Your average user isn't going to buy anything above a Mac Mini or a low end iMac if that. This isn't for them. What this is for the higher end consumer/ low to medium end professional called the prosumer.
I'll buy that. Two new models would nicely round out Apple product line IMHO -- this "prosumer" tower and a larger footprint Mac Mini. If you will, it should be a mini, not a micro, as it appears to be at 85 cubic inches. Hey, even the Shuttle has been called a SFF and that is over 900 cubic inches.
I can see the ads for this new model now. "The Mac Mini grows up." Use desktop parts and lower the price. As an added, free feature, it could be designed to allow a cinema display to be placed on top of it, and thus save desk space. Such a move would surely help sales of Apple displays. I've got three LCD displays now, and I doubt any of them could sit on top of a bigger Mac Mini, as I envision it.
For people who want to conserve desk space and like things to match, the grown up Mini would be ideal. It might hurt sales of the iMac a little, but if Apple gets the same or more profit, it's good business.
Where did I say they had to build thier own chipsets? Nowhere. By moving to Conroe/Kentsfield you are automagically precluded from having 2 physical processors...just as Intel intended. They could alternatively decide to leave one slot empty in a two processor MB and go with low end Cloverton or Woodcrest and leave the upgrade path open.
Are you going to assertively tell us again that they can't build a Woodcrest box for $1499-$1799.
Vinea
Unless they have a 1.6ghz system that could possibly be slower than the high end mini, yes. Also, what are the chances of anyone upgrading up to a twin CPU system when they can buy one? There is already a quad core Mac for them. Adding $500 to the price or being forced to use a drastically slower system would not be worth the money for the intended audience.
Or they could save a bunch of cash and just use the parts Intel intended for the job using the same margins. This isn't the days where Apple had to design their own chipsets anymore.
They never "had to" design their own chipsets. They did that for a reason. The same reason they don't "just use the parts Intel intended for the job." The fact that you don't understand the reason for this is the reason this discussion has gone on for 28 pages without you getting the point. Perhaps you should research what the reason is, and come back when you've figured it out.
They never "had to" design their own chipsets. They did that for a reason. The same reason they don't "just use the parts Intel intended for the job." The fact that you don't understand the reason for this is the reason this discussion has gone on for 28 pages without you getting the point. Perhaps you should research what the reason is, and come back when you've figured it out.
I know exactly the reason for this. Apple sees the computer world in black and white terms. To them there are two kinds of users: Pros and Consumers. Professionals need the Power and expandability of a dual Xeon Workstation and have $2200+ to spend on a machine. Everyone else wants something simple and full featured, hence the all in one. Unfortunately, the real world exists in shades of gray.
And yes they did have to design their own chipsets. They were the only ones using the PowerPCs in the home computing category so no other options existed.
They never "had to" design their own chipsets. They did that for a reason. The same reason they don't "just use the parts Intel intended for the job."
Okay, I don't know much of the technical side of computers, but I question what you say. Back in the PPC days, did IBM provide a complete chip set of Apple to use with the IBM CPU? I think the answer is no, so Apple had to design their own, but maybe IBM built it for them. This is my guess.
On the other hand, Intel does offer a complete chip set, and always has. Intel also offers complete motherboards today. I would certainly hope Apple takes advantage of the chips, else Apple is spending too much on R & D. Now one thing I don't understand is what Apple does to the motherboard to allow OS X run. This may be an extra chip, which only Apple can supply. Yet it should be standard and not require constant redesign.
I can see where Apple might want to do their own motherboard, to control the size and shape of the case.
Oops. I see BenRoethig already answered my first question. Never mind.
Okay, I don't know much of the technical side of computers, but I question what you say. Back in the PPC days, did IBM provide a complete chip set of Apple to use with the IBM CPU? I think the answer is no, so Apple had to design their own, but maybe IBM built it for them. This is my guess.
On the other hand, Intel does offer a complete chip set, and always has. Intel also offers complete motherboards today. I would certainly hope Apple takes advantage of the chips, else Apple is spending too much on R & D. Now one thing I don't understand is what Apple does to the motherboard to allow OS X run. This may be an extra chip, which only Apple can supply. Yet it should be standard and not require constant redesign.
I can see where Apple might want to do their own motherboard, to control the size and shape of the case.
Oops. I see BenRoethig already answered my first question. Never mind.
