But that isn't how value is defined. In a cost-per-performance or your cost-per-use comparison there is no AIO is can have a lower total cost of ownership than the desktop equivalent. But being cheaper or having a lower TCO does not define its value. If it did, than there would be no notebook that is ever a better value over a desktop, but that is not the case. I travel 100% of the time so having a desktop of any sort is of zero value to me.
For you a notebook is a much better value. Obviously a comparison between a Mac and a Windows box cannot be done purely on TCO either because there are so many other variables, especially user experience, to consider.
If we restrict our conversation to the iMac and other real or imagined Mac desktops then I think TCO is going to be the major component in any discussion of value.
I think that's probably the main reason why there isn't a mid-range tower Mac. Simply put, you don't get rich by giving your customers any more than you have to.
As I think someone may have commented, it wouldn't be surprising if the iMac has models using both duo and quad core processors. Perhaps quad core on a 24" model? Just one possibility but all of this is purely speculative which makes me wonder why me (or anyone) has spent the time typing this out.
Well I like your speculation Hudson1 so rest assured there's one person that values it.
Apple needs to bit the bullet here and get the iMacs up to a point where they aren't melting with 65W TDP procs. It's the only chance we're going to have to get some Core i7 procs in here. I bet the mobile procs will be min 45W when they come out late this year.
My own testing would seem to corroborate Microsoft's story. If anything, the company is underselling its multicore advantage. Clearly, the optimizations made to the Vista kernel -- both in its original incarnation and in its updated Windows 7 variant -- are having an impact even at the quad-core level. However, better scalability still isn't enough to offset Windows XP's huge performance edge on today's hardware. In fact, it won't be until after Windows 7 has been replaced by the next Windows that the fruit of Microsoft's multicore optimization labors will be fully realized. Then, as we boot our 32- or 64-core netbooks, we can all smile as Microsoft's foresight and perseverance finally start to pay off
Apple "should" have a head start here but in order to convince developers to begin to visualize and modify their apps to have portions run in parallel there needs to be hardware out there to justify the effort.
core i7 please. With a Nvidia gtx260 or better. Or ati 4850 or better.
i7 is still to expensive, even in cheaper PC market. Combination of pricey CPU, chipset (motherboard) and DDR3 RAM would push iMac from mainstream segment - my humble opinion, at least.
iMac with Penryn Quad and graphics above nVidia 9400 would be a way to go. Such hardware still offers great performance and acceptable price tags.
This does seem like a long time to me. How often do Windows PC OEMs like Dell and HP refresh their products? I'm willing to bet it takes much less than a year for each of them to do so....
My 1st post, haha well I also need a New Mac, currently running a PowerBook G4 on 10.3, I know well well well out dated, man I've waited for a powerful mac to come along and I feel were almost there!
Knowing Apple's launch cycle:- Jan, Apr, Jul and Oct usually 2nd or 3rd week in those months for major updates or new launches. They usually like only one thing to hold centre stage, so iMac and 10.6 being introduced at the same time are slim, guessing April for the iMac and Jul for 10.6, if there aren't any more delays!
I agree with a dude's earlier comment, the 1st model of any new design or major update will hold design faults after launch, Apple are aware of this aspect and are in position to combat it. This process is in place due to unseen errors that show themselves later. Not everyone model made, BUT just a larger percentage then normal will appear, Luck or the draw,,, man!
As for chips that's another problem all together, my guess for the iMac will be Quad-Core and Mac Pro may see the NEW i7 chips for Intel, if you look the prices of the chips on Intel's site the i7 for the iMac is not a option it would sky rocket the price of the system and we all know the iMac ethos is about being affordable, and that keep the 2 lines different, if Apple just introduce a improved Core-Duo they feeling the Credit Crunch starting to bite, even if the figures do not show it just yet!
This hype about this new cooling system I think and also feel, know Apple routine history will be some time before its introduced, I'd be surprised to see it with the next refresh.
If Apple is having a hard time shoehorning the Quad into the 20" form factor, could the LG deal be about Apple looking to source a 22" screen to replace it?
Whatever Apple decides to do with the iMac the end result will be the same: Not as fast as it could have been, last year's video chip, lack of some FW port (take your pick), crippled something, slow something else.
Many will complain no matter what.
I would like to see an iMac quad, even if it is only in the 24 inch model. Otherwise, max them out Apple, please!
Correct, as a Pro user, the Mac Pro works great for your needs. Most consumers are not developers, so a Mac Pro would be useless to them since the majority of software doesn't take advantage of 8 cores. Yet some people claim they need all the cores they can get, just for bragging rights, yet the software they use doesn't run any faster. I can add 1 TB to an iMac and take advantage of SATA as well. Everytime there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it for some reason or another.
You are making an assumption that every consumer has the same system demands as you. That is not good. But I agree that some see core counts as a bragging right. The only thing I know of for sure is that two cores in a laptop are not enough for this consumer.
