With laptop and iPod/iPhone updates out of the way, it's clear that Apple will next release updated desktop machines. That is 3 desktop lines. Below I'll outline my thoughts on how each will be upgraded and what direction i think they should go in.
Mac Pro
While I love the G5 style case, it's time to retire it. In my opinion, it's much too large and uses too many raw materials to manufacture. Something along the lines of the old G4 case (size-wise) would be preferable.
Internally, I would prefer that they separate the line by chipset/processor. On the high end they would continue to use the Xeon chipset. 8 RAM slots, 3 PCIe slots, Firewire 3200 and same ports as the current system. On the midrange systems I think they should take advantage of the desktop Core 2 processors and chipset. 4 RAM slots and the same ports as the high-end systems. The midrange systems would be a single processor system with up to quad cores.
This would allow Apple to offer a broader array of desktops at evenly spaced out price points and cut costs. In this economy offering a midrange Mac workstation is essential.
Price points: $1,499 - $1,799 - $2,499 - $2,999 First 2 are midrange, the last 2 are high-end.
The Mac Pro workstation is a completely different class of machine than the old PowerMac G3/4 desktops. Believe it or no, it's already one of the smallest dual core workstations on the market. The "replacement" for the PowerMac is for better or [most likely] worse is the upper ranges of the iMac.
Sure but as joe_the_dragon mentioned, there are dual processor desktop chipsets like the Skulltrail (now the Dual Socket Extreme Desktop):
Skulltrail isn't a chipset, it's just the board's product name. The chipset Skulltrail uses is the exact same 5000X found in the Mac Pro. The "Extreme" processors Skulltrail uses are just socket 771 Xeons with unlocked multipliers, too.
Do your prices include the chipset? An important thing to keep in mind with Nehalem is that the memory controller has moved from the chipset to the processor. That means the chipset becomes smaller and less complex, and the bus interface changes from an FSB to a new high clock serial interface. Also, the FB-DIMMs are gone, replaced by DDR3. So the price structure of the entire mainboard changes significantly.
Do your prices include the chipset? An important thing to keep in mind with Nehalem is that the memory controller has moved from the chipset to the processor. That means the chipset becomes smaller and less complex, and the bus interface changes from an FSB to a new high clock serial interface. Also, the FB-DIMMs are gone, replaced by DDR3. So the price structure of the entire mainboard changes significantly.
Indeed. Another thing that would be nice to know, especially for portables, is how the power budget looks. Information seems to be that the TDP of Nehalem CPUs is higher than Penryn, this is to be expected due to the integrated memory controller. The question is, has the TDP of the chipset (what do we call the X58? do we still call it a northbridge?*) been reduced by a corresponding amount?
*edit: apparently Intel likes to call it an I/O hub, but that makes it sound like a southbridge. Why don't they just integrate the southbridge functions into X58? Surely X58 is simpler than previous northbridges due to the lack of a memory interface, thus making room for southbridge functions.
Do your prices include the chipset? An important thing to keep in mind with Nehalem is that the memory controller has moved from the chipset to the processor. That means the chipset becomes smaller and less complex, and the bus interface changes from an FSB to a new high clock serial interface. Also, the FB-DIMMs are gone, replaced by DDR3. So the price structure of the entire mainboard changes significantly.
also apple can use a board with less pci-e i/o then a 3-4 way SLI / crossfire board will have cutting cost even more then a high end desktop x58 board.
Also apple can have a nvidia based core i7 board also.
*edit: apparently Intel likes to call it an I/O hub, but that makes it sound like a southbridge. Why don't they just integrate the southbridge functions into X58? Surely X58 is simpler than previous northbridges due to the lack of a memory interface, thus making room for southbridge functions.
I can think of a couple reasons. Since the X58 only has to support the processor and PCI Express bus now, it allows Intel and manufacturers to pair the X58 with a variety of IO chips. Apple for example could design their own south bridge since they don't need PS/2, parallel ports, and some of the other things the standard intel chips have and add their own like Firewire 800/3200 or vector processing units, or 10Gb ethernet.
Apple for example could design their own south bridge since they don't need PS/2, parallel ports, and some of the other things the standard intel chips have and add their own like Firewire 800/3200 or vector processing units, or 10Gb ethernet.
Intel's chips haven't had PS/2, parallel ports, or most other legacy crap for a long time. Those things are provided by super I/O chips off the LPC bus.
