I think the target market and current pricing for PowerMac and Xserve is exactly the reason that the Apple servers and workstations will have to go all-quad, unless they add lower cost products in both lines. I don't think it makes sense to have dual core workstations at their current prices when much of the consumer line-up is also dual core. Everyone else's dual processor product in those price ranges will soon likely be replaced with a dual-dual core. at the same prices, a dual-only product would be uncompetitive in the market.
And frankly, Apple's servers aren't worth what they are asking and needs a four core unit, yesterday, to compete. Apple's single-proc-only unit starts at $3k, HP's single processor 1U unit, expandable to dual-dual, starts at $1300. Even with the server operating system, it is still a $1k disparity for a less expandable unit. The HP Opteron 1U unit is available as a quad for less than the price of Apple's dual.
I think you have a good point there, JeffDM?
The consumer line is moving towards dual-core across the line, so quad-core workstations should become the new norm?
Keep in mind, if all the new Mac Pros are dual socket units, that should bring down overall costs for the Main Logic Board?
And open the road for dropping quad-core CPUs into those dual sockets?!
I agree, though I personally would rule out Conroe from the PowerMac, except maybe for the very cheapest model. I don't understand why someone would speculate that Conroe would be a PowerMac chip. Based on the general intended and markted use, the PowerMac is supposed to be a workstation-type system for heavy 2D, 3D, video and other work, think equivalent systems being those with Xeon DP or Opteron 2xx chips. It looks to me that Conroe is going to be a consumer desktop chip, which would be the equivalent of what is now called Pentium, that isn't dual-socket capable. It would be bad to use consumer grade chips in a workstation.
All of the early speculation was that it would be the Conroe.
But, really, it is just speculation. No good reasons were given.
until the time when the gap between Desktop CPUs and Mobile CPUs becomes nil, i had like to see a real desktop CPU in iMac ...
hopefully intel can reduce the heat/noise in Conore (power consumption is not really matter as long as they can bring it down to less than 50watts in iMac)
But Yonah and Conore are different PIN/Mother board, no idea Apple will take another swift change in iMac.
Why is it that I get an uncomfortable feeling when I hear that things are being 'hurried'?
It just doesn't make sense...we were expecting some of these chips in August/September and others in early 2007 and suddenly, like magic, they're going to be available in June?!
One thing's for sure though if this pans out...Apple is now getting a shitload and variety of chippies...this is a much different situation than what we were seeing less than a year ago.
Intel had very good early tape-outs for these chips. They have the best fabs. If they have good designs, and they push, they can do it.
When the G4 came out it was neck and neck. Intel pushed the same time Moto got stuck. It surprised everyone.
Folks don't want to admit that Apple is moving the PowerMac/MacPro out of the 'desktop' market, and firmly into the workstation market, which brings with it a certain rationalization towards the US$2K to US$4K pricing scheme?
If you want a consumer desktop from Apple, you have a choice of Mac mini or iMac units? Or, as it seems more consumers are doing, get a laptop and leave off using a 'standard' desktop at all?
So maybe Apple comes out with a fresh MacPro lineup like so:
I think this lineup would probably be a bad idea. For the type of thing most PowerMacs are used for, a Woodcrest would make it too expensive and not offer much in return. I think Conroes will go all the way from iMac to PowerMac to xServe, then maybe a high-end "Pro" version of the PowerMac and xServe with Woodcrests just in case anyone wants 4 processors.
I can't agree. Many PM's are used for high power processing. Video editing required high end machines. The pharmaceutical industry uses Macs for chemical computation, also high power. High end publishing systems need them as well, as do large image processing tasks. Engineering programs such as CAD/CAD also.
If Apple is serious about getting back into Architecture, and 3D they need them there as well.