As to the Mac Pro getting dragged into iMac discussions; yeah it is stupid and reflects poorly on this analyst. There is no market overlap here at all. Either you need a Mac Pro or you don't. The capabilities of thetwo systems are so different they assure no canniblization. Frankly I don't like that word because people who use it generally gave weak to stupid arguements to support canniblization
What really bothers me here is why does this forum even bother to report on Wu? Maybe Kasper can pipe in here but I don't see any good reason to support somebody that has a terrible track record and frankly has reports full of fluff. It is not like I'm not interested in rumors, that is one good reason to show up here, but nothing from this guy is based on anything of substance. Sadly by constantly referencing this guy Appleinsider is giving him exactly what he needs to stay in business. I say put him out of business with enforced silence.
"new iMac with Intel quad-core processors or more high-powered dual-core processors with larger caches"
I don't even know what'd I'd want.
I thought Intel now has a system where it would disable two of the cores and upclock the other two for the times you need two fast cores. If you have enough load for more than two cores, then it would downclock and reenable the other two cores and it can do more work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
Yeah. As a Mac Pro owner myself I'd sure like to see some kind of upgrade path show up this time. Too often the Mac Pro has been sold as the "upgradeable" computer, only to have a single expensive RAID card be the only realistic upgrade option.
The previous towers (G3's, 4's), all had various upgrade options, processor upgrades, video card upgrades etc. and a lot of them are still in use today. I can't remember seeing a single Mac Pro that had it's CPU upgraded and only one ever that had a new video card installed (out of hundreds that I have personally seen and worked on).
Part of the problem is that Intel's setup doesn't offer much upgrade potential, they change their sockets too often, especially with their Xeons. For a while, they used a different socket when they increased the FSB clock, so you couldn't use a 533MHz FSB chip in a 400MHz FSB computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by italiankid
One thing is certain...
If Apple has technical problems right now about what chip to use or cooling system, I wont be making the jump into purchasing it. Apple is famous for major design problems during its first cycle....
IE: iPhone light leaks
24" iMac gradient displays - uneven backlighting
20" iMac suffer colour shifting from top to bottom of LCD
Macbook unibody hinge from LCD is loose.
I don't doubt those problems exist for some users, but I don't think they are that widespread.
Eight cores will be a huge advantage once Snow Leopard arrives. The software will definitely run faster then.
Thompson
There is nothing definite about it. The software in question will have to be writen to take advantage of any parallel capabilities in the machine. More so the software needs to be of the sort that can be paralleled in the first place. Frankly this sort of disinformation just makes life difficult for Apple as it leads to expectations that can't be met.
Now that is not saying that SL won't be faster. Every indication is that it will be. At times this may make some existing software faster depending on the specifics of library use. It is just a huge stretch to say every piece of software will be much faster because of four cores and Snow Leopard. One needs to know the specifics of the app in question.
If Apple has the hardware lined up, with the new socket, chipset and cooling, they are not going to want to unveil a quad core iMac until the Mac Pro is replaced with a Core i7 variant. I will tell you why and I will probably get flamed and/or banned permanently from this forum for saying so.
I own two computers, a 2.16 Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro and a PC I built. The PC is a hackintosh running iatkos Leopard. It has a Q9550 (2.83) Core 2 Quad mildly overclocked to 3.0 with 8GB of DDR2-800 RAM all for $1,200. It gets a considerably better xbench score than a 2.8 Mac Pro 8-core machine. I don't put a lot of faith in synthetic benchmarks, but my PC shouldn't even touch the Mac Pro.
The problem the Mac Pro has is that it runs fully-buffered DIMMs owing to its dual socket configuration. That the two procs have to communicate with the memory and with each other across the FSB is a major memory bandwidth nightmare, choking what should otherwise be a fast system. I would bet that a 2.83 iMac would be within spitting distance of the stock 2.8 Mac Pro with 2 GB FB-DIMMs especially if the iMac ships with 4GB DDR3-1066 RAM. Apple can't have that.
The Core i7 with its freedom from the FSB and with its Quick Path Interconnect will obviate these bottlenecks and make for a screaming fast Mac Pro that will destroy any mac out there, allowing room in the lineup for Core 2 Quad equipped iMacs.
If Apple has the hardware lined up, with the new socket, chipset and cooling, they are not going to want to unveil a quad core iMac until the Mac Pro is replaced with a Core i7 variant. I will tell you why and I will probably get flamed and/or banned permanently from this forum for saying so.
I own two computers, a 2.16 Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro and a PC I built. The PC is a hackintosh running iatkos Leopard. It has a Q9550 (2.83) Core 2 Quad mildly overclocked to 3.0 with 8GB of DDR2-800 RAM all for $1,200. It gets a considerably better xbench score than a 2.8 Mac Pro 8-core machine. I don't put a lot of faith in synthetic benchmarks, but my PC shouldn't even touch the Mac Pro.
