Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. There are advantages to each. Hardware RAID isn't even faster all of the time. And the new software RAID's are just as reliable. It would be nice if Apple added more modes to it though.
Dell and HP aren't doing it for speed. They're doing it for reliability. Drives are getting cheap enough now it seems that sticking an extra one in as a mirror is a feature that an average mid range user wants. We're not talking about gamers or video pros here.
Then again, if you're running Windows on it, mirroring is probably a good idea.
Dell and HP aren't doing it for speed. They're doing it for reliability. Drives are getting cheap enough now it seems that sticking an extra one in as a mirror is a feature that an average mid range user wants. We're not talking about gamers or video pros here.
Then again, if you're running Windows on it, mirroring is probably a good idea.
2.0 and 2.33 GHz Xeon? I hope you mean two-processor for all of those, because a 2.3 GHz single-processor will get spanked by any computer over $1200. Remember that a Woodcrest is only 5% faster than a Conroe clock-for-clock, if that.
Same thing with a 2.4 GHz Conroe. Anything around $1500 with a Conroe will be similar performance-wise, and it'll look silly next to $1800 XPSs with 2.67 GHz Conroes.
For regular use, there shouldn't be any speed difference between the same clock Conroe and a single Woodcrest. However, there may be a stability difference, and there certainly is a difference in system scalability.
For regular use, there shouldn't be any speed difference between the same clock Conroe and a single Woodcrest. However, there may be a stability difference, and there certainly is a difference in system scalability.
That's my point - a single Woodcrest at 2.0 or 2.33 GHz is absolutely useless. Worse than a 2.4 GHz Conroe. Only in dual-socket is Woodcrest going to work.
The Intel chipset won't do hardware RAID, but with Apple's chips it should do software RAID OK like before. Also, about the mirroring being useful for Windows users, as the data would be identical on both drives, there would not be any advantage as one would be just as messed up as the other. Mirroring would help Macs or PCs the same in case of physical failure of one drive. With decent cooling that shouldn't happen much any more. MTBF has gotten better over the years. I just wish Apple would cool the drives better than they do now. Oh and one more comment, the quad core is not a Woodcrest but a Kentsfield. They won't be ready for a while, but Intel has CPU upgrades schedules every three months. That makes it even harder to make a purchase decision, if Apple can introduce a better model every 3 months. I could sleep well that my G5 was the top of the line for a year. I think sales will be poor anyway until Adobe ships Creative Suite 3.
That's my point - a single Woodcrest at 2.0 or 2.33 GHz is absolutely useless. Worse than a 2.4 GHz Conroe. Only in dual-socket is Woodcrest going to work.
That's not true. Woodcrest has a much better memory technology in FB-DIMMS, it also has a faster bus to help take advantage of the higher bandwidth of those DIMMs. Its memory model is therefore faster, wider, and overall, better.
That's not true. Woodcrest has a much better memory technology in FB-DIMMS, it also has a faster bus to help take advantage of the higher bandwidth of those DIMMs. Its memory model is therefore faster, wider, and overall, better.
Which is a 5 percent advantage clock for clock (or so someone else said on this forum), placing it behind the 2.4 GHz Conroe, and definitely the 2.67 GHz Conroe. I'm not saying that given a choice between equally clocked chips for the same price, I wouldn't take a Woodcrest. But a 2.0 GHz single Woodcrest will compare to a 2.13 GHz Conroe, which'll be on the market in $1000 computers.
If a Mac Pro at $2k has a single 2.33 or 2.00 Woodcrest, it'll get it's pants beat off by higher-clocked, cheaper Conroe machines, except in extremely memory-intensive tasks. And if you're putting 8+ GB of RAM in, you probably aren't using the low-end Mac Pro.
But a 2.0 GHz single Woodcrest will compare to a 2.13 GHz Conroe, which'll be on the market in $1000 computers.
The only sub $1000 Conroes I've seen are 1.83Ghz and those weren't from Tier 1 manufacturers. You might see 2.13Ghz in some of the back street system builders or home built systems but those generally don't compare in other ways - like warranty, reliability, design, noise...
