As all chips get better, we will se that performance increase across the line.
Intel has stated that 4 core mobile chiops will be coming. When they do, we will see them in the iMac, and any other consumer machine Apple may havw out at the time.
My contention is that having come from a far more primitive past of Apple machines, I can see some trends that other, younger users may not appreciate.
My company, was among the first to go digital, in the '80's.
We had bought an English system called the Crossfield. It did what Photoshop did somewhat later on. This system cost in the six figures.
When PS was able to compete with that feature-wise, I talked to Adobe, and received several copies to try.
It was pretty damned slow!!! But, I went with it as a side to the Crossfield for a couple of years, and charged less for the less demanding work.
By the time I bought my first 950, fully equipped, for $16,000, in 1992, I think it was, I was about ready to cross over.
Let me tell you something.
That machine was the most powerful personal computer in the world, truly! No PC came even close.
It was so fast, that when we applied a Gaussian Blur to a 10 MB file, we barely had time to go get a cup of coffee, put our sugar in, plus milk, get back to the desk, and almost finish it, before the machine completed the task, and the bell rang!
That was how fast that machine was. Nothing else could touch it.
Considering that today, I can do the same blur to a 50 MB image, on an iMac, and have to wait no more than a couple of seconds, my distain for people who think that every command MUST be instantaneous is unavoidable.
That doesn't mean that I dislike progress. Far from it.
But, I've found that on a 2.33 GHz 24" iMac, most commands in PS, on a reasonable sized image, say 30 MBs in size, take place in one second, or less. To me, that's instantaneous. You don't really have time to do anything else before that command completes. Most other commands finish within two seconds, still close to instant, and some within five seconds, still pretty quick. Just a few take longer.
Even an eight core Mac Pro doesn't cut those times down by more than half.
The only time you would NEED a Mac Pro, is when doing work on much more demanding file types, or sizes. We often did work on 500 MB images, and, sometimes, on composites that exceeded 1GB.
I wouldn't recommend an iMac for those today, even though we did them on dual G4's, and later, dual G5's (we later sold the business).
But, anyone who does work on high end productions, as we did, charges enough to afford (and requires) a Mac Pro, fully equipped. I charged $275 an hour for my private work, and we charged, as a company, $350. That was three years ago. colleagues of mine, today, charge even more.
If someone has to ask if they need a Mac Pro, and then also mentions cost, then they don't need it.
distain ?
I am waiting to upgrade my quad G5 for having real time effect machine with aperture.
It's very difficult to do adjustements with aperture due to the erratic lag time. At the difference of photoshop, where you are obliged to wait until the task is done, aperture allow you to move the cursors while processing. It's almost impossible to work that way.
Aperture is a nice software, but way too in advance than the hardware.
Given the current Mac Pro chips and their prices, the 45nm version of the Mac Pro could look like this:
$2200 8-cores 2.50GHz
$2499 8-cores 2.83GHz
$3298 8-cores 3.00GHz
$3997 8-cores 3.16GHz
Then for those who didn't know, here is the penryn mobile line-up (price unknown yet but I bet it will be very close to the Santa Rosa Meroms we have now: from $209 to $851)
Penryn-based mobile Core 2 Duos:
2.1 GHz 800 MHz 3MB ($209 estimate)
2.4 GHz 800 MHz 3MB ($241-294 estimate)
2.5 GHz 800 MHz 6MB ($316-423 estimate)
2.6 GHz 800 MHz 6MB ($530 estimate)
45nm Core 2 Extreme:
2.8 GHz 800 MHz 6MB ($851 estimate)
So, we're about to have the 2008 MacBook with 2.1/2.4GHz cpus and the MacBook Pro with 2.5/2.6GHz cpus and more cache.
The question stays the same for the iMac (we'll soon see what Apple puts in next month revision), but my guess is top model will have a 2.6GHz penryn at best in 2008. Quad-core mobile processors are not expected before the 2nd half of 2008 and will be in the Extreme flavor along with the pricing ($851 or more). I won't be simply offered with iMacs or MBPs, it may be like a $400 BTO option for the high-end models.