I can think of a couple reasons. Since the X58 only has to support the processor and PCI Express bus now, it allows Intel and manufacturers to pair the X58 with a variety of IO chips. Apple for example could design their own south bridge since they don't need PS/2, parallel ports, and some of the other things the standard intel chips have and add their own like Firewire 800/3200 or vector processing units, or 10Gb ethernet.
Firewire in all MB to day is hooked to a pci or pci-e bus not build in to the chipset.
I can think of a couple reasons. Since the X58 only has to support the processor and PCI Express bus now, it allows Intel and manufacturers to pair the X58 with a variety of IO chips. Apple for example could design their own south bridge since they don't need PS/2, parallel ports, and some of the other things the standard intel chips have and add their own like Firewire 800/3200 or vector processing units, or 10Gb ethernet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider
Yet.
Honestly, why would they want to? IMO, they would be better off making a nice southbridge with GPU for the X58.
They made cool chips for the AMD HT bus and they can do the same for the QP bus.
Honestly, why would they want to? IMO, they would be better off making a nice southbridge with GPU for the X58.
They tried forcing mobo makers to include their latency-multiplying NF200 chip on X58 boards, in order to get hardware SLI support. No one was interested in that, though, so they compromised and are allowing SLI on any X58 board that passes Nvidia "certification" (translation: Nvidia wants $$$).
Nvidia could try to make an i7 chipset, but without SLI as a selling point that would be futile. Instead, they'll concentrate on a chipset for the mainstream and mobile versions of Nehalem next year. Probably a good strategy.
I expect Apple to continue their tradition of not using any of Intel's "desktop" chips. The Mac Pro will stay Xeon and will move to the new "Core i7"-based Xeons (listed by mjteix above) next year, hopefully at MWSF.
Thanks. Oh, I get it now. I guess I meant to ask when the "Xeon" versions of the Core i7s (not the "desktop " versions) would show up in the next MacPro tower.
Like Mr.H said, Apple will probably release the new Mac Pro in Q1 2009, depending of the state of the inventory and the availability of the platform they choose to used.
The desktop Core i7 cpus and the X58 chipset will be officially launched on Nov. 17, and many preproduction samples have been already available (hence all the test articles this week). These cpus have a TDP of 130W, so a tower design is required. Those cpus are less expensive than the current high-end desktop quads in Intel's line-up, but the motherboard is more expensive to manufacture.
The server/workstation cpus/chipset are rumored for early 2009. The TDP of the cpus varies from 65W to 130W, nothing special here. These cpus will be "slightly" more expensive than the current Xeons (at similar clock) but are also much more powerful. The motherboard will also be more expensive to manufacture.
Some people think the Core i7/X58 is a good enough platform for the Mac Pro (it also allows for less expensive models), other think that Apple will keep the dual-cpu concept for the Mac Pro, that means more expensive models at similar clocks (but again much more powerful computers). Optimists think that Apple could release 2 versions: single cpu models and dual-cpu models... I would like that...
Right. I get it now (see above). I would expect only one version of MacPro being made available from Apple next year (the expensive one). Which, in an weird way, is good. All that fancy QPI stuff sounds fast. Will the amount of addressable RAM increase?
Thanks. Oh, I get it now. I guess I meant to ask when the "Xeon" versions of the Core i7s (not the "desktop " versions) would show up in the next MacPro tower.
That's a good question. Nobody knows. Intel isn't leaking anything about those processors.
Honestly, why would they want to? IMO, they would be better off making a nice southbridge with GPU for the X58.
You're got going to see much demand for integrated graphics in higher end desktops. What Apple could do, (with intel's permission of course) is to design a single custom chip that replaces the north and south bridges.
"Otellini also seemed to clear up some confusion about when the first server chips based on the new Core i7 microarchitecture, codenamed Nehalem, would be made available. ChannelWeb reported in August that a DP server chip codenamed Gainestown could join the coming Extreme Core i7 desktop/workstation product as the first Nehalem-architecture devices to be released before year's end, but Otellini said Tuesday that the DP server chip would go into production "in the first quarter of 2009.""
I reckon an announcement at MacWorld but not shipping until later on unless Apple got them earlier like they did with some other Mac Pro chips.
That's a good question. Nobody knows. Intel isn't leaking anything about those processors.