Quote:
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
If a Mac Pro at $2k has a single 2.33 or 2.00 Woodcrest, it'll get it's pants beat off by higher-clocked, cheaper Conroe machines, except in extremely memory-intensive tasks. And if you're putting 8+ GB of RAM in, you probably aren't using the low-end Mac Pro.
Yep. And so far $2000 PCs seem to be coming in as 2.4Ghz Conroes from the big suppliers as I mentioned earlier in this thread. That's what Apple is up against. I'd much rather have a 2.4Ghz Conroe than a similarly clocked Woodcrest even at the same price. FB-DIMMS are about twice the price of normal DDR2 RAM and I'd rather have twice the RAM than something a little faster. Then again, if they use a single Woodcrest on a dual socket motherboard on their low end system, it'd be a nice upgrade later on.
Which is a 5 percent advantage clock for clock (or so someone else said on this forum), placing it behind the 2.4 GHz Conroe, and definitely the 2.67 GHz Conroe. I'm not saying that given a choice between equally clocked chips for the same price, I wouldn't take a Woodcrest. But a 2.0 GHz single Woodcrest will compare to a 2.13 GHz Conroe, which'll be on the market in $1000 computers.
If a Mac Pro at $2k has a single 2.33 or 2.00 Woodcrest, it'll get it's pants beat off by higher-clocked, cheaper Conroe machines, except in extremely memory-intensive tasks. And if you're putting 8+ GB of RAM in, you probably aren't using the low-end Mac Pro.
I don't go by what "someone else" said. The difference is considered to be significent by those who know better. Read ARs or other sites where the experts have written.
Certainly, a 2.33 Woodcrest is equal to a 2.67 Conroe in operations that matter. A 1,333 bus with faster memory vs a 1066 bus makes a difference.
Pricing is something else. We'll just have to see.
...FB-DIMMS are about twice the price of normal DDR2 RAM and I'd rather have twice the RAM than something a little faster. Then again, if they use a single Woodcrest on a dual socket motherboard on their low end system, it'd be a nice upgrade later on...
Yeah the Conroe DDR2 RAM vs Woodcrest FB-Dimms puts a cost issue into the mix re: Mac Pros. 2nd point: Will it be really possible to pop in an extra Woody into the available socket in a single-Woody Mac Pro? Million-dollar question there. Or, $2000-$3000 question.
I don't go by what "someone else" said. The difference is considered to be significent by those who know better. Read ARs or other sites where the experts have written. Certainly, a 2.33 Woodcrest is equal to a 2.67 Conroe in operations that matter. A 1,333 bus with faster memory vs a 1066 bus makes a difference....Pricing is something else. We'll just have to see.
Well, in terms of OS X we'll have to see if there's a Mac Conroe. Then take that up against a single-Mac Woodcrest, or Dualie Woodcrest with 1 CPU disabled. Then benchmark the hell out of that. Then we'll see real-world performance differences.
It's interesting, Opterons vs Athlons were considered in very different classes in the past few years. I wonder if Woodcrest vs Conroe are nearer each other in terms of performance - as is relevant to Bootcamp Windows in Mac Pros or simply in Windows PCs. But yeah, I'll have to review the Conroe vs. Woodcrest data. Just finished digesting the Conroe vs AthlonX2 data...!
Re: Pricing: Well we are talking about how Apple is going to position the Mac Pro models. Then we have to see what software suites they are going to focus on as the main selling point for the Mac Pros. I call Final Cut Studio and Shake as the main push. Hush-hush about Adobe/Macromedia.
If Apple doesn't release a single-core Woodcrest AND Conroe model then the Woodcrest vs. Conroe performance is a moot point.
My feeling at this stage is
Good - Mac Pro . 1xConroe (Dualie)
Better - Mac Pro . 2xWoodcrest (Quad) - mid end of 2ghz
Best - Mac Pro . 2xWoodcrest (Quad) - high end of 2ghz
Once the Conroe goes into the iMac the next gen or the gen after that, the "Good" Mac Pro may go low-mid end of 2ghz Woodcrest (Quad).