The problem the Mac Pro has is that it runs fully-buffered DIMMs owing to its dual socket configuration. That the two procs have to communicate with the memory and with each other across the FSB is a major memory bandwidth nightmare, choking what should otherwise be a fast system. I would bet that a 2.83 iMac would be within spitting distance of the stock 2.8 Mac Pro with 2 GB FB-DIMMs especially if the iMac ships with 4GB DDR3-1066 RAM. Apple can't have that.
The Core i7 with its freedom from the FSB and with its Quick Path Interconnect will obviate these bottlenecks and make for a screaming fast Mac Pro that will destroy any mac out there, allowing room in the lineup for Core 2 Quad equipped iMacs.
Welcome to AI.
You might get flamed (doubt it) but not banned for those comments.
Actually I'm a little surprised your hackintosh performs so well but the MPs memory has been an achilles heel for that machine performance wise. So perhaps its not that surprising after all.
If Apple has the hardware lined up, with the new socket, chipset and cooling, they are not going to want to unveil a quad core iMac until the Mac Pro is replaced with a Core i7 variant. I will tell you why and I will probably get flamed and/or banned permanently from this forum for saying so.
I own two computers, a 2.16 Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro and a PC I built. The PC is a hackintosh running iatkos Leopard. It has a Q9550 (2.83) Core 2 Quad mildly overclocked to 3.0 with 8GB of DDR2-800 RAM all for $1,200. It gets a considerably better xbench score than a 2.8 Mac Pro 8-core machine. I don't put a lot of faith in synthetic benchmarks, but my PC shouldn't even touch the Mac Pro.
The problem the Mac Pro has is that it runs fully-buffered DIMMs owing to its dual socket configuration. That the two procs have to communicate with the memory and with each other across the FSB is a major memory bandwidth nightmare, choking what should otherwise be a fast system. I would bet that a 2.83 iMac would be within spitting distance of the stock 2.8 Mac Pro with 2 GB FB-DIMMs especially if the iMac ships with 4GB DDR3-1066 RAM. Apple can't have that.
The Core i7 with its freedom from the FSB and with its Quick Path Interconnect will obviate these bottlenecks and make for a screaming fast Mac Pro that will destroy any mac out there, allowing room in the lineup for Core 2 Quad equipped iMacs.
I'm still not seeing why Apple has to wait. The needs of the typical Mac Pro owner are different than that of an iMac owner. Apple could wait until march to announce iMacs but then they've basically seeded Q1 and the results will not look good come earnings time. The iMac is a high volume product and needs to be announced ASAP IMO. It and the new iLife and iWork should propel Apple to the proper earnings it needs.
Thanks back to Mac for being civil and welcoming me.
Some further information. The machine has an Asus micro-atx P5E-VM motherboard and an OLD ATI X1950XT that nonetheless outperforms the newer unified shader boards (2600XT 8800GT) in xbench. Again, synthetic benchmarks, but perhaps Leopard isn't optimized for Direct-x 10 boards. Thoughts?
I would hope the next Mac Pro is more open to GPU upgrades. The ATI 3870 Mac & PC Edition offers some hope in this area and may herald future trends. I believe this is going to be fruitful because Open CL may allow Mac performance to scale better with GPU upgrades vs. CPU upgrades.
If Apple has the hardware lined up, with the new socket, chipset and cooling, they are not going to want to unveil a quad core iMac until the Mac Pro is replaced with a Core i7 variant. I will tell you why and I will probably get flamed and/or banned permanently from this forum for saying so.
I own two computers, a 2.16 Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro and a PC I built. The PC is a hackintosh running iatkos Leopard. It has a Q9550 (2.83) Core 2 Quad mildly overclocked to 3.0 with 8GB of DDR2-800 RAM all for $1,200. It gets a considerably better xbench score than a 2.8 Mac Pro 8-core machine. I don't put a lot of faith in synthetic benchmarks, but my PC shouldn't even touch the Mac Pro.
The problem the Mac Pro has is that it runs fully-buffered DIMMs owing to its dual socket configuration. That the two procs have to communicate with the memory and with each other across the FSB is a major memory bandwidth nightmare, choking what should otherwise be a fast system. I would bet that a 2.83 iMac would be within spitting distance of the stock 2.8 Mac Pro with 2 GB FB-DIMMs especially if the iMac ships with 4GB DDR3-1066 RAM. Apple can't have that.
The Core i7 with its freedom from the FSB and with its Quick Path Interconnect will obviate these bottlenecks and make for a screaming fast Mac Pro that will destroy any mac out there, allowing room in the lineup for Core 2 Quad equipped iMacs.
