I *just* bought a Dell Core i7 (6gb ram, Radeon 4850) from Microcenter for $899.
Looks like I won't be upgrading my Mac Pro 2.66 Quad Intel (Bought in 2006) unless/until Apple comes out with a machine near this pricepoint, or betters it with dual Core i7 (no motherbaords for Dual Core i7s have been introduced yet.)
That Core i7 iMac that never emerged (rumors were on this site) would have gotten my money (even at $1499), but I can't see a reason to update unless they use the Xeon verison of the Core i7, and finally add a Bluray burner on the $2299 low-end Mac Pro.
The faster Xeon processors alone will cost more than $899 so don't expect a sub $2k Mac Pro anytime soon.
There will not be a dual Core i7 branded system as you note. Core i7 (Bloomfield 130w TDP) and Core i5 (Lynnefield 95w TDP) are consumer desktops. They will have slower Quickpath links and support single socket motherboards. Gainesville is Intel's first Nehalem Xeon with the faster QPI and SMP support.
The iMac will probably skip Core i7 (which is somewhat of dubious design for a single processor system IMO) and most likely move to a more sensible Core i5 Lynnefield chip with the next refresh.
Looks like a common-sense way of designing the memory controller.
Makes you wonder why they didn't design it that way the first time around?
I believe that Intel was the first to have an integrated memory controller some years ago on more specialized cpus.
But it wasn't always such a benefit. It's only become one once performance required such great memory bandwidths. Even then, Intel could keep up using large caches.
But at some point, when dual core came out, that was no longer possible, a faster method was required.
But otherwise, having a separate controller had benefits that on die models lacked.
That was being able to come out with a new cpu without having to have a new controller at the same time. The opposite thing was true as well. This kept development costs and times down, allowed Intel to produce chips more quickly than the competition.
What really caused Intel to fall behind AMD for a while wasn't so much AMD having the controller on die, it was the problems Intel had gotten themselves into with the concept behind Netburst. They thought their superior proces technology would carry them way beyond their competitors, but when 90 nm hit, that high speed hurt them the most.
I *just* bought a Dell Core i7 (6gb ram, Radeon 4850) from Microcenter for $899.
Looks like I won't be upgrading my Mac Pro 2.66 Quad Intel (Bought in 2006) unless/until Apple comes out with a machine near this pricepoint, or betters it with dual Core i7 (no motherbaords for Dual Core i7s have been introduced yet.)
That Core i7 iMac that never emerged (rumors were on this site) would have gotten my money (even at $1499), but I can't see a reason to update unless they use the Xeon verison of the Core i7, and finally add a Bluray burner on the $2299 low-end Mac Pro.
Welcome back to Windows. Looks like you'll be staying there a while.
Snow Leopard might be required for the new Mac Pros. Leopard and its ancestors multitask by scheduling processes to run anywhere at any time. The new memory architecture in Nehalem might severely penalize the performance of an OS that doesn't schedule processes to run consistently on the same processor as much as possible.
This would be consistent with Jordan Hubbard's presentation which suggested 1Q 2009 availability for Snow Leopard.
Snow Leopard might be required for the new Mac Pros. Leopard and its ancestors multitask by scheduling processes to run anywhere at any time. The new memory architecture in Nehalem might severely penalize the performance of an OS that doesn't schedule processes to run consistently on the same processor as much as possible.
This would be consistent with Jordan Hubbard's presentation which suggested 1Q 2009 availability for Snow Leopard.
Agreed.
I certainly wouldn't want to rely on the current threading tools in Leopard to handle a 16 thread system. They're not horrible but not necessarily the kind of visionary tool that Blocks is in Snow Leopard.
Welcome back to Windows. Looks like you'll be staying there a while.
No, I always have a Mac *and* a Windows machine.
I'm just not upgrading the Mac until they improve the performance to the level of the Dell (or beyond.) I used to upgrade the Mac every two years, now it looks like 3 years is a more sensible timeframe. (Honestly, if the Macbook aluminum had firewire I may have bought one. But to buy a laptop that can't import my current camcorder's footage didn't make sense to me.)