Anyway, brain a bit fuzzy after slight jet lag and 10-12 hour trip to Australia (yeah not as bad as 20 hours or crazy trips like that, but brain is fuzzy nonetheless).
Apple will have a 3GHz Dual Woodcrest. Don't doubt it for a second. I think you know why.
I know. 3ghz is a huge glowing Number in my brain. I was trying very hard to resist it when putting in my "Best" prediction*. Okay, brain fuzzy again, I stop now. Carry on, peoples.
*edit: Because of cost. I believe it will be build-to-order option but not the default "Best" config.
Better - Mac Pro . 2xWoodcrest (Quad) - mid end of 2ghz
Best - Mac Pro . 2xWoodcrest (Quad) - high end of 2ghz
The low-end Mac Mini isn't a Celeron D. The low-end iMac isn't a Pentium 4. The low-end Macbook Pro isn't a Pentium M.
I doubt they'd make that significant of a change at the lowend. Especially since it would reduce the bulk they can buy motherboards in since they'd no longer be unified.
Just what is the price difference between a Yonah and a Merom chip for the Mac Mini and other lower end Macs? If it's significant, in order to better separate the MacBook Pro and MacBook, Apple could keep the MacBook at Core Duo (Yonah) and upgrade the MacBookPro to the new Core 2 Duo. The Mac mini could have Yonah in the $600 model, but Merom in the top model. Not too sure what Apple's thinking about the iMac, but I hope a low end conroe should go in there. It is a desktop computer after all.
Merom debuts at Yonah debut price levels, I have heard. I don't think official prices are out yet.
But Yonah has already had at least 1 price cut, and may get a 2nd in a month (when Merom is shipping in volume). That'd make Yonahs cheaper than Meroms.
But this won't be G4/G5 - where the older processors stay in production for a while. Intel will want to re-tool those Yonah fabs to making something else, so don't expect Yonah to last for more than 6 months or so beyond Merom. Similarly, I don't think P4s or P-Ds are long for this world. By this time next year, there won't be any Pentiums or Yonahs sold in new computers, I bet.
I'd bet that Apple will keep the Yonah around for the first go 'round. By the time the Merom's are speed bumped, then the Yonah's will finally be replaced with price cut Merom. Of course it could be a bit different for the MacBook if Apple wants to use the Merom to boost battery life and not speed.
Back to the big boys: How many readers of this Forum would really buy a Quad Woodcrest, or would be reasonably happy with a nice Conroe Extreme Edition dual Mac Pro? Nice as in >=2GB of RAM and >=250GB disk space. It would have a faster clock rate to brag about and we might still have enough money for gasoline.
I'd bet that Apple will keep the Yonah around for the first go 'round. By the time the Merom's are speed bumped, then the Yonah's will finally be replaced with price cut Merom. Of course it could be a bit different for the MacBook if Apple wants to use the Merom to boost battery life and not speed.
Merom's a 20-40 percent speed bump. There's no avoiding it in the Macbook Pros. They can't wait until Santa Rosa platform in March, simply because laptops are the mainstay of Apple's lineup. They have a lot larger notebook marketshare than laptop marketshare. The Macbook Pro is as important (if not more so) to Apple right now than the Mac Pro. They can't stiff it performance-wise and survive.
As to Mac Pros, I really want a Quad. Since I don't have $3k, it'll probably be a 2.0 GHz Quad. Not because it's faster than a 2.67 GHz Conroe at everything, but because I like multi-tasking, and I want to use some OSS production apps that are multi-threaded. Additionally, I think two-socket offers a lot better upgrade path, if only to put 2.6 GHz Quads in each socket in 3 years.
Also, I think that between Paralells, Microsoft, and Apple, someone will have decent graphics performance in a VM by this time next year. Remember that that's a must for Vista in virtualization.
I'd bet that Apple will keep the Yonah around for the first go 'round. By the time the Merom's are speed bumped, then the Yonah's will finally be replaced with price cut Merom. Of course it could be a bit different for the MacBook if Apple wants to use the Merom to boost battery life and not speed.
