Any reasons why the top, top-end Core i7 can't give the existing and new Xeons a run for their money? Also so that they just use DDR3 not all this FB-DIMM stuff. I mean, could you have a two Core i7 CPUs? That's 16 logical cores. Surely that whips butt? Coupled with up to 64GB in triple channel DDR3...
If nothing else Apple can still enjoy premium margins on the top Mac Pros while fitting them with powerful but cheaper-than-Xeons CPUs.
I'm sorry I'm a n00b when it comes to Intel roadmaps so somebody correct me if needed.
My main question is, what will be the best Core i7 CPU that will still use DDR3. Can it dual CPUs so that there's 16 cores. Coupled with Snow Leopard Grand Central, Xeons should only be in the XServe, right?
The Xeon 5500 series won't need fully buffered DIMMs. Either DDR3 or most likely DDR3 with ECC. And the Core i7 only has 1 QPI bus and it needs to use that to connect to the X58 controller. The Xeon's cores are functionally the same as the i7 but the have 2 QPI buses; one to connect to the Tylersburg controller and the other to connect to the other processor's memory controller.
So basically the i7 can't work in a dual processor configuration. That's why the Nehalem EP (Xeon 5500 series) was made.
The best Core i7 is yet to come. It's called Gulfton or something like that and it will have 6 cores but will still be only for 1 processor systems.
Any reasons why the top, top-end Core i7 can't give the existing and new Xeons a run for their money? Also so that they just use DDR3 not all this FB-DIMM stuff. I mean, could you have a two Core i7 CPUs? That's 16 logical cores. Surely that whips butt? Coupled with up to 64GB in triple channel DDR3...
If nothing else Apple can still enjoy premium margins on the top Mac Pros while fitting them with powerful but cheaper-than-Xeons CPUs.
I'm sorry I'm a n00b when it comes to Intel roadmaps so somebody correct me if needed.
My main question is, what will be the best Core i7 CPU that will still use DDR3. Can it dual CPUs so that there's 16 cores. Coupled with Snow Leopard Grand Central, Xeons should only be in the XServe, right?
No, you can't use dual i7s. The dual-socket Nehalem Xeon will use DDR3, however.
I beg to differ, a current MacBook Pro can last at least 2.5 strong years. Don't forget its pretty darn powerful 9600M GT which will really help in all that GPGPU stuff.
So a dual core CPU and strong discrete GPU, with OpenCL and CUDA on the PC side, I think there is some reasonable longevity in dual core CPUs.
Getting a decent affordable mobile quad core will take at least until middle of the year.
You can also upgrade in 1.5 year's time your hard disk with a SSD drive which should be fast, large and reasonably affordable by that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT
But haven't we known this for half a year now, if not longer? That the really yummy mobile CPUs will arrive Q4 2009?
Basically you will literally get twice the performance for the same price at the same battery life.
And this is just a dual core running 4 threads. Imagine if Intel releases a mobile quad-core with 8 threads? That'll be 4x as much CPU power as the currently fastest MacBook Pro...
Or in other words, it's just a bad time to buy a laptop that you intend to use for 3+ years.
1 1/2 years from now any current MacBook Pro will feel like a G3 PowerBook today...
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
A bit off topic, but that's why I refuse to buy an iMac with a dual core processor now.
Its analogous to buying a pentium 4 machine 3 years ago.
The Xeon 5500 series won't need fully buffered DIMMs. Either DDR3 or most likely DDR3 with ECC. And the Core i7 only has 1 QPI bus and it needs to use that to connect to the X58 controller. The Xeon's cores are functionally the same as the i7 but the have 2 QPI buses; one to connect to the Tylersburg controller and the other to connect to the other processor's memory controller.
So basically the i7 can't work in a dual processor configuration. That's why the Nehalem EP (Xeon 5500 series) was made.
The best Core i7 is yet to come. It's called Gulfton or something like that and it will have 6 cores but will still be only for 1 processor systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
No, you can't use dual i7s. The dual-socket Nehalem Xeon will use DDR3, however.
OK thanks that makes sense then.
Isn't there still a debate out there about whether ECC is really that important?
I beg to differ, a current MacBook Pro can last at least 2.5 strong years. Don't forget its pretty darn powerful 9600M GT which will really help in all that GPGPU stuff.
So a dual core CPU and strong discrete GPU, with OpenCL and CUDA on the PC side, I think there is some reasonable longevity in dual core CPUs.
Getting a decent affordable mobile quad core will take at least until middle of the year.
You can also upgrade in 1.5 year's time your hard disk with a SSD drive which should be fast, large and reasonably affordable by that time.
I confused nvidia2008. What part of my post don't you agree with?
I confused nvidia2008. What part of my post don't you agree with?
It's late for me so apologies if I am not making sense right now...