I'm just not upgrading the Mac until they improve the performance to the level of the Dell (or beyond.) I used to upgrade the Mac every two years, now it looks like 3 years is a more sensible timeframe. (Honestly, if the Macbook aluminum had firewire I may have bought one. But to buy a laptop that can't import my current camcorder's footage didn't make sense to me.)
Tom are you looking to buy a Mac Pro class computer or is an iMac just fine?
As sexy as the Core i7 stuff is it's not really going to be Intel's volume Nehalem product. That's going to be lynnfield. Now it's fine to have QPI and all but ondie memory controllers really help in latency and latency doesn't really become a big hurdle until you have dual socket or quad socket computers.
Thus I can fully understand why Apple's is likely to skip Core i7 for iMacs (too hot) and wait for Lynnfield based product for the next refresh. The performance should be pretty close to Bloomfield (Ci7).
Tom are you looking to buy a Mac Pro class computer or is an iMac just fine?
As sexy as the Core i7 stuff is it's not really going to be Intel's volume Nehalem product. That's going to be lynnfield. Now it's fine to have QPI and all but ondie memory controllers really help in latency and latency doesn't really become a big hurdle until you have dual socket or quad socket computers.
Thus I can fully understand why Apple's is likely to skip Core i7 for iMacs (too hot) and wait for Lynnfield based product for the next refresh. The performance should be pretty close to Bloomfield (Ci7).
And it's worth mentioning that Core i5 (lynnfield) will also have an on-die memory controller, however it will be dual channel DDR3, not triple channel like on the i7. I don't think this will affect bandwidth too much though*. Also, and more importantly, it will also have PCIe right on the die. This will help with graphics performance.
* I say this because of various preliminary benchmarks I have seen online.
And it's worth mentioning that Core i5 (lynnfield) will also have an on-die memory controller, however it will be dual channel DDR3, not triple channel like on the i7. I don't think this will affect bandwidth too much though*. Also, and more importantly, it will also have PCIe right on the die. This will help with graphics performance.
* I say this because of various preliminary benchmarks I have seen online.
And it'll eliminate the North Bridge and TDP requirements that it brings. A 73w TDP Lynnfield or Havendale setup should be competitive with today's 65W TDP product.
I'm not worried about the lack of triple channel memory. I'd rather put the money savings towards the laggard of computers which is the HDD. Replace a HDD with a capable SSD and you've eliminated a major slowdown in your computer.
I certainly wouldn't want to rely on the current threading tools in Leopard to handle a 16 thread system. They're not horrible but not necessarily the kind of visionary tool that Blocks is in Snow Leopard.
Vista has had the same problem. I don't know if it's been fixed.
I'm just not upgrading the Mac until they improve the performance to the level of the Dell (or beyond.) I used to upgrade the Mac every two years, now it looks like 3 years is a more sensible timeframe. (Honestly, if the Macbook aluminum had firewire I may have bought one. But to buy a laptop that can't import my current camcorder's footage didn't make sense to me.)
Ok, then have a good time on both platforms.
I really don't see us getting what you want.
The closest may be if the rumors of both two and four core chips for the iMac are true, but that's not likely what you are looking for.
And it'll eliminate the North Bridge and TDP requirements that it brings. A 73w TDP Lynnfield or Havendale setup should be competitive with today's 65W TDP product.
I'm not worried about the lack of triple channel memory. I'd rather put the money savings towards the laggard of computers which is the HDD. Replace a HDD with a capable SSD and you've eliminated a major slowdown in your computer.
Testing I've seen on i7 has shown that three channel memory for those chips doesn't seem to be an advantage. even two channel didn't seen to give a large advantage over one.
With the Xeons, that's likely to be untrue, so three channel would be required.