While the low end PM's are not as powerful, I used to buy the top models for my company. After you add the extra memory and other bits, they don't cost that much more. They also last longer before a refresh is necessary, which means less hassle.
until the time when the gap between Desktop CPUs and Mobile CPUs becomes nil, i had like to see a real desktop CPU in iMac ...
hopefully intel can reduce the heat/noise in Conore (power consumption is not really matter as long as they can bring it down to less than 50watts in iMac)
But Yonah and Conore are different PIN/Mother board, no idea Apple will take another swift change in iMac.
Conroe uses the same power as the G5 in the imac does.
?If Apple is serious about getting back into Architecture?
I wish they would do something more for Architecture?!
Problem there is, Autodesk is the Microsoft of the Archi/CAD market?
And there hasn't been a Mac version of AutoCAD since r6.6?
True, there are other (and better, even) CAD apps out there, but those Architects are a picky bunch, and most have this conception that there could't be anything else but AutoCAD?
Here's hoping we have the return of the $1499 entry level Powermac. I think it's a bit ridiculous that Powermacs are starting out at $2k.
They tried that a while back with the G5 towers, and everyone on here bitched about it because the $1499 tower was (GASP!) less powerful than the $2000+ towers.
Conroe uses the same power as the G5 in the imac does.
Isn't Conroe cheaper than Merom with the same clockspeed?
It would be an obvious choice for the iMac.
Anyway I don't see a problem with a mobile CPU in an iMac, though.
Hell, We have had embedded chips as main processor for almost 4 years in our towers.
Quote:
Originally posted by shanmugam
hopefully we will see conore in iMac with better noise reduction than G5.
The only problem I have with the noise of my RevA iMacG5 is when it's in Target Mode.
Apart of that, even under heavy work load it's very silent.
(Okay, it is noticable, but not annoying, the "tsjiktsjiktsjik" sounds my Marantz CD7300 makes when I play a CD is more annoying...
AAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!! Now I have to take it back to my pusher, again )
Quote:
Originally posted by CharlesS
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Here's hoping we have the return of the $1499 entry level Powermac. I think it's a bit ridiculous that Powermacs are starting out at $2k.
They tried that a while back with the G5 towers, and everyone on here bitched about it because the $1499 tower was (GASP!) less powerful than the $2000+ towers.
well, No.
Everybody was bitching because it was a very bad product.
I like MacRonin's Mac Pro line up.
I would be surpriced if we see a woodcrest in a $1,999 Tower, though.
Allthough Apple is moving out of the "desktop" into the "workstation" market,
They can start the lineup with a Conroe powered $1,499 Mac Pro, like hmurchison suggested.
Everybody was bitching because it was a very bad product.
I like MacRonin's Mac Pro line up.
I would be surpriced if we see a woodcrest in a $1,999 Tower, though.
Allthough Apple is moving out of the "desktop" into the "workstation" market,
They can start the lineup with a Conroe powered $1,499 Mac Pro, like hmurchison suggested. [/B]
Oh, this is very true.
Apple has a history of crippling the bottom end so severly that people would be effin' stupid to not get the next step up or even the high end. It's a clever facade...Apple pretends like they've got 3 different products but in reality, only one makes sense so everyone goes for that one. And of course, it's always the middle or the top end product.
I haven't checked if they've dropped the mid-end MacBook Pro prices but everyone was pointing out earlier this week how you could get a 17" MBP for the price of a 15" MBP with a certain configuration that matched the 17" MBP. (probably not the best example since the bottom end is pretty good.)
Hopefully things are changing now that Intel is making the boards...I'm hoping all boards will be the same across the Mac Pro lineup but just the processor, RAM, and HDD storage space will differ.
I'd say Apple will hold out on Merom in Mac Mini, iMac and Macbook/Macbook Pro for a while, we'll only see them in those products in the run up to the christmas buying frenzy.
I'm moving towards Conroe in the entry-level "PowerMacs" and Woodcrest in the higher-level "PowerMacs".
I predict by the end of the year we won't see single core in any Apple product anymore. It'll all be dualies or quads.
The Macbook in May will be Core Solo or Core Duo but the next rev after that (towards the end of the year?) will all be dualies.
