Um, that's exactly the way it is now. And the way it's always been. Intel makes a higher margin on a higher-end product.
I'm not sure what I meant when I said that, but I think it may be the fact that Xeon quadcores has a higher price per tier than Core 2 quad cores, which follow the Core 2 dual cores. (though that's not the case today, but it seems like it will be) 3.0 GHz Xeons are cheaper at the moment than 2.93GHz Core 2 Duos, so it is not always so.
@Melgross: Great, then a quad core Mac Pro do have some usefulness. I guess my arguing is moot at this point.
It seems like it'll be cheaper to put in one quad core than two dual cores, though. Similar to when the PowerMac went dual core instead of dual processor.
I'm not sure what I meant when I said that, but I think it may be the fact that Xeon quadcores has a higher price per tier than Core 2 quad cores, which follow the Core 2 dual cores. (though that's not the case today, but it seems like it will be) 3.0 GHz Xeons are cheaper at the moment than 2.93GHz Core 2 Duos, so it is not always so.
The Xeons DPs are mostly the same design, but they are usually tested & rated for lower power consumption while being able to withstand higher die temperatures than the desktop counterpart. It is generally the same way for Opteron vs. Athlon too. It's possible that the Extreme Edition chip has more rigorous testing under the assumption that the typical buyer is going to try to overclock the heck out of it.
Comments
Uh, I realize that it really is the article which is at fault, but Bearlake is a chipset codename, not a processor codename.
They should have said Bearlake's current day equivalent is the 975X chipset. I might have even let them off if they'd said broadwater (965).
But they was little point in mentioning it at all given that Apple hasn't used the desktop platform at all.
Um, that's exactly the way it is now. And the way it's always been. Intel makes a higher margin on a higher-end product.
I'm not sure what I meant when I said that, but I think it may be the fact that Xeon quadcores has a higher price per tier than Core 2 quad cores, which follow the Core 2 dual cores. (though that's not the case today, but it seems like it will be) 3.0 GHz Xeons are cheaper at the moment than 2.93GHz Core 2 Duos, so it is not always so.
@Melgross: Great, then a quad core Mac Pro do have some usefulness. I guess my arguing is moot at this point.
It seems like it'll be cheaper to put in one quad core than two dual cores, though. Similar to when the PowerMac went dual core instead of dual processor.
I'm not sure what I meant when I said that, but I think it may be the fact that Xeon quadcores has a higher price per tier than Core 2 quad cores, which follow the Core 2 dual cores. (though that's not the case today, but it seems like it will be) 3.0 GHz Xeons are cheaper at the moment than 2.93GHz Core 2 Duos, so it is not always so.
The Xeons DPs are mostly the same design, but they are usually tested & rated for lower power consumption while being able to withstand higher die temperatures than the desktop counterpart. It is generally the same way for Opteron vs. Athlon too. It's possible that the Extreme Edition chip has more rigorous testing under the assumption that the typical buyer is going to try to overclock the heck out of it.