I have been waiting (Like so many others) to get an updated IMAC. I just switched from PC when I got my MBP but don't know much about processors and IMAC's. I love the operating system so an Apple desktop is a must. I also want to use it for gaming. The question..... Should I wait for an updated IMAC or purchase a used Mac Pro? I don't want to spend more than 2700.00. Is the used Mac Pro good for games? Is the processor / graphics quality?
This thing flies and you'll save $100 if you'd like to buy it from me. The condition is perfect, mint, only used once to test it out! I run a 2008 Mac Pro with 16GB RAM, 4 internal hard drives and 2 externals. I have three graphics cards so I am deciding to let this one go since it is kinda superfluous. Hope one of you wants some speed and power! The latest updates to the Mac OS have stepped up the drivers for this card so it's definitely worth it- if you have a 2008 Mac Pro this will help make it shine & if you just wanna future proof your machine by adding another card this is a goooood deal. When the new Mac OS, Snow Leopard, comes out this summer it will take advantage of the GPU of the graphics card and use it as a processor SO your Mac Pro will be beefed up by 1-2 processors depending on how many graphics cards you have.
Ring me if you'd like this card.
Louis Anajjar
785.727.1167 OR just shoot me an e-mail: [email protected] -fyi, i only sell in person.
Question // How many graphics cards can you hook up and do you need to on the Mac Pro?????
I have been waiting (Like so many others) to get an updated IMAC. I just switched from PC when I got my MBP but don't know much about processors and IMAC's. I love the operating system so an Apple desktop is a must. I also want to use it for gaming. The question..... Should I wait for an updated IMAC or purchase a used Mac Pro? I don't want to spend more than 2700.00. Is the used Mac Pro good for games? Is the processor / graphics quality?
Any comments are welcome.
Thanks.
The next iMac will be good for games IMO. That's if they use the Nvidia 9600m which they should
Question // How many graphics cards can you hook up and do you need to on the Mac Pro?????
The Mac Pro has two six-pin power connectors, so only two cards that need the extra power cable (like the 8800GT). Or four cards that don't need extra power.
The Mac Pro has two six-pin power connectors, so only two cards that need the extra power cable (like the 8800GT). Or four cards that don't need extra power.
Welcome back to Windows. Looks like you'll be staying there a while.
Yeah, sure does. Apple's behind on updates to it's desktops. A year plus for the Mac Pro. Over half a year for the iMac. And a sucktacular how long(?!) has it been for the mini?
For a company that cares about leadership in the OS and Design dept, you'd think they'd care about parity with the specs on Windows based systems.
I thought the move to Intel would make Apple competitive on desktops. If anything, they've gotten worse! Slow to update, out-dated specs, laughable prices.
Sucky gpus in every desktop. No quad core in ANY consumer desktop whilst still charging prices that add to their 25 billion stash pile.
We can throw stones at Windows OS, but the machines are more than competive on price. Any i7 desktop for half the price of the Mac Pro will smack its head in or serverly humble it at the least.
Huh, I mean, paying "£1700" just to get a quad core with a GT with a stingy amount of ram and ridiculously small hd. PATHETIC.
Question: If Apple's dekstops ran only Windows...would you buy one? (I wouldn't. Lucky Apple has the 'X'.)
If the iMac had been up to the task, I'd be singing its praises. I don't care if the CPU is mobile, desktop, or whatever, I care about bang for my buck. The iMac has not lived to what I have come to expect from an Apple product. My PowerMacs gave it to me in speed. Even the iBook performed better than my expectations. 3D performance has been lackluster, the RAM ceiling is too low with only 2 slots, and I've seen far too many slowdowns and appearances of the beach ball for a $1500 machine.
I'm not looking for anything special, but I'm not looking to spend that kind of money for what performs like an $800 desktop in premium aesthetically pleasing case. For the average family user, this is an excellent machine with a lot of power with added clutter reducing benefits. For a power user (who isn't making hollywood blockbluster and doesn't need a xeon workstation) it just isn't the right tool for the job.