The dual CPU version (Gainestown) will be out in q1 2009. They may be cheaper than traditional xeons as they are more or less versions of the Core I7 desktop cpu and x58 with additional quick path connections. They even use the same socket as the i7.
The dual CPU version (Gainestown) will be out in q1 2009. They may be cheaper than traditional xeons as they are more or less versions of the Core I7 desktop cpu and x58 with additional quick path connections. They even use the same socket as the i7.
Unfortunatly not Ben, it seems that QPI links are the main costly item in nehalem.
At equivalent clock, there is a $600-700 differential in adding another QPI link:
Unfortunatly not Ben, it seems that QPI links are the main costly item in nehalem.
From an OEM's (and end-purchaser's) perspective yes, from Intel's perspective, no. You can be sure that Intel's margins on the Xeons are much higher than on "desktop" Core i7s. At least with Xeon Nehalems you are getting something extra over standard desktop Nehalems; The differences between Xeon and desktop Penryns are negligible from a silicon perspective.
Comments
With laptop and iPod/iPhone updates out of the way, it's clear that Apple will next release updated desktop machines. That is 3 desktop lines. Below I'll outline my thoughts on how each will be upgraded and what direction i think they should go in.
Mac Pro
While I love the G5 style case, it's time to retire it. In my opinion, it's much too large and uses too many raw materials to manufacture. Something along the lines of the old G4 case (size-wise) would be preferable.
Internally, I would prefer that they separate the line by chipset/processor. On the high end they would continue to use the Xeon chipset. 8 RAM slots, 3 PCIe slots, Firewire 3200 and same ports as the current system. On the midrange systems I think they should take advantage of the desktop Core 2 processors and chipset. 4 RAM slots and the same ports as the high-end systems. The midrange systems would be a single processor system with up to quad cores.
This would allow Apple to offer a broader array of desktops at evenly spaced out price points and cut costs. In this economy offering a midrange Mac workstation is essential.
Price points: $1,499 - $1,799 - $2,499 - $2,999 First 2 are midrange, the last 2 are high-end.
The Mac Pro workstation is a completely different class of machine than the old PowerMac G3/4 desktops. Believe it or no, it's already one of the smallest dual core workstations on the market. The "replacement" for the PowerMac is for better or [most likely] worse is the upper ranges of the iMac.
Sure but as joe_the_dragon mentioned, there are dual processor desktop chipsets like the Skulltrail (now the Dual Socket Extreme Desktop):
Skulltrail isn't a chipset, it's just the board's product name. The chipset Skulltrail uses is the exact same 5000X found in the Mac Pro. The "Extreme" processors Skulltrail uses are just socket 771 Xeons with unlocked multipliers, too.
Do your prices include the chipset? An important thing to keep in mind with Nehalem is that the memory controller has moved from the chipset to the processor. That means the chipset becomes smaller and less complex, and the bus interface changes from an FSB to a new high clock serial interface. Also, the FB-DIMMs are gone, replaced by DDR3. So the price structure of the entire mainboard changes significantly.
Indeed. Another thing that would be nice to know, especially for portables, is how the power budget looks. Information seems to be that the TDP of Nehalem CPUs is higher than Penryn, this is to be expected due to the integrated memory controller. The question is, has the TDP of the chipset (what do we call the X58? do we still call it a northbridge?*) been reduced by a corresponding amount?
*edit: apparently Intel likes to call it an I/O hub, but that makes it sound like a southbridge. Why don't they just integrate the southbridge functions into X58? Surely X58 is simpler than previous northbridges due to the lack of a memory interface, thus making room for southbridge functions.
Do your prices include the chipset? An important thing to keep in mind with Nehalem is that the memory controller has moved from the chipset to the processor. That means the chipset becomes smaller and less complex, and the bus interface changes from an FSB to a new high clock serial interface. Also, the FB-DIMMs are gone, replaced by DDR3. So the price structure of the entire mainboard changes significantly.
also apple can use a board with less pci-e i/o then a 3-4 way SLI / crossfire board will have cutting cost even more then a high end desktop x58 board.
Also apple can have a nvidia based core i7 board also.
*edit: apparently Intel likes to call it an I/O hub, but that makes it sound like a southbridge. Why don't they just integrate the southbridge functions into X58? Surely X58 is simpler than previous northbridges due to the lack of a memory interface, thus making room for southbridge functions.
