ALL CPUs are more powerful than the ones available several years ago, no? They're not any more expensive though.
It can vary a bit from year to year. They went from a sort of mid range mobile cpu to the low end of the high end in that category. The mini has been picking up 15" mbp options. It used to take everything from the 13" mb and mbp components lists.
Quote:
I was thinking about that recently. WHY are they using mobile CPUs? Why not use a desktop CPU in a desktop computer? Why 2.5" drives instead of 3.5"? So it can be smaller? No wonder people accuse Apple of putting form before function.
The only part of the size that matters is the footprint. Once it has "tied up" a certain area, whether it's one inch tall or three inches is irrelevant. I wonder (I honestly don't know) if they could build a more powerful device for the same price or less if they let go of the fascination with tininess?
Apple likes to design around size at times. The performance between the two has tapered together quite a bit. It's not as fast, but it's not terrible. I agree with you that they put form before function. It's not really my thing. I don't mind putting a big box under the desk. It's a bit sloppy at the moment due to having moved things, but generally I try to keep cable management as clean as possible. Cable to displays go up behind the desk. The same goes with the wide format printer sitting next to me. I prefer to keep storage internal and use a JBOD box for backup. If I upgrade to the new one, the price to me would be the price to make everything work. This includes any additional cables, any changes to storage setup, etc. It can definitely add up. That doesn't mean I won't see one by next year. I don't think they'll update it a second time until 2015. Intel isn't really on a 12 month cycle with those cpus, whatever they claim. They also cannot drop to mainstream cpus with such a design. It would be a fair drop from a 12 core, and you wouldn't have the available bandwidth to optimally utilize that dual gpu solution. The mainstream chips only have 16 lanes total.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
In the $800 machine, not in the $600 unit.
Besides, wasn't the cost of the Quad i7 the same as the dual-core it replaced, or am I mistaken?
I was using mid range to mid range. The upper and lower models never had discrete graphics. The 2011 had a 6630m with too little ram and a 2520m. Wiki suggests that launch pricing was the same as is listed on there. It was replaced with a 3615qm. It's the same as they used in the 15" macbook pros. The 2.6 version of that cpu also costs the same amount even though Apple charges more. I suspect it's the same thing just clocked out. I'm not interested enough to verify it, but all of the spec details match up, as does the price. If it gets one of intel's better APU options this next round, it could be a pretty decent little machine for its price range. Obviously better graphics would make it even nicer, but it wouldn't be bad. Outside of Xeon EP models, intel has been focusing most of the performance growth on the gpu portion and more aggressive power management. I suspect Apple has a strategy for the mac pro. I expect we'll see somewhat of a renewed focus on OpenCL and OpenGL implementations. I probably sound kind of negative about it, but I fully expect them to have all of the support in place by next year. These things aren't going to fly off shelves on day 1. I think it'll be more a case of gradual testing, but if they can tap into things like studios placing large orders, it may help with the long term health of the line. It's interesting that they marketed directly to vfx and animation markets. They haven't done that so directly in a long time. Acquiring Shake was one of those times.
…if they can tap into things like studios placing large orders, it may help with the long term health of the line. It's interesting that they marketed directly to vfx and animation markets. They haven't done that so directly in a long time. Acquiring Shake was one of those times.
While NUKE is now (for all intents & purposes) the industry standard for pro compositing software, I really wish Apple would have come back with the rumored next-generation of Shake, Phenomenon… I t would have been interesting to see what Apple might have done there…
For example, using HD4000 integrated graphics in the mini in place of the dedicated GPU supposedly reduces the build cost, yet the machine didn't get any cheaper -- it just got slightly not-as-goodier.
They replaced the dual-i5 with a quad-i7 as alluded to above. Slightly slower GPU, much faster CPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon
But, as an example....they dropped the DVD internal on the iMac...(£65 they wanted for the external and I bought it like the sucker I am... :P ) and did they pass on the savings?
er. 'no.' They upped the entry price £100!
I wonder if this was in preparation for a Retina update. They might have assessed the costs it would take to put Retina displays in. Taking the optical out and bumping up the price would help pay for that so the lower margins don't make such a big dent when it happens - imagine that they make $200 extra per iMac x 3 quarters x 1.5m units (nearly $1b to invest in the move). They might not have to increase the price when the Retina displays are introduced.
Given the move to Thunderbolt 2 and the recent Mavericks desktop image resolution, that may be pointing to Retina iMacs and Thunderbolt displays around September. Pretty nice compliment to the new Mac Pro. $2-2.5k Mac Pro entry price plus up to triple Retina Thunderbolt displays at $1k each. The plus with the displays is that people pretty much have to buy a Mac to use them because Thunderbolt 2 won't be on PCs until later on and that's the only inputs it'll have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Put in iMac innards. You have the X-Mac
Another way to look at it would be that if people who want a mid-range priced headless machine wait a couple of years, some Mac Pro buyers will sell their ones second-hand, possibly with a year of Applecare warranty. That way you get decent performance in that $1-2k price point.
Hmm. That's a darn good theory, Marv'. Prepping for retina desktops to come later in the year. Absorbing the cost by a price hike.
If they bring retina displays to the market for £999 (using the scale of economies with them being in the iMac as well as renewed Pro sales...and after sales for their 3-4 million laptop sales as well...) then...damn. 4k later this year?
I'd have no choice but to sell my current iMac and get one. I wanted the retina. There's even the possibility that I'd go Mac Pro as well... :OOOO
The scenario you paint is very...tantalising...
You're such a tease, Marv'...
Seriously, retina desktops have got to come at some point and the if the Mac Pro comes this Sept/Oct/Nov'.
Could we see a land mark Pro with landmark retina displays for desktops as well?
I suspect Apple has a strategy for the mac pro. I expect we'll see somewhat of a renewed focus on OpenCL and OpenGL implementations.
You'd think so with the new Mac Pro offering dual(!) GPUs! And touting the Open CL performance.
So they've got the hardware.
They have 4.1 in Mavericks. And staring down the barrel at 4.2 and 4.3 GL.
Surely then...is whether vs Windows GL, Mac Open GL offerings performance parity. Many times the Mac GL vs Windows GL have been compared on similar hardware and the Mac gpu has been found wanting on performance because of optimisation of drivers issues?
