Good points. My only reply is that often Apple is just ahead of it's time and maybe gives up a little early on some of it's ideas. While some say Newton failed look at how popular PDAs became and Newton was first. Who knows what would have happened if Apple would have stuck it out and produced another generation or two. At the time Apple wasn't perhaps in a position to sustain a money losing product. While people say the cube was a loosing model I view it as the precusor to the mini, a quite successful product. Sometimes products need a little time to gain traction in the marketplace as well as a generation or two of refinement.
There is a big marketing difference between the mini and the Cube. The cube was targeted at the high end of the market. It came in 450 and 500 MHz versions that were that fastest G4's at the time. (I bought one because Apple had identified exactly the features that I needed in a computer.) The mini, on the other hand, is the low end of the Apple line.
Is the $100 board one that Apple would be using, including FW400 (maybe FW800), and suitable network connectivity?
It should have the usual accoutrements of I/O, but less of it. No Firewire 800 though, just FW400.
Quote:
The savings is then $100 (processor #1, Core 2 Duo vs. Xeon) + $400 (no processor #2, depending on speed) + $100 (FB-DIMM vs. DDR2, using Apple prices) = $600
Something like that. 3 GHz Xeon 5160 CPUs cost $850 in bulk, 2.66 GHz Xeon 5150 CPUs cost $700, 2 GHz Xeon 5130 CPUs CPUs cost $330. All approximately, and Apple gets some unknown discount as a tier 1 vendor.
Contrast that to a 2.66 GHz C2D E6700 at $530, 2.4 GHz C2D E6600 at $315, and the 2.13 GHz C2D E6400 at $240.
Using these bulk prices, at 2.66 GHz, 2 Woodcrests cost $1400 while a Conroe costs $530. An $870 dollar difference alone.
For motherboards, 2S boards Woodcrest boards go for about $400 to $600, while Conroe boards will go from $100 to $200.
Quote:
Isn't the only power savings in the processor?
I was referring the cost difference between 750 to 1000 Watt power supplies ($200) to 500 Watt power supplies ($50).
It should have the usual accoutrements of I/O, but less of it. No Firewire 800 though, just FW400.
Something like that. 3 GHz Xeon 5160 CPUs cost $850 in bulk, 2.66 GHz Xeon 5150 CPUs cost $700, 2 GHz Xeon 5130 CPUs CPUs cost $330. All approximately, and Apple gets some unknown discount as a tier 1 vendor.
Contrast that to a 2.66 GHz C2D E6700 at $530, 2.4 GHz C2D E6600 at $315, and the 2.13 GHz C2D E6400 at $240.
Using these bulk prices, at 2.66 GHz, 2 Woodcrests cost $1400 while a Conroe costs $530. An $870 dollar difference alone.
For motherboards, 2S boards Woodcrest boards go for about $400 to $600, while Conroe boards will go from $100 to $200.
Part of what I was trying to point out in my addition on the previous page is that per processor costs can't be as high as people are saying, because then the cost of the 3.0 GHz MacPro would be much higher than its retail price. However, I think that fixed costs associated with Apple designing, assembling, and supporting each processor are significant. So, I think that the $870 that you calculate might be an overestimate of the difference. I don't know by how much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
I was referring the cost difference between 750 to 1000 Watt power supplies ($200) to 500 Watt power supplies ($50).
I wasn't clear in my answer. Because the primary difference between the two systems is the processor and people are still calling for 2 HDs and 4 PCI slots, it seems to me that the power requirements aren't going to be much lower. This type of xMac would seem to require pretty much the same power supply as a MacPro.
I wasn't clear in my answer. Because the primary difference between the two systems is the processor and people are still calling for 2 HDs and 4 PCI slots, it seems to me that the power requirements aren't going to be much lower. This type of xMac would seem to require pretty much the same power supply as a MacPro.
No I have a PC here that has 4 hard drives, two optical drives, 5PCI slots (4 being used), an AGP slot, CPU fan, case fan and an older processor (less efficient) all running off a 450 watt power supply without a problem. And I think I paid $20 for it at computer builders warehouse.