Looks like a fine post to me. I don't pay attention to the Pro, so you've educated me.
I've been waiting for the Mini update and have said plenty worse things about Apple here. They deserve it.
Looks like a fine post to me. I don't pay attention to the Pro, so you've educated me.
I've been waiting for the Mini update and have said plenty worse things about Apple here. They deserve it.
Thanks Phong. A big problem is there is no interim step between the mac Mini and the Mac Pro.
Ideally, Apple would market a quad core user-upgradeable mid-tower around the $1,800 mark. With future iterations of the machine, Apple could sell motherboards only form factor (proprietary motherboard vs. ATX) compatible with that case, but still allowing people, who paid the money for an Apple before, to upgrade without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
But honestly, if I were Apple with their highly successful business model, there is no reason for me to do that. Apple loses profits.
Their operating system is so much better than Windows that they can hold a gun to our heads with over the top prices and limited to no upgrade paths. That is fine for laptops and is why I purchased a refurbished Macbook Pro direct from Apple.
But I own a monitor and have money invested in a case and a power supply and an optical drive (just like you do with an iMac actually). If Apple is so earth friendly, why the really eco-unfriendly policy of having us throw out iMacs even though a lot of the components are still good like the PSU and screen?
Enter the hackintosh. I pay $1,200 for parts and build a machine that matches or beats the $2,800 Mac Pro rival. I don't recommend it though, not unless you (like me) are used to pulling your hair out getting PCs to work properly. I bought a Leopard install disk and it took me the better part of the weekend tooling around in the terminal and downloading enthusiast drivers to get the install to work. If you grew up on Mac, don't touch a hackintosh. If you grew up on a PC and spent a Saturday getting your ACL '97 audio drivers to work, go ahead, give it a shot.
You see, Apple's claims of the benefits of tight software/hardware integration are not over-hyped. That part is definitely worth it. That and the design which is way better than any craptastic PC I have owned.
But the economy may call for Mac to take another look at their business model because users may not be able to afford future upgrades.
Thanks Phong. A big problem is there is no interim step between the mac Mini and the Mac Pro.
Ideally, Apple would market a quad core user-upgradeable mid-tower around the $1,800 mark. With future iterations of the machine, Apple could sell motherboards only form factor (proprietary motherboard vs. ATX) compatible with that case, but still allowing people, who paid the money for an Apple before, to upgrade without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
But honestly, if I were Apple with their highly successful business model, there is no reason for me to do that. Apple loses profits.
Their operating system is so much better than Windows that they can hold a gun to our heads with over the top prices and limited to no upgrade paths. That is fine for laptops and is why I purchased a refurbished Macbook Pro direct from Apple.
But I own a monitor and have money invested in a case and a power supply and an optical drive (just like you do with an iMac actually). If Apple is so earth friendly, why the really eco-unfriendly policy of having us throw out iMacs even though a lot of the components are still good like the PSU and screen?
Enter the hackintosh. I pay $1,200 for parts and build a machine that matches or beats the $2,800 Mac Pro rival. I don't recommend it though, not unless you (like me) are used to pulling your hair out getting PCs to work properly. I bought a Leopard install disk and it took me the better part of the weekend tooling around in the terminal and downloading enthusiast drivers to get the install to work. If you grew up on Mac, don't touch a hackintosh. If you grew up on a PC and spent a Saturday getting your ACL '97 audio drivers to work, go ahead, give it a shot.
You see, Apple's claims of the benefits of tight software/hardware integration are not over-hyped. That part is definitely worth it. That and the design which is way better than any craptastic PC I have owned.
But the economy may call for Mac to take another look at their business model because users may not be able to afford future upgrades.
I agree with you 100%. I built one because I switched to a mbp and wasn't using my windows desktop, even though it was still pretty fast, which seemed really wasteful. Getting that thing to be stable is frustrating, though it's a dream once you get it working. The thing is that although Apple's tight integration is really helpful in a LOT of ways, it also seems to be fairly well compatible with a wide range of hardware, when people write the drivers. Driver's aren't necessary with a processor upgrade from what I've seen. As long as it has the same pin pattern as your motherboard, it seems pretty plug and play (can't say if Logic Boards have restrictions that plain jane motherboard don't, since I haven't done that yet). I'm confused as to why it's thought that you'd need to get an Apple approved processor... I'm not definite, but it looks like if it fits, it works. Can't say that if they add new features to it, but it should at least run faster.
On a side note, I think an i7 Mac Pro is the one to go for, and if they can scale more easily, maybe we can see even more cores, and have them be accessible through Snow Leopard.
I think Apple has pretty much settled on using the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9xxxS series CPU's rated at 65 W thermal design power (TDP), which will allow Apple to not need a radical overhaul of the iMac system case.