Yeah, RIP Pentium 4 glad I never got involved with that Netburst bollocks and got a nice AMD64 Venice Core 3000+ 1.8ghz overclocked to 2.18ghz. 1gb ram @ 396mhz 2.5-3-3-8 latency. Way nice And while we're at it nVidia 6600GT stock 500mhz overclocked to 561mhz, memory stock 1ghz overclocked to 1.18ghz.
Good for Lord of The Rings: Battle For Middle Earth 2 RTS gaming
Y'all with Intel Macs should check the game out. On your WinXP2 install Sorry Mac Mini owners though, no go for you with your integrated graphics. Only x1600 club members need apply
I'd say Apple will hold out on Merom in Mac Mini, iMac and Macbook/Macbook Pro for a while, we'll only see them in those products in the run up to the christmas buying frenzy.
[snipped AMDfanboyism]
Christmas???
No way:
Intel will ship Merom in august, so:
- Along with the Mac Pro, the Merom MacBookPro at WWDC 2006: August 7-11*
- Updated iMac at Apple Expo Paris 2006: September 12-16*
I think that by WWDC all of the line will have gone to Intel. Steve can say that onstage and then harp on the huge amount of transition to UB that there has been. He can then show off leopard and its intel only features.
One more thing? Leopard shipping? vista still off in the distance. but you can run XP natively and you can port all of your XP projects to OS X with this nifty apple app. Yellow box?
Yeah, RIP Pentium 4 glad I never got involved with that Netburst bollocks and got a nice AMD64 Venice Core 3000+ 1.8ghz overclocked to 2.18ghz. 1gb ram @ 396mhz 2.5-3-3-8 latency. Way nice And while we're at it nVidia 6600GT stock 500mhz overclocked to 561mhz, memory stock 1ghz overclocked to 1.18ghz.
Comments
Heavy discounts on Penitum D
Time to say bye bye to Penitum 4?
Originally posted by JeffDM
I think the target market and current pricing for PowerMac and Xserve is exactly the reason that the Apple servers and workstations will have to go all-quad, unless they add lower cost products in both lines. I don't think it makes sense to have dual core workstations at their current prices when much of the consumer line-up is also dual core. Everyone else's dual processor product in those price ranges will soon likely be replaced with a dual-dual core. at the same prices, a dual-only product would be uncompetitive in the market.
And frankly, Apple's servers aren't worth what they are asking and needs a four core unit, yesterday, to compete. Apple's single-proc-only unit starts at $3k, HP's single processor 1U unit, expandable to dual-dual, starts at $1300. Even with the server operating system, it is still a $1k disparity for a less expandable unit. The HP Opteron 1U unit is available as a quad for less than the price of Apple's dual.
I think you have a good point there, JeffDM?
The consumer line is moving towards dual-core across the line, so quad-core workstations should become the new norm?
Keep in mind, if all the new Mac Pros are dual socket units, that should bring down overall costs for the Main Logic Board?
And open the road for dropping quad-core CPUs into those dual sockets?!
Originally posted by DGNR8
I guess then the woodcrest chip is for xserver
I was hoping it would go in the powermac
I still think it will. Why would Apple use the same chips on $2,500 to $3,000+ machines that will be in every $750 PC?
Originally posted by JeffDM
I agree, though I personally would rule out Conroe from the PowerMac, except maybe for the very cheapest model. I don't understand why someone would speculate that Conroe would be a PowerMac chip. Based on the general intended and markted use, the PowerMac is supposed to be a workstation-type system for heavy 2D, 3D, video and other work, think equivalent systems being those with Xeon DP or Opteron 2xx chips. It looks to me that Conroe is going to be a consumer desktop chip, which would be the equivalent of what is now called Pentium, that isn't dual-socket capable. It would be bad to use consumer grade chips in a workstation.
All of the early speculation was that it would be the Conroe.