They replace the BIOS chip with EFI. Other than that, the Mini and Macbook run a 945 chipset, the iMac and Macbook Pro run the 945PM, the Mac Pro runs the 5000x workstation platform, and the Xserve runs the 5000P server board. With the exception of the boot room, they're all pretty much stock.
They replace the BIOS chip with EFI. Other than that, the Mini and Macbook run a 945 chipset, the iMac and Macbook Pro run the 945PM, the Mac Pro runs the 5000x workstation platform, and the Xserve runs the 5000P server board. With the exception of the boot room, they're all pretty much stock.
Thank you, though one thing puzzles me. EFI can be used by any maker of Intel CPUs from what I understand. It replaces the function of open firmware on the PPC side. I understand that Gateway was actually the first user of EFI, but I could be wrong.
There must be something special about Apple's version of EFI, yes? Though it cannot be too special, else it wouldn't work with Intel's stuff. Maybe just a few more comments would clear things up. Just when I was beginning to understand the PPC Macs, Apple switches to Intel.
Unless they have a 1.6ghz system that could possibly be slower than the high end mini, yes. Also, what are the chances of anyone upgrading up to a twin CPU system when they can buy one? There is already a quad core Mac for them. Adding $500 to the price or being forced to use a drastically slower system would not be worth the money for the intended audience.
$1329 is the price for single 1.6Ghz Woodcrest today. You can get a single 2.33 Ghz Woodcrest for $1589 today. You think perhaps that once the Clovertons appear that the Woodcrests might drop in price?
Slower than the mini? It seems your knowledge of machines is about as good as your ability to check Dell's website for a Woodcrest box before you say something silly. Again.
What are the odds of someone upgrading to 8 cores? I dunno...isn't your side the one touting the incredible need for upgradability? In any case, I do have a few machines about that we've added a second CPU to. Didn't have the funds to kit out all of them as dual CPU. Now they are.
But yes, they would be "drastically slower" (say about 2 cores worth) than a $2.2K Mac Pro for around $500 difference. Of course that's about the price difference of adding that second Woodcrest from Dell ($609) and about what an OEM CPU would cost retail ($518 from the first Google hit).
Amazing how that works out. As far as gaming and encoding, from the Anandtech benches it looks like a 12% penalty for the FB-DIMMs. Otherwise the Woodcrests aren't slouches. Even with the penalities a single CPU woodcrest would make an adequate game box and still be a competent workstation.
No, I think the intended audience would be pretty happy with a single CPU 2.33Ghz Woodcrest Mac Pro @$1599. It fits the definition of basic prosumer box quite well.
$1329 is the price for single 1.6Ghz Woodcrest today. You can get a single 2.33 Ghz Woodcrest for $1589 today. You think perhaps that once the Clovertons appear that the Woodcrests might drop in price?
Slower than the mini? It seems your knowledge of machines is about as good as your ability to check Dell's website for a Woodcrest box before you say something silly. Again.
What are the odds of someone upgrading to 8 cores? I dunno...isn't your side the one touting the incredible need for upgradability? In any case, I do have a few machines about that we've added a second CPU to. Didn't have the funds to kit out all of them as dual CPU. Now they are.
But yes, they would be "drastically slower" (say about 2 cores worth) than a $2.2K Mac Pro for around $500 difference. Of course that's about the price difference of adding that second Woodcrest from Dell ($609) and about what an OEM CPU would cost retail ($518 from the first Google hit).
Amazing how that works out. As far as gaming and encoding, from the Anandtech benches it looks like a 12% penalty for the FB-DIMMs. Otherwise the Woodcrests aren't slouches. Even with the penalities a single CPU woodcrest would make an adequate game box and still be a competent workstation.
No, I think the intended audience would be pretty happy with a single CPU 2.33Ghz Woodcrest Mac Pro @$1599. It fits the definition of basic prosumer box quite well.
Vinea
While, that kind of options were discussed before the Mac Pro was released (some people even thought Apple would release 2 single CPU models and only one dual CPU model), Apple released the all the Mac Pros as dual CPU, I don't think they will offer single (Woodcrest) CPUs models now. It would be easy (no R&D whatsoever) but not effective (think about all the $ on the motherboard for half the usage). Because the price of Conroe chips and chipsets vs. Woodcrest, and including the R&D needed to design a new motherboard, I believe that a Conroe-based Mac Pro could even have higher margins than the Mac Pro: CPUs are cheaper, Chipsets are cheaper, RAM is cheaper, even the power supply could be a less powerful (hence cheaper) one. Yes that would mean more inventory of parts, etc... but just like any new product would.