No I have a PC here that has 4 hard drives, two optical drives, 5PCI slots (4 being used), an AGP slot, CPU fan, case fan and an older processor (less efficient) all running off a 450 watt power supply without a problem. And I think I paid $20 for it at computer builders warehouse.
Price of powersupply does hardly ever reflect the power, most price comes from the design, brandname and safety sertificates. Of course better and bigger components cost little more, but not hundreds of dollars. Those 20-70$ power supplies are crap, many manufacturers have had to pull their products from market in europe where safety standards are higher. Also tests show that under stress those cheap psu s can't provide reliable voltages anymore. Bigger components also need less cooling if they are not stressed into their limit, and that means less fan noise. As I said earlier quietness is a big part of my enjoyable computing experience.
I don't understand what people want PCI express slots for. The only things I want are one, whacking great HD, a hot gaphics card (think radeon x1900), and ample ram (like 4 slots). What on earth are you going to do with express slots? Never, ever in my life of using macs have I ever seen even one card in those slots in powermacs. My labs at school have no cards in these (60 or so) honking great G5 cases. My old art school: same thing.
RAM, and graphics card. Decent processing power. That's all I want in a computer. With 750GB harddisks, I think I can 'suffer' with one disk.
99.9% of PCs have empty slots in them. Why even have them?
There is a big marketing difference between the mini and the Cube. The cube was targeted at the high end of the market. It came in 450 and 500 MHz versions that were that fastest G4's at the time. (I bought one because Apple had identified exactly the features that I needed in a computer.) The mini, on the other hand, is the low end of the Apple line.
I don't dispute that, my point is that the cube isn't the 'failure' that people claim it was. Design concepts were carried forward to the mini and it was marketed towards a different market as you point out.
Price of powersupply does hardly ever reflect the power, most price comes from the design, brandname and safety sertificates. Of course better and bigger components cost little more, but not hundreds of dollars. Those 20-70$ power supplies are crap, many manufacturers have had to pull their products from market in europe where safety standards are higher. Also tests show that under stress those cheap psu s can't provide reliable voltages anymore. Bigger components also need less cooling if they are not stressed into their limit, and that means less fan noise. As I said earlier quietness is a big part of my enjoyable computing experience.
Well I agree that more money buys you better parts the PSU in this PC here has been going fine for a long time now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Project2501
1337_5L4Xx0R]99.9% of PCs have empty slots in them. Why even have them?
It used to be these slots where used for everything. Back when integrating everything on the motherboard wasn't common. Today they are used for everythign from adding USB2.0 cards to TV turners to high end graphics cards. Why is everyone so afraid of giving their mac a little expandability. This is a good thing not a bad thing.
The Cube failed because of price, performance, and economy. The design and price point was for a "Manager's" boutique computer with a very high profit margin, similar to but a little more "sane" than the 20th anniversary Mac. The economy was down, and would not support the price point that Apple made for it, and there were not enough people willing to buy it with those price performance ratio's. The price did come down as I recall, and given a little time and the right price point it may have worked out for Apple in the long run. I know that at work we were planning on buying about 30 of them, but the order was put on hold for about 6 months for financial reasons and by the time it did go through the Cube was no longer sold. It also suffered from customer complaints of quality due to the acrylic "Cube", some realistic some unreal expectations but due to it's price they received a lot of press and gave the Cube a bad name. Other considerations were that it may not have been able to handle the heat of the new round of graphics cards and processors as the G4 went above 500 mhz without additional cooling, which would basically kill the Cube because it would no longer be the "fanless" computer that it was designed to be.
I don't understand what people want PCI express slots for. The only things I want are one, whacking great HD, a hot gaphics card (think radeon x1900), and ample ram (like 4 slots). What on earth are you going to do with express slots? Never, ever in my life of using macs have I ever seen even one card in those slots in powermacs. My labs at school have no cards in these (60 or so) honking great G5 cases. My old art school: same thing.
RAM, and graphics card. Decent processing power. That's all I want in a computer. With 750GB harddisks, I think I can 'suffer' with one disk.
99.9% of PCs have empty slots in them. Why even have them?