Why quad-core? The reason is simple: iLife '09. Three components of iLife '09--iMovie, iPhoto, and GarageBand--will probably need the computing power of a quad-core CPU, since editing multimedia files tend to use a LOT of CPU power.
Comments
But that isn't how value is defined. In a cost-per-performance or your cost-per-use comparison there is no AIO is can have a lower total cost of ownership than the desktop equivalent. But being cheaper or having a lower TCO does not define its value. If it did, than there would be no notebook that is ever a better value over a desktop, but that is not the case. I travel 100% of the time so having a desktop of any sort is of zero value to me.
For you a notebook is a much better value. Obviously a comparison between a Mac and a Windows box cannot be done purely on TCO either because there are so many other variables, especially user experience, to consider.
If we restrict our conversation to the iMac and other real or imagined Mac desktops then I think TCO is going to be the major component in any discussion of value.
I think that's probably the main reason why there isn't a mid-range tower Mac. Simply put, you don't get rich by giving your customers any more than you have to.
Can we just have a new iMac already. My G5 is too slow and is short on storage. I need a new iMac!!
grover
As I think someone may have commented, it wouldn't be surprising if the iMac has models using both duo and quad core processors. Perhaps quad core on a 24" model? Just one possibility but all of this is purely speculative which makes me wonder why me (or anyone) has spent the time typing this out.
Well I like your speculation Hudson1 so rest assured there's one person that values it.
Apple needs to bit the bullet here and get the iMacs up to a point where they aren't melting with 65W TDP procs. It's the only chance we're going to have to get some Core i7 procs in here. I bet the mobile procs will be min 45W when they come out late this year.
Microsoft is not standing still
http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/...lticore_5.html
My own testing would seem to corroborate Microsoft's story. If anything, the company is underselling its multicore advantage. Clearly, the optimizations made to the Vista kernel -- both in its original incarnation and in its updated Windows 7 variant -- are having an impact even at the quad-core level. However, better scalability still isn't enough to offset Windows XP's huge performance edge on today's hardware. In fact, it won't be until after Windows 7 has been replaced by the next Windows that the fruit of Microsoft's multicore optimization labors will be fully realized. Then, as we boot our 32- or 64-core netbooks, we can all smile as Microsoft's foresight and perseverance finally start to pay off
Apple "should" have a head start here but in order to convince developers to begin to visualize and modify their apps to have portions run in parallel there needs to be hardware out there to justify the effort.
core i7 please. With a Nvidia gtx260 or better. Or ati 4850 or better.
i7 is still to expensive, even in cheaper PC market. Combination of pricey CPU, chipset (motherboard) and DDR3 RAM would push iMac from mainstream segment - my humble opinion, at least.
iMac with Penryn Quad and graphics above nVidia 9400 would be a way to go. Such hardware still offers great performance and acceptable price tags.
April 28th, 2008 was the last iMac update....
This does seem like a long time to me. How often do Windows PC OEMs like Dell and HP refresh their products? I'm willing to bet it takes much less than a year for each of them to do so....
My 1st post, haha well I also need a New Mac, currently running a PowerBook G4 on 10.3, I know well well well out dated, man I've waited for a powerful mac to come along and I feel were almost there!
Knowing Apple's launch cycle:- Jan, Apr, Jul and Oct usually 2nd or 3rd week in those months for major updates or new launches. They usually like only one thing to hold centre stage, so iMac and 10.6 being introduced at the same time are slim, guessing April for the iMac and Jul for 10.6, if there aren't any more delays!
I agree with a dude's earlier comment, the 1st model of any new design or major update will hold design faults after launch, Apple are aware of this aspect and are in position to combat it. This process is in place due to unseen errors that show themselves later. Not everyone model made, BUT just a larger percentage then normal will appear, Luck or the draw,,, man!
As for chips that's another problem all together, my guess for the iMac will be Quad-Core and Mac Pro may see the NEW i7 chips for Intel, if you look the prices of the chips on Intel's site the i7 for the iMac is not a option it would sky rocket the price of the system and we all know the iMac ethos is about being affordable, and that keep the 2 lines different, if Apple just introduce a improved Core-Duo they feeling the Credit Crunch starting to bite, even if the figures do not show it just yet!
This hype about this new cooling system I think and also feel, know Apple routine history will be some time before its introduced, I'd be surprised to see it with the next refresh.
l8a
MMTM1983
Many will complain no matter what.
I would like to see an iMac quad, even if it is only in the 24 inch model. Otherwise, max them out Apple, please!
Correct, as a Pro user, the Mac Pro works great for your needs. Most consumers are not developers, so a Mac Pro would be useless to them since the majority of software doesn't take advantage of 8 cores. Yet some people claim they need all the cores they can get, just for bragging rights, yet the software they use doesn't run any faster. I can add 1 TB to an iMac and take advantage of SATA as well. Everytime there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it for some reason or another.