If Apple had released a single CPU model of the Mac Pro @ $1499/1699, and if it was possible to go to any Apple Store and have this CPU upgraded and/or paired with another one, yes, I think we wouldn't have that debate.
And If Apple were to do that, they would have to change their current pricing structure for the Mac Pro that doesn't follow whatsoever Intel's CPU pricing. Like I said when the Mac Pro was first released, the pricing of the BTO options are off, it should have been -$800 for the 2.0GHz version and +$300 for the 3.0GHz version (according to Intel's price list), to simplify:
single 2.0GHz=$300, 2.33GHz=$450, 2.66GHz=$700, 3.0GHz=$850,
It looks like Apple is getting 2.66GHz chips for the price of 2.33GHz ones (-$300 for 2x2.0GHz, +$800 for 2x3.0GHz). That's certainly why the 2.66GHz Mac Pro looks so good vs the competition.
So in the best case (following Intel's CPU price list) we could have get:
dual Mac Pro 2.0GHz=$1699, 2.33GHz=$1999, 2.66GHz=$2499, 3.0GHz=$2799,
and
single Mac Pro 2.0GHz=$1399, 2.33GHz=$1549, 2.66GHz=$1799, 3.0GHz=$1949,
which would have been great prices IMO.
But with the current pricing structure (Apple's), the best we could get is:
single Mac Pro 2.0GHz=$1899, 2.66GHz=$2049 (with a 2.66GHz priced at $450), 3.0GHz=$2449.
I think those are a little too expensive for the purpose.
If Apple could price the high-end Conroe/Kentsfield xMac at $1999/2199 (depending on the enclosure, $999 for the chip only), the 2.66GHz model could be as low as $1499/1699 and the 2.40GHz model at $1299/1499.
It looks like Apple is getting 2.66GHz chips for the price of 2.33GHz ones (-$300 for 2x2.0GHz, +$800 for 2x3.0GHz). That's certainly why the 2.66GHz Mac Pro looks so good vs the competition.
Perhaps that's the reason that Apple is getting such favorable pricing. They're leaving Dell, HP, etc the Conroe/Kentsfield market while buying as much Yonah, Merom and Woodcrest volume as they can manage. If Dell whines Intel can shrug and comment that a) they're using AMD stuff now and b) apple is all Intel and only mobile and workstation parts anyway so quit whining.
/shrug.
Sure Conroe might be cheaper but as you say, Apple has had the opportunity to go Conroe by now. With Kentsfield and Cloverton not far off the earliest you'll see a line up change is then.
So perhaps the low end will be dual Woodcrests at $1799 or possibly a single Cloverton.
It looks like Apple is getting 2.66GHz chips for the price of 2.33GHz ones (-$300 for 2x2.0GHz, +$800 for 2x3.0GHz). That's certainly why the 2.66GHz Mac Pro looks so good vs the competition.
If you really think Intel would make Apple a deal to sell Woodcrests cheaper, but would not make Dell the very same deal, then you need to get out more.
If you really think Intel would make Apple a deal to sell Woodcrests cheaper, but would not make Dell the very same deal, then you need to get out more.
The same Dell now offering AMD and gave Intel a black PR eye before the new core family by switching? That Dell? Vs the Apple that said "Gee...we think Intel's roadmap is killer..." when it wasn't so obvious that it was killer?
vinea, you're suggesting that Intel is making exclusive contracts. That may be the case, but that would be anti-competitive, and is exactly what AMD are suing them for. You better hope it not to be true, because Apple would be quite screwed if it is.
Dell has nothing to offer Intel in terms of showcasing Intel's latest and greatest features, because Dell has to use Windows.
Apple, on the other hand, can decide whether to showcase the Intel features in its OS.
That would be a legitimate reason for Intel to want to give Apple as good a deal as it could.
It's a great situation for Apple, too - having a chip supplier that cares about something other than embedded (Scrotorola) or game box and server (IBM) chips.
Dell has nothing to offer Intel in terms of showcasing Intel's latest and greatest features, because Dell has to use Windows.
Apple, on the other hand, can decide whether to showcase the Intel features in its OS.