I reiterate my concern about Apple's midrange in 2008, will it be a dual-core mobile/hybrid iMac, a quad-core headless "Mac" or a quad-core LV Xeon iMac "Pro", or else?
Some manufacturers are already shipping Quad-core desktops in the $900-1200 range (Acer and HP, AFAIK). What can we expect from Apple?
I don't think Apple is going to use the new Xeons. The last quad core versions are being over-clocked at just over 4GHz. Why spend that kind of money on it when you can get similar, if not better performance for less and still be able to update their pro machine with other various better features for less.
#1 I don't think Apple is going to reduce the speed on the Mac Pro.
I know this is a bit off topic, but why does Intel push the fully buffered DIMMS? Seems like thy increase the cost of systems that use them with little or no benefit. Why can't the Mac Pro use high end 'Conroe' cpus with the ordinary memory? Seems like that would decrease costs for everyone.
I know this is a bit off topic, but why does Intel push the fully buffered DIMMS? Seems like thy increase the cost of systems that use them with little or no benefit. Why can't the Mac Pro use high end 'Conroe' cpus with the ordinary memory? Seems like that would decrease costs for everyone.
Because Conroe does not have Dual (or 4) socket Processor capabilities, therefore is not a workstation class processor. XEONS are.
And secondly. I wouldn't put that much faith in that article. It's a pro AMD article. It's intent is to undermine intel from the beginning.
I don't think Apple is going to use the new Xeons. The last quad core versions are being over-clocked at just over 4GHz. Why spend that kind of money on it when you can get similar, if not better performance for less and still be able to update their pro machine with other various better features for less.
#1 I don't think Apple is going to reduce the speed on the Mac Pro.
#3 THey will want to price it in a similar range to the existing Mac Pro.
#4 they probably can not do all of the previous 3 things with the processors costing $900.00+ each in bulk.
What are you talking about?
Are you talking about the "current" quad-core xeons (they are already using it for the high-end version dual quad-core 3.00GHz) or the 45nm versions that will come at the end of the year?
- the 45nm will clock at 2.50GHz instead of the current DC 2.00GHz
- the 45nm will clock at 2.83GHz instead of the current DC 2.66GHz
- the 45nm will clock at 3.16GHz instead of the current QC 2.66GHz
#2 That's right, but there are no new Xeon chipset yet (Stockley/Seaburg and Cranberry Lake/San Clemente will be launched with the new 45nm xeons). Right now all that Apple can do is offer more memory or new video cards, the chipset stays the same.
#3 That's what I suggested above: same prices, faster and dual quad-core cpus for all models.
#4 ??? The new 45nm Xeon will cost about the same as the current ones and will have better specs...
Are you talking about the "current" quad-core xeons (they are already using it for the high-end version dual quad-core 3.00GHz) or the 45nm versions that will come at the end of the year?
- the 45nm will clock at 2.50GHz instead of the current DC 2.00GHz
- the 45nm will clock at 2.83GHz instead of the current DC 2.66GHz
- the 45nm will clock at 3.16GHz instead of the current QC 2.66GHz
#2 That's right, but there are no new Xeon chipset yet (Stockley/Seaburg and Cranberry Lake/San Clemente will be launched with the new 45nm xeons). Right now all that Apple can do is offer more memory or new video cards, the chipset stays the same.
#3 That's what I suggested above: same prices, faster and dual quad-core cpus for all models.
#4 ??? The new 45nm Xeon will cost about the same as the current ones and will have better specs...
What I'm talking about is when the 5400's are released the 5300 series will be reduced. And it will still be able to perform just as good as a 5400.
I am waiting to upgrade my quad G5 for having real time effect machine with aperture.
It's very difficult to do adjustements with aperture due to the erratic lag time. At the difference of photoshop, where you are obliged to wait until the task is done, aperture allow you to move the cursors while processing. It's almost impossible to work that way.
Aperture is a nice software, but way too in advance than the hardware.
Distain, yes. There will always be people who expect that every action be instantaneous. That will never happen. As you point out with Aperture, there will be software companies who come out with products that require a state of the art machine, no matter what.