I think I am saying, dualcore CPU laptops are still worthwhile, if they have reasonable discrete GPUs. Because, remember you have CPU and also GPU powering all sorts of apps over the next few years. In some cases, a reasonable discrete GPU absolutely destroys CPUs for some tasks like video encoding (eg. Badaboom application).
Dualcore CPU laptops are also still worthwhile to purchase, because, you can also upgrade the hard disk to SSD a year or two down the line, this will bring about overall speed improvement as well.
Intel's marketing right now is very, very good. I would say though, do not *overestimate* the importance of the CPU when considering the overall, all-round performance of a computer.
It's late for me so apologies if I am not making sense right now...
I think I am saying, dualcore CPU laptops are still worthwhile, if they have reasonable discrete GPUs. Because, remember you have CPU and also GPU powering all sorts of apps over the next few years. In some cases, a reasonable discrete GPU absolutely destroys CPUs for some tasks like video encoding (eg. Badaboom application).
Dualcore CPU laptops are also still worthwhile to purchase, because, you can also upgrade the hard disk to SSD a year or two down the line, this will bring about overall speed improvement as well.
Intel's marketing right now is very, very good. I would say though, do not *overestimate* the importance of the CPU when considering the overall, all-round performance of a computer.
Well time will tell how powerful open cl is and how much improvement it makes in regards to performance. No doubt the potential is there.
But by the end of the year, Quad core will be the new dual core.
It's late for me so apologies if I am not making sense right now...
I think I am saying, dualcore CPU laptops are still worthwhile, if they have reasonable discrete GPUs. Because, remember you have CPU and also GPU powering all sorts of apps over the next few years. In some cases, a reasonable discrete GPU absolutely destroys CPUs for some tasks like video encoding (eg. Badaboom application).
but then you should have the gpu with there own ram not useing slower system ram.
When you look at the lower end, Apple's offerings don't really seem that bad. It's when you get to the serious high end machines that Apple not offering a proper desktop system means it's far more expensive than it needs to be to get some decent performance.
Their Ram bundles are terrible these days too. Just 2GB in a Mac Pro. Almost everything about the clone is better than the current Mac Pro at a fraction of the price.
Yeah. The PearC 'professional' option looks good by comparison, eh? This just goes to show how bad Apple's ram, hd and gpu options look at really inflated prices.
Geeze. How hard is it to update these components? What's with the once a year thing? One major and one minor revision per year would make more sense.
This looks good but I think we're getting too much life out of C2 product. How about this
Q1 '09
Mac mini C2D 2.13Ghz, 2.4Ghz (1)
20" iMac C2D 2.53Ggz 45nm
24" iMac 2.6Ghz 9400s C2 Quad
Q2 '09
Mac Prosumer - 2.66Ghz Core i7
Mac Pro - 2.66Ghz 3.2Ghz Xeon
Q3 '09
20" iMac -2.66Ghz (est) Core i5 Lynnfield (2)
24" iMac - 2.93Ghz (est) Core i5 Lynnfield
Macbook Pro - 2.53Ghz Clarskfield 2.66Ghz 17" (3)
Macbook 2.13Ghz Clarksfield 2.4Ghz Clarksfield step up model
Q1 '10
Mac Prosumer - 2.92 Gulftown (4)
Mac Pro - 3.2Ghz and 3.4Ghz Xeon
Q2 "10
iMac Clarkdale (5)
Macbook and Macbook Pro and Mini Arrandale
This way we transition away from C2 and deliver Nehalem with threading and Snow Leopard on all computers announced after Q2 and on of this year.
(1) Unless I'm mistaken there is no T/P series 2.13GHz mobile cpu in Intel's plans (2.26/2.40GHz cpus cost the same today).
(2) Lynnfield will be a 4C/8T 95W cpu in Q3, no way it's going in any iMac
(3) Clarksfield will be a 4C/8T 55W cpu in Q3, no way it's going in any MacBook. And too expensive ($350-1,050)
(4) Gulftown won't be available in Q1 2010, nor 6C Xeons
(5) Arrandale/Clarksdale will be available in Q1. Why push the release to Q2? Furthermore, going from Lynnfield/Clarksfield (4C/8T cpus) to Arrandale/Clarksdale (2C/4T cpus) is certainly not an upgrade, it's a downgrade.
FWIW, I think the notebook updates will be (probably just cpu/hdd upgrades):
2.66/2.80/3.06GHz 15" MacBook Pro (P8800 w/3MB cache, T9600/9900 w/6MB cache)
2.80/3.06GHz 17" Macbook Pro (T9600/9900 w/6MB cache)
1.86/2.13GHz MacBook Air (SL9400/9600 w/6MB cache)
Q1 2010
Arrandale for all MacBooks, Intel has still to come up with a replacement for the T series... I didn't see anything in the roadmaps that would replace the T9600/9900 cpus, yet. There were some rumors of fast 2C/4T cpus without IGP (to keep the TDP low)...