You are making an assumption that every consumer has the same system demands as you. That is not good. But I agree that some see core counts as a bragging right. The only thing I know of for sure is that two cores in a laptop are not enough for this consumer.
As to the Mac Pro getting dragged into iMac discussions; yeah it is stupid and reflects poorly on this analyst. There is no market overlap here at all. Either you need a Mac Pro or you don't. The capabilities of thetwo systems are so different they assure no canniblization. Frankly I don't like that word because people who use it generally gave weak to stupid arguements to support canniblization
What really bothers me here is why does this forum even bother to report on Wu? Maybe Kasper can pipe in here but I don't see any good reason to support somebody that has a terrible track record and frankly has reports full of fluff. It is not like I'm not interested in rumors, that is one good reason to show up here, but nothing from this guy is based on anything of substance. Sadly by constantly referencing this guy Appleinsider is giving him exactly what he needs to stay in business. I say put him out of business with enforced silence.
Dave
"new iMac with Intel quad-core processors or more high-powered dual-core processors with larger caches"
I don't even know what'd I'd want.
I thought Intel now has a system where it would disable two of the cores and upclock the other two for the times you need two fast cores. If you have enough load for more than two cores, then it would downclock and reenable the other two cores and it can do more work.
Yeah. As a Mac Pro owner myself I'd sure like to see some kind of upgrade path show up this time. Too often the Mac Pro has been sold as the "upgradeable" computer, only to have a single expensive RAID card be the only realistic upgrade option.
The previous towers (G3's, 4's), all had various upgrade options, processor upgrades, video card upgrades etc. and a lot of them are still in use today. I can't remember seeing a single Mac Pro that had it's CPU upgraded and only one ever that had a new video card installed (out of hundreds that I have personally seen and worked on).
Part of the problem is that Intel's setup doesn't offer much upgrade potential, they change their sockets too often, especially with their Xeons. For a while, they used a different socket when they increased the FSB clock, so you couldn't use a 533MHz FSB chip in a 400MHz FSB computer.
One thing is certain...
If Apple has technical problems right now about what chip to use or cooling system, I wont be making the jump into purchasing it. Apple is famous for major design problems during its first cycle....
IE: iPhone light leaks
24" iMac gradient displays - uneven backlighting
20" iMac suffer colour shifting from top to bottom of LCD
Macbook unibody hinge from LCD is loose.
I don't doubt those problems exist for some users, but I don't think they are that widespread.
Eight cores will be a huge advantage once Snow Leopard arrives. The software will definitely run faster then.
Thompson
There is nothing definite about it. The software in question will have to be writen to take advantage of any parallel capabilities in the machine. More so the software needs to be of the sort that can be paralleled in the first place. Frankly this sort of disinformation just makes life difficult for Apple as it leads to expectations that can't be met.
Now that is not saying that SL won't be faster. Every indication is that it will be. At times this may make some existing software faster depending on the specifics of library use. It is just a huge stretch to say every piece of software will be much faster because of four cores and Snow Leopard. One needs to know the specifics of the app in question.
Dave
I own two computers, a 2.16 Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro and a PC I built. The PC is a hackintosh running iatkos Leopard. It has a Q9550 (2.83) Core 2 Quad mildly overclocked to 3.0 with 8GB of DDR2-800 RAM all for $1,200. It gets a considerably better xbench score than a 2.8 Mac Pro 8-core machine. I don't put a lot of faith in synthetic benchmarks, but my PC shouldn't even touch the Mac Pro.
The problem the Mac Pro has is that it runs fully-buffered DIMMs owing to its dual socket configuration. That the two procs have to communicate with the memory and with each other across the FSB is a major memory bandwidth nightmare, choking what should otherwise be a fast system. I would bet that a 2.83 iMac would be within spitting distance of the stock 2.8 Mac Pro with 2 GB FB-DIMMs especially if the iMac ships with 4GB DDR3-1066 RAM. Apple can't have that.
The Core i7 with its freedom from the FSB and with its Quick Path Interconnect will obviate these bottlenecks and make for a screaming fast Mac Pro that will destroy any mac out there, allowing room in the lineup for Core 2 Quad equipped iMacs.
If Apple has the hardware lined up, with the new socket, chipset and cooling, they are not going to want to unveil a quad core iMac until the Mac Pro is replaced with a Core i7 variant. I will tell you why and I will probably get flamed and/or banned permanently from this forum for saying so.
I own two computers, a 2.16 Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro and a PC I built. The PC is a hackintosh running iatkos Leopard. It has a Q9550 (2.83) Core 2 Quad mildly overclocked to 3.0 with 8GB of DDR2-800 RAM all for $1,200. It gets a considerably better xbench score than a 2.8 Mac Pro 8-core machine. I don't put a lot of faith in synthetic benchmarks, but my PC shouldn't even touch the Mac Pro.