For people who actually need these products on a *true* professional level, a Mac Pro is indicated. But, for everyone else, an iMac is fine.
I find PS to be more than adequate on a faster model iMac, and I've put literally thousands of hours on PS, certainly over 10 thousand. I've always thought that faster is better. But, recently, machine speed has gotten good enough so that, as I said earlier, unless you are working really big files, you don't need a Mac Pro.
I don't think Apple is going to use the new Xeons. The last quad core versions are being over-clocked at just over 4GHz. Why spend that kind of money on it when you can get similar, if not better performance for less and still be able to update their pro machine with other various better features for less.
#1 I don't think Apple is going to reduce the speed on the Mac Pro.
What I'm talking about is when the 5400's are released the 5300 series will be reduced. And it will still be able to perform just as good as a 5400.
We'll have to wait and see... Anyway, Apple will need to upgrade to a better chipset, to stay competitive in the workstation market, and my bet is that they will move to 45nm and 8 cores on all models at the same time: Intel will put a lot of advertising on the 45nm move and I think Apple should ride on it.
Because Conroe does not have Dual (or 4) socket Processor capabilities, therefore is not a workstation class processor. XEONS are.
And secondly. I wouldn't put that much faith in that article. It's a pro AMD article. It's intent is to undermine intel from the beginning.
I don't agree with that at all. Anands is very thorough in its reviews. If you read more of what they publish, you would see that they are agnostic. Their reviews of Intels products have slammed AMD's, most of the time since Core came out.
It doesn't mean that that will happen all of the time.
FB-DIMMs strength doesn't lie in speed. The design has longer delays due to the serial nature of the design, and greater power needs, and more heat production, due to the built-in controllers.
This is registered memory, required in a serious server environment. It also allows more memory to be used than DDR, also valuable for servers, and workstations.
We know Barcelona is out in August, though I don't have an exact date here.
Isn't there rumors that it's delayed further still?
Anyway I'll bet money that Penryn will closely follow Barcelona, within one month. Intel has got it's hand across AMD's throat and I don't see them letting up anytime soon.
Distain, yes. There will always be people who expect that every action be instantaneous. That will never happen. As you point out with Aperture, there will be software companies who come out with products that require a state of the art machine, no matter what.
For people who actually need these products on a *true* professional level, a Mac Pro is indicated. But, for everyone else, an iMac is fine.
I find PS to be more than adequate on a faster model iMac, and I've put literally thousands of hours on PS, certainly over 10 thousand. I've always thought that faster is better. But, recently, machine speed has gotten good enough so that, as I said earlier, unless you are working really big files, you don't need a Mac Pro.
I don't have any problems with photoshop
But as you mentionned , some software will alwayss recquiere state of the art machine. The problem with aperture that such machine does not already exist.
Let's expect that Apple will fix this with the version 2.
We'll have to wait and see... Anyway, Apple will need to upgrade to a better chipset, to stay competitive in the workstation market, and my bet is that they will move to 45nm and 8 cores on all models at the same time: Intel will put a lot of advertising on the 45nm move and I think Apple should ride on it.
That depends. AFAIK Apple and intel design Apples motherboards together now. The processor will be interchangeable I believe so going with an earlier version would still be possible, but I do agree that Apple may use the new version to stay in favor with intel. I think it would be more beneficial to users if they included extra new options, and used the older processor to keep the prices in line, and get more out of the rerst of the configuration. Chances are they will still awe us somehow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I don't agree with that at all. Anands is very thorough in its reviews. If you read more of what they publish, you would see that they are agnostic. Their reviews of Intels products have slammed AMD's, most of the time since Core came out.
It doesn't mean that that will happen all of the time.
FB-DIMMs strength doesn't lie in speed. The design has longer delays due to the serial nature of the design, and greater power needs, and more heat production, due to the built-in controllers.
This is registered memory, required in a serious server environment. It also allows more memory to be used than DDR, also valuable for servers, and workstations.
No matter. You still can not use Conroe in a two, or four processor socket configuration.
Isn't there rumors that it's delayed further still?