Or is that only games...and no in Workstation performance?
Surely Mavericks is a much 'snappier' release. It suggest optimisation of X. And one area that needs it is Open GL performance?
Can they align new Mac Pros, dual GPUs, Open GL 4.1 (feature parity with Direct X 11) and optimise their Open GL performance to give performance parity as well?
You really are clueless with this repeated i7 nonsense. Did you note that the $800 mini uses a cpu that costs more than the one in the base mac pro option? Arguably the discrete gpu is an additional cost, but they're closer than you might think. An "i7" version would have one cpu option. It's the same one used in the top spec imac. I'm not sure whether it would improve volume discount, as I don't think that is exactly the most popular imac option. Below that you move into i5s. If you mean Sandy Bridge E i7s, they cost the same amount and kill any savings derived from the reuse of whatever parts. Where are you deriving your cost savings or your evidence that the price of these machines is tightly coupled with construction costs as opposed to broader pricing strategy? As for designs, aesthetics mean very little to me.
You're comparing a high range i7 mobile CPU to the base Xeon CPU. Talk about clueless. At least add in the chipset and memory when you make the comparison, otherwise it's just farting in the wind.
It should be pretty obvious that an xMac line with a range of i7 processor options would cost less for the CPU at each level (low, mid, high) than an xMac line with a range of Xeon processors. i7 CPUs would also use cheaper non-ECC RAM. I don't know but I would guess the chipset supporting an i7 is cheaper than that supporting a Xeon.
Figure something like a "Mac" line alongside the "Mac Pro" line. Both of them desktop tube computers, one prosumer built around i7 CPUs, the other the new Mac Pro.
As for design aesthetics, that's a personal thing, but I'd argue that they are important as long as they are driven by function as they (mostly) were with the current Mac Pro. A computer should look beautiful on a desk, but that beauty should fully manifest itself when using the computer.
Took you long enough; been months since you made those claims.
I disagree. What will make it too expensive, I think, is the fact that they're using dual FirePro W9000s. Those are $2,399 a pop. Well, at least the highest-end Mac Pro uses those.
Dual FirePro W9000s are in the high end model. We don't know what the base model will use. And FirePro W9000s are more than $2,300 a pop, try about $3,400 - $3,700. No matter what sort of deal AMD gives Apple, that high end Mac Pro is going to cost, but it will be worth it if reports on the WWDC demo are to be believed.
And yes, the Nvidia GT 120 found in many Mac Pros cannot handle basic OS X animations smoothly. That's a fact.
I'm wondering if or how one can use the new Mac Pro with legacy Mini DVI monitors given that it has only Thunderbolt, USb3, Ethernet and HDMI ports?
I didn't think monitors used mini-DVI. If you mean DVI, you get HDMI and Thunderbolt to DVI adaptors. If the displays are 7 years old though, it could be getting near time to replace them. If they still serve their purpose, there's no rush but you tend to not notice the improvement until you have a new one sitting right next to the old one.
While NUKE is now (for all intents & purposes) the industry standard for pro compositing software, I really wish Apple would have come back with the rumored next-generation of Shake, Phenomenon… I t would have been interesting to see what Apple might have done there…
Companies are groups of people. If the talent leaves, the company can't just keep doing the same thing. Some (maybe most) of the Shake development team left to go to The Foundry or whatever other company develops Nuke for them to sell it.
Apple used some of the Shake IP in Motion so that's your Phenomenon. I think they'll merge the two eventually given that they have the same render engine now and they'll end up with an equivalent of Smoke:
No intermediates between effects and editing. It's not essential that Apple makes the best software tools because they end up putting other developers out of business, what's important for them is that they offer capable creative products for their hardware customers.
Could we see a land mark Pro with landmark retina displays for desktops as well?
I've always been skeptical that it could happen this soon but I never thought I'd see a 10" iPad with a 2880x1800 resolution, ever. All the pieces are falling into place though. Integrated graphics can support 4K, Thunderbolt 2 can drive it and they've already introduced it in the MBP line. All they need is the manufacturing capability for larger displays.
The W9000 specs don't match up to what Apple listed.
Not exactly, but Apple is being a bit vague and the W9000 have the right amount of SPs. The W9000 supports 6 mini DP outputs versus the S10000 supporting only 4 mini DP and one DVI. No Crossfire on the S10000 and one would hope Apple has these things crossfired.
It's likely that Apple has a custom FirePro card solution that doesn't match any of the official AMD offerings. Probably only custom display output but anything is possible.
Also, Apple doesn't like to use the highest of high end components, they cut into profit margins too much. The S10000 also consumes an extra 100W, so that would be a full 200W extra cooling capacity required in the iTube. Certainly doable, but would Apple choose to do such a thing? It will be interesting to find out.
I didn't think monitors used mini-DVI. If you mean DVI, you get HDMI and Thunderbolt to DVI adaptors. If the displays are 7 years old though, it could be getting near time to replace them. If they still serve their purpose, there's no rush but you tend to not notice the improvement until you have a new one sitting right next to the old one.
Companies are groups of people. If the talent leaves, the company can't just keep doing the same thing. Some (maybe most) of the Shake development team left to go to The Foundry or whatever other company develops Nuke for them to sell it.
This is always a problem when a company ends up getting purchased. The help often takes offense and runs off to do other things.
Apple used some of the Shake IP in Motion so that's your Phenomenon. I think they'll merge the two eventually given that they have the same render engine now and they'll end up with an equivalent of Smoke:
Apple might actually prefer that companies like Autodesk take on software development and handle pro apps.
No intermediates between effects and editing. It's not essential that Apple makes the best software tools because they end up putting other developers out of business, what's important for them is that they offer capable creative products for their hardware customers.
The last thing Apple wants to do is put developer out of business. This is why sometimes Apple buying behavior doesn't make sense.
I've always been skeptical that it could happen this soon but I never thought I'd see a 10" iPad with a 2880x1800 resolution, ever. All the pieces are falling into place though. Integrated graphics can support 4K, Thunderbolt 2 can drive it and they've already introduced it in the MBP line. All they need is the manufacturing capability for larger displays.