Back to the big boys: How many readers of this Forum would really buy a Quad Woodcrest, or would be reasonably happy with a nice Conroe Extreme Edition dual Mac Pro? Nice as in >=2GB of RAM and >=250GB disk space. It would have a faster clock rate to brag about and we might still have enough money for gasoline.
I am buying the 3GHz woodcrest with an Nvidia x2 card most likely because I am starting to think that they wont come through with dual 16X PCI -E lanes, but I'll take it, and hope that the next revision has them.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. There are advantages to each. Hardware RAID isn't even faster all of the time. And the new software RAID's are just as reliable. It would be nice if Apple added more modes to it though.
Dell and HP aren't doing it for speed. They're doing it for reliability. Drives are getting cheap enough now it seems that sticking an extra one in as a mirror is a feature that an average mid range user wants. We're not talking about gamers or video pros here.
Then again, if you're running Windows on it, mirroring is probably a good idea.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Dell and HP aren't doing it for speed. They're doing it for reliability. Drives are getting cheap enough now it seems that sticking an extra one in as a mirror is a feature that an average mid range user wants. We're not talking about gamers or video pros here.
Then again, if you're running Windows on it, mirroring is probably a good idea.
Heh heh. Probably.
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
2.0 and 2.33 GHz Xeon? I hope you mean two-processor for all of those, because a 2.3 GHz single-processor will get spanked by any computer over $1200. Remember that a Woodcrest is only 5% faster than a Conroe clock-for-clock, if that.
Same thing with a 2.4 GHz Conroe. Anything around $1500 with a Conroe will be similar performance-wise, and it'll look silly next to $1800 XPSs with 2.67 GHz Conroes.
For regular use, there shouldn't be any speed difference between the same clock Conroe and a single Woodcrest. However, there may be a stability difference, and there certainly is a difference in system scalability.
Originally posted by JeffDM
For regular use, there shouldn't be any speed difference between the same clock Conroe and a single Woodcrest. However, there may be a stability difference, and there certainly is a difference in system scalability.
That's my point - a single Woodcrest at 2.0 or 2.33 GHz is absolutely useless. Worse than a 2.4 GHz Conroe. Only in dual-socket is Woodcrest going to work.
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
That's my point - a single Woodcrest at 2.0 or 2.33 GHz is absolutely useless. Worse than a 2.4 GHz Conroe. Only in dual-socket is Woodcrest going to work.
That's not true. Woodcrest has a much better memory technology in FB-DIMMS, it also has a faster bus to help take advantage of the higher bandwidth of those DIMMs. Its memory model is therefore faster, wider, and overall, better.
Originally posted by melgross
That's not true. Woodcrest has a much better memory technology in FB-DIMMS, it also has a faster bus to help take advantage of the higher bandwidth of those DIMMs. Its memory model is therefore faster, wider, and overall, better.
Which is a 5 percent advantage clock for clock (or so someone else said on this forum), placing it behind the 2.4 GHz Conroe, and definitely the 2.67 GHz Conroe. I'm not saying that given a choice between equally clocked chips for the same price, I wouldn't take a Woodcrest. But a 2.0 GHz single Woodcrest will compare to a 2.13 GHz Conroe, which'll be on the market in $1000 computers.
If a Mac Pro at $2k has a single 2.33 or 2.00 Woodcrest, it'll get it's pants beat off by higher-clocked, cheaper Conroe machines, except in extremely memory-intensive tasks. And if you're putting 8+ GB of RAM in, you probably aren't using the low-end Mac Pro.
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
But a 2.0 GHz single Woodcrest will compare to a 2.13 GHz Conroe, which'll be on the market in $1000 computers.
The only sub $1000 Conroes I've seen are 1.83Ghz and those weren't from Tier 1 manufacturers. You might see 2.13Ghz in some of the back street system builders or home built systems but those generally don't compare in other ways - like warranty, reliability, design, noise...
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
If a Mac Pro at $2k has a single 2.33 or 2.00 Woodcrest, it'll get it's pants beat off by higher-clocked, cheaper Conroe machines, except in extremely memory-intensive tasks. And if you're putting 8+ GB of RAM in, you probably aren't using the low-end Mac Pro.