Now to build a mid-tower single processor Mac, you're gonna save on the processor price, on the motherboard price, on the memory price, on the case price and the power supply price. To simplify the counts let say the 2.40GHz Conroe is $300, the 2.66GHz is $500 and the 2.93GHz is $1000, and memory is $200 for 1GB.
The 2.40GHz model would be around: $300+100+200+200+150+200+100+80+69=$1399.
The 2.66GHz $1599. And the 2.93GHz $2099.
I think Apple can at least shave $100 more on those prices to reach "standard" price points: $1299/$1499/$1999.
You can shave that $100 off just with the memory. The retail cost of high-grade PC2 5400 DDR2 is around $100 for a 2x 512 MB kit. Since Apple will probably not allow overclocking, the xMac would not need DDR2 800. An IGP can use the extra bandwidth of 667 but 533 would be enough for a Mac without integrated video. Conroes use a 1066 FSB. Speaking of IGPs, the launch of the new Intel GMA x3000 is imminent. It has been getting bad reviews (using pre-release drivers) in terms of DirectX performance but I'm more interested in OpenGL and that hasn't been publicly benchmarked yet AFAIK. Many mATX and mBTX motherboards have been announced using the G965 chipset (which includes the new IGP) and I imagine Apple would want to use one of those just to save space and $$. As long as there's an open PCIe x16 slot I don't mind the IGP. It can come in handy if the video card craps out or for reselling. The cheapest model can come without a video card with BTO options for discrete video.
The mini cube is an intriguing possibility too. Just take three of the current minis and stack them up and you more or less get a cube. One of those thirds could house a decent hard disk and the other a decent optical drive. eSATA and HDCP/HDMI video would be standard. There's your media center Mac. A perfect, beautiful (plexi)glass cube, a miniature replica of the 5th Ave store entrance. Such a design would also look great on the desktop and you could connect any DVI monitor with the right cable or an adapter.
Part of what I was trying to point out in my addition on the previous page is that per processor costs can't be as high as people are saying, because then the cost of the 3.0 GHz MacPro would be much higher than its retail price. However, I think that fixed costs associated with Apple designing, assembling, and supporting each processor are significant. So, I think that the $870 that you calculate might be an overestimate of the difference. I don't know by how much.
Granted. Apple will have discounts. But the exercise demonstrates that there are considerable cost differences between a 1S Conroe system and 2S Woodcrest system.
Quote:
I wasn't clear in my answer. Because the primary difference between the two systems is the processor and people are still calling for 2 HDs and 4 PCI slots, it seems to me that the power requirements aren't going to be much lower. This type of xMac would seem to require pretty much the same power supply as a MacPro.
The only rational for a 1S Conroe system requiring a 750 watt power supply is if you need to support 3+ high end graphics cards in the box, otherwise 500 watt should be more than enough for 1S Conroe systems with a 2 PCIe slots.
...how about this Mac Pro lineup. It's a bit large for Apple, but smaller than that of any other Wintel box maker. Three Mac Pros; Dual, Quad, and Octo; two models each. The Octo will be announced at MWSF '07.
MiniTower
$1599 2.33 GHz Dual Mac Pro - Conroe single CPU
$1899 2.66 GHz Dual Mac Pro - Conroe single CPU
Tower
$2399 2.66 GHz Quad Mac Pro - Woodcrest dual CPU
$2799 3.00 GHz Quad Mac Pro - Woodcrest dual CPU
MegaTower
$3499 2.66 GHz Octo Mac Pro - Tigerton dual CPU
$3999 3.00 GHz Octo Mac Pro - Tigerton dual CPU
Remember that compact motherboard reportedly being worked on by Intel and Apple? Well maybe Apple is planning on two different towers, one for Conroe, and one for dual Woodcrests. A single Conroe CPU needs so much less power and cooling capacity than a dual Woodcrest that it would be cheaper for Apple to make two different mobos.
For Conroe, use a MiniTower design that is perhaps half the size of the current Powermacs - but not so small that Apple has to buy expensive miniaturized components. Build it out of plastic, not brushed aluminum. Use a single optical drive bay, a single empty PCI slot (of course with a real video card slot), room for two HDs, and nothing more. The key word for the MiniTower is PRICE; Apple saves on the tower design and components, and prices it to go.