It is interesting that people see the IPad and don't accept that it demonstrates mass production of retina displays. The displays are expensive though as the screen in the iPad represents a significant part of the devices overall cost. The cheap electronics is really what makes the iPad affordable.
That's right. That's why it wasn't so much that they took out the GPU, stuck in Intel graphics and made it worse value.
The 2011 $799 Mini was dual-core i5 + Radeon 6630m
The 2012 $799 Mini was quad-core i7 with Intel graphics
I'm not certain it is a worst value as for some those cores are very important. This does highlight my biggest problem with the Mini, the power budget doesn't allow for a decent discrete GPU variant. That Radeons 6630M wasnet worth the extra cost as it had far too little RAM and marginal performance. Part of the reason to desire a XMac is to address the GPU issue.
This is in part why I look at the new Mac Pro nd think to myself; damn that is real close to what an XMac should be.
The price stayed the same, they just decided that instead of using another i5 + dedicated GPU, they'd use a quad-i7 CPU.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that the overall hardware cost is about the same. Going quad core was probably the right thing to do if I had to decide between a half assed GPU and more Intel cores.
The W9000 specs don't match up to what Apple listed.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Apple and AMD worked together on a specialized chip variant. For one they might have addressed the additional speed possible in TB 2 to support retina displays. AMD actually hints at chip capabilities beyond what Display Port can do. They could potentially do other mods to make the chip better suited for Apples needs. It is pretty obvious that AMD and Apple have been working on this for a very long time so some sort of specialization is possible.
They haven't used those for a while (4 years) but yeah, they benchmark slower than Intel's older integrated graphics.
The flips side is that integrated GPUs are far better today than in the past. I'm really hoping that Mavericks brings with it new drivers and OpenCL support in the GPU
Not exactly, but Apple is being a bit vague and the W9000 have the right amount of SPs. The W9000 supports 6 mini DP outputs versus the S10000 supporting only 4 mini DP and one DVI. No Crossfire on the S10000 and one would hope Apple has these things crossfired.
It is as you say difficult to figure out what Apple is using. As for CrossFire I'm not convinced it is required.
It's likely that Apple has a custom FirePro card solution that doesn't match any of the official AMD offerings. Probably only custom display output but anything is possible.
I'd have to say it is highly probable. Further you are right in that the outputs to the display are the customization point. The goal would be plenty of speed for retina displays. It is possible that there has been further customization. All of this also means pricing is an open discussion. If Apple paid for the customized chip they likely have their own part number on it and a significant discount.
Also, Apple doesn't like to use the highest of high end components, they cut into profit margins too much. The S10000 also consumes an extra 100W, so that would be a full 200W extra cooling capacity required in the iTube. Certainly doable, but would Apple choose to do such a thing? It will be interesting to find out.
Yeah hard to tell and it will be very interesting to see what exactly is going on here.
While NUKE is now (for all intents & purposes) the industry standard for pro compositing software, I really wish Apple would have come back with the rumored next-generation of Shake, Phenomenon… I t would have been interesting to see what Apple might have done there…
It seems like it ate my response to this part earlier. I'll add it now as the quote is there anyway. I would be surprised if Apple genuinely competed there without sinking the cost of software. They've seemingly done that in the past to sell hardware, and a lot of turnkey Linux solutions have shown up on Macs later. Marvin mentioned Smoke. I was thinking of Smoke and Resolve. There is a huge amount of potential integrating some amount of 3d in terms of reprojections and some of the advantages of node based systems into a basic image editor. I'm not sure why no one has come up with something that combines a compositor and 2D image editing package, especially when 2D software is still in daily use and some of the more mature tools and R&D from other areas would fit nicely there. There's also a lot of very dated math and workflows. I can think of so much cool stuff you could do going into image editing software without any baggage and from a somewhat generic standpoint of content creation. Especially if you're concepting, whatever it is, it's nice to have something consistent and unrestricted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
You're comparing a high range i7 mobile CPU to the base Xeon CPU. Talk about clueless. At least add in the chipset and memory when you make the comparison, otherwise it's just farting in the wind.
It should be pretty obvious that an xMac line with a range of i7 processor options would cost less for the CPU at each level (low, mid, high) than an xMac line with a range of Xeon processors. i7 CPUs would also use cheaper non-ECC RAM. I don't know but I would guess the chipset supporting an i7 is cheaper than that supporting a Xeon.
Figure something like a "Mac" line alongside the "Mac Pro" line. Both of them desktop tube computers, one prosumer built around i7 CPUs, the other the new Mac Pro.
As for design aesthetics, that's a personal thing, but I'd argue that they are important as long as they are driven by function as they (mostly) were with the current Mac Pro. A computer should look beautiful on a desk, but that beauty should fully manifest itself when using the computer.
I'm giving you price points. There aren't that many specifically designated i7. As for memory.
Dimms have gone up quite a bit recently in that spec. It might be due to age and less being produced.
I just looked for the same brand, size, and retailer here, although it doesn't match what Apple uses. They used 3x 1GB until last year. It's now 3 x 2GB. I suspect it's due to tri-channel memory. If they follow the same pattern it will probably be 4 x 2GB. The motherboards are a little trickier to price. I suspect they're using C600 chipsets, but most of the ones you find retail have a lot more features. They moved to that daughterboard configuration from the 2008 option of one socket vacant, which I think was to cut costs in that respect. Since I mentioned that i7s only represent a few SKUs, and you said i7s (not including i5s) it's logical to look at something like an i7-3770 which the imac uses. It's about the same price. If you're referring to Sandy Bridge E i7s, those aren't cheap either. Those use X79 chipsets. Apple doesn't use reference board configurations, but this was the first that came up. They have held some engineering talent in the past, as Asus did spin off Pegatron. An i7 3820 and 3930 would give you cpu prices of $300 and $600 in that configuration. You would not be able to reuse portions of the logic board design. I don't see them splitting it up further if the volume isn't huge. Beyond that I don't think lower costs translate to lower prices. They translate into it being easier to offer lower pricing, but that doesn't have to be their goal.
Not exactly, but Apple is being a bit vague and the W9000 have the right amount of SPs. The W9000 supports 6 mini DP outputs versus the S10000 supporting only 4 mini DP and one DVI. No Crossfire on the S10000 and one would hope Apple has these things crossfired.