But, really, it is just speculation. No good reasons were given.
hopefully intel can reduce the heat/noise in Conore (power consumption is not really matter as long as they can bring it down to less than 50watts in iMac)
But Yonah and Conore are different PIN/Mother board, no idea Apple will take another swift change in iMac.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Why is it that I get an uncomfortable feeling when I hear that things are being 'hurried'?
It just doesn't make sense...we were expecting some of these chips in August/September and others in early 2007 and suddenly, like magic, they're going to be available in June?!
One thing's for sure though if this pans out...Apple is now getting a shitload and variety of chippies...this is a much different situation than what we were seeing less than a year ago.
Intel had very good early tape-outs for these chips. They have the best fabs. If they have good designs, and they push, they can do it.
When the G4 came out it was neck and neck. Intel pushed the same time Moto got stuck. It surprised everyone.
If you want a consumer desktop from Apple, you have a choice of Mac mini or iMac units? Or, as it seems more consumers are doing, get a laptop and leave off using a 'standard' desktop at all?
So maybe Apple comes out with a fresh MacPro lineup like so:
Lowend - Dual socket dual-core Woodcrest
US$1999
Midrange - Dual socket dual-core Woodcrest
US$2499
Highend - Dual socket quad-core Woodcrest
US$3499
Extreme - Quad socket quad-core Woodcrest
US$4999
;^p
Originally posted by Booga
I think this lineup would probably be a bad idea. For the type of thing most PowerMacs are used for, a Woodcrest would make it too expensive and not offer much in return. I think Conroes will go all the way from iMac to PowerMac to xServe, then maybe a high-end "Pro" version of the PowerMac and xServe with Woodcrests just in case anyone wants 4 processors.
I can't agree. Many PM's are used for high power processing. Video editing required high end machines. The pharmaceutical industry uses Macs for chemical computation, also high power. High end publishing systems need them as well, as do large image processing tasks. Engineering programs such as CAD/CAD also.
If Apple is serious about getting back into Architecture, and 3D they need them there as well.
While the low end PM's are not as powerful, I used to buy the top models for my company. After you add the extra memory and other bits, they don't cost that much more. They also last longer before a refresh is necessary, which means less hassle.
Originally posted by shanmugam
until the time when the gap between Desktop CPUs and Mobile CPUs becomes nil, i had like to see a real desktop CPU in iMac ...
hopefully intel can reduce the heat/noise in Conore (power consumption is not really matter as long as they can bring it down to less than 50watts in iMac)
But Yonah and Conore are different PIN/Mother board, no idea Apple will take another swift change in iMac.
Conroe uses the same power as the G5 in the imac does.
Originally posted by melgross
Conroe uses the same power as the G5 in the imac does.
hopefully we will see conore in iMac with better noise reduction than G5.
Originally posted by melgross
?If Apple is serious about getting back into Architecture?
I wish they would do something more for Architecture?!
Problem there is, Autodesk is the Microsoft of the Archi/CAD market?
And there hasn't been a Mac version of AutoCAD since r6.6?
True, there are other (and better, even) CAD apps out there, but those Architects are a picky bunch, and most have this conception that there could't be anything else but AutoCAD?
Originally posted by macFanDave
Where are they getting these names? Penryn? Gesher? Nehalem? They are almost as bad as YellowSheepRiver!
Intel uses pastoral town names and names connected to Israel for their code names lately.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Here's hoping we have the return of the $1499 entry level Powermac. I think it's a bit ridiculous that Powermacs are starting out at $2k.
They tried that a while back with the G5 towers, and everyone on here bitched about it because the $1499 tower was (GASP!) less powerful than the $2000+ towers.
Originally posted by melgross
Conroe uses the same power as the G5 in the imac does.
Isn't Conroe cheaper than Merom with the same clockspeed?
It would be an obvious choice for the iMac.
Anyway I don't see a problem with a mobile CPU in an iMac, though.
Hell, We have had embedded chips as main processor for almost 4 years in our towers.
Originally posted by shanmugam
hopefully we will see conore in iMac with better noise reduction than G5.