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
No i7s in the Mac Pro. Only Xeons.
Why not? It's not like the Mac Pro is selling like hot cakes. Offering more affordable configurations (powerful and with great margins, yet) wouldn't hurt. And it's not like the 2 platforms are that much different. Nehalem Xeons will cost a lot more than the current Harpertown Xeons at the same clock and offering single Xeon cpu models would be ridiculously expensive and useless. Even if Core i7 Mac Pros with their lower prices ($1499/2299 est.) would cannibalize some iMac sales, they would generate probably more margins than those iMacs. FWIW, I expect the dual Xeon Mac Pros I've listed to cost $3199/4999.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myself
Q1 2010
Mac mini 35W Clarksdale 2.13/2.40GHz 2C/4T
I meant: Mac mini 35W Arrandale 2.13/2.40GHz 2C/4T
Why not? It's not like the Mac Pro is selling like hot cakes. Offering more affordable configurations (powerful and with great margins, yet) wouldn't hurt. And it's not like the 2 platforms are that much different. Nehalem Xeons will cost a lot more than the current Harpertown Xeons at the same clock and offering single Xeon cpu models would be ridiculously expensive and useless. Even if Core i7 Mac Pros with their lower prices ($1499/2299 est.) would cannibalize some iMac sales, they would generate probably more margins than those iMacs. FWIW, I expect the dual Xeon Mac Pros I've listed to cost $3199/4999.
Game. Set. And Match.
Quote:
Why not? It's not like the Mac Pro is selling like hot cakes. Offering more affordable configurations (powerful and with great margins, yet) wouldn't hurt.
That bit stands out. Y'know. The idea that Apple could boost Mac Pro sales by offering, gasp...a cheaper platform? It wouldn't hurt at all to put the i7 in the entry 'Pro' and you'd have a fantastic value Mac Pro. Apple's choice. They can't blame Moto' or IBM this time. They're making a clear choice not to use a powerful, affordable cpu in their entry tower...one that is in machines for half the cost of the Mac Pro and cheaper! It's insane.
(1) Unless I'm mistaken there is no T/P series 2.13GHz mobile cpu in Intel's plans (2.26/2.40GHz cpus cost the same today).
(2) Lynnfield will be a 4C/8T 95W cpu in Q3, no way it's going in any iMac
(3) Clarksfield will be a 4C/8T 55W cpu in Q3, no way it's going in any MacBook. And too expensive ($350-1,050)
(4) Gulftown won't be available in Q1 2010, nor 6C Xeons
(5) Arrandale/Clarksdale will be available in Q1. Why push the release to Q2? Furthermore, going from Lynnfield/Clarksfield (4C/8T cpus) to Arrandale/Clarksdale (2C/4T cpus) is certainly not an upgrade, it's a downgrade.
Q1 2010
Arrandale for all MacBooks, Intel has still to come up with a replacement for the T series... I didn't see anything in the roadmaps that would replace the T9600/9900 cpus, yet. There were some rumors of fast 2C/4T cpus without IGP (to keep the TDP low)...
I'm basing my Lynnfield iMac on the fact that there's no North/South bridge just the CPU and PCH so while Lynnfield is 95W it ought to be closer to the 64W C2 Quad that is likely eating up another 20W in North/South bridges.
My consertive Arrandale is based on Apple peculiarities that will have them delay machines despite having processors available (like today's pending mini and iMac refresh)
That bit stands out. Y'know. The idea that Apple could boost Mac Pro sales by offering, gasp...a cheaper platform? It wouldn't hurt at all to put the i7 in the entry 'Pro' and you'd have a fantastic value Mac Pro. Apple's choice. They can't blame Moto' or IBM this time. They're making a clear choice not to use a powerful, affordable cpu in their entry tower...one that is in machines for half the cost of the Mac Pro and cheaper! It's insane.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Well i'm going to call the single socket Mac Pro the Mac Prosumer because that's what it would appeal to IMO.
Sure it would eat some Mac Pro sales but it could be a higher margin (than iMac) higher volume model that sits perfectly between the two. Apple could beef up the base specs of the Mac Pro so that $2999 is the starting price with gobs of RAM and a nice GPU.
It's really time to stop protecting the dwindling desktop lineup. An iMac is going to do me no good if I need to toss in a Kona card and UAD-2 card along with a fat GPU.
Some people need this yet they don't need a 2-socket workstation.
That bit stands out. Y'know. The idea that Apple could boost Mac Pro sales by offering, gasp...a cheaper platform? It wouldn't hurt at all to put the i7 in the entry 'Pro' and you'd have a fantastic value Mac Pro. Apple's choice. They can't blame Moto' or IBM this time. They're making a clear choice not to use a powerful, affordable cpu in their entry tower...one that is in machines for half the cost of the Mac Pro and cheaper! It's insane.