I checked the specs again and the W9000 matches up. Each W9000 has 2048 stream processors, 6GB memory, 264GB/s memory bandwidth so in Crossfire, that will become up to 4096 stream processors, 528GB/s bandwidth, which is exactly what Apple described. That helps figure out the maximum price.
Current dual-processor Mac Pro base is at $3799 has 2x $551 CPUs
upgrade is 2x $996 CPUs for $1200
next upgrade is 2x $1440 CPUs for $2400 for maximum spec
This means Apple charges $2400 for $1778 CPUs and $1200 for $890 CPUs. This puts their CPU markup at 35%.
For GPUs, Apple charges $250 for a Radeon 5770 and $450 for a 5870 ($200 and they take out a 5770). A Radeon 7770 is no more than $150 and a 7870 is $250 so that puts their GPU markup pretty high at 70-80%. But, that's with cheap GPUs.
FirePro GPU prices on newegg / Amazon / Bestbuy are:
The W5000 is $430, $431, $457
The W7000 is $710, $708, $762
The W8000 is $1430 (newegg), $1289, $1364
The W9000 is $3400, $3222, $3406
Dell sells W5000 for $343, V7900 for $554 - both below retail. Retail prices are almost 25% higher, which suggests Dell might be selling GPUs at wholesale prices and making the profit from everything else.
HP sells W7000 for $925.
Apple said they're using a Xeon E5 and these will go up to 12-core:
"The E5-2600/4600 V2 and E7-8800V2 CPUs have been detailed. The E5-2600 V2 family of CPUs will feature up to 12 cores with Hyperthreading, resulting in 24 threads. They will also carry 30 MB of L3 cache and have quad-channel DDR3-1866 memory support, per socket."
It can't be the E5-4xxx series as they're not out until 2014 so it's E5-2600v2. E5-2600 tops out at $2057 but there's an E5-2687W for $1885 that's faster so I reckon the single CPU will be the 12-core equivalent of that.
What would be nice of Apple (and what I suspect they might do) is if they decided to markup the GPUs at half the rate given that they are selling two in every machine because this effectively doubles the selling price anyway.
So, let's say:
12-core E5-2687W v2 - $1885 +35% = $2545
8GB base RAM - they charge $300
dual FirePro W9000 - say $2500 wholesale each x2 + 35% = $6750
256GB base SSD - they charge $300 for this too
PSU, motherboard, case - say $300 for parts +35% = $405
Top model with base RAM and SSD = $10,300. They'll probably have an extra $2k upgrades for RAM and SSD each.
base model = $2331. It definitely looks like they'll hit the same entry point as before but that entry point could be 6-core or maybe 512GB SSD. The other thing to remember is that dual-GPUs at these prices would be better value than before. You can see on the following chart where the cards are:
The W5000 scores 2982, which is just over half a 680 and you may get two of them in the entry model. Crossfire doesn't double performance in everything but it does for computation and will for some games. If you look at one of the most intensive games, Metro 2033, one W5000 gets 15FPS on Ultra at 1440p. As you can see here:
performance doubles in Crossfire. So that should mean that even the entry Mac Pro at $2500 can play every single game that is out now at 1440p above 30fps and dropping down to 1080p should get over 50FPS.
In terms of OpenCL, the performance of the W5000 vs i7-4770k is here:
but you get two of them. Using a single 7970 would let them get higher performance and they'd be able to hit $1999 but I don't think they're going to do that.
It looks like each GPU will have its own memory but what happens in games at least with Crossfire is that the data is mirrored on each GPU as it renders the same data but different frames or different parts of the frames. So the base model will probably have 2 x 2GB video memory but in games only use 2GB. The highest option will have 2x 6GB but only use 6GB. I don't know if that's the same with OpenCL though - I would expect you'd be able to use them separately.
Concerning the CPU, some might be disappointed that they can't get 24-cores for rendering but maybe they'll come out with IP over Thunderbolt like they had for firewire, GigE works ok too and with a single config page, you'd probably be able to stick with dual W5000s and go up to a 12-core to reach a price of $4479 so you'd buy two for $8958 to make a 24-core render setup. It's $2k more that it would have been if they offered dual-CPU but even if you buy 6, it uses less space than the old one and they probably wouldn't have offered a 24-core model anyway.
It gives a very good indication and breakdown of where Apple maybe going from Base to Highend.
You know. Your posts would make a very nice foundation for articles. You make the info' really accessible and well reasoned. Very approachable editorial style. Shame you don't have your own Apple website making a mint off ads.
Seriously, it's nice to see an in-depth analysis of where the Pro will be come September/Fall. Sure, I'd like Apple to be more aggressive with an entry model with margins closer to 20% (...it was quite an eye opener on some of your figures to see a break down of the kind of mark ups Apple have on each component! On the cpu/gpus it's almost eye watering.) At the least we can assume the Pro prices will fall about the same. Not a disaster when you consider the computation power at hand.
Though I'd like a 512 gig SSD, dual GPU, 8 gigs of ram Mac Pro hex core dropping for £1495-ish. Even top end iMac territory would be nice... eg £1695 is it? *tries to remember. They could really kick ass with the above config' and get workstations hitting the prosumer mainstream. Even Wizard might buy one? :P
Keep it coming. Great basis for speculation and discussion until they're actually released.
I put your price into a currency convertor. If Apple could hit the UK price above...with the added value of a 2nd gpu and a hex core...with SSD (which would add up to the value of the 27 inch monitor included with the iMac? You'd surely have a hit on your hands?!
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
4-core E5-2609 v2 - $294 +35% = $397
8GB RAM - $300
dual W5000 - say $344 wholesales x2 + 35% = $929
256GB SSD - $300
extras $405
base model = $2331. It definitely looks like they'll hit the same entry point as before but that entry point could be 6-core or maybe 512GB SSD. The other thing to remember is that dual-GPUs at these prices would be better value than before.
Look at the Air and iPad as examples where the value has become seriously impressive over time.
An SSD in the Air gets you 800mbs read and write? Insane numbers. You dont' even get that standard in one of Apple's desktops...which is perverse....