Will the MiniTower cannibalize iMac sales? Perhaps, but if Apple keeps the component costs down and maintains a profit margin the same or larger than that of the iMac, will it matter? More likely the MiniTower will cannibalize Mini sales, but Apple must have pretty thin margins on the Mini, so this may not be a bad thing. Lure them into the store with the Mini, and sell them the MiniTower. Best of all, the MiniTower gives Wintel users a the option to switch into a Mac just like their Wintel. It meets the desires of the typical Wintel apologist: upgradability, expandability, and the techie "geek" factor.
Woodcrest will use a standard tower design, aluminum like the current tower with subtle modifications. Include two optical drive bays, four HD bays, and four open PCI slots.
Tigerton will require a "MegaTower," a beastly hunk of processing power that will sound like a 747 on takeoff, and will likely dedicate half it's internal volume towards cooling its eight motherfucking cores. Give it everything the Woodcrest tower has, but add hardware RAID support. It will need a striped RAID setup to keep up with its eight cores. This MegaTower will be built with bad-ass black anodized aluminum. It will stand on four non-anodized brushed aluminum pillars that run up each corner to the very top. An Apple logo on each side will glow blue when the machine is on.
The MegaTower will be the Vista killer: it will turn in benchmarks insanely faster than any tigerton-based Wintel, because of Leopard's superior multithreading capability. PC Gamerz will sell their cars to own a $4K MegaTower loaded with RAM and a bitchin' video card. Apple will once again rule the computing universe.
Granted. Apple will have discounts. But the exercise demonstrates that there are considerable cost differences between a 1S Conroe system and 2S Woodcrest system.
The only rational for a 1S Conroe system requiring a 750 watt power supply is if you need to support 3+ high end graphics cards in the box, otherwise 500 watt should be more than enough for 1S Conroe systems with a 2 PCIe slots.
I agree that from these numbers there's room to build the sought-after xMac. There is another way to calculate--from the iMac - LCD up--but I'm not prepared to do it.
I see two broad tendencies here. One is a "super Mini", and the other one is a "bare bones Pro".
I prefer the super Mini route. For one thing I think the price range should be $1100 to $1500. By the time you get to $1700 you are too close to the low end of the Pro ($2100), and too far from the Mini. Better to "risk" canibalizing Mini sales (to give a clear and easy to reach "upsale" price point from the Mini), rather than to risk downsales to the more profitable Pro. The iMac is a separate category in my view, and I think Apple might even want to consider an iMac Mini, built around the Mini component set (notebook hardware), and a 15" screen, for $900. I think this would work for K-12 and in non-US markets. It would be a good candidate to sell with various color schemes, like the original iMacs and to bundle with low-end iPods, but I digress.
Below is what I could call this the "Mac Maxi". Footprint and finish would be exactly the same as the Mini, so Mini "base" accesories would fit. The Apple logo would glow.
One CPU, either Core Duo or Core 2 Duo, in the range of 2.0-2.4 GHz
Two standard disk bays with the same system as the Mac Pro, except stacked one over the other. They would plug in directly to the main board, which would be vertical on the inside right of the machine as seen from the front. (note the left side removable panel).
Two standard DIMMs.
One PCIe x16 slot, vertical towards the back with DVI plug facing the bottom. Not for full-size cards but mid-range single-width 3D cards would fit. Two grade levels ought to cover it.
The machine would cost between 1100 and 1500.
Apple is also missing a 17" monitor, which they could sell fairly overpriced (profitably), and people would buy anyway on aesthetic grounds. It could be bundled with this machine (as well as the 20" on the upper end).
Despite appearances this would NOT be a Cube. It would be more powerful and easier to upgrade disk and memory. It would be way less expandable than a Pro, yet a distinct step up from a Mini, with more desktop hardware, namely the disks, DIMMs and graphic card.