Yep. And so far $2000 PCs seem to be coming in as 2.4Ghz Conroes from the big suppliers as I mentioned earlier in this thread. That's what Apple is up against. I'd much rather have a 2.4Ghz Conroe than a similarly clocked Woodcrest even at the same price. FB-DIMMS are about twice the price of normal DDR2 RAM and I'd rather have twice the RAM than something a little faster. Then again, if they use a single Woodcrest on a dual socket motherboard on their low end system, it'd be a nice upgrade later on.
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
Which is a 5 percent advantage clock for clock (or so someone else said on this forum), placing it behind the 2.4 GHz Conroe, and definitely the 2.67 GHz Conroe. I'm not saying that given a choice between equally clocked chips for the same price, I wouldn't take a Woodcrest. But a 2.0 GHz single Woodcrest will compare to a 2.13 GHz Conroe, which'll be on the market in $1000 computers.
If a Mac Pro at $2k has a single 2.33 or 2.00 Woodcrest, it'll get it's pants beat off by higher-clocked, cheaper Conroe machines, except in extremely memory-intensive tasks. And if you're putting 8+ GB of RAM in, you probably aren't using the low-end Mac Pro.
I don't go by what "someone else" said. The difference is considered to be significent by those who know better. Read ARs or other sites where the experts have written.
Certainly, a 2.33 Woodcrest is equal to a 2.67 Conroe in operations that matter. A 1,333 bus with faster memory vs a 1066 bus makes a difference.
Pricing is something else. We'll just have to see.
...FB-DIMMS are about twice the price of normal DDR2 RAM and I'd rather have twice the RAM than something a little faster. Then again, if they use a single Woodcrest on a dual socket motherboard on their low end system, it'd be a nice upgrade later on...
Yeah the Conroe DDR2 RAM vs Woodcrest FB-Dimms puts a cost issue into the mix re: Mac Pros. 2nd point: Will it be really possible to pop in an extra Woody into the available socket in a single-Woody Mac Pro? Million-dollar question there. Or, $2000-$3000 question.
I don't go by what "someone else" said. The difference is considered to be significent by those who know better. Read ARs or other sites where the experts have written. Certainly, a 2.33 Woodcrest is equal to a 2.67 Conroe in operations that matter. A 1,333 bus with faster memory vs a 1066 bus makes a difference....Pricing is something else. We'll just have to see.
Well, in terms of OS X we'll have to see if there's a Mac Conroe. Then take that up against a single-Mac Woodcrest, or Dualie Woodcrest with 1 CPU disabled. Then benchmark the hell out of that. Then we'll see real-world performance differences.
It's interesting, Opterons vs Athlons were considered in very different classes in the past few years. I wonder if Woodcrest vs Conroe are nearer each other in terms of performance - as is relevant to Bootcamp Windows in Mac Pros or simply in Windows PCs. But yeah, I'll have to review the Conroe vs. Woodcrest data. Just finished digesting the Conroe vs AthlonX2 data...!
Re: Pricing: Well we are talking about how Apple is going to position the Mac Pro models. Then we have to see what software suites they are going to focus on as the main selling point for the Mac Pros. I call Final Cut Studio and Shake as the main push. Hush-hush about Adobe/Macromedia.
If Apple doesn't release a single-core Woodcrest AND Conroe model then the Woodcrest vs. Conroe performance is a moot point.
My feeling at this stage is
Good - Mac Pro . 1xConroe (Dualie)
Better - Mac Pro . 2xWoodcrest (Quad) - mid end of 2ghz
Best - Mac Pro . 2xWoodcrest (Quad) - high end of 2ghz
Once the Conroe goes into the iMac the next gen or the gen after that, the "Good" Mac Pro may go low-mid end of 2ghz Woodcrest (Quad).
Anyway, brain a bit fuzzy after slight jet lag and 10-12 hour trip to Australia (yeah not as bad as 20 hours or crazy trips like that, but brain is fuzzy nonetheless).