So far, no.
But a 2 GHz product isn't going to compete very well.
Quote:
Anyway I'll bet money that Penryn will closely follow Barcelona, within one month. Intel has got it's hand across AMD's throat and I don't see them letting up anytime soon.
Yes, I know about that. What does that have to do with your assertion that the 5300's perform as well as the new 5400's?
Quote:
That depends. AFAIK Apple and intel design Apples motherboards together now. The processor will be interchangeable I believe so going with an earlier version would still be possible, but I do agree that Apple may use the new version to stay in favor with intel. I think it would be more beneficial to users if they included extra new options, and used the older processor to keep the prices in line, and get more out of the rerst of the configuration. Chances are they will still awe us somehow.
I don't understand that either. You are saying that Apple would use the older cpu's? They might not update right away, but they won't wait for too long.
Quote:
No matter. You still can not use Conroe in a two, or four processor socket configuration.
Well, of course, we know that's why Apple went with the Xeon. But, there still has been a call for Intel to drop the FB-BIMM requirement coming from other people than Mac users.
Most of the newer chips will give some options in memory types.
Comments
As all chips get better, we will se that performance increase across the line.
Intel has stated that 4 core mobile chiops will be coming. When they do, we will see them in the iMac, and any other consumer machine Apple may havw out at the time.
My contention is that having come from a far more primitive past of Apple machines, I can see some trends that other, younger users may not appreciate.
My company, was among the first to go digital, in the '80's.
We had bought an English system called the Crossfield. It did what Photoshop did somewhat later on. This system cost in the six figures.
When PS was able to compete with that feature-wise, I talked to Adobe, and received several copies to try.
It was pretty damned slow!!! But, I went with it as a side to the Crossfield for a couple of years, and charged less for the less demanding work.
By the time I bought my first 950, fully equipped, for $16,000, in 1992, I think it was, I was about ready to cross over.
Let me tell you something.
That machine was the most powerful personal computer in the world, truly! No PC came even close.
It was so fast, that when we applied a Gaussian Blur to a 10 MB file, we barely had time to go get a cup of coffee, put our sugar in, plus milk, get back to the desk, and almost finish it, before the machine completed the task, and the bell rang!
That was how fast that machine was. Nothing else could touch it.
Considering that today, I can do the same blur to a 50 MB image, on an iMac, and have to wait no more than a couple of seconds, my distain for people who think that every command MUST be instantaneous is unavoidable.
That doesn't mean that I dislike progress. Far from it.
But, I've found that on a 2.33 GHz 24" iMac, most commands in PS, on a reasonable sized image, say 30 MBs in size, take place in one second, or less. To me, that's instantaneous. You don't really have time to do anything else before that command completes. Most other commands finish within two seconds, still close to instant, and some within five seconds, still pretty quick. Just a few take longer.
Even an eight core Mac Pro doesn't cut those times down by more than half.
The only time you would NEED a Mac Pro, is when doing work on much more demanding file types, or sizes. We often did work on 500 MB images, and, sometimes, on composites that exceeded 1GB.
I wouldn't recommend an iMac for those today, even though we did them on dual G4's, and later, dual G5's (we later sold the business).
But, anyone who does work on high end productions, as we did, charges enough to afford (and requires) a Mac Pro, fully equipped. I charged $275 an hour for my private work, and we charged, as a company, $350. That was three years ago. colleagues of mine, today, charge even more.
If someone has to ask if they need a Mac Pro, and then also mentions cost, then they don't need it.
distain ?
I am waiting to upgrade my quad G5 for having real time effect machine with aperture.
It's very difficult to do adjustements with aperture due to the erratic lag time. At the difference of photoshop, where you are obliged to wait until the task is done, aperture allow you to move the cursors while processing. It's almost impossible to work that way.
Aperture is a nice software, but way too in advance than the hardware.