It would cut somewhat into the iMac, as well as the top end of the Mini, and the bottom of the Pro. But it would also add sales at a key price/performance point, particularly for Windows refugees who already own a really nice monitor or for whatever reason want a separate monitor without having to opt between the Mini's low-end graphics and the Pro's professional feature set.
You mean this very same topic is being discussed on other forums. How odd. You'd think that there might be a few people out there that desire a change in Apple's current product matrix??? 8)
We seem to agree on the specs except for the extra PCIe slot and the fact that you allow the first to be double wide. So your way allows for the most powerful available graphics, while mine leaves that to the Pro and would be a cheaper machine.
Comments
Here is a gateway core 2 duo system
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/03/gateway_core2duo_pc/
Good points. My only reply is that often Apple is just ahead of it's time and maybe gives up a little early on some of it's ideas. While some say Newton failed look at how popular PDAs became and Newton was first. Who knows what would have happened if Apple would have stuck it out and produced another generation or two. At the time Apple wasn't perhaps in a position to sustain a money losing product. While people say the cube was a loosing model I view it as the precusor to the mini, a quite successful product. Sometimes products need a little time to gain traction in the marketplace as well as a generation or two of refinement.
There is a big marketing difference between the mini and the Cube. The cube was targeted at the high end of the market. It came in 450 and 500 MHz versions that were that fastest G4's at the time. (I bought one because Apple had identified exactly the features that I needed in a computer.) The mini, on the other hand, is the low end of the Apple line.
Is the $100 board one that Apple would be using, including FW400 (maybe FW800), and suitable network connectivity?
It should have the usual accoutrements of I/O, but less of it. No Firewire 800 though, just FW400.
The savings is then $100 (processor #1, Core 2 Duo vs. Xeon) + $400 (no processor #2, depending on speed) + $100 (FB-DIMM vs. DDR2, using Apple prices) = $600
Something like that. 3 GHz Xeon 5160 CPUs cost $850 in bulk, 2.66 GHz Xeon 5150 CPUs cost $700, 2 GHz Xeon 5130 CPUs CPUs cost $330. All approximately, and Apple gets some unknown discount as a tier 1 vendor.
Contrast that to a 2.66 GHz C2D E6700 at $530, 2.4 GHz C2D E6600 at $315, and the 2.13 GHz C2D E6400 at $240.
Using these bulk prices, at 2.66 GHz, 2 Woodcrests cost $1400 while a Conroe costs $530. An $870 dollar difference alone.
For motherboards, 2S boards Woodcrest boards go for about $400 to $600, while Conroe boards will go from $100 to $200.
Isn't the only power savings in the processor?
I was referring the cost difference between 750 to 1000 Watt power supplies ($200) to 500 Watt power supplies ($50).
It should have the usual accoutrements of I/O, but less of it. No Firewire 800 though, just FW400.
Something like that. 3 GHz Xeon 5160 CPUs cost $850 in bulk, 2.66 GHz Xeon 5150 CPUs cost $700, 2 GHz Xeon 5130 CPUs CPUs cost $330. All approximately, and Apple gets some unknown discount as a tier 1 vendor.
Contrast that to a 2.66 GHz C2D E6700 at $530, 2.4 GHz C2D E6600 at $315, and the 2.13 GHz C2D E6400 at $240.
Using these bulk prices, at 2.66 GHz, 2 Woodcrests cost $1400 while a Conroe costs $530. An $870 dollar difference alone.
For motherboards, 2S boards Woodcrest boards go for about $400 to $600, while Conroe boards will go from $100 to $200.
Part of what I was trying to point out in my addition on the previous page is that per processor costs can't be as high as people are saying, because then the cost of the 3.0 GHz MacPro would be much higher than its retail price. However, I think that fixed costs associated with Apple designing, assembling, and supporting each processor are significant. So, I think that the $870 that you calculate might be an overestimate of the difference. I don't know by how much.
I was referring the cost difference between 750 to 1000 Watt power supplies ($200) to 500 Watt power supplies ($50).
I wasn't clear in my answer. Because the primary difference between the two systems is the processor and people are still calling for 2 HDs and 4 PCI slots, it seems to me that the power requirements aren't going to be much lower. This type of xMac would seem to require pretty much the same power supply as a MacPro.