Originally posted by sunilraman
[
My feeling at this stage is
Good - Mac Pro . 1xConroe (Dualie)
Better - Mac Pro . 2xWoodcrest (Quad) - mid end of 2ghz
Best - Mac Pro . 2xWoodcrest (Quad) - high end of 2ghz
Apple will have a 3GHz Dual Woodcrest. Don't doubt it for a second. I think you know why.
Originally posted by onlooker
Apple will have a 3GHz Dual Woodcrest. Don't doubt it for a second. I think you know why.
Of course.
But it can be a BTO.
Apple will have a 3GHz Dual Woodcrest. Don't doubt it for a second. I think you know why.
I know. 3ghz is a huge glowing Number in my brain. I was trying very hard to resist it when putting in my "Best" prediction*. Okay, brain fuzzy again, I stop now. Carry on, peoples.
*edit: Because of cost. I believe it will be build-to-order option but not the default "Best" config.
Quote:
[i]
My feeling at this stage is
Good - Mac Pro . 1xConroe (Dualie)
Better - Mac Pro . 2xWoodcrest (Quad) - mid end of 2ghz
Best - Mac Pro . 2xWoodcrest (Quad) - high end of 2ghz
The low-end Mac Mini isn't a Celeron D. The low-end iMac isn't a Pentium 4. The low-end Macbook Pro isn't a Pentium M.
I doubt they'd make that significant of a change at the lowend. Especially since it would reduce the bulk they can buy motherboards in since they'd no longer be unified.
But Yonah has already had at least 1 price cut, and may get a 2nd in a month (when Merom is shipping in volume). That'd make Yonahs cheaper than Meroms.
But this won't be G4/G5 - where the older processors stay in production for a while. Intel will want to re-tool those Yonah fabs to making something else, so don't expect Yonah to last for more than 6 months or so beyond Merom. Similarly, I don't think P4s or P-Ds are long for this world. By this time next year, there won't be any Pentiums or Yonahs sold in new computers, I bet.
Back to the big boys: How many readers of this Forum would really buy a Quad Woodcrest, or would be reasonably happy with a nice Conroe Extreme Edition dual Mac Pro? Nice as in >=2GB of RAM and >=250GB disk space. It would have a faster clock rate to brag about and we might still have enough money for gasoline.
Originally posted by BradMacPro
I'd bet that Apple will keep the Yonah around for the first go 'round. By the time the Merom's are speed bumped, then the Yonah's will finally be replaced with price cut Merom. Of course it could be a bit different for the MacBook if Apple wants to use the Merom to boost battery life and not speed.
Merom's a 20-40 percent speed bump. There's no avoiding it in the Macbook Pros. They can't wait until Santa Rosa platform in March, simply because laptops are the mainstay of Apple's lineup. They have a lot larger notebook marketshare than laptop marketshare. The Macbook Pro is as important (if not more so) to Apple right now than the Mac Pro. They can't stiff it performance-wise and survive.
As to Mac Pros, I really want a Quad. Since I don't have $3k, it'll probably be a 2.0 GHz Quad. Not because it's faster than a 2.67 GHz Conroe at everything, but because I like multi-tasking, and I want to use some OSS production apps that are multi-threaded. Additionally, I think two-socket offers a lot better upgrade path, if only to put 2.6 GHz Quads in each socket in 3 years.
Also, I think that between Paralells, Microsoft, and Apple, someone will have decent graphics performance in a VM by this time next year. Remember that that's a must for Vista in virtualization.
Originally posted by BradMacPro
I'd bet that Apple will keep the Yonah around for the first go 'round. By the time the Merom's are speed bumped, then the Yonah's will finally be replaced with price cut Merom. Of course it could be a bit different for the MacBook if Apple wants to use the Merom to boost battery life and not speed.
Back to the big boys: How many readers of this Forum would really buy a Quad Woodcrest, or would be reasonably happy with a nice Conroe Extreme Edition dual Mac Pro? Nice as in >=2GB of RAM and >=250GB disk space. It would have a faster clock rate to brag about and we might still have enough money for gasoline.
I am buying the 3GHz woodcrest with an Nvidia x2 card most likely because I am starting to think that they wont come through with dual 16X PCI -E lanes, but I'll take it, and hope that the next revision has them.