...and who would have thought Apple would put a retina screen in a 10 inch device for £399? (Many thought the iPad would drop at £1000. Luckily, Apple realised the greater good and the bigger picture and took a hit on margins to win the next gen computing war instead of pricing it the way they had with the Mac. And the results are there for all to see.)
Revolutionary Pro. I hope we have revolution in the price as well. (Yes, I know they won't sell one for £495 inc VAT...
But £1495 would be nice. Wasn't that the historical entry price for the entry G4 tower?
Wasn't the entry price of the G3 blue and white around £1200?
So long ago...I forget...
Even the entry G5 tower was below 2k by a hundred or so? (Was it £1895?)
Wow. The GTX 780 Nvidia card is eye poppingly fast! Twice the 680 MX almost! Suppose we'll need that kind of performance to shift 3D on a 4k monitor? :?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
ALL CPUs are more powerful than the ones available several years ago, no? They're not any more expensive though.
It can vary a bit from year to year. They went from a sort of mid range mobile cpu to the low end of the high end in that category. The mini has been picking up 15" mbp options. It used to take everything from the 13" mb and mbp components lists.
Quote:
I was thinking about that recently. WHY are they using mobile CPUs? Why not use a desktop CPU in a desktop computer? Why 2.5" drives instead of 3.5"? So it can be smaller? No wonder people accuse Apple of putting form before function.
The only part of the size that matters is the footprint. Once it has "tied up" a certain area, whether it's one inch tall or three inches is irrelevant. I wonder (I honestly don't know) if they could build a more powerful device for the same price or less if they let go of the fascination with tininess?
Apple likes to design around size at times. The performance between the two has tapered together quite a bit. It's not as fast, but it's not terrible. I agree with you that they put form before function. It's not really my thing. I don't mind putting a big box under the desk. It's a bit sloppy at the moment due to having moved things, but generally I try to keep cable management as clean as possible. Cable to displays go up behind the desk. The same goes with the wide format printer sitting next to me. I prefer to keep storage internal and use a JBOD box for backup. If I upgrade to the new one, the price to me would be the price to make everything work. This includes any additional cables, any changes to storage setup, etc. It can definitely add up. That doesn't mean I won't see one by next year. I don't think they'll update it a second time until 2015. Intel isn't really on a 12 month cycle with those cpus, whatever they claim. They also cannot drop to mainstream cpus with such a design. It would be a fair drop from a 12 core, and you wouldn't have the available bandwidth to optimally utilize that dual gpu solution. The mainstream chips only have 16 lanes total.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
In the $800 machine, not in the $600 unit.
Besides, wasn't the cost of the Quad i7 the same as the dual-core it replaced, or am I mistaken?
I was using mid range to mid range. The upper and lower models never had discrete graphics. The 2011 had a 6630m with too little ram and a 2520m. Wiki suggests that launch pricing was the same as is listed on there. It was replaced with a 3615qm. It's the same as they used in the 15" macbook pros. The 2.6 version of that cpu also costs the same amount even though Apple charges more. I suspect it's the same thing just clocked out. I'm not interested enough to verify it, but all of the spec details match up, as does the price. If it gets one of intel's better APU options this next round, it could be a pretty decent little machine for its price range. Obviously better graphics would make it even nicer, but it wouldn't be bad. Outside of Xeon EP models, intel has been focusing most of the performance growth on the gpu portion and more aggressive power management. I suspect Apple has a strategy for the mac pro. I expect we'll see somewhat of a renewed focus on OpenCL and OpenGL implementations. I probably sound kind of negative about it, but I fully expect them to have all of the support in place by next year. These things aren't going to fly off shelves on day 1. I think it'll be more a case of gradual testing, but if they can tap into things like studios placing large orders, it may help with the long term health of the line. It's interesting that they marketed directly to vfx and animation markets. They haven't done that so directly in a long time. Acquiring Shake was one of those times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
…if they can tap into things like studios placing large orders, it may help with the long term health of the line. It's interesting that they marketed directly to vfx and animation markets. They haven't done that so directly in a long time. Acquiring Shake was one of those times.
While NUKE is now (for all intents & purposes) the industry standard for pro compositing software, I really wish Apple would have come back with the rumored next-generation of Shake, Phenomenon… I t would have been interesting to see what Apple might have done there…
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
For example, using HD4000 integrated graphics in the mini in place of the dedicated GPU supposedly reduces the build cost, yet the machine didn't get any cheaper -- it just got slightly not-as-goodier.
They replaced the dual-i5 with a quad-i7 as alluded to above. Slightly slower GPU, much faster CPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon
But, as an example....they dropped the DVD internal on the iMac...(£65 they wanted for the external and I bought it like the sucker I am... :P ) and did they pass on the savings?
er. 'no.' They upped the entry price £100!
I wonder if this was in preparation for a Retina update. They might have assessed the costs it would take to put Retina displays in. Taking the optical out and bumping up the price would help pay for that so the lower margins don't make such a big dent when it happens - imagine that they make $200 extra per iMac x 3 quarters x 1.5m units (nearly $1b to invest in the move). They might not have to increase the price when the Retina displays are introduced.
Given the move to Thunderbolt 2 and the recent Mavericks desktop image resolution, that may be pointing to Retina iMacs and Thunderbolt displays around September. Pretty nice compliment to the new Mac Pro. $2-2.5k Mac Pro entry price plus up to triple Retina Thunderbolt displays at $1k each. The plus with the displays is that people pretty much have to buy a Mac to use them because Thunderbolt 2 won't be on PCs until later on and that's the only inputs it'll have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Put in iMac innards. You have the X-Mac
Another way to look at it would be that if people who want a mid-range priced headless machine wait a couple of years, some Mac Pro buyers will sell their ones second-hand, possibly with a year of Applecare warranty. That way you get decent performance in that $1-2k price point.
Hmm. That's a darn good theory, Marv'. Prepping for retina desktops to come later in the year. Absorbing the cost by a price hike.
If they bring retina displays to the market for £999 (using the scale of economies with them being in the iMac as well as renewed Pro sales...and after sales for their 3-4 million laptop sales as well...) then...damn. 4k later this year?
I'd have no choice but to sell my current iMac and get one. I wanted the retina. There's even the possibility that I'd go Mac Pro as well... :OOOO
The scenario you paint is very...tantalising...