That would be a legitimate reason for Intel to want to give Apple as good a deal as it could.
It's a great situation for Apple, too - having a chip supplier that cares about something other than embedded (Scrotorola) or game box and server (IBM) chips.
Dell has a much larger client list than Apple to offer. As does HP. At the end of the day, Intel is a business, not a R&D lab for Apple. I think that fact becomes completely lost at times. Intel is able to offer Apple high end CPUs because they sell them to the wintel market. Motorola and IBM found themselves loosing money making Apple CPUs.
What is exactly this $1699 Conroe, and why in the world would your average buyer who walks into an Apple retail store buy that instead of a 20-inch iMac which is $200 less expensive? Or instead of the 24-inch iMac which gets you a 24-inch LCD for only $300 more than this "$1699 Conroe"? I really do not see the point here.
I haven't gone looking lately, but when the Conroe was first introduced, the price range for towers with a single Conroe started in the $799 range and went up to ~$1699 for most configurations. However, there were many models with a single Conroe that eclipsed the $3000 mark when fully loaded.
If you really think Intel would make Apple a deal to sell Woodcrests cheaper, but would not make Dell the very same deal, then you need to get out more.
{Flame deleted - JL}
But if you had spend 30 sec. reading my post, you'd have found out that I said "it looks like..." not "I really think that...".
Then again, if you have an explanation about the pricing of the Mac Pro cpu options, I'll spend the time needed to read it.
vinea, you're suggesting that Intel is making exclusive contracts. That may be the case, but that would be anti-competitive, and is exactly what AMD are suing them for. You better hope it not to be true, because Apple would be quite screwed if it is.
I'm suggesting that in business relationships do matter. Dell presumably had access to the same kind of roadmaps as Apple and elected to move toward AMD which resulted in the preception that AMD would still be ahead in this generation of chips.
Apple appears to have some kind of favorable pricing for certain chips and Apple switching had some strategic value for Intel. Whether specific practice by Intel is anti-competitive remains for the courts to decide. Either way, Apple isn't screwed by whatever outcome of the AMD suit that isn't happening until 2009 as they would be a "victim" in the worst case scenario.
It is also not a given that AMD will prevail or that exclusionary conduct violates antitrust laws unless it forecloses competition in a substantial share of the relevant market and has harmed the consumer (which the courts typically equate with the former anyway but rarely may not).
Comments
Your average user isn't going to buy anything above a Mac Mini or a low end iMac if that. This isn't for them. What this is for the higher end consumer/ low to medium end professional called the prosumer.
I'll buy that.
I can see the ads for this new model now. "The Mac Mini grows up." Use desktop parts and lower the price. As an added, free feature, it could be designed to allow a cinema display to be placed on top of it, and thus save desk space. Such a move would surely help sales of Apple displays. I've got three LCD displays now, and I doubt any of them could sit on top of a bigger Mac Mini, as I envision it.
For people who want to conserve desk space and like things to match, the grown up Mini would be ideal. It might hurt sales of the iMac a little, but if Apple gets the same or more profit, it's good business.
Where did I say they had to build thier own chipsets? Nowhere. By moving to Conroe/Kentsfield you are automagically precluded from having 2 physical processors...just as Intel intended. They could alternatively decide to leave one slot empty in a two processor MB and go with low end Cloverton or Woodcrest and leave the upgrade path open.
Are you going to assertively tell us again that they can't build a Woodcrest box for $1499-$1799.
Vinea
Unless they have a 1.6ghz system that could possibly be slower than the high end mini, yes. Also, what are the chances of anyone upgrading up to a twin CPU system when they can buy one? There is already a quad core Mac for them. Adding $500 to the price or being forced to use a drastically slower system would not be worth the money for the intended audience.
Or they could save a bunch of cash and just use the parts Intel intended for the job using the same margins. This isn't the days where Apple had to design their own chipsets anymore.
They never "had to" design their own chipsets. They did that for a reason. The same reason they don't "just use the parts Intel intended for the job." The fact that you don't understand the reason for this is the reason this discussion has gone on for 28 pages without you getting the point. Perhaps you should research what the reason is, and come back when you've figured it out.
They never "had to" design their own chipsets. They did that for a reason. The same reason they don't "just use the parts Intel intended for the job." The fact that you don't understand the reason for this is the reason this discussion has gone on for 28 pages without you getting the point. Perhaps you should research what the reason is, and come back when you've figured it out.