The problem the Mac Pro has is that it runs fully-buffered DIMMs owing to its dual socket configuration. That the two procs have to communicate with the memory and with each other across the FSB is a major memory bandwidth nightmare, choking what should otherwise be a fast system. I would bet that a 2.83 iMac would be within spitting distance of the stock 2.8 Mac Pro with 2 GB FB-DIMMs especially if the iMac ships with 4GB DDR3-1066 RAM. Apple can't have that.
The Core i7 with its freedom from the FSB and with its Quick Path Interconnect will obviate these bottlenecks and make for a screaming fast Mac Pro that will destroy any mac out there, allowing room in the lineup for Core 2 Quad equipped iMacs.
Welcome to AI.
You might get flamed (doubt it) but not banned for those comments.
Actually I'm a little surprised your hackintosh performs so well but the MPs memory has been an achilles heel for that machine performance wise. So perhaps its not that surprising after all.
If Apple has the hardware lined up, with the new socket, chipset and cooling, they are not going to want to unveil a quad core iMac until the Mac Pro is replaced with a Core i7 variant. I will tell you why and I will probably get flamed and/or banned permanently from this forum for saying so.
I own two computers, a 2.16 Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro and a PC I built. The PC is a hackintosh running iatkos Leopard. It has a Q9550 (2.83) Core 2 Quad mildly overclocked to 3.0 with 8GB of DDR2-800 RAM all for $1,200. It gets a considerably better xbench score than a 2.8 Mac Pro 8-core machine. I don't put a lot of faith in synthetic benchmarks, but my PC shouldn't even touch the Mac Pro.
The problem the Mac Pro has is that it runs fully-buffered DIMMs owing to its dual socket configuration. That the two procs have to communicate with the memory and with each other across the FSB is a major memory bandwidth nightmare, choking what should otherwise be a fast system. I would bet that a 2.83 iMac would be within spitting distance of the stock 2.8 Mac Pro with 2 GB FB-DIMMs especially if the iMac ships with 4GB DDR3-1066 RAM. Apple can't have that.
The Core i7 with its freedom from the FSB and with its Quick Path Interconnect will obviate these bottlenecks and make for a screaming fast Mac Pro that will destroy any mac out there, allowing room in the lineup for Core 2 Quad equipped iMacs.
I'm still not seeing why Apple has to wait. The needs of the typical Mac Pro owner are different than that of an iMac owner. Apple could wait until march to announce iMacs but then they've basically seeded Q1 and the results will not look good come earnings time. The iMac is a high volume product and needs to be announced ASAP IMO. It and the new iLife and iWork should propel Apple to the proper earnings it needs.
Some further information. The machine has an Asus micro-atx P5E-VM motherboard and an OLD ATI X1950XT that nonetheless outperforms the newer unified shader boards (2600XT 8800GT) in xbench. Again, synthetic benchmarks, but perhaps Leopard isn't optimized for Direct-x 10 boards. Thoughts?
I would hope the next Mac Pro is more open to GPU upgrades. The ATI 3870 Mac & PC Edition offers some hope in this area and may herald future trends. I believe this is going to be fruitful because Open CL may allow Mac performance to scale better with GPU upgrades vs. CPU upgrades.
If Apple has the hardware lined up, with the new socket, chipset and cooling, they are not going to want to unveil a quad core iMac until the Mac Pro is replaced with a Core i7 variant. I will tell you why and I will probably get flamed and/or banned permanently from this forum for saying so.
I own two computers, a 2.16 Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro and a PC I built. The PC is a hackintosh running iatkos Leopard. It has a Q9550 (2.83) Core 2 Quad mildly overclocked to 3.0 with 8GB of DDR2-800 RAM all for $1,200. It gets a considerably better xbench score than a 2.8 Mac Pro 8-core machine. I don't put a lot of faith in synthetic benchmarks, but my PC shouldn't even touch the Mac Pro.
The problem the Mac Pro has is that it runs fully-buffered DIMMs owing to its dual socket configuration. That the two procs have to communicate with the memory and with each other across the FSB is a major memory bandwidth nightmare, choking what should otherwise be a fast system. I would bet that a 2.83 iMac would be within spitting distance of the stock 2.8 Mac Pro with 2 GB FB-DIMMs especially if the iMac ships with 4GB DDR3-1066 RAM. Apple can't have that.
The Core i7 with its freedom from the FSB and with its Quick Path Interconnect will obviate these bottlenecks and make for a screaming fast Mac Pro that will destroy any mac out there, allowing room in the lineup for Core 2 Quad equipped iMacs.
Looks like a fine post to me. I don't pay attention to the Pro, so you've educated me.
I've been waiting for the Mini update and have said plenty worse things about Apple here. They deserve it.
Looks like a fine post to me. I don't pay attention to the Pro, so you've educated me.
