Yeah. It would be terrible if I just had to start deleting those long-winded diatribes against each other. Which is what I will do if they continue. The flag is set.
MIne is a white flag. I keep saying I'm done and vinea has mellowed too.
So, do you think the Mac Pro update will provide machines that are actually faster than the current Mac Pros?
I understand there's been some testing by third parties in which the newest quad-core processors were installed into current Mac Pros. I understand that there was almost no performance improvement, and in some cases the newer processors performed less well than the chips shipping in current Mac Pros. The applications I use the most that could really benefit from greater speed are Photoshop, Bridge, and Lightroom.
Do you think that by the time Apple actually updates the Mac Pro, quad-core chips in 3GHz form will be an option?
Lundy, I live in Georgia, too. I'm north of the perimeter in Buford. It's a pleasure to read your posts.
Not that they have to have anything to do with each other, but...
PhotoShop World is April 4 - 6, so I would bet that CS3 would be out by then (March seems to be the consensus betting around the web).
If that other site sited above is correct about a Feb 20th announcement and March 24 Leopard release, that would put CS3 as coming out about the same time.
Could this really just be coincidence?
Here's hoping for March coming in like a lion and going out like a Leopard.
So, do you think the Mac Pro update will provide machines that are actually faster than the current Mac Pros.... Do you think that by the time Apple actually updates the Mac Pro, quad-core chips in 3GHz form will be an option?
Lundy, I live in Georgia, too. I'm north of the perimeter in Buford. It's a pleasure to read your posts.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
Jaddie,
From what I have read at the Adobe forums and elsewhere, processors are a part of the speed hit, but more than two cores aren't really being utilized right now. Every post from the Adobe engineers that I've read says that the best way to improve PhotoShop's speed is to add RAM.
I don't think you'll get any better performance from an 8-core machine in PhotoShop from what I've read and the money would probably be better spent on RAM instead.
BTW, my wife and I are coming to Atlanta in Feb, any suggestions for good restaurants?
BTW, my wife and I are coming to Atlanta in Feb, any suggestions for good restaurants?
Cheers.
Dear Don
Well, you shouldn't pass through Atlanta without checking out Atlanta's favorite fast-food restaurant, the Varsity, which is located at North Avenue and I-75/85. If you're a vegetarian, enjoy fries and a shake.
There are a bunch of hoity-toity restaurants in Buckhead, an affluent, unincorporated suburb of Atlanta. See http://www.buckheadrestaurants.com/ for a list of the restaurants. My wife and I enjoyed some of the best pizza we've ever had while traveling from Atlanta to Buckhead. I don't recall the exact name of the restaurant, but I do recall that it had the words Pizza Oven in its title.
If you happen to head thirty miles north of Atlanta, please let me know and I'll give you the names of three excellent Italian restaurants that are privately owned.
More on topic, I plan to start with 5GB of RAM in the new Mac Pro. I also plan to start with a two-drive striped RAID. I'm hoping to see a major improvement over my single-processor 733MHz G4 that has 1.25GB of RAM. I work 16-bit files in Photoshop a lot. I keep them at 16 bits until saviing a print-ready or screen-optimized file, so all of the editing is done in 16-bit mode.
Maybe the Mac Pro update won't feature a total of eight cores at 2.66GHz. Maybe we'll be surprised and see a total of four cores at 3.6GHz. I probably won't upgrade until Creative Suite actually ships, and if I think another Mac Pro update is imminent, I'll probably wait just a bit longer.
Surely Adobe is going to use Photoshop World in Boston as the platform from which to officially introduce Creative Suite 3.
So, do you think the Mac Pro update will provide machines that are actually faster than the current Mac Pros?
Well, I am expecting a higher high-end and to move the current high-end to the middle, as Apple usually does.
Quote:
I understand there's been some testing by third parties in which the newest quad-core processors were installed into current Mac Pros. I understand that there was almost no performance improvement, and in some cases the newer processors performed less well than the chips shipping in current Mac Pros. The applications I use the most that could really benefit from greater speed are Photoshop, Bridge, and Lightroom.
Do you think that by the time Apple actually updates the Mac Pro, quad-core chips in 3GHz form will be an option?
This is an interesting thing. What I would like to see is for them to make the high-end to be dual-quad, and the others to be dual-dual, with a significant price break. A dual-dual 2.33, say for example, might let them price it at something like $1699. I know, dream on.. but they have done this before, setting the low-end at single processor and the high-end at dual. And presto - there is the xMac that people are talking about. I don't think they will go to four models, but they could have something like this:
2.33 gHz dual-dual: $1699
2.66 gHz dual-quad: $2499
3.00 gHz dual-quad: $2999
Though I expect the low-end could conceivably be 2.33 single-chip dual core if they perceive a need for it.