You're such a tease, Marv'...
Seriously, retina desktops have got to come at some point and the if the Mac Pro comes this Sept/Oct/Nov'.
Could we see a land mark Pro with landmark retina displays for desktops as well?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
I suspect Apple has a strategy for the mac pro. I expect we'll see somewhat of a renewed focus on OpenCL and OpenGL implementations.
You'd think so with the new Mac Pro offering dual(!) GPUs! And touting the Open CL performance.
So they've got the hardware.
They have 4.1 in Mavericks. And staring down the barrel at 4.2 and 4.3 GL.
Surely then...is whether vs Windows GL, Mac Open GL offerings performance parity. Many times the Mac GL vs Windows GL have been compared on similar hardware and the Mac gpu has been found wanting on performance because of optimisation of drivers issues?
Or is that only games...and no in Workstation performance?
Surely Mavericks is a much 'snappier' release. It suggest optimisation of X. And one area that needs it is Open GL performance?
Can they align new Mac Pros, dual GPUs, Open GL 4.1 (feature parity with Direct X 11) and optimise their Open GL performance to give performance parity as well?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The cost of the dual-core i5 in the model with the dedicated GPU was $225:
http://ark.intel.com/products/52229/
The cost of the i7 that replaced it was $378:
http://ark.intel.com/products/64900
How much was the GPU though? Adding that to the $225 for the CPU would make the net somewhat closer to the $378 for the i7 with on-board graphics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
You really are clueless with this repeated i7 nonsense. Did you note that the $800 mini uses a cpu that costs more than the one in the base mac pro option? Arguably the discrete gpu is an additional cost, but they're closer than you might think. An "i7" version would have one cpu option. It's the same one used in the top spec imac. I'm not sure whether it would improve volume discount, as I don't think that is exactly the most popular imac option. Below that you move into i5s. If you mean Sandy Bridge E i7s, they cost the same amount and kill any savings derived from the reuse of whatever parts. Where are you deriving your cost savings or your evidence that the price of these machines is tightly coupled with construction costs as opposed to broader pricing strategy? As for designs, aesthetics mean very little to me.
You're comparing a high range i7 mobile CPU to the base Xeon CPU. Talk about clueless. At least add in the chipset and memory when you make the comparison, otherwise it's just farting in the wind.
It should be pretty obvious that an xMac line with a range of i7 processor options would cost less for the CPU at each level (low, mid, high) than an xMac line with a range of Xeon processors. i7 CPUs would also use cheaper non-ECC RAM. I don't know but I would guess the chipset supporting an i7 is cheaper than that supporting a Xeon.
Figure something like a "Mac" line alongside the "Mac Pro" line. Both of them desktop tube computers, one prosumer built around i7 CPUs, the other the new Mac Pro.
As for design aesthetics, that's a personal thing, but I'd argue that they are important as long as they are driven by function as they (mostly) were with the current Mac Pro. A computer should look beautiful on a desk, but that beauty should fully manifest itself when using the computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Even back when it was a cube, am I right?
Utter frippery.
Took you long enough; been months since you made those claims.
I disagree. What will make it too expensive, I think, is the fact that they're using dual FirePro W9000s. Those are $2,399 a pop. Well, at least the highest-end Mac Pro uses those.
Dual FirePro W9000s are in the high end model. We don't know what the base model will use. And FirePro W9000s are more than $2,300 a pop, try about $3,400 - $3,700. No matter what sort of deal AMD gives Apple, that high end Mac Pro is going to cost, but it will be worth it if reports on the WWDC demo are to be believed.
And yes, the Nvidia GT 120 found in many Mac Pros cannot handle basic OS X animations smoothly. That's a fact.
I didn't think monitors used mini-DVI. If you mean DVI, you get HDMI and Thunderbolt to DVI adaptors. If the displays are 7 years old though, it could be getting near time to replace them. If they still serve their purpose, there's no rush but you tend to not notice the improvement until you have a new one sitting right next to the old one.
Companies are groups of people. If the talent leaves, the company can't just keep doing the same thing. Some (maybe most) of the Shake development team left to go to The Foundry or whatever other company develops Nuke for them to sell it.
Apple used some of the Shake IP in Motion so that's your Phenomenon. I think they'll merge the two eventually given that they have the same render engine now and they'll end up with an equivalent of Smoke:
http://www.autodesk.com/products/smoke/overview
No intermediates between effects and editing. It's not essential that Apple makes the best software tools because they end up putting other developers out of business, what's important for them is that they offer capable creative products for their hardware customers.
I've always been skeptical that it could happen this soon but I never thought I'd see a 10" iPad with a 2880x1800 resolution, ever. All the pieces are falling into place though. Integrated graphics can support 4K, Thunderbolt 2 can drive it and they've already introduced it in the MBP line. All they need is the manufacturing capability for larger displays.
That's right. That's why it wasn't so much that they took out the GPU, stuck in Intel graphics and made it worse value.
The 2011 $799 Mini was dual-core i5 + Radeon 6630m
The 2012 $799 Mini was quad-core i7 with Intel graphics
The price stayed the same, they just decided that instead of using another i5 + dedicated GPU, they'd use a quad-i7 CPU.
It might actually be the S10000:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814105005
The W9000 specs don't match up to what Apple listed.
They haven't used those for a while (4 years) but yeah, they benchmark slower than Intel's older integrated graphics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
That's right. That's why it wasn't so much that they took out the GPU, stuck in Intel graphics and made it worse value.
The 2011 $799 Mini was dual-core i5 + Radeon 6630m
The 2012 $799 Mini was quad-core i7 with Intel graphics
The price stayed the same, they just decided that instead of using another i5 + dedicated GPU, they'd use a quad-i7 CPU.
Gotcha. I see what you're saying. The change resulted in a different priority point but similar value proposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The W9000 specs don't match up to what Apple listed.
Not exactly, but Apple is being a bit vague and the W9000 have the right amount of SPs. The W9000 supports 6 mini DP outputs versus the S10000 supporting only 4 mini DP and one DVI. No Crossfire on the S10000 and one would hope Apple has these things crossfired.