I wasn't clear in my answer. Because the primary difference between the two systems is the processor and people are still calling for 2 HDs and 4 PCI slots, it seems to me that the power requirements aren't going to be much lower. This type of xMac would seem to require pretty much the same power supply as a MacPro.
No I have a PC here that has 4 hard drives, two optical drives, 5PCI slots (4 being used), an AGP slot, CPU fan, case fan and an older processor (less efficient) all running off a 450 watt power supply without a problem. And I think I paid $20 for it at computer builders warehouse.
No I have a PC here that has 4 hard drives, two optical drives, 5PCI slots (4 being used), an AGP slot, CPU fan, case fan and an older processor (less efficient) all running off a 450 watt power supply without a problem. And I think I paid $20 for it at computer builders warehouse.
Price of powersupply does hardly ever reflect the power, most price comes from the design, brandname and safety sertificates. Of course better and bigger components cost little more, but not hundreds of dollars. Those 20-70$ power supplies are crap, many manufacturers have had to pull their products from market in europe where safety standards are higher. Also tests show that under stress those cheap psu s can't provide reliable voltages anymore. Bigger components also need less cooling if they are not stressed into their limit, and that means less fan noise. As I said earlier quietness is a big part of my enjoyable computing experience.
RAM, and graphics card. Decent processing power. That's all I want in a computer. With 750GB harddisks, I think I can 'suffer' with one disk.
99.9% of PCs have empty slots in them. Why even have them?
There is a big marketing difference between the mini and the Cube. The cube was targeted at the high end of the market. It came in 450 and 500 MHz versions that were that fastest G4's at the time. (I bought one because Apple had identified exactly the features that I needed in a computer.) The mini, on the other hand, is the low end of the Apple line.
I don't dispute that, my point is that the cube isn't the 'failure' that people claim it was. Design concepts were carried forward to the mini and it was marketed towards a different market as you point out.
Price of powersupply does hardly ever reflect the power, most price comes from the design, brandname and safety sertificates. Of course better and bigger components cost little more, but not hundreds of dollars. Those 20-70$ power supplies are crap, many manufacturers have had to pull their products from market in europe where safety standards are higher. Also tests show that under stress those cheap psu s can't provide reliable voltages anymore. Bigger components also need less cooling if they are not stressed into their limit, and that means less fan noise. As I said earlier quietness is a big part of my enjoyable computing experience.
Well I agree that more money buys you better parts the PSU in this PC here has been going fine for a long time now.
1337_5L4Xx0R]99.9% of PCs have empty slots in them. Why even have them?
It used to be these slots where used for everything. Back when integrating everything on the motherboard wasn't common. Today they are used for everythign from adding USB2.0 cards to TV turners to high end graphics cards. Why is everyone so afraid of giving their mac a little expandability. This is a good thing not a bad thing.
I don't understand what people want PCI express slots for. The only things I want are one, whacking great HD, a hot gaphics card (think radeon x1900), and ample ram (like 4 slots). What on earth are you going to do with express slots? Never, ever in my life of using macs have I ever seen even one card in those slots in powermacs. My labs at school have no cards in these (60 or so) honking great G5 cases. My old art school: same thing.
RAM, and graphics card. Decent processing power. That's all I want in a computer. With 750GB harddisks, I think I can 'suffer' with one disk.
99.9% of PCs have empty slots in them. Why even have them?
Wrong thread.
Now to build a mid-tower single processor Mac, you're gonna save on the processor price, on the motherboard price, on the memory price, on the case price and the power supply price. To simplify the counts let say the 2.40GHz Conroe is $300, the 2.66GHz is $500 and the 2.93GHz is $1000, and memory is $200 for 1GB.
The 2.40GHz model would be around: $300+100+200+200+150+200+100+80+69=$1399.
The 2.66GHz $1599. And the 2.93GHz $2099.
I think Apple can at least shave $100 more on those prices to reach "standard" price points: $1299/$1499/$1999.