Penryn Quad-Core Xeon DP
X5460 3.16 GHz 120W 12MB $1,172
E5450 3.00 GHz 80W 12MB $851\t
E5440 2.83 GHz 80W 12MB $690\t
E5430 2.66 GHz 80W 12MB $455\t
E5420 2.50 GHz 80W 12MB $316\t
E5410 2.33 GHz 80W 12MB $256\t
E5405 2.xx GHz 80W 12MB $209
Penryn Quad-Core Xeon DP (LV)
L5430 2.66 GHz 50W 12MB $519\t
L5410 2.33 GHz 50W 12MB $320
Penryn Dual-Core Xeon DP
E5260 3.33 GHz 65W 6MB $851
E5205 1.86 GHz 65W 6MB $177
Given the current Mac Pro chips and their prices, the 45nm version of the Mac Pro could look like this:
$2200 8-cores 2.50GHz
$2499 8-cores 2.83GHz
$3298 8-cores 3.00GHz
$3997 8-cores 3.16GHz
Then for those who didn't know, here is the penryn mobile line-up (price unknown yet but I bet it will be very close to the Santa Rosa Meroms we have now: from $209 to $851)
Penryn-based mobile Core 2 Duos:
2.1 GHz 800 MHz 3MB ($209 estimate)
2.4 GHz 800 MHz 3MB ($241-294 estimate)
2.5 GHz 800 MHz 6MB ($316-423 estimate)
2.6 GHz 800 MHz 6MB ($530 estimate)
45nm Core 2 Extreme:
2.8 GHz 800 MHz 6MB ($851 estimate)
So, we're about to have the 2008 MacBook with 2.1/2.4GHz cpus and the MacBook Pro with 2.5/2.6GHz cpus and more cache.
The question stays the same for the iMac (we'll soon see what Apple puts in next month revision), but my guess is top model will have a 2.6GHz penryn at best in 2008. Quad-core mobile processors are not expected before the 2nd half of 2008 and will be in the Extreme flavor along with the pricing ($851 or more). I won't be simply offered with iMacs or MBPs, it may be like a $400 BTO option for the high-end models.
I reiterate my concern about Apple's midrange in 2008, will it be a dual-core mobile/hybrid iMac, a quad-core headless "Mac" or a quad-core LV Xeon iMac "Pro", or else?
Some manufacturers are already shipping Quad-core desktops in the $900-1200 range (Acer and HP, AFAIK). What can we expect from Apple?
HP-Pavilion-Media-Center-TV-PC-M8120N
Acer Aspire_E700_UQ660A_Minitower
#1 I don't think Apple is going to reduce the speed on the Mac Pro.
#2 it's already overdue for a full blown update.
#3 THey will want to price it in a similar range to the existing Mac Pro.
#4 they probably can not do all of the previous 3 things with the processors costing $900.00+ each in bulk.
I know this is a bit off topic, but why does Intel push the fully buffered DIMMS? Seems like thy increase the cost of systems that use them with little or no benefit. Why can't the Mac Pro use high end 'Conroe' cpus with the ordinary memory? Seems like that would decrease costs for everyone.
Because Conroe does not have Dual (or 4) socket Processor capabilities, therefore is not a workstation class processor. XEONS are.
And secondly. I wouldn't put that much faith in that article. It's a pro AMD article. It's intent is to undermine intel from the beginning.
I don't think Apple is going to use the new Xeons. The last quad core versions are being over-clocked at just over 4GHz. Why spend that kind of money on it when you can get similar, if not better performance for less and still be able to update their pro machine with other various better features for less.
#1 I don't think Apple is going to reduce the speed on the Mac Pro.
#2 it's already overdue for a full blown update.
#3 THey will want to price it in a similar range to the existing Mac Pro.
#4 they probably can not do all of the previous 3 things with the processors costing $900.00+ each in bulk.
What are you talking about?
Are you talking about the "current" quad-core xeons (they are already using it for the high-end version dual quad-core 3.00GHz) or the 45nm versions that will come at the end of the year?
#1 For the same list price:
- the 45nm will clock at 2.50GHz instead of the current DC 2.00GHz
- the 45nm will clock at 2.83GHz instead of the current DC 2.66GHz
- the 45nm will clock at 3.16GHz instead of the current QC 2.66GHz
#2 That's right, but there are no new Xeon chipset yet (Stockley/Seaburg and Cranberry Lake/San Clemente will be launched with the new 45nm xeons). Right now all that Apple can do is offer more memory or new video cards, the chipset stays the same.