Lemon Bon Bon.
And just think how many times people on these forums blamed "Moto' or IBM". And how, by going with Intel, we were going to have such a wide variety and choice of Apple computers............. Perhaps the criticism should have been leveled at Apple as it is now.
I'm basing my Lynnfield iMac on the fact that there's no North/South bridge just the CPU and PCH so while Lynnfield is 95W it ought to be closer to the 64W C2 Quad that is likely eating up another 20W in North/South bridges.
My consertive Arrandale is based on Apple peculiarities that will have them delay machines despite having processors available (like today's pending mini and iMac refresh)
The 65W quad cpus can use nvidia's single chip desktop 9300/9400 chipset. Which Apple's is already familiar with. No need to use Intel's N/S bridges. There is still about 30W difference in overall TDP.
I wasn't talking much about the delay, but your choice of using 4C/8T cpus in Q3 2009 for the iMac and MacBooks and then move back to 2C/4T cpus in Q1/Q2 2010. Even if Arrandale is a 32nm cpu, it's just dual-core (4 threads) while the 45nm Lynnfield/Clarksfield are quad-core (8 threads). It's not an upgrade, it's a downgrade. Anyway, I don't think Apple will ever use 95W Lynnfields in the current iMac form factors, nor the 55W Clarksfield in the MacBooks, even the Pro models.
Why not? It's not like the Mac Pro is selling like hot cakes. Offering more affordable configurations (powerful and with great margins, yet) wouldn't hurt. And it's not like the 2 platforms are that much different. Nehalem Xeons will cost a lot more than the current Harpertown Xeons at the same clock and offering single Xeon cpu models would be ridiculously expensive and useless. Even if Core i7 Mac Pros with their lower prices ($1499/2299 est.) would cannibalize some iMac sales, they would generate probably more margins than those iMacs. FWIW, I expect the dual Xeon Mac Pros I've listed to cost $3199/4999.
The Mac Pro isn't competing with the lower priced i7 machines that are out there, or will be out there. They compete with workstations that cost about the same. You could have said the same thing about the old Mac Pros. Why did Apple only use Xeons in them?
In addition, why would Apple wait so long after the i7 comes out before releasing a Mc Pro based on it? They've never done that before, so why would now be different?
Why Apple hasn't updated their machines more often lately, is something I don't know. They obviously have some reason.
None of Apple's desktop models are "selling like hotcakes" lately. The Mac Pro isn't the only one.
Nehalem Xeons will cost about the same, possibly even less that the current Harpertown models when everything is taken into account. You have to figure in all that Apple doesn't have to pay for as well as the actual price of the cpus. They don't need the separate memory controller, which is expensive. They don't need the extra power supply parts. They don't need the extra real estate on the mobo, etc. This simplifies the design process. It allows for a less expensive board. Simpler testing, etc.
Overall, the costs should be about the same. This is what sites such as Anandtech are finding, even though only high end boards can be used, that's no different from before.
As for your pricing, I don't see it as being as high as that. It's possible that prices may be a bit higher than today, as each generation seems to gain a bit because of inflation. If Apple adds features, then pricing may go higher.
Nehalem Xeons will cost about the same, possibly even less that the current Harpertown models when everything is taken into account. You have to figure in all that Apple doesn't have to pay for as well as the actual price of the cpus. They don't need the separate memory controller, which is expensive. They don't need the extra power supply parts. They don't need the extra real estate on the mobo, etc. This simplifies the design process. It allows for a less expensive board. Simpler testing, etc.
Overall, the costs should be about the same. This is what sites such as Anandtech are finding, even though only high end boards can be used, that's no different from before.
Would mind going into further detail about this. Assuming Apple is getting the same discount as before the costs of the new Xeons should be more. Except for the ability not to use FB RAM I don't understand where they will be saving money to make the cost equivalent as before.
Would mind going into further detail about this. Assuming Apple is getting the same discount as before the costs of the new Xeons should be more. Except for the ability not to use FB RAM I don't understand where they will be saving money to make the cost equivalent as before.
I mentioned that they will have less costs because of no memory controller chip, otherwise known as an Integrated Memory Controller (from Intel), or a Northbridge (from about everyone else) which is expensive, and requires heatsinking.
The new, not yet arrived Nehalem Xeons will be at full price. This also makes the price comparisons difficult. To be fair therefore, we have to see the price of the Harpertowns, as well as for the IMC when they first came out.
The i7, is a cheaper chip, as it is for mass market desktops.
Comments
Any reasons why the top, top-end Core i7 can't give the existing and new Xeons a run for their money? Also so that they just use DDR3 not all this FB-DIMM stuff. I mean, could you have a two Core i7 CPUs? That's 16 logical cores. Surely that whips butt? Coupled with up to 64GB in triple channel DDR3...
If nothing else Apple can still enjoy premium margins on the top Mac Pros while fitting them with powerful but cheaper-than-Xeons CPUs.