Comments
I *just* bought a Dell Core i7 (6gb ram, Radeon 4850) from Microcenter for $899.
Looks like I won't be upgrading my Mac Pro 2.66 Quad Intel (Bought in 2006) unless/until Apple comes out with a machine near this pricepoint, or betters it with dual Core i7 (no motherbaords for Dual Core i7s have been introduced yet.)
That Core i7 iMac that never emerged (rumors were on this site) would have gotten my money (even at $1499), but I can't see a reason to update unless they use the Xeon verison of the Core i7, and finally add a Bluray burner on the $2299 low-end Mac Pro.
The faster Xeon processors alone will cost more than $899 so don't expect a sub $2k Mac Pro anytime soon.
There will not be a dual Core i7 branded system as you note. Core i7 (Bloomfield 130w TDP) and Core i5 (Lynnefield 95w TDP) are consumer desktops. They will have slower Quickpath links and support single socket motherboards. Gainesville is Intel's first Nehalem Xeon with the faster QPI and SMP support.
The iMac will probably skip Core i7 (which is somewhat of dubious design for a single processor system IMO) and most likely move to a more sensible Core i5 Lynnefield chip with the next refresh.
Looks like a common-sense way of designing the memory controller.
Makes you wonder why they didn't design it that way the first time around?
I believe that Intel was the first to have an integrated memory controller some years ago on more specialized cpus.
But it wasn't always such a benefit. It's only become one once performance required such great memory bandwidths. Even then, Intel could keep up using large caches.
But at some point, when dual core came out, that was no longer possible, a faster method was required.
But otherwise, having a separate controller had benefits that on die models lacked.
That was being able to come out with a new cpu without having to have a new controller at the same time. The opposite thing was true as well. This kept development costs and times down, allowed Intel to produce chips more quickly than the competition.
What really caused Intel to fall behind AMD for a while wasn't so much AMD having the controller on die, it was the problems Intel had gotten themselves into with the concept behind Netburst. They thought their superior proces technology would carry them way beyond their competitors, but when 90 nm hit, that high speed hurt them the most.
Anyway, that battle has been won.
I *just* bought a Dell Core i7 (6gb ram, Radeon 4850) from Microcenter for $899.
Looks like I won't be upgrading my Mac Pro 2.66 Quad Intel (Bought in 2006) unless/until Apple comes out with a machine near this pricepoint, or betters it with dual Core i7 (no motherbaords for Dual Core i7s have been introduced yet.)
That Core i7 iMac that never emerged (rumors were on this site) would have gotten my money (even at $1499), but I can't see a reason to update unless they use the Xeon verison of the Core i7, and finally add a Bluray burner on the $2299 low-end Mac Pro.
Welcome back to Windows. Looks like you'll be staying there a while.
This would be consistent with Jordan Hubbard's presentation which suggested 1Q 2009 availability for Snow Leopard.
Snow Leopard might be required for the new Mac Pros. Leopard and its ancestors multitask by scheduling processes to run anywhere at any time. The new memory architecture in Nehalem might severely penalize the performance of an OS that doesn't schedule processes to run consistently on the same processor as much as possible.
This would be consistent with Jordan Hubbard's presentation which suggested 1Q 2009 availability for Snow Leopard.
Agreed.
I certainly wouldn't want to rely on the current threading tools in Leopard to handle a 16 thread system. They're not horrible but not necessarily the kind of visionary tool that Blocks is in Snow Leopard.
Welcome back to Windows. Looks like you'll be staying there a while.
No, I always have a Mac *and* a Windows machine.
I'm just not upgrading the Mac until they improve the performance to the level of the Dell (or beyond.) I used to upgrade the Mac every two years, now it looks like 3 years is a more sensible timeframe. (Honestly, if the Macbook aluminum had firewire I may have bought one. But to buy a laptop that can't import my current camcorder's footage didn't make sense to me.)
No, I always have a Mac *and* a Windows machine.