I can think of a couple reasons. Since the X58 only has to support the processor and PCI Express bus now, it allows Intel and manufacturers to pair the X58 with a variety of IO chips. Apple for example could design their own south bridge since they don't need PS/2, parallel ports, and some of the other things the standard intel chips have and add their own like Firewire 800/3200 or vector processing units, or 10Gb ethernet.
Also apple can have a nvidia based core i7 board also.
Ah, but they can't. Nvidia is not making a chipset for the i7 processor.
Ah, but they can't. Nvidia is not making a chipset for the i7 processor.
Yet.
Honestly, why would they want to? IMO, they would be better off making a nice southbridge with GPU for the X58.
Apple for example could design their own south bridge since they don't need PS/2, parallel ports, and some of the other things the standard intel chips have and add their own like Firewire 800/3200 or vector processing units, or 10Gb ethernet.
Intel's chips haven't had PS/2, parallel ports, or most other legacy crap for a long time. Those things are provided by super I/O chips off the LPC bus.
I can think of a couple reasons. Since the X58 only has to support the processor and PCI Express bus now, it allows Intel and manufacturers to pair the X58 with a variety of IO chips. Apple for example could design their own south bridge since they don't need PS/2, parallel ports, and some of the other things the standard intel chips have and add their own like Firewire 800/3200 or vector processing units, or 10Gb ethernet.
Firewire in all MB to day is hooked to a pci or pci-e bus not build in to the chipset.
I can think of a couple reasons. Since the X58 only has to support the processor and PCI Express bus now, it allows Intel and manufacturers to pair the X58 with a variety of IO chips. Apple for example could design their own south bridge since they don't need PS/2, parallel ports, and some of the other things the standard intel chips have and add their own like Firewire 800/3200 or vector processing units, or 10Gb ethernet.
Yet.
Honestly, why would they want to? IMO, they would be better off making a nice southbridge with GPU for the X58.
They made cool chips for the AMD HT bus and they can do the same for the QP bus.
Yet.
Honestly, why would they want to? IMO, they would be better off making a nice southbridge with GPU for the X58.
They tried forcing mobo makers to include their latency-multiplying NF200 chip on X58 boards, in order to get hardware SLI support. No one was interested in that, though, so they compromised and are allowing SLI on any X58 board that passes Nvidia "certification" (translation: Nvidia wants $$$).
Nvidia could try to make an i7 chipset, but without SLI as a selling point that would be futile. Instead, they'll concentrate on a chipset for the mainstream and mobile versions of Nehalem next year. Probably a good strategy.
I expect Apple to continue their tradition of not using any of Intel's "desktop" chips. The Mac Pro will stay Xeon and will move to the new "Core i7"-based Xeons (listed by mjteix above) next year, hopefully at MWSF.
Thanks. Oh, I get it now. I guess I meant to ask when the "Xeon" versions of the Core i7s (not the "desktop " versions) would show up in the next MacPro tower.
Like Mr.H said, Apple will probably release the new Mac Pro in Q1 2009, depending of the state of the inventory and the availability of the platform they choose to used.
The desktop Core i7 cpus and the X58 chipset will be officially launched on Nov. 17, and many preproduction samples have been already available (hence all the test articles this week). These cpus have a TDP of 130W, so a tower design is required. Those cpus are less expensive than the current high-end desktop quads in Intel's line-up, but the motherboard is more expensive to manufacture.
The server/workstation cpus/chipset are rumored for early 2009. The TDP of the cpus varies from 65W to 130W, nothing special here. These cpus will be "slightly" more expensive than the current Xeons (at similar clock) but are also much more powerful. The motherboard will also be more expensive to manufacture.
Some people think the Core i7/X58 is a good enough platform for the Mac Pro (it also allows for less expensive models), other think that Apple will keep the dual-cpu concept for the Mac Pro, that means more expensive models at similar clocks (but again much more powerful computers). Optimists think that Apple could release 2 versions: single cpu models and dual-cpu models... I would like that...
Right. I get it now (see above). I would expect only one version of MacPro being made available from Apple next year (the expensive one). Which, in an weird way, is good. All that fancy QPI stuff sounds fast. Will the amount of addressable RAM increase?
Thanks. Oh, I get it now. I guess I meant to ask when the "Xeon" versions of the Core i7s (not the "desktop " versions) would show up in the next MacPro tower.