I'm sorry I'm a n00b when it comes to Intel roadmaps so somebody correct me if needed.
My main question is, what will be the best Core i7 CPU that will still use DDR3. Can it dual CPUs so that there's 16 cores. Coupled with Snow Leopard Grand Central, Xeons should only be in the XServe, right?
The Xeon 5500 series won't need fully buffered DIMMs. Either DDR3 or most likely DDR3 with ECC. And the Core i7 only has 1 QPI bus and it needs to use that to connect to the X58 controller. The Xeon's cores are functionally the same as the i7 but the have 2 QPI buses; one to connect to the Tylersburg controller and the other to connect to the other processor's memory controller.
So basically the i7 can't work in a dual processor configuration. That's why the Nehalem EP (Xeon 5500 series) was made.
The best Core i7 is yet to come. It's called Gulfton or something like that and it will have 6 cores but will still be only for 1 processor systems.
Any reasons why the top, top-end Core i7 can't give the existing and new Xeons a run for their money? Also so that they just use DDR3 not all this FB-DIMM stuff. I mean, could you have a two Core i7 CPUs? That's 16 logical cores. Surely that whips butt? Coupled with up to 64GB in triple channel DDR3...
If nothing else Apple can still enjoy premium margins on the top Mac Pros while fitting them with powerful but cheaper-than-Xeons CPUs.
I'm sorry I'm a n00b when it comes to Intel roadmaps so somebody correct me if needed.
My main question is, what will be the best Core i7 CPU that will still use DDR3. Can it dual CPUs so that there's 16 cores. Coupled with Snow Leopard Grand Central, Xeons should only be in the XServe, right?
No, you can't use dual i7s. The dual-socket Nehalem Xeon will use DDR3, however.
So a dual core CPU and strong discrete GPU, with OpenCL and CUDA on the PC side, I think there is some reasonable longevity in dual core CPUs.
Getting a decent affordable mobile quad core will take at least until middle of the year.
You can also upgrade in 1.5 year's time your hard disk with a SSD drive which should be fast, large and reasonably affordable by that time.
But haven't we known this for half a year now, if not longer? That the really yummy mobile CPUs will arrive Q4 2009?
Basically you will literally get twice the performance for the same price at the same battery life.
And this is just a dual core running 4 threads. Imagine if Intel releases a mobile quad-core with 8 threads? That'll be 4x as much CPU power as the currently fastest MacBook Pro...
Or in other words, it's just a bad time to buy a laptop that you intend to use for 3+ years.
1 1/2 years from now any current MacBook Pro will feel like a G3 PowerBook today...
A bit off topic, but that's why I refuse to buy an iMac with a dual core processor now.
Its analogous to buying a pentium 4 machine 3 years ago.
The Xeon 5500 series won't need fully buffered DIMMs. Either DDR3 or most likely DDR3 with ECC. And the Core i7 only has 1 QPI bus and it needs to use that to connect to the X58 controller. The Xeon's cores are functionally the same as the i7 but the have 2 QPI buses; one to connect to the Tylersburg controller and the other to connect to the other processor's memory controller.
So basically the i7 can't work in a dual processor configuration. That's why the Nehalem EP (Xeon 5500 series) was made.
The best Core i7 is yet to come. It's called Gulfton or something like that and it will have 6 cores but will still be only for 1 processor systems.
No, you can't use dual i7s. The dual-socket Nehalem Xeon will use DDR3, however.
OK thanks that makes sense then.
Isn't there still a debate out there about whether ECC is really that important?
I beg to differ, a current MacBook Pro can last at least 2.5 strong years. Don't forget its pretty darn powerful 9600M GT which will really help in all that GPGPU stuff.
So a dual core CPU and strong discrete GPU, with OpenCL and CUDA on the PC side, I think there is some reasonable longevity in dual core CPUs.
Getting a decent affordable mobile quad core will take at least until middle of the year.
You can also upgrade in 1.5 year's time your hard disk with a SSD drive which should be fast, large and reasonably affordable by that time.
I confused nvidia2008. What part of my post don't you agree with?
I confused nvidia2008. What part of my post don't you agree with?
It's late for me so apologies if I am not making sense right now...
I think I am saying, dualcore CPU laptops are still worthwhile, if they have reasonable discrete GPUs. Because, remember you have CPU and also GPU powering all sorts of apps over the next few years. In some cases, a reasonable discrete GPU absolutely destroys CPUs for some tasks like video encoding (eg. Badaboom application).
Dualcore CPU laptops are also still worthwhile to purchase, because, you can also upgrade the hard disk to SSD a year or two down the line, this will bring about overall speed improvement as well.
Intel's marketing right now is very, very good. I would say though, do not *overestimate* the importance of the CPU when considering the overall, all-round performance of a computer.
It's late for me so apologies if I am not making sense right now...
