. It's just that some people don't want to admit it about themselves, so you get credit where they don't.

You have the right to agree with anything you think you should.

I'm looking at the entire family, not just the low end chip. but I grant that there isn't too much difference there.


ECC is very important to more than a few users, so don't denigrate that. Lower power makes for a cooler machine, a quieter machine, and less total power use. This is important where there are installations of a number of them.


We don't yet know if that 8 GB is a hard limit, or just marketing. As I pointed out earlier, Apple has done this many times in the past. PC manufacturers are quick to tout every new feature and capacity increase. Apple is much more conservative.


Well, performance certainly won't be worse. But many institutions that buy these machines are not looking for ultimate performance, or they would buy the more expensive machines, but rather reliability, which these machines do provide.

[quote]
I'd be happy with a consumer machine at a consumer price. Or with a pro machine at a pro price. Apple doesn't seem to hit either market.[quote]

While I agree with the first sentence, I don't agree with the last.


Not all workstations have people sitting in front of them. Many are used for rendering, or other purposes, headless. It's not likely the low end machine will be used for that, but the dual machines certainly will.


You don;t get points for that, because as I said, most of these machines are bought by companies or other institutions. Price is less of a problem for them, because the competition is at the same price level.

As far as the RAM goes, we're back to the "we don't yet know". So let's drop that until we do, ok? Even so, not every use needs that much RAM. That's a myth.

[quote]
When it comes to ECC ram and the other excuses for the pricing, this machine is aimed at the small group of Professionals who can't settle for a consumer machine and insist on only the best.

But when it comes to ram limitations, then the market for this machine suddenly becomes those guys who really don't need anything that special and can settle for something LESS than what some cheap consumer boxes are offering?

I don't see how that's not a contradiction.[/quote}

PLEASE, drop the RAM argument for now.


Good.


I'm dying to see yours as well.

Yes, it is.

Was that you, Mel on Macdaily?

If it was, it was interesting to hear you question the pricing both here and over on their comment section. For Phil to say these updates are cheaper is...well. A lie.

I guess you know where I stand on the updates. I swore blind I was going to buy either a 'high end' iMac or Mac Pro. Now? It's the first time I've been to Apple's website and been gutted. I'm struggling to find a way in. It's not so much the cost as the nature of the cost and the price jack and bang for buck. ie the 'principle' of the thing.

Yes. Lies, Damn lies and statistics? Replace the last word with Apple pretty right much now. Say what 'you' like. They're reaching with this 'minor' update.

iMacs? You pay more for the same thing. And a BTO for the 4850, a card which is low end...being a 'high end' option is laughable. And those things put out some heat. I guess the experts around here were wrong about them being to hot for the iMac's casing.

As for the Mac Pro?

Teh outrageous. As for Hmurch'. I think he called it. He's usually pretty fair and balanced.

8 core in the UK gets a price hike of 500-600 pounds. Will the 8 core 2.2 beat the 3 gig last gen Octo which could be had for the same money or less?

The Quad core option gets a hike from £1450 to £1850 ish? (3 mere gigs of ram instead of 4 or 6. It's not as if Ram is expensive these days? A four hundred hike.) And then you get to pay £150 for a mid-range card that doesn't run the 2500x1600 ish resolution as handsomely as one would like. Yeesh. It's disappointing.

And going from the 2.2 Octo to the 2.66 is a thousand pounds more?

Yeh. I can see myself doing that.

We know the facts of the Apple line-up ad nauseum. And that isn't going to change anytime soon care of the just released line up. But they could put a tower in there...in the old G3 tower price range. From £1150-£1550 would be ok. Use the i7 enthusiast platform. What infuriates me is that Apple are not using the affordable and available components to give people a cheaper (but far from 'cheapest') option. It's not like they couldn't do and still make a profit. The 2.66 i7 chip is dirt cheap. *shrugs.

We have to pay £1500ish to get a low end GPU option with Core Duo only iMac or £1850 to get a mid range GPU...as an optional extra AND that gets you access to a 2.66 quad core (which I'll be very surprised if it doesn't get out gunned or equalled by PC systems at less than half the price.) I question Apple's use of the term workstation and having no high end GPUs...as EVEN an option.

Should the Apple consumer have to pay £1850 for a quad core option when that cost £1450 a mere few days ago? This is Apple's finest hour. Re: Sarcasm. There most audacious stunt yet. I thought it was crack-smoking when they hiked the G5 systems...and they did id again...AND again with this update. £1850 to get a tower.

Er. 'No.'

YEah. I know what Apple does. But, being a non-billionaire, I have a different perspective to Steve and Apple about what they 'should do' sometimes. And I'm not alone in my thinking.

Very jaded right now.

Lemon Bon Bon. \

PS. Start saving? Win the lottery? Or be even more 'successful' than I am now? All options I'm considering.