Quote:
Lundy, I live in Georgia, too. I'm north of the perimeter in Buford. It's a pleasure to read your posts.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
Thanks! Pleased to make your acquaintance. My aunt lives in Buford on the lake. She's 94 years old and sharp as a tack.
From what I have read at the Adobe forums and elsewhere, processors are a part of the speed hit, but more than two cores aren't really being utilized right now. Every post from the Adobe engineers that I've read says that the best way to improve PhotoShop's speed is to add RAM.
I don't think you'll get any better performance from an 8-core machine in PhotoShop from what I've read and the money would probably be better spent on RAM instead.
Yep. The Photoshop performance guy says that bandwidth is the main problem - so going from the pathetic 167 mHz bus of the G4 to the gigahertz+ buses of the G5 and the higher end Intel chips should have had a huge effect on performance. I don't know enough about the Intel quads to know how their buses are set up, but I am afraid that the cores on one chip have to share that chip's frontside bus bandwidth, which could limit the gains of having more cores to some extent.
Quote:
BTW, my wife and I are coming to Atlanta in Feb, any suggestions for good restaurants?
Cheers.
Definitely the Varsity as mentioned above. This is the largest drive-in restaurant in the world. It's worth it just to go in and see how huge it is.
Well, you shouldn't pass through Atlanta without checking out Atlanta's favorite fast-food restaurant, the Varsity, which is located at North Avenue and I-75/85. If you're a vegetarian, enjoy fries and a shake.
There are a bunch of hoity-toity restaurants in Buckhead, an affluent, unincorporated suburb of Atlanta. See http://www.buckheadrestaurants.com/ for a list of the restaurants. My wife and I enjoyed some of the best pizza we've ever had while traveling from Atlanta to Buckhead. I don't recall the exact name of the restaurant, but I do recall that it had the words Pizza Oven in its title.
If you happen to head thirty miles north of Atlanta, please let me know and I'll give you the names of three excellent Italian restaurants that are privately owned.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy
Definitely the Varsity as mentioned above. This is the largest drive-in restaurant in the world. It's worth it just to go in and see how huge it is.
Well, you shouldn't pass through Atlanta without checking out Atlanta's favorite fast-food restaurant, the Varsity, which is located at North Avenue and I-75/85. If you're a vegetarian, enjoy fries and a shake.
Mmm . . The Varsity (drool) . . . WHADAYAHAVE?!? WHADAYAHAVE?!? Classic. Don't forget to have a Frosted Orange.
Seriously, back on topic: I've been putting off my purchase since December. My money has burned a hole through every pocket I own, but I'm still holding out. At first I was going to go with the big iMac right after MW, but I talked myself out of buying a 24" monitor that I'll have to just give up once the computer inside it is obsolete. Now I'm married to the idea of a Mac Pro but don't want to buy one three days before they announce the octos with brand-spanking-new GPU options. ARRGGGHH!
There should be asupport group for this kind of mental anguish. I suppose forums like this one provide my misery with some company, but I don't think I can hold out for much longer than a couple more weeks.
I am in the same situation in that I don't want to invest $2500 in a Mac Pro only to have the price drop and new options made available within a month or so.
I have no need for an Octo-Pro, I do illustration and whatnot and to the best of my knowledge Adobe isn't going to go core crazy on us anytime soon. So I am hoping for a price-dropped Quad-Pro (quo).
As for the support group...isn't that what these forums are????
Perhaps, as has been stated by many loyalists, instead of giving us 16 zillion cores etc, Apple should give us an actual mid-tower.
I don't want a weakling mini that I can't upgrade, I don't want an iMac because I have a display I love, and I don't want to spend $2500 on something that has about 200% more power than I need BUT I still want to add an extra HD, switch out the video card etc etc...
Instead of giving us another incredibly powerful machine that most of us won't ever use to the full potential, how about giving us something to stop users like me from being more tempted to keep upgrading our PCs to the latest specs for a few hundred dollars a pop...
If things continue this way with Apple having a big hole in their product line, I'm going to investigate building a PC with 'Apple-safe' components just to run OSX on it.
Perhaps, as has been stated by many loyalists, instead of giving us 16 zillion cores etc, Apple should give us an actual mid-tower.
I don't want a weakling mini that I can't upgrade, I don't want an iMac because I have a display I love, and I don't want to spend $2500 on something that has about 200% more power than I need BUT I still want to add an extra HD, switch out the video card etc etc...