I think I am saying, dualcore CPU laptops are still worthwhile, if they have reasonable discrete GPUs. Because, remember you have CPU and also GPU powering all sorts of apps over the next few years. In some cases, a reasonable discrete GPU absolutely destroys CPUs for some tasks like video encoding (eg. Badaboom application).
Dualcore CPU laptops are also still worthwhile to purchase, because, you can also upgrade the hard disk to SSD a year or two down the line, this will bring about overall speed improvement as well.
Intel's marketing right now is very, very good. I would say though, do not *overestimate* the importance of the CPU when considering the overall, all-round performance of a computer.
Well time will tell how powerful open cl is and how much improvement it makes in regards to performance. No doubt the potential is there.
But by the end of the year, Quad core will be the new dual core.
OK thanks that makes sense then.
Isn't there still a debate out there about whether ECC is really that important?
For critical work, such as financial transactions and such, it's critical.
For most other more mundane work, it's not.
It's late for me so apologies if I am not making sense right now...
I think I am saying, dualcore CPU laptops are still worthwhile, if they have reasonable discrete GPUs. Because, remember you have CPU and also GPU powering all sorts of apps over the next few years. In some cases, a reasonable discrete GPU absolutely destroys CPUs for some tasks like video encoding (eg. Badaboom application).
but then you should have the gpu with there own ram not useing slower system ram.
When you look at the lower end, Apple's offerings don't really seem that bad. It's when you get to the serious high end machines that Apple not offering a proper desktop system means it's far more expensive than it needs to be to get some decent performance.
Their Ram bundles are terrible these days too. Just 2GB in a Mac Pro. Almost everything about the clone is better than the current Mac Pro at a fraction of the price.
Yeah. The PearC 'professional' option looks good by comparison, eh? This just goes to show how bad Apple's ram, hd and gpu options look at really inflated prices.
Geeze. How hard is it to update these components? What's with the once a year thing? One major and one minor revision per year would make more sense.
Lemon Bon Bon.
This looks good but I think we're getting too much life out of C2 product. How about this
Q1 '09
Mac mini C2D 2.13Ghz, 2.4Ghz (1)
20" iMac C2D 2.53Ggz 45nm
24" iMac 2.6Ghz 9400s C2 Quad
Q2 '09
Mac Prosumer - 2.66Ghz Core i7
Mac Pro - 2.66Ghz 3.2Ghz Xeon
Q3 '09
20" iMac -2.66Ghz (est) Core i5 Lynnfield (2)
24" iMac - 2.93Ghz (est) Core i5 Lynnfield
Macbook Pro - 2.53Ghz Clarskfield 2.66Ghz 17" (3)
Macbook 2.13Ghz Clarksfield 2.4Ghz Clarksfield step up model
Q1 '10
Mac Prosumer - 2.92 Gulftown (4)
Mac Pro - 3.2Ghz and 3.4Ghz Xeon
Q2 "10
iMac Clarkdale (5)
Macbook and Macbook Pro and Mini Arrandale
This way we transition away from C2 and deliver Nehalem with threading and Snow Leopard on all computers announced after Q2 and on of this year.
(1) Unless I'm mistaken there is no T/P series 2.13GHz mobile cpu in Intel's plans (2.26/2.40GHz cpus cost the same today).
(2) Lynnfield will be a 4C/8T 95W cpu in Q3, no way it's going in any iMac
(3) Clarksfield will be a 4C/8T 55W cpu in Q3, no way it's going in any MacBook. And too expensive ($350-1,050)
(4) Gulftown won't be available in Q1 2010, nor 6C Xeons
(5) Arrandale/Clarksdale will be available in Q1. Why push the release to Q2? Furthermore, going from Lynnfield/Clarksfield (4C/8T cpus) to Arrandale/Clarksdale (2C/4T cpus) is certainly not an upgrade, it's a downgrade.
FWIW, I think the notebook updates will be (probably just cpu/hdd upgrades):
Q3 2009
2.40GHz white MacBook (P8600 w/3MB cache)
2.40/2.66GHz unibody MacBook (P8600/P8800 w/3MB cache)
2.66/2.80/3.06GHz 15" MacBook Pro (P8800 w/3MB cache, T9600/9900 w/6MB cache)
2.80/3.06GHz 17" Macbook Pro (T9600/9900 w/6MB cache)
1.86/2.13GHz MacBook Air (SL9400/9600 w/6MB cache)
Q1 2010
Arrandale for all MacBooks, Intel has still to come up with a replacement for the T series... I didn't see anything in the roadmaps that would replace the T9600/9900 cpus, yet. There were some rumors of fast 2C/4T cpus without IGP (to keep the TDP low)...
No i7s in the Mac Pro. Only Xeons.