It's likely that Apple has a custom FirePro card solution that doesn't match any of the official AMD offerings. Probably only custom display output but anything is possible.
Also, Apple doesn't like to use the highest of high end components, they cut into profit margins too much. The S10000 also consumes an extra 100W, so that would be a full 200W extra cooling capacity required in the iTube. Certainly doable, but would Apple choose to do such a thing? It will be interesting to find out.
This is in part why I look at the new Mac Pro nd think to myself; damn that is real close to what an XMac should be. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the overall hardware cost is about the same. Going quad core was probably the right thing to do if I had to decide between a half assed GPU and more Intel cores. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Apple and AMD worked together on a specialized chip variant. For one they might have addressed the additional speed possible in TB 2 to support retina displays. AMD actually hints at chip capabilities beyond what Display Port can do. They could potentially do other mods to make the chip better suited for Apples needs. It is pretty obvious that AMD and Apple have been working on this for a very long time so some sort of specialization is possible. The flips side is that integrated GPUs are far better today than in the past. I'm really hoping that Mavericks brings with it new drivers and OpenCL support in the GPU
Yeah hard to tell and it will be very interesting to see what exactly is going on here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin
While NUKE is now (for all intents & purposes) the industry standard for pro compositing software, I really wish Apple would have come back with the rumored next-generation of Shake, Phenomenon… I t would have been interesting to see what Apple might have done there…
It seems like it ate my response to this part earlier. I'll add it now as the quote is there anyway. I would be surprised if Apple genuinely competed there without sinking the cost of software. They've seemingly done that in the past to sell hardware, and a lot of turnkey Linux solutions have shown up on Macs later. Marvin mentioned Smoke. I was thinking of Smoke and Resolve. There is a huge amount of potential integrating some amount of 3d in terms of reprojections and some of the advantages of node based systems into a basic image editor. I'm not sure why no one has come up with something that combines a compositor and 2D image editing package, especially when 2D software is still in daily use and some of the more mature tools and R&D from other areas would fit nicely there. There's also a lot of very dated math and workflows. I can think of so much cool stuff you could do going into image editing software without any baggage and from a somewhat generic standpoint of content creation. Especially if you're concepting, whatever it is, it's nice to have something consistent and unrestricted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
You're comparing a high range i7 mobile CPU to the base Xeon CPU. Talk about clueless. At least add in the chipset and memory when you make the comparison, otherwise it's just farting in the wind.
It should be pretty obvious that an xMac line with a range of i7 processor options would cost less for the CPU at each level (low, mid, high) than an xMac line with a range of Xeon processors. i7 CPUs would also use cheaper non-ECC RAM. I don't know but I would guess the chipset supporting an i7 is cheaper than that supporting a Xeon.
Figure something like a "Mac" line alongside the "Mac Pro" line. Both of them desktop tube computers, one prosumer built around i7 CPUs, the other the new Mac Pro.
As for design aesthetics, that's a personal thing, but I'd argue that they are important as long as they are driven by function as they (mostly) were with the current Mac Pro. A computer should look beautiful on a desk, but that beauty should fully manifest itself when using the computer.
I'm giving you price points. There aren't that many specifically designated i7. As for memory.
Dimms have gone up quite a bit recently in that spec. It might be due to age and less being produced.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820139150
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820139144
I just looked for the same brand, size, and retailer here, although it doesn't match what Apple uses. They used 3x 1GB until last year. It's now 3 x 2GB. I suspect it's due to tri-channel memory. If they follow the same pattern it will probably be 4 x 2GB. The motherboards are a little trickier to price. I suspect they're using C600 chipsets, but most of the ones you find retail have a lot more features. They moved to that daughterboard configuration from the 2008 option of one socket vacant, which I think was to cut costs in that respect. Since I mentioned that i7s only represent a few SKUs, and you said i7s (not including i5s) it's logical to look at something like an i7-3770 which the imac uses. It's about the same price. If you're referring to Sandy Bridge E i7s, those aren't cheap either. Those use X79 chipsets. Apple doesn't use reference board configurations, but this was the first that came up. They have held some engineering talent in the past, as Asus did spin off Pegatron. An i7 3820 and 3930 would give you cpu prices of $300 and $600 in that configuration. You would not be able to reuse portions of the logic board design. I don't see them splitting it up further if the volume isn't huge. Beyond that I don't think lower costs translate to lower prices. They translate into it being easier to offer lower pricing, but that doesn't have to be their goal.
I checked the specs again and the W9000 matches up. Each W9000 has 2048 stream processors, 6GB memory, 264GB/s memory bandwidth so in Crossfire, that will become up to 4096 stream processors, 528GB/s bandwidth, which is exactly what Apple described. That helps figure out the maximum price.
Current dual-processor Mac Pro base is at $3799 has 2x $551 CPUs
upgrade is 2x $996 CPUs for $1200
next upgrade is 2x $1440 CPUs for $2400 for maximum spec
This means Apple charges $2400 for $1778 CPUs and $1200 for $890 CPUs. This puts their CPU markup at 35%.
For GPUs, Apple charges $250 for a Radeon 5770 and $450 for a 5870 ($200 and they take out a 5770). A Radeon 7770 is no more than $150 and a 7870 is $250 so that puts their GPU markup pretty high at 70-80%. But, that's with cheap GPUs.
FirePro GPU prices on newegg / Amazon / Bestbuy are:
The W5000 is $430, $431, $457
The W7000 is $710, $708, $762
The W8000 is $1430 (newegg), $1289, $1364
The W9000 is $3400, $3222, $3406
Dell sells W5000 for $343, V7900 for $554 - both below retail. Retail prices are almost 25% higher, which suggests Dell might be selling GPUs at wholesale prices and making the profit from everything else.
HP sells W7000 for $925.
Apple said they're using a Xeon E5 and these will go up to 12-core:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-Xeon-Ivy-Bridge-EP-Server,21972.html
"The E5-2600/4600 V2 and E7-8800V2 CPUs have been detailed. The E5-2600 V2 family of CPUs will feature up to 12 cores with Hyperthreading, resulting in 24 threads. They will also carry 30 MB of L3 cache and have quad-channel DDR3-1866 memory support, per socket."