#3 That's what I suggested above: same prices, faster and dual quad-core cpus for all models.
#4 ??? The new 45nm Xeon will cost about the same as the current ones and will have better specs...
Because Conroe does not have Dual (or 4) socket Processor capabilities, therefore is not a workstation class processor. XEONS are.
And secondly. I wouldn't put that much faith in that article. It's a pro AMD article. It's intent is to undermine intel from the beginning.
Gotcha. Thanks for the reply.
What are you talking about?
Are you talking about the "current" quad-core xeons (they are already using it for the high-end version dual quad-core 3.00GHz) or the 45nm versions that will come at the end of the year?
#1 For the same list price:
- the 45nm will clock at 2.50GHz instead of the current DC 2.00GHz
- the 45nm will clock at 2.83GHz instead of the current DC 2.66GHz
- the 45nm will clock at 3.16GHz instead of the current QC 2.66GHz
#2 That's right, but there are no new Xeon chipset yet (Stockley/Seaburg and Cranberry Lake/San Clemente will be launched with the new 45nm xeons). Right now all that Apple can do is offer more memory or new video cards, the chipset stays the same.
#3 That's what I suggested above: same prices, faster and dual quad-core cpus for all models.
#4 ??? The new 45nm Xeon will cost about the same as the current ones and will have better specs...
What I'm talking about is when the 5400's are released the 5300 series will be reduced. And it will still be able to perform just as good as a 5400.
distain ?
I am waiting to upgrade my quad G5 for having real time effect machine with aperture.
It's very difficult to do adjustements with aperture due to the erratic lag time. At the difference of photoshop, where you are obliged to wait until the task is done, aperture allow you to move the cursors while processing. It's almost impossible to work that way.
Aperture is a nice software, but way too in advance than the hardware.
Distain, yes. There will always be people who expect that every action be instantaneous. That will never happen. As you point out with Aperture, there will be software companies who come out with products that require a state of the art machine, no matter what.
For people who actually need these products on a *true* professional level, a Mac Pro is indicated. But, for everyone else, an iMac is fine.
I find PS to be more than adequate on a faster model iMac, and I've put literally thousands of hours on PS, certainly over 10 thousand. I've always thought that faster is better. But, recently, machine speed has gotten good enough so that, as I said earlier, unless you are working really big files, you don't need a Mac Pro.
I don't think Apple is going to use the new Xeons. The last quad core versions are being over-clocked at just over 4GHz. Why spend that kind of money on it when you can get similar, if not better performance for less and still be able to update their pro machine with other various better features for less.
#1 I don't think Apple is going to reduce the speed on the Mac Pro.
#2 it's already overdue for a full blown update.
#3 THey will want to price it in a similar range to the existing Mac Pro.
#4 they probably can not do all of the previous 3 things with the processors costing $900.00+ each in bulk.
I don't understand the first part of your post. What are you saying? That Apple should overclock?
What I'm talking about is when the 5400's are released the 5300 series will be reduced. And it will still be able to perform just as good as a 5400.
We'll have to wait and see... Anyway, Apple will need to upgrade to a better chipset, to stay competitive in the workstation market, and my bet is that they will move to 45nm and 8 cores on all models at the same time: Intel will put a lot of advertising on the 45nm move and I think Apple should ride on it.
Because Conroe does not have Dual (or 4) socket Processor capabilities, therefore is not a workstation class processor. XEONS are.
And secondly. I wouldn't put that much faith in that article. It's a pro AMD article. It's intent is to undermine intel from the beginning.
I don't agree with that at all. Anands is very thorough in its reviews. If you read more of what they publish, you would see that they are agnostic. Their reviews of Intels products have slammed AMD's, most of the time since Core came out.
It doesn't mean that that will happen all of the time.
FB-DIMMs strength doesn't lie in speed. The design has longer delays due to the serial nature of the design, and greater power needs, and more heat production, due to the built-in controllers.