Why not? It's not like the Mac Pro is selling like hot cakes. Offering more affordable configurations (powerful and with great margins, yet) wouldn't hurt. And it's not like the 2 platforms are that much different. Nehalem Xeons will cost a lot more than the current Harpertown Xeons at the same clock and offering single Xeon cpu models would be ridiculously expensive and useless. Even if Core i7 Mac Pros with their lower prices ($1499/2299 est.) would cannibalize some iMac sales, they would generate probably more margins than those iMacs. FWIW, I expect the dual Xeon Mac Pros I've listed to cost $3199/4999.
Q1 2010
Mac mini 35W Clarksdale 2.13/2.40GHz 2C/4T
I meant: Mac mini 35W Arrandale 2.13/2.40GHz 2C/4T
Apple not offering a proper desktop system means it's far more expensive than it needs to be to get some decent performance.
This bit stands out.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Why not? It's not like the Mac Pro is selling like hot cakes. Offering more affordable configurations (powerful and with great margins, yet) wouldn't hurt. And it's not like the 2 platforms are that much different. Nehalem Xeons will cost a lot more than the current Harpertown Xeons at the same clock and offering single Xeon cpu models would be ridiculously expensive and useless. Even if Core i7 Mac Pros with their lower prices ($1499/2299 est.) would cannibalize some iMac sales, they would generate probably more margins than those iMacs. FWIW, I expect the dual Xeon Mac Pros I've listed to cost $3199/4999.
Game. Set. And Match.
Why not? It's not like the Mac Pro is selling like hot cakes. Offering more affordable configurations (powerful and with great margins, yet) wouldn't hurt.
That bit stands out. Y'know. The idea that Apple could boost Mac Pro sales by offering, gasp...a cheaper platform? It wouldn't hurt at all to put the i7 in the entry 'Pro' and you'd have a fantastic value Mac Pro. Apple's choice. They can't blame Moto' or IBM this time. They're making a clear choice not to use a powerful, affordable cpu in their entry tower...one that is in machines for half the cost of the Mac Pro and cheaper! It's insane.
Lemon Bon Bon.
(1) Unless I'm mistaken there is no T/P series 2.13GHz mobile cpu in Intel's plans (2.26/2.40GHz cpus cost the same today).
(2) Lynnfield will be a 4C/8T 95W cpu in Q3, no way it's going in any iMac
(3) Clarksfield will be a 4C/8T 55W cpu in Q3, no way it's going in any MacBook. And too expensive ($350-1,050)
(4) Gulftown won't be available in Q1 2010, nor 6C Xeons
(5) Arrandale/Clarksdale will be available in Q1. Why push the release to Q2? Furthermore, going from Lynnfield/Clarksfield (4C/8T cpus) to Arrandale/Clarksdale (2C/4T cpus) is certainly not an upgrade, it's a downgrade.
Q1 2010
Arrandale for all MacBooks, Intel has still to come up with a replacement for the T series... I didn't see anything in the roadmaps that would replace the T9600/9900 cpus, yet. There were some rumors of fast 2C/4T cpus without IGP (to keep the TDP low)...
I'm basing my Lynnfield iMac on the fact that there's no North/South bridge just the CPU and PCH so while Lynnfield is 95W it ought to be closer to the 64W C2 Quad that is likely eating up another 20W in North/South bridges.
My consertive Arrandale is based on Apple peculiarities that will have them delay machines despite having processors available (like today's pending mini and iMac refresh)
Game. Set. And Match.
That bit stands out. Y'know. The idea that Apple could boost Mac Pro sales by offering, gasp...a cheaper platform? It wouldn't hurt at all to put the i7 in the entry 'Pro' and you'd have a fantastic value Mac Pro. Apple's choice. They can't blame Moto' or IBM this time. They're making a clear choice not to use a powerful, affordable cpu in their entry tower...one that is in machines for half the cost of the Mac Pro and cheaper! It's insane.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Well i'm going to call the single socket Mac Pro the Mac Prosumer because that's what it would appeal to IMO.
Sure it would eat some Mac Pro sales but it could be a higher margin (than iMac) higher volume model that sits perfectly between the two. Apple could beef up the base specs of the Mac Pro so that $2999 is the starting price with gobs of RAM and a nice GPU.
It's really time to stop protecting the dwindling desktop lineup. An iMac is going to do me no good if I need to toss in a Kona card and UAD-2 card along with a fat GPU.
Some people need this yet they don't need a 2-socket workstation.
Game. Set. And Match.
That bit stands out. Y'know. The idea that Apple could boost Mac Pro sales by offering, gasp...a cheaper platform? It wouldn't hurt at all to put the i7 in the entry 'Pro' and you'd have a fantastic value Mac Pro. Apple's choice. They can't blame Moto' or IBM this time. They're making a clear choice not to use a powerful, affordable cpu in their entry tower...one that is in machines for half the cost of the Mac Pro and cheaper! It's insane.
Lemon Bon Bon.