It can't be the E5-4xxx series as they're not out until 2014 so it's E5-2600v2. E5-2600 tops out at $2057 but there's an E5-2687W for $1885 that's faster so I reckon the single CPU will be the 12-core equivalent of that.
What would be nice of Apple (and what I suspect they might do) is if they decided to markup the GPUs at half the rate given that they are selling two in every machine because this effectively doubles the selling price anyway.
So, let's say:
12-core E5-2687W v2 - $1885 +35% = $2545
8GB base RAM - they charge $300
dual FirePro W9000 - say $2500 wholesale each x2 + 35% = $6750
256GB base SSD - they charge $300 for this too
PSU, motherboard, case - say $300 for parts +35% = $405
Top model with base RAM and SSD = $10,300. They'll probably have an extra $2k upgrades for RAM and SSD each.
The very lowest model could be:
4-core E5-2609 v2 - $294 +35% = $397
8GB RAM - $300
dual W5000 - say $344 wholesales x2 + 35% = $929
256GB SSD - $300
extras $405
base model = $2331. It definitely looks like they'll hit the same entry point as before but that entry point could be 6-core or maybe 512GB SSD. The other thing to remember is that dual-GPUs at these prices would be better value than before. You can see on the following chart where the cards are:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
The W5000 scores 2982, which is just over half a 680 and you may get two of them in the entry model. Crossfire doesn't double performance in everything but it does for computation and will for some games. If you look at one of the most intensive games, Metro 2033, one W5000 gets 15FPS on Ultra at 1440p. As you can see here:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_radeon_hd_7970_crossfire_review,15.html
performance doubles in Crossfire. So that should mean that even the entry Mac Pro at $2500 can play every single game that is out now at 1440p above 30fps and dropping down to 1080p should get over 50FPS.
In terms of OpenCL, the performance of the W5000 vs i7-4770k is here:
http://clbenchmark.com/device-info.jsp?config=12811704
http://clbenchmark.com/device-info.jsp?config=15525698
For raytracing, it's not far off the 680MX:
http://clbenchmark.com/device-info.jsp?config=14659325
but you get two of them. Using a single 7970 would let them get higher performance and they'd be able to hit $1999 but I don't think they're going to do that.
It looks like each GPU will have its own memory but what happens in games at least with Crossfire is that the data is mirrored on each GPU as it renders the same data but different frames or different parts of the frames. So the base model will probably have 2 x 2GB video memory but in games only use 2GB. The highest option will have 2x 6GB but only use 6GB. I don't know if that's the same with OpenCL though - I would expect you'd be able to use them separately.
Concerning the CPU, some might be disappointed that they can't get 24-cores for rendering but maybe they'll come out with IP over Thunderbolt like they had for firewire, GigE works ok too and with a single config page, you'd probably be able to stick with dual W5000s and go up to a 12-core to reach a price of $4479 so you'd buy two for $8958 to make a 24-core render setup. It's $2k more that it would have been if they offered dual-CPU but even if you buy 6, it uses less space than the old one and they probably wouldn't have offered a 24-core model anyway.
Excellent post, Marv'. Bravo'.
It gives a very good indication and breakdown of where Apple maybe going from Base to Highend.
You know. Your posts would make a very nice foundation for articles. You make the info' really accessible and well reasoned. Very approachable editorial style. Shame you don't have your own Apple website making a mint off ads.
Seriously, it's nice to see an in-depth analysis of where the Pro will be come September/Fall. Sure, I'd like Apple to be more aggressive with an entry model with margins closer to 20% (...it was quite an eye opener on some of your figures to see a break down of the kind of mark ups Apple have on each component! On the cpu/gpus it's almost eye watering.) At the least we can assume the Pro prices will fall about the same. Not a disaster when you consider the computation power at hand.
Though I'd like a 512 gig SSD, dual GPU, 8 gigs of ram Mac Pro hex core dropping for £1495-ish. Even top end iMac territory would be nice... eg £1695 is it? *tries to remember. They could really kick ass with the above config' and get workstations hitting the prosumer mainstream. Even Wizard might buy one? :P
Keep it coming. Great basis for speculation and discussion until they're actually released.
Lemon Bon Bon.
£1483.49
I put your price into a currency convertor. If Apple could hit the UK price above...with the added value of a 2nd gpu and a hex core...with SSD (which would add up to the value of the 27 inch monitor included with the iMac? You'd surely have a hit on your hands?!
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
4-core E5-2609 v2 - $294 +35% = $397
8GB RAM - $300
dual W5000 - say $344 wholesales x2 + 35% = $929
256GB SSD - $300
extras $405
base model = $2331. It definitely looks like they'll hit the same entry point as before but that entry point could be 6-core or maybe 512GB SSD. The other thing to remember is that dual-GPUs at these prices would be better value than before.
ie they could give much better value than the old entry Pro and hit a lower price point?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Look at the Air and iPad as examples where the value has become seriously impressive over time.
An SSD in the Air gets you 800mbs read and write? Insane numbers. You dont' even get that standard in one of Apple's desktops...which is perverse....
...and who would have thought Apple would put a retina screen in a 10 inch device for £399? (Many thought the iPad would drop at £1000. Luckily, Apple realised the greater good and the bigger picture and took a hit on margins to win the next gen computing war instead of pricing it the way they had with the Mac. And the results are there for all to see.)
Revolutionary Pro. I hope we have revolution in the price as well. (Yes, I know they won't sell one for £495 inc VAT...
But £1495 would be nice. Wasn't that the historical entry price for the entry G4 tower?
Wasn't the entry price of the G3 blue and white around £1200?
So long ago...I forget...
Even the entry G5 tower was below 2k by a hundred or so? (Was it £1895?)
Lemon Bon Bon.
Wow. The GTX 780 Nvidia card is eye poppingly fast! Twice the 680 MX almost! Suppose we'll need that kind of performance to shift 3D on a 4k monitor? :?
:O
Lemon Bon Bon.
$1,429.99
For the W8000.
Ouch. That's almost £1000 (£909 EACH) so that's £1800 worth of GPU power. :OOOOO
Two of those working optimally may just catch a Titan gpu?
Eyes bulge.
Good, better, BEST.
Can't wait to see Apple spec sheet on the Pro.
Lemon Bon Bon.