I'm just not upgrading the Mac until they improve the performance to the level of the Dell (or beyond.) I used to upgrade the Mac every two years, now it looks like 3 years is a more sensible timeframe. (Honestly, if the Macbook aluminum had firewire I may have bought one. But to buy a laptop that can't import my current camcorder's footage didn't make sense to me.)
Tom are you looking to buy a Mac Pro class computer or is an iMac just fine?
As sexy as the Core i7 stuff is it's not really going to be Intel's volume Nehalem product. That's going to be lynnfield. Now it's fine to have QPI and all but ondie memory controllers really help in latency and latency doesn't really become a big hurdle until you have dual socket or quad socket computers.
Thus I can fully understand why Apple's is likely to skip Core i7 for iMacs (too hot) and wait for Lynnfield based product for the next refresh. The performance should be pretty close to Bloomfield (Ci7).
Tom are you looking to buy a Mac Pro class computer or is an iMac just fine?
As sexy as the Core i7 stuff is it's not really going to be Intel's volume Nehalem product. That's going to be lynnfield. Now it's fine to have QPI and all but ondie memory controllers really help in latency and latency doesn't really become a big hurdle until you have dual socket or quad socket computers.
Thus I can fully understand why Apple's is likely to skip Core i7 for iMacs (too hot) and wait for Lynnfield based product for the next refresh. The performance should be pretty close to Bloomfield (Ci7).
And it's worth mentioning that Core i5 (lynnfield) will also have an on-die memory controller, however it will be dual channel DDR3, not triple channel like on the i7. I don't think this will affect bandwidth too much though*. Also, and more importantly, it will also have PCIe right on the die. This will help with graphics performance.
* I say this because of various preliminary benchmarks I have seen online.
And it's worth mentioning that Core i5 (lynnfield) will also have an on-die memory controller, however it will be dual channel DDR3, not triple channel like on the i7. I don't think this will affect bandwidth too much though*. Also, and more importantly, it will also have PCIe right on the die. This will help with graphics performance.
* I say this because of various preliminary benchmarks I have seen online.
And it'll eliminate the North Bridge and TDP requirements that it brings. A 73w TDP Lynnfield or Havendale setup should be competitive with today's 65W TDP product.
I'm not worried about the lack of triple channel memory. I'd rather put the money savings towards the laggard of computers which is the HDD. Replace a HDD with a capable SSD and you've eliminated a major slowdown in your computer.
Agreed.
I certainly wouldn't want to rely on the current threading tools in Leopard to handle a 16 thread system. They're not horrible but not necessarily the kind of visionary tool that Blocks is in Snow Leopard.
Vista has had the same problem. I don't know if it's been fixed.
No, I always have a Mac *and* a Windows machine.
I'm just not upgrading the Mac until they improve the performance to the level of the Dell (or beyond.) I used to upgrade the Mac every two years, now it looks like 3 years is a more sensible timeframe. (Honestly, if the Macbook aluminum had firewire I may have bought one. But to buy a laptop that can't import my current camcorder's footage didn't make sense to me.)
Ok, then have a good time on both platforms.
I really don't see us getting what you want.
The closest may be if the rumors of both two and four core chips for the iMac are true, but that's not likely what you are looking for.
And it'll eliminate the North Bridge and TDP requirements that it brings. A 73w TDP Lynnfield or Havendale setup should be competitive with today's 65W TDP product.
I'm not worried about the lack of triple channel memory. I'd rather put the money savings towards the laggard of computers which is the HDD. Replace a HDD with a capable SSD and you've eliminated a major slowdown in your computer.
Testing I've seen on i7 has shown that three channel memory for those chips doesn't seem to be an advantage. even two channel didn't seen to give a large advantage over one.
With the Xeons, that's likely to be untrue, so three channel would be required.
Any comments are welcome.
Thanks.