And just think how many times people on these forums blamed "Moto' or IBM". And how, by going with Intel, we were going to have such a wide variety and choice of Apple computers............. Perhaps the criticism should have been leveled at Apple as it is now.
I'm basing my Lynnfield iMac on the fact that there's no North/South bridge just the CPU and PCH so while Lynnfield is 95W it ought to be closer to the 64W C2 Quad that is likely eating up another 20W in North/South bridges.
My consertive Arrandale is based on Apple peculiarities that will have them delay machines despite having processors available (like today's pending mini and iMac refresh)
The 65W quad cpus can use nvidia's single chip desktop 9300/9400 chipset. Which Apple's is already familiar with. No need to use Intel's N/S bridges. There is still about 30W difference in overall TDP.
I wasn't talking much about the delay, but your choice of using 4C/8T cpus in Q3 2009 for the iMac and MacBooks and then move back to 2C/4T cpus in Q1/Q2 2010. Even if Arrandale is a 32nm cpu, it's just dual-core (4 threads) while the 45nm Lynnfield/Clarksfield are quad-core (8 threads). It's not an upgrade, it's a downgrade. Anyway, I don't think Apple will ever use 95W Lynnfields in the current iMac form factors, nor the 55W Clarksfield in the MacBooks, even the Pro models.
Why not? It's not like the Mac Pro is selling like hot cakes. Offering more affordable configurations (powerful and with great margins, yet) wouldn't hurt. And it's not like the 2 platforms are that much different. Nehalem Xeons will cost a lot more than the current Harpertown Xeons at the same clock and offering single Xeon cpu models would be ridiculously expensive and useless. Even if Core i7 Mac Pros with their lower prices ($1499/2299 est.) would cannibalize some iMac sales, they would generate probably more margins than those iMacs. FWIW, I expect the dual Xeon Mac Pros I've listed to cost $3199/4999.
The Mac Pro isn't competing with the lower priced i7 machines that are out there, or will be out there. They compete with workstations that cost about the same. You could have said the same thing about the old Mac Pros. Why did Apple only use Xeons in them?
In addition, why would Apple wait so long after the i7 comes out before releasing a Mc Pro based on it? They've never done that before, so why would now be different?
Why Apple hasn't updated their machines more often lately, is something I don't know. They obviously have some reason.
None of Apple's desktop models are "selling like hotcakes" lately. The Mac Pro isn't the only one.
Nehalem Xeons will cost about the same, possibly even less that the current Harpertown models when everything is taken into account. You have to figure in all that Apple doesn't have to pay for as well as the actual price of the cpus. They don't need the separate memory controller, which is expensive. They don't need the extra power supply parts. They don't need the extra real estate on the mobo, etc. This simplifies the design process. It allows for a less expensive board. Simpler testing, etc.
Overall, the costs should be about the same. This is what sites such as Anandtech are finding, even though only high end boards can be used, that's no different from before.
As for your pricing, I don't see it as being as high as that. It's possible that prices may be a bit higher than today, as each generation seems to gain a bit because of inflation. If Apple adds features, then pricing may go higher.
Nehalem Xeons will cost about the same, possibly even less that the current Harpertown models when everything is taken into account. You have to figure in all that Apple doesn't have to pay for as well as the actual price of the cpus. They don't need the separate memory controller, which is expensive. They don't need the extra power supply parts. They don't need the extra real estate on the mobo, etc. This simplifies the design process. It allows for a less expensive board. Simpler testing, etc.
Overall, the costs should be about the same. This is what sites such as Anandtech are finding, even though only high end boards can be used, that's no different from before.
Would mind going into further detail about this. Assuming Apple is getting the same discount as before the costs of the new Xeons should be more. Except for the ability not to use FB RAM I don't understand where they will be saving money to make the cost equivalent as before.
Would mind going into further detail about this. Assuming Apple is getting the same discount as before the costs of the new Xeons should be more. Except for the ability not to use FB RAM I don't understand where they will be saving money to make the cost equivalent as before.
I mentioned that they will have less costs because of no memory controller chip, otherwise known as an Integrated Memory Controller (from Intel), or a Northbridge (from about everyone else) which is expensive, and requires heatsinking.
http://www.google.com/products?clien...num=4&ct=title .
Add these to the cost of the Harperstown, and the price jumps pretty high. Then the other costs I mentioned regarding the mobo have to be factored in.
Another thing that must be factored in here is that Harpertowns have been out for a while and have seen price drops, as is usual. Here is one of them:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Desktops-an...d-Xeon-Prices/
Here's another one:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Int...Cuts,6862.html
The new, not yet arrived Nehalem Xeons will be at full price. This also makes the price comparisons difficult. To be fair therefore, we have to see the price of the Harpertowns, as well as for the IMC when they first came out.
The i7, is a cheaper chip, as it is for mass market desktops.