This is registered memory, required in a serious server environment. It also allows more memory to be used than DDR, also valuable for servers, and workstations.
The last time they did that with this generation, they released to chips to production a couple of months early.
Already, I'm seeing a subtle change. First it was by the end of year, now it's forth quarter.
That could mean September.
I can tell you exactly when Penryn is coming out... if you tell me when Barcelona is coming from AMD.
^^^^
I can tell you exactly when Penryn is coming out... if you tell me when Barcelona is coming from AMD.
We know Barcelona is out in August, though I don't have an exact date here.
We know Barcelona is out in August, though I don't have an exact date here.
Isn't there rumors that it's delayed further still?
Anyway I'll bet money that Penryn will closely follow Barcelona, within one month. Intel has got it's hand across AMD's throat and I don't see them letting up anytime soon.
Distain, yes. There will always be people who expect that every action be instantaneous. That will never happen. As you point out with Aperture, there will be software companies who come out with products that require a state of the art machine, no matter what.
For people who actually need these products on a *true* professional level, a Mac Pro is indicated. But, for everyone else, an iMac is fine.
I find PS to be more than adequate on a faster model iMac, and I've put literally thousands of hours on PS, certainly over 10 thousand. I've always thought that faster is better. But, recently, machine speed has gotten good enough so that, as I said earlier, unless you are working really big files, you don't need a Mac Pro.
I don't have any problems with photoshop
But as you mentionned , some software will alwayss recquiere state of the art machine. The problem with aperture that such machine does not already exist.
Let's expect that Apple will fix this with the version 2.
I don't understand the first part of your post. What are you saying? That Apple should overclock?
Apple put in a special request to intel previously and had that exact thing done.
We'll have to wait and see... Anyway, Apple will need to upgrade to a better chipset, to stay competitive in the workstation market, and my bet is that they will move to 45nm and 8 cores on all models at the same time: Intel will put a lot of advertising on the 45nm move and I think Apple should ride on it.
That depends. AFAIK Apple and intel design Apples motherboards together now. The processor will be interchangeable I believe so going with an earlier version would still be possible, but I do agree that Apple may use the new version to stay in favor with intel. I think it would be more beneficial to users if they included extra new options, and used the older processor to keep the prices in line, and get more out of the rerst of the configuration. Chances are they will still awe us somehow.
I don't agree with that at all. Anands is very thorough in its reviews. If you read more of what they publish, you would see that they are agnostic. Their reviews of Intels products have slammed AMD's, most of the time since Core came out.
It doesn't mean that that will happen all of the time.
FB-DIMMs strength doesn't lie in speed. The design has longer delays due to the serial nature of the design, and greater power needs, and more heat production, due to the built-in controllers.
This is registered memory, required in a serious server environment. It also allows more memory to be used than DDR, also valuable for servers, and workstations.
No matter. You still can not use Conroe in a two, or four processor socket configuration.
Isn't there rumors that it's delayed further still?
So far, no.
But a 2 GHz product isn't going to compete very well.
Anyway I'll bet money that Penryn will closely follow Barcelona, within one month. Intel has got it's hand across AMD's throat and I don't see them letting up anytime soon.
That's what I'm predicting.
Apple put in a special request to intel previously and had that exact thing done.
Yes, I know about that. What does that have to do with your assertion that the 5300's perform as well as the new 5400's?
That depends. AFAIK Apple and intel design Apples motherboards together now. The processor will be interchangeable I believe so going with an earlier version would still be possible, but I do agree that Apple may use the new version to stay in favor with intel. I think it would be more beneficial to users if they included extra new options, and used the older processor to keep the prices in line, and get more out of the rerst of the configuration. Chances are they will still awe us somehow.
I don't understand that either. You are saying that Apple would use the older cpu's? They might not update right away, but they won't wait for too long.
No matter. You still can not use Conroe in a two, or four processor socket configuration.
Well, of course, we know that's why Apple went with the Xeon. But, there still has been a call for Intel to drop the FB-BIMM requirement coming from other people than Mac users.
Most of the newer chips will give some options in memory types.