GRAPHICS CARD - Nvidia 8800GT for a 2008 Mac Pro! - $180 (Lawrence, KS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: see below
Date: 2009-01-08, 11:30PM CST
This thing flies and you'll save $100 if you'd like to buy it from me. The condition is perfect, mint, only used once to test it out! I run a 2008 Mac Pro with 16GB RAM, 4 internal hard drives and 2 externals. I have three graphics cards so I am deciding to let this one go since it is kinda superfluous. Hope one of you wants some speed and power! The latest updates to the Mac OS have stepped up the drivers for this card so it's definitely worth it- if you have a 2008 Mac Pro this will help make it shine & if you just wanna future proof your machine by adding another card this is a goooood deal. When the new Mac OS, Snow Leopard, comes out this summer it will take advantage of the GPU of the graphics card and use it as a processor SO your Mac Pro will be beefed up by 1-2 processors depending on how many graphics cards you have.
Ring me if you'd like this card.
Louis Anajjar
785.727.1167 OR just shoot me an e-mail: [email protected] -fyi, i only sell in person.
Question // How many graphics cards can you hook up and do you need to on the Mac Pro?????
I have been waiting (Like so many others) to get an updated IMAC. I just switched from PC when I got my MBP but don't know much about processors and IMAC's. I love the operating system so an Apple desktop is a must. I also want to use it for gaming. The question..... Should I wait for an updated IMAC or purchase a used Mac Pro? I don't want to spend more than 2700.00. Is the used Mac Pro good for games? Is the processor / graphics quality?
Any comments are welcome.
Thanks.
The next iMac will be good for games IMO. That's if they use the Nvidia 9600m which they should
Question // How many graphics cards can you hook up and do you need to on the Mac Pro?????
The Mac Pro has two six-pin power connectors, so only two cards that need the extra power cable (like the 8800GT). Or four cards that don't need extra power.
The Mac Pro has two six-pin power connectors, so only two cards that need the extra power cable (like the 8800GT). Or four cards that don't need extra power.
That's when you get a drive bay power supply
That's when you get a drive bay power supply
Or you could just use a 4-pin to 6-pin adapter using the drive bay's power connectors. Very easy to do.
Welcome back to Windows. Looks like you'll be staying there a while.
Yeah, sure does. Apple's behind on updates to it's desktops. A year plus for the Mac Pro. Over half a year for the iMac. And a sucktacular how long(?!) has it been for the mini?
For a company that cares about leadership in the OS and Design dept, you'd think they'd care about parity with the specs on Windows based systems.
I thought the move to Intel would make Apple competitive on desktops. If anything, they've gotten worse! Slow to update, out-dated specs, laughable prices.
Sucky gpus in every desktop. No quad core in ANY consumer desktop whilst still charging prices that add to their 25 billion stash pile.
We can throw stones at Windows OS, but the machines are more than competive on price. Any i7 desktop for half the price of the Mac Pro will smack its head in or serverly humble it at the least.
Huh, I mean, paying "£1700" just to get a quad core with a GT with a stingy amount of ram and ridiculously small hd. PATHETIC.
Question: If Apple's dekstops ran only Windows...would you buy one? (I wouldn't. Lucky Apple has the 'X'.)
Lemon Bon Bon.
If the iMac had been up to the task, I'd be singing its praises. I don't care if the CPU is mobile, desktop, or whatever, I care about bang for my buck. The iMac has not lived to what I have come to expect from an Apple product. My PowerMacs gave it to me in speed. Even the iBook performed better than my expectations. 3D performance has been lackluster, the RAM ceiling is too low with only 2 slots, and I've seen far too many slowdowns and appearances of the beach ball for a $1500 machine.
I'm not looking for anything special, but I'm not looking to spend that kind of money for what performs like an $800 desktop in premium aesthetically pleasing case. For the average family user, this is an excellent machine with a lot of power with added clutter reducing benefits. For a power user (who isn't making hollywood blockbluster and doesn't need a xeon workstation) it just isn't the right tool for the job.
A poster from Macrumors.
Lemon Bon Bon.