You can shave that $100 off just with the memory. The retail cost of high-grade PC2 5400 DDR2 is around $100 for a 2x 512 MB kit. Since Apple will probably not allow overclocking, the xMac would not need DDR2 800. An IGP can use the extra bandwidth of 667 but 533 would be enough for a Mac without integrated video. Conroes use a 1066 FSB. Speaking of IGPs, the launch of the new Intel GMA x3000 is imminent. It has been getting bad reviews (using pre-release drivers) in terms of DirectX performance but I'm more interested in OpenGL and that hasn't been publicly benchmarked yet AFAIK. Many mATX and mBTX motherboards have been announced using the G965 chipset (which includes the new IGP) and I imagine Apple would want to use one of those just to save space and $$. As long as there's an open PCIe x16 slot I don't mind the IGP. It can come in handy if the video card craps out or for reselling. The cheapest model can come without a video card with BTO options for discrete video.
The mini cube is an intriguing possibility too. Just take three of the current minis and stack them up and you more or less get a cube. One of those thirds could house a decent hard disk and the other a decent optical drive. eSATA and HDCP/HDMI video would be standard. There's your media center Mac. A perfect, beautiful (plexi)glass cube, a miniature replica of the 5th Ave store entrance.
Part of what I was trying to point out in my addition on the previous page is that per processor costs can't be as high as people are saying, because then the cost of the 3.0 GHz MacPro would be much higher than its retail price. However, I think that fixed costs associated with Apple designing, assembling, and supporting each processor are significant. So, I think that the $870 that you calculate might be an overestimate of the difference. I don't know by how much.
Granted. Apple will have discounts. But the exercise demonstrates that there are considerable cost differences between a 1S Conroe system and 2S Woodcrest system.
I wasn't clear in my answer. Because the primary difference between the two systems is the processor and people are still calling for 2 HDs and 4 PCI slots, it seems to me that the power requirements aren't going to be much lower. This type of xMac would seem to require pretty much the same power supply as a MacPro.
The only rational for a 1S Conroe system requiring a 750 watt power supply is if you need to support 3+ high end graphics cards in the box, otherwise 500 watt should be more than enough for 1S Conroe systems with a 2 PCIe slots.
...how about this Mac Pro lineup. It's a bit large for Apple, but smaller than that of any other Wintel box maker. Three Mac Pros; Dual, Quad, and Octo; two models each. The Octo will be announced at MWSF '07.
MiniTower
$1599 2.33 GHz Dual Mac Pro - Conroe single CPU
$1899 2.66 GHz Dual Mac Pro - Conroe single CPU
Tower
$2399 2.66 GHz Quad Mac Pro - Woodcrest dual CPU
$2799 3.00 GHz Quad Mac Pro - Woodcrest dual CPU
MegaTower
$3499 2.66 GHz Octo Mac Pro - Tigerton dual CPU
$3999 3.00 GHz Octo Mac Pro - Tigerton dual CPU
Remember that compact motherboard reportedly being worked on by Intel and Apple? Well maybe Apple is planning on two different towers, one for Conroe, and one for dual Woodcrests. A single Conroe CPU needs so much less power and cooling capacity than a dual Woodcrest that it would be cheaper for Apple to make two different mobos.
For Conroe, use a MiniTower design that is perhaps half the size of the current Powermacs - but not so small that Apple has to buy expensive miniaturized components. Build it out of plastic, not brushed aluminum. Use a single optical drive bay, a single empty PCI slot (of course with a real video card slot), room for two HDs, and nothing more. The key word for the MiniTower is PRICE; Apple saves on the tower design and components, and prices it to go.
Will the MiniTower cannibalize iMac sales? Perhaps, but if Apple keeps the component costs down and maintains a profit margin the same or larger than that of the iMac, will it matter? More likely the MiniTower will cannibalize Mini sales, but Apple must have pretty thin margins on the Mini, so this may not be a bad thing. Lure them into the store with the Mini, and sell them the MiniTower. Best of all, the MiniTower gives Wintel users a the option to switch into a Mac just like their Wintel. It meets the desires of the typical Wintel apologist: upgradability, expandability, and the techie "geek" factor.