The only problem I have with the noise of my RevA iMacG5 is when it's in Target Mode.
Apart of that, even under heavy work load it's very silent.
(Okay, it is noticable, but not annoying, the "tsjiktsjiktsjik" sounds my Marantz CD7300 makes when I play a CD is more annoying...
AAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!! Now I have to take it back to my pusher, again
Originally posted by CharlesS
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Here's hoping we have the return of the $1499 entry level Powermac. I think it's a bit ridiculous that Powermacs are starting out at $2k.
They tried that a while back with the G5 towers, and everyone on here bitched about it because the $1499 tower was (GASP!) less powerful than the $2000+ towers.
well, No.
Everybody was bitching because it was a very bad product.
I like MacRonin's Mac Pro line up.
I would be surpriced if we see a woodcrest in a $1,999 Tower, though.
Allthough Apple is moving out of the "desktop" into the "workstation" market,
They can start the lineup with a Conroe powered $1,499 Mac Pro, like hmurchison suggested.
Originally posted by gar
well, No.
Everybody was bitching because it was a very bad product.
I like MacRonin's Mac Pro line up.
I would be surpriced if we see a woodcrest in a $1,999 Tower, though.
Allthough Apple is moving out of the "desktop" into the "workstation" market,
They can start the lineup with a Conroe powered $1,499 Mac Pro, like hmurchison suggested. [/B]
Oh, this is very true.
Apple has a history of crippling the bottom end so severly that people would be effin' stupid to not get the next step up or even the high end. It's a clever facade...Apple pretends like they've got 3 different products but in reality, only one makes sense so everyone goes for that one. And of course, it's always the middle or the top end product.
I haven't checked if they've dropped the mid-end MacBook Pro prices but everyone was pointing out earlier this week how you could get a 17" MBP for the price of a 15" MBP with a certain configuration that matched the 17" MBP. (probably not the best example since the bottom end is pretty good.)
Hopefully things are changing now that Intel is making the boards...I'm hoping all boards will be the same across the Mac Pro lineup but just the processor, RAM, and HDD storage space will differ.
I'm moving towards Conroe in the entry-level "PowerMacs" and Woodcrest in the higher-level "PowerMacs".
I predict by the end of the year we won't see single core in any Apple product anymore. It'll all be dualies or quads.
The Macbook in May will be Core Solo or Core Duo but the next rev after that (towards the end of the year?) will all be dualies.
Yeah, RIP Pentium 4 glad I never got involved with that Netburst bollocks and got a nice AMD64 Venice Core 3000+ 1.8ghz overclocked to 2.18ghz. 1gb ram @ 396mhz 2.5-3-3-8 latency. Way nice
Good for Lord of The Rings: Battle For Middle Earth 2 RTS gaming
Y'all with Intel Macs should check the game out. On your WinXP2 install
Originally posted by sunilraman
I'd say Apple will hold out on Merom in Mac Mini, iMac and Macbook/Macbook Pro for a while, we'll only see them in those products in the run up to the christmas buying frenzy.
[snipped AMDfanboyism]
Christmas???
No way:
Intel will ship Merom in august, so:
- Along with the Mac Pro, the Merom MacBookPro at WWDC 2006: August 7-11*
- Updated iMac at Apple Expo Paris 2006: September 12-16*
- Updated MacBook in october/november 2006*
- Updated MacMini: pfffff, somewhere in between*
No Merom, only faster Yonah Core Duo.
Return of the $499 price point?
*Pure speculation of my part
One more thing? Leopard shipping? vista still off in the distance. but you can run XP natively and you can port all of your XP projects to OS X with this nifty apple app. Yellow box?
Originally posted by sunilraman
Yeah, RIP Pentium 4 glad I never got involved with that Netburst bollocks and got a nice AMD64 Venice Core 3000+ 1.8ghz overclocked to 2.18ghz. 1gb ram @ 396mhz 2.5-3-3-8 latency. Way nice
Psh, my 4.5GHz Prescott owns that.