I've been waiting for the Mini update and have said plenty worse things about Apple here. They deserve it.
Thanks Phong. A big problem is there is no interim step between the mac Mini and the Mac Pro.
Ideally, Apple would market a quad core user-upgradeable mid-tower around the $1,800 mark. With future iterations of the machine, Apple could sell motherboards only form factor (proprietary motherboard vs. ATX) compatible with that case, but still allowing people, who paid the money for an Apple before, to upgrade without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
But honestly, if I were Apple with their highly successful business model, there is no reason for me to do that. Apple loses profits.
Their operating system is so much better than Windows that they can hold a gun to our heads with over the top prices and limited to no upgrade paths. That is fine for laptops and is why I purchased a refurbished Macbook Pro direct from Apple.
But I own a monitor and have money invested in a case and a power supply and an optical drive (just like you do with an iMac actually). If Apple is so earth friendly, why the really eco-unfriendly policy of having us throw out iMacs even though a lot of the components are still good like the PSU and screen?
Enter the hackintosh. I pay $1,200 for parts and build a machine that matches or beats the $2,800 Mac Pro rival. I don't recommend it though, not unless you (like me) are used to pulling your hair out getting PCs to work properly. I bought a Leopard install disk and it took me the better part of the weekend tooling around in the terminal and downloading enthusiast drivers to get the install to work. If you grew up on Mac, don't touch a hackintosh. If you grew up on a PC and spent a Saturday getting your ACL '97 audio drivers to work, go ahead, give it a shot.
You see, Apple's claims of the benefits of tight software/hardware integration are not over-hyped. That part is definitely worth it. That and the design which is way better than any craptastic PC I have owned.
But the economy may call for Mac to take another look at their business model because users may not be able to afford future upgrades.
Thanks Phong. A big problem is there is no interim step between the mac Mini and the Mac Pro.
Ideally, Apple would market a quad core user-upgradeable mid-tower around the $1,800 mark
You're preaching to the choir, man. We've been clamoring for this machine for a while, and safe to say if apple offered one, I'd already own it.
Thanks Phong. A big problem is there is no interim step between the mac Mini and the Mac Pro.
Ideally, Apple would market a quad core user-upgradeable mid-tower around the $1,800 mark. With future iterations of the machine, Apple could sell motherboards only form factor (proprietary motherboard vs. ATX) compatible with that case, but still allowing people, who paid the money for an Apple before, to upgrade without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
But honestly, if I were Apple with their highly successful business model, there is no reason for me to do that. Apple loses profits.
Their operating system is so much better than Windows that they can hold a gun to our heads with over the top prices and limited to no upgrade paths. That is fine for laptops and is why I purchased a refurbished Macbook Pro direct from Apple.
But I own a monitor and have money invested in a case and a power supply and an optical drive (just like you do with an iMac actually). If Apple is so earth friendly, why the really eco-unfriendly policy of having us throw out iMacs even though a lot of the components are still good like the PSU and screen?
Enter the hackintosh. I pay $1,200 for parts and build a machine that matches or beats the $2,800 Mac Pro rival. I don't recommend it though, not unless you (like me) are used to pulling your hair out getting PCs to work properly. I bought a Leopard install disk and it took me the better part of the weekend tooling around in the terminal and downloading enthusiast drivers to get the install to work. If you grew up on Mac, don't touch a hackintosh. If you grew up on a PC and spent a Saturday getting your ACL '97 audio drivers to work, go ahead, give it a shot.
You see, Apple's claims of the benefits of tight software/hardware integration are not over-hyped. That part is definitely worth it. That and the design which is way better than any craptastic PC I have owned.
But the economy may call for Mac to take another look at their business model because users may not be able to afford future upgrades.
I agree with you 100%. I built one because I switched to a mbp and wasn't using my windows desktop, even though it was still pretty fast, which seemed really wasteful. Getting that thing to be stable is frustrating, though it's a dream once you get it working. The thing is that although Apple's tight integration is really helpful in a LOT of ways, it also seems to be fairly well compatible with a wide range of hardware, when people write the drivers. Driver's aren't necessary with a processor upgrade from what I've seen. As long as it has the same pin pattern as your motherboard, it seems pretty plug and play (can't say if Logic Boards have restrictions that plain jane motherboard don't, since I haven't done that yet). I'm confused as to why it's thought that you'd need to get an Apple approved processor... I'm not definite, but it looks like if it fits, it works. Can't say that if they add new features to it, but it should at least run faster.
On a side note, I think an i7 Mac Pro is the one to go for, and if they can scale more easily, maybe we can see even more cores, and have them be accessible through Snow Leopard.
Why quad-core? The reason is simple: iLife '09. Three components of iLife '09--iMovie, iPhoto, and GarageBand--will probably need the computing power of a quad-core CPU, since editing multimedia files tend to use a LOT of CPU power.