I know exactly the reason for this. Apple sees the computer world in black and white terms. To them there are two kinds of users: Pros and Consumers. Professionals need the Power and expandability of a dual Xeon Workstation and have $2200+ to spend on a machine. Everyone else wants something simple and full featured, hence the all in one. Unfortunately, the real world exists in shades of gray.
And yes they did have to design their own chipsets. They were the only ones using the PowerPCs in the home computing category so no other options existed.
They never "had to" design their own chipsets. They did that for a reason. The same reason they don't "just use the parts Intel intended for the job."
Okay, I don't know much of the technical side of computers, but I question what you say. Back in the PPC days, did IBM provide a complete chip set of Apple to use with the IBM CPU? I think the answer is no, so Apple had to design their own, but maybe IBM built it for them. This is my guess.
On the other hand, Intel does offer a complete chip set, and always has. Intel also offers complete motherboards today. I would certainly hope Apple takes advantage of the chips, else Apple is spending too much on R & D. Now one thing I don't understand is what Apple does to the motherboard to allow OS X run. This may be an extra chip, which only Apple can supply. Yet it should be standard and not require constant redesign.
I can see where Apple might want to do their own motherboard, to control the size and shape of the case.
Oops. I see BenRoethig already answered my first question. Never mind.
Okay, I don't know much of the technical side of computers, but I question what you say. Back in the PPC days, did IBM provide a complete chip set of Apple to use with the IBM CPU? I think the answer is no, so Apple had to design their own, but maybe IBM built it for them. This is my guess.
On the other hand, Intel does offer a complete chip set, and always has. Intel also offers complete motherboards today. I would certainly hope Apple takes advantage of the chips, else Apple is spending too much on R & D. Now one thing I don't understand is what Apple does to the motherboard to allow OS X run. This may be an extra chip, which only Apple can supply. Yet it should be standard and not require constant redesign.
I can see where Apple might want to do their own motherboard, to control the size and shape of the case.
Oops. I see BenRoethig already answered my first question. Never mind.
They replace the BIOS chip with EFI. Other than that, the Mini and Macbook run a 945 chipset, the iMac and Macbook Pro run the 945PM, the Mac Pro runs the 5000x workstation platform, and the Xserve runs the 5000P server board. With the exception of the boot room, they're all pretty much stock.
They replace the BIOS chip with EFI. Other than that, the Mini and Macbook run a 945 chipset, the iMac and Macbook Pro run the 945PM, the Mac Pro runs the 5000x workstation platform, and the Xserve runs the 5000P server board. With the exception of the boot room, they're all pretty much stock.
Thank you, though one thing puzzles me. EFI can be used by any maker of Intel CPUs from what I understand. It replaces the function of open firmware on the PPC side. I understand that Gateway was actually the first user of EFI, but I could be wrong.
There must be something special about Apple's version of EFI, yes? Though it cannot be too special, else it wouldn't work with Intel's stuff. Maybe just a few more comments would clear things up. Just when I was beginning to understand the PPC Macs, Apple switches to Intel.
Unless they have a 1.6ghz system that could possibly be slower than the high end mini, yes. Also, what are the chances of anyone upgrading up to a twin CPU system when they can buy one? There is already a quad core Mac for them. Adding $500 to the price or being forced to use a drastically slower system would not be worth the money for the intended audience.
$1329 is the price for single 1.6Ghz Woodcrest today. You can get a single 2.33 Ghz Woodcrest for $1589 today. You think perhaps that once the Clovertons appear that the Woodcrests might drop in price?
Slower than the mini? It seems your knowledge of machines is about as good as your ability to check Dell's website for a Woodcrest box before you say something silly. Again.
What are the odds of someone upgrading to 8 cores? I dunno...isn't your side the one touting the incredible need for upgradability? In any case, I do have a few machines about that we've added a second CPU to. Didn't have the funds to kit out all of them as dual CPU. Now they are.
But yes, they would be "drastically slower" (say about 2 cores worth) than a $2.2K Mac Pro for around $500 difference. Of course that's about the price difference of adding that second Woodcrest from Dell ($609) and about what an OEM CPU would cost retail ($518 from the first Google hit).