Woodcrest will use a standard tower design, aluminum like the current tower with subtle modifications. Include two optical drive bays, four HD bays, and four open PCI slots.
Tigerton will require a "MegaTower," a beastly hunk of processing power that will sound like a 747 on takeoff, and will likely dedicate half it's internal volume towards cooling its eight motherfucking cores. Give it everything the Woodcrest tower has, but add hardware RAID support. It will need a striped RAID setup to keep up with its eight cores. This MegaTower will be built with bad-ass black anodized aluminum. It will stand on four non-anodized brushed aluminum pillars that run up each corner to the very top. An Apple logo on each side will glow blue when the machine is on.
The MegaTower will be the Vista killer: it will turn in benchmarks insanely faster than any tigerton-based Wintel, because of Leopard's superior multithreading capability. PC Gamerz will sell their cars to own a $4K MegaTower loaded with RAM and a bitchin' video card. Apple will once again rule the computing universe.
Granted. Apple will have discounts. But the exercise demonstrates that there are considerable cost differences between a 1S Conroe system and 2S Woodcrest system.
The only rational for a 1S Conroe system requiring a 750 watt power supply is if you need to support 3+ high end graphics cards in the box, otherwise 500 watt should be more than enough for 1S Conroe systems with a 2 PCIe slots.
I agree that from these numbers there's room to build the sought-after xMac. There is another way to calculate--from the iMac - LCD up--but I'm not prepared to do it.
I prefer the super Mini route. For one thing I think the price range should be $1100 to $1500. By the time you get to $1700 you are too close to the low end of the Pro ($2100), and too far from the Mini. Better to "risk" canibalizing Mini sales (to give a clear and easy to reach "upsale" price point from the Mini), rather than to risk downsales to the more profitable Pro. The iMac is a separate category in my view, and I think Apple might even want to consider an iMac Mini, built around the Mini component set (notebook hardware), and a 15" screen, for $900. I think this would work for K-12 and in non-US markets. It would be a good candidate to sell with various color schemes, like the original iMacs and to bundle with low-end iPods, but I digress.
Below is what I could call this the "Mac Maxi". Footprint and finish would be exactly the same as the Mini, so Mini "base" accesories would fit. The Apple logo would glow.
I cooked this up for the other thread, "Isn't it time for a plain old Macintosh again?"
Specs:
One CPU, either Core Duo or Core 2 Duo, in the range of 2.0-2.4 GHz
Two standard disk bays with the same system as the Mac Pro, except stacked one over the other. They would plug in directly to the main board, which would be vertical on the inside right of the machine as seen from the front. (note the left side removable panel).
Two standard DIMMs.
One PCIe x16 slot, vertical towards the back with DVI plug facing the bottom. Not for full-size cards but mid-range single-width 3D cards would fit. Two grade levels ought to cover it.
The machine would cost between 1100 and 1500.
Apple is also missing a 17" monitor, which they could sell fairly overpriced (profitably), and people would buy anyway on aesthetic grounds. It could be bundled with this machine (as well as the 20" on the upper end).
Despite appearances this would NOT be a Cube. It would be more powerful and easier to upgrade disk and memory. It would be way less expandable than a Pro, yet a distinct step up from a Mini, with more desktop hardware, namely the disks, DIMMs and graphic card.
It would cut somewhat into the iMac, as well as the top end of the Mini, and the bottom of the Pro. But it would also add sales at a key price/performance point, particularly for Windows refugees who already own a really nice monitor or for whatever reason want a separate monitor without having to opt between the Mini's low-end graphics and the Pro's professional feature set.
Here is a mockup based on a smaller Mac Pro style case.
You mean this very same topic is being discussed on other forums. How odd. You'd think that there might be a few people out there that desire a change in Apple's current product matrix??? 8)
not enough to justify expanding the lineup yet.
Here is a mockup based on a smaller Mac Pro style case.
That's neat.
We seem to agree on the specs except for the extra PCIe slot and the fact that you allow the first to be double wide. So your way allows for the most powerful available graphics, while mine leaves that to the Pro and would be a cheaper machine.
We should have a vote.