That's a good question. Nobody knows. Intel isn't leaking anything about those processors.
Yet.
Honestly, why would they want to? IMO, they would be better off making a nice southbridge with GPU for the X58.
You're got going to see much demand for integrated graphics in higher end desktops. What Apple could do, (with intel's permission of course) is to design a single custom chip that replaces the north and south bridges.
That's a good question. Nobody knows. Intel isn't leaking anything about those processors.
They mentioned that they would be due in the first quarter of 2009:
http://www.crn.com/hardware/210603466
"Otellini also seemed to clear up some confusion about when the first server chips based on the new Core i7 microarchitecture, codenamed Nehalem, would be made available. ChannelWeb reported in August that a DP server chip codenamed Gainestown could join the coming Extreme Core i7 desktop/workstation product as the first Nehalem-architecture devices to be released before year's end, but Otellini said Tuesday that the DP server chip would go into production "in the first quarter of 2009.""
I reckon an announcement at MacWorld but not shipping until later on unless Apple got them earlier like they did with some other Mac Pro chips.
That's a good question. Nobody knows. Intel isn't leaking anything about those processors.
The dual CPU version (Gainestown) will be out in q1 2009. They may be cheaper than traditional xeons as they are more or less versions of the Core I7 desktop cpu and x58 with additional quick path connections. They even use the same socket as the i7.
The dual CPU version (Gainestown) will be out in q1 2009. They may be cheaper than traditional xeons as they are more or less versions of the Core I7 desktop cpu and x58 with additional quick path connections. They even use the same socket as the i7.
Unfortunatly not Ben, it seems that QPI links are the main costly item in nehalem.
At equivalent clock, there is a $600-700 differential in adding another QPI link:
Core i7 920 2.66/1066 QPI $284 - Xeon X5550 2.66GHz/1333 QPI $958 (+674)
Core i7 940 2.93/1066 QPI $562 - Xeon X5570 2.93GHz/1333 QPI $1386 (+724)
Core i7 920 3.20/1333 QPI $999 - Xeon W5580 3.20GHz/1333 QPI $1600 (+601)
Intel Workstation & Server Processors 2009 (Xeon)Tylersburg
Processor Speed Cache TDP Memory Sockets Platform Price
W5580 3.20GHz 8MB 130W 1333MHz 2 Workstation $1600 vs $1279 for the 3.20GHz Harpertown
X5570 2.93GHz 8MB _95W 1333MHz 2 ___Server___ $1386 vs $1022 for the 3.00GHz Harpertown
X5560 2.80GHz 8MB _95W 1333MHz 2 ___Server___ $1172 vs $797 for the 2.80GHz Harpertown
X5550 2.66GHz 8MB _95W 1333MHz 2 ___Server___ $958
E5540 2.53GHz 8MB _80W 1066MHz 2 ___Server___ $744 -? vs $797 for the 2.80GHz Harpertown
E5530 2.40GHz 8MB _80W 1066MHz 2 ___Server___ $530
E5520 2.26GHz 8MB _80W 1066MHz 2 ___Server___ $373
E5506 2.13GHz 4MB _80W _800MHz 2 ___Server___ $266
E5504 2.00GHz 4MB _80W _800MHz 2 ___Server___ $224
E5502 1.86GHz 4MB _80W _800MHz 2 ___Server___ $188
L5520 2.26GHz 4MB _60W 1066MHz 2 ___Server___ $530
L5506 2.13GHz 4MB _60W _800MHz 2 ___Server___ $423
W3570 3.20GHz 8MB 130W 1333MHz 1 Workstation $999 vs $1600 for the DP-enabled model
W3540 2.93GHz 8MB 130W 1066MHz 1 Workstation $562 vs $1386 for the DP-enabled model
W3520 2.66GHz 8MB 130W 1066MHz 1 Workstation $284 vs $958 for the DP-enabled model
Unfortunatly not Ben, it seems that QPI links are the main costly item in nehalem.
From an OEM's (and end-purchaser's) perspective yes, from Intel's perspective, no. You can be sure that Intel's margins on the Xeons are much higher than on "desktop" Core i7s. At least with Xeon Nehalems you are getting something extra over standard desktop Nehalems; The differences between Xeon and desktop Penryns are negligible from a silicon perspective.