Amazing how that works out. As far as gaming and encoding, from the Anandtech benches it looks like a 12% penalty for the FB-DIMMs. Otherwise the Woodcrests aren't slouches. Even with the penalities a single CPU woodcrest would make an adequate game box and still be a competent workstation.
No, I think the intended audience would be pretty happy with a single CPU 2.33Ghz Woodcrest Mac Pro @$1599. It fits the definition of basic prosumer box quite well.
Vinea
$1329 is the price for single 1.6Ghz Woodcrest today. You can get a single 2.33 Ghz Woodcrest for $1589 today. You think perhaps that once the Clovertons appear that the Woodcrests might drop in price?
Slower than the mini? It seems your knowledge of machines is about as good as your ability to check Dell's website for a Woodcrest box before you say something silly. Again.
What are the odds of someone upgrading to 8 cores? I dunno...isn't your side the one touting the incredible need for upgradability? In any case, I do have a few machines about that we've added a second CPU to. Didn't have the funds to kit out all of them as dual CPU. Now they are.
But yes, they would be "drastically slower" (say about 2 cores worth) than a $2.2K Mac Pro for around $500 difference. Of course that's about the price difference of adding that second Woodcrest from Dell ($609) and about what an OEM CPU would cost retail ($518 from the first Google hit).
Amazing how that works out. As far as gaming and encoding, from the Anandtech benches it looks like a 12% penalty for the FB-DIMMs. Otherwise the Woodcrests aren't slouches. Even with the penalities a single CPU woodcrest would make an adequate game box and still be a competent workstation.
No, I think the intended audience would be pretty happy with a single CPU 2.33Ghz Woodcrest Mac Pro @$1599. It fits the definition of basic prosumer box quite well.
Vinea
While, that kind of options were discussed before the Mac Pro was released (some people even thought Apple would release 2 single CPU models and only one dual CPU model), Apple released the all the Mac Pros as dual CPU, I don't think they will offer single (Woodcrest) CPUs models now. It would be easy (no R&D whatsoever) but not effective (think about all the $ on the motherboard for half the usage). Because the price of Conroe chips and chipsets vs. Woodcrest, and including the R&D needed to design a new motherboard, I believe that a Conroe-based Mac Pro could even have higher margins than the Mac Pro: CPUs are cheaper, Chipsets are cheaper, RAM is cheaper, even the power supply could be a less powerful (hence cheaper) one. Yes that would mean more inventory of parts, etc... but just like any new product would.
If Apple had released a single CPU model of the Mac Pro @ $1499/1699, and if it was possible to go to any Apple Store and have this CPU upgraded and/or paired with another one, yes, I think we wouldn't have that debate.
And If Apple were to do that, they would have to change their current pricing structure for the Mac Pro that doesn't follow whatsoever Intel's CPU pricing. Like I said when the Mac Pro was first released, the pricing of the BTO options are off, it should have been -$800 for the 2.0GHz version and +$300 for the 3.0GHz version (according to Intel's price list), to simplify:
single 2.0GHz=$300, 2.33GHz=$450, 2.66GHz=$700, 3.0GHz=$850,
dual 2.0GHz=$600, 2.33GHz=$900, 2.66GHz=$1400, 3.0GHz=$1700.
It looks like Apple is getting 2.66GHz chips for the price of 2.33GHz ones (-$300 for 2x2.0GHz, +$800 for 2x3.0GHz). That's certainly why the 2.66GHz Mac Pro looks so good vs the competition.
So in the best case (following Intel's CPU price list) we could have get:
dual Mac Pro 2.0GHz=$1699, 2.33GHz=$1999, 2.66GHz=$2499, 3.0GHz=$2799,
and
single Mac Pro 2.0GHz=$1399, 2.33GHz=$1549, 2.66GHz=$1799, 3.0GHz=$1949,
which would have been great prices IMO.
But with the current pricing structure (Apple's), the best we could get is:
single Mac Pro 2.0GHz=$1899, 2.66GHz=$2049 (with a 2.66GHz priced at $450), 3.0GHz=$2449.
I think those are a little too expensive for the purpose.
If Apple could price the high-end Conroe/Kentsfield xMac at $1999/2199 (depending on the enclosure, $999 for the chip only), the 2.66GHz model could be as low as $1499/1699 and the 2.40GHz model at $1299/1499.
It looks like Apple is getting 2.66GHz chips for the price of 2.33GHz ones (-$300 for 2x2.0GHz, +$800 for 2x3.0GHz). That's certainly why the 2.66GHz Mac Pro looks so good vs the competition.
Perhaps that's the reason that Apple is getting such favorable pricing. They're leaving Dell, HP, etc the Conroe/Kentsfield market while buying as much Yonah, Merom and Woodcrest volume as they can manage. If Dell whines Intel can shrug and comment that a) they're using AMD stuff now and b) apple is all Intel and only mobile and workstation parts anyway so quit whining.
/shrug.
Sure Conroe might be cheaper but as you say, Apple has had the opportunity to go Conroe by now. With Kentsfield and Cloverton not far off the earliest you'll see a line up change is then.
So perhaps the low end will be dual Woodcrests at $1799 or possibly a single Cloverton.
Vinea
It looks like Apple is getting 2.66GHz chips for the price of 2.33GHz ones (-$300 for 2x2.0GHz, +$800 for 2x3.0GHz). That's certainly why the 2.66GHz Mac Pro looks so good vs the competition.
If you really think Intel would make Apple a deal to sell Woodcrests cheaper, but would not make Dell the very same deal, then you need to get out more.
If you really think Intel would make Apple a deal to sell Woodcrests cheaper, but would not make Dell the very same deal, then you need to get out more.
The same Dell now offering AMD and gave Intel a black PR eye before the new core family by switching? That Dell? Vs the Apple that said "Gee...we think Intel's roadmap is killer..." when it wasn't so obvious that it was killer?
Vinea
Apple, on the other hand, can decide whether to showcase the Intel features in its OS.
That would be a legitimate reason for Intel to want to give Apple as good a deal as it could.
It's a great situation for Apple, too - having a chip supplier that cares about something other than embedded (Scrotorola) or game box and server (IBM) chips.
Dell has nothing to offer Intel in terms of showcasing Intel's latest and greatest features, because Dell has to use Windows.
Apple, on the other hand, can decide whether to showcase the Intel features in its OS.
That would be a legitimate reason for Intel to want to give Apple as good a deal as it could.
It's a great situation for Apple, too - having a chip supplier that cares about something other than embedded (Scrotorola) or game box and server (IBM) chips.
Dell has a much larger client list than Apple to offer. As does HP. At the end of the day, Intel is a business, not a R&D lab for Apple. I think that fact becomes completely lost at times. Intel is able to offer Apple high end CPUs because they sell them to the wintel market. Motorola and IBM found themselves loosing money making Apple CPUs.
What is exactly this $1699 Conroe, and why in the world would your average buyer who walks into an Apple retail store buy that instead of a 20-inch iMac which is $200 less expensive? Or instead of the 24-inch iMac which gets you a 24-inch LCD for only $300 more than this "$1699 Conroe"? I really do not see the point here.
I haven't gone looking lately, but when the Conroe was first introduced, the price range for towers with a single Conroe started in the $799 range and went up to ~$1699 for most configurations. However, there were many models with a single Conroe that eclipsed the $3000 mark when fully loaded.
If you really think Intel would make Apple a deal to sell Woodcrests cheaper, but would not make Dell the very same deal, then you need to get out more.
{Flame deleted - JL}
But if you had spend 30 sec. reading my post, you'd have found out that I said "it looks like..." not "I really think that...".
Then again, if you have an explanation about the pricing of the Mac Pro cpu options, I'll spend the time needed to read it.
vinea, you're suggesting that Intel is making exclusive contracts. That may be the case, but that would be anti-competitive, and is exactly what AMD are suing them for. You better hope it not to be true, because Apple would be quite screwed if it is.
I'm suggesting that in business relationships do matter. Dell presumably had access to the same kind of roadmaps as Apple and elected to move toward AMD which resulted in the preception that AMD would still be ahead in this generation of chips.
Apple appears to have some kind of favorable pricing for certain chips and Apple switching had some strategic value for Intel. Whether specific practice by Intel is anti-competitive remains for the courts to decide. Either way, Apple isn't screwed by whatever outcome of the AMD suit that isn't happening until 2009 as they would be a "victim" in the worst case scenario.
It is also not a given that AMD will prevail or that exclusionary conduct violates antitrust laws unless it forecloses competition in a substantial share of the relevant market and has harmed the consumer (which the courts typically equate with the former anyway but rarely may not).
Vinea
IANAL