Instead of giving us another incredibly powerful machine that most of us won't ever use to the full potential, how about giving us something to stop users like me from being more tempted to keep upgrading our PCs to the latest specs for a few hundred dollars a pop...
If things continue this way with Apple having a big hole in their product line, I'm going to investigate building a PC with 'Apple-safe' components just to run OSX on it.
With Apples market percentage going up there is a chance of a computer in the middle of an iMac, but it just wont happen until there are enough processors available in a wide enough range where the mid tower, the iMac, and the Mac Pro wont take sales from one another. What really has to happen is iMac component costs to go way down, and Apple to do a huge price cut on the iMac. That in turn will give them room to price a computer a little higher than what the iMac goes for now, but still far enough below in price, and power from the Mac pro to where you really see 3 distinct differences in these computers in the same way you see it from the mini, the iMac, and the Pro Mac.
(It will also drive iMac sales through the roof. Everybody loves that computer.)
That way your new line of computers wont do anything but completely separate the people that actually need those few extras (graphics, drive space) at the iMac current price range and similar power level, and not people trying to get a Mac Pro with just enough drives to where they are stealing sales from the Pro line. Basically it will be totally underpowered from the Pro Mac, but Still powerful enough for your everyday user.
I think this will happen once you see all the coding optimization of SIMD units, Multiple cores, and Multi Cored, Multi processor machines from all the pro apps like PS, Maya, renderman, and so on. If there was coding optimization from all the typical pro apps right now you'd probably see a Quad core, Dual socket, Mac Pro with wicked graphics options, and a Dual core conroe (single socket) box with a few drive bays, and an 8X PCI-E graphics card slot and 2 sub slots for other cards. 8X, 4X, 2x.
That would not infringe of Mac pro sales. You'd also see an iMac with similar spec'ced processor, integrated graphics, at a much lower price point than it has today.
Apple separates their lines quite wisely. They wont flood the market, and destroy a system that worked for them for a ling time. It's easier to read each groups outcome, and predict where your sales will be from the current economy.
okok... dont tell any one but what i have heard is that :
1) Touch screens will be coming to a mac near you, maybe its all ready in and just needs to be activated...hmmmmm
2) of course if you have #1, a tablet will be fallowing....
3) because of the cross lisencing time with M$, Apple has the rights to windows APIs, and they will be inplemented in the OS throu a translation layer (kind of like clasic) to avoid Virus infecting OSX
4) New iPod video, think of it as an iPhone, without the phone feature, but still wifi and internet ready for accesing the iTMS
5) not only new look for the displays but larger displays maybe a 42 or 50 inch with multitouch and video camera. one model may include the cpu inside...
6) TV recording on the Mac Mini and front row improvements.
now not all will be done this year, but .... who knows... and be ready when the cat comes home ... it may just surprise you.
This is an interesting thing. What I would like to see is for them to make the high-end to be dual-quad, and the others to be dual-dual, with a significant price break. A dual-dual 2.33, say for example, might let them price it at something like $1699. I know, dream on.. but they have done this before, setting the low-end at single processor and the high-end at dual. And presto - there is the xMac that people are talking about. I don't think they will go to four models, but they could have something like this:
2.33 gHz dual-dual: $1699
2.66 gHz dual-quad: $2499
3.00 gHz dual-quad: $2999
Though I expect the low-end could conceivably be 2.33 single-chip dual core if they perceive a need for it.
I saw it more like
2.66 Ghz dual-dual
3.00 Ghz dual-dual
2.66 Ghz dual-quad
Unless I missed something, Intel didn't have a quad-core 3.0 GHz chip and I doubt they held out announcing it just for Apple.
I really hope the 3.0 Quad model doesn't get cut with the revision or I won't be buying. The reason I'm holding out now is the graphics cards being more limited than I would like, and the limited PCI-e interface. I don't think apple could make the 3.0 standard though, it would still be too expensive. Perhaps more like:
Two Dual-core 2.33 GHz [subtract $199 (down $100)]
Two Dual-core 2.66 GHz [standard $2399 (down $100)]
Two Dual-core 3.0 GHz [add $599 (down $200)]
Two Dual-quad 2.66 GHz [add $899 (up $100 for previous top)]
I know the woodcrest line will get price cuts by a bit, but it is still the same price point and there is no full-on replacement for it in the next while. I would like to see the PCI-e interface be able to handle SLI/Cross-fire, but don't know if that will happen – at least make it have the power and leave the rest to hackers. For graphics card offers:
NVIDIA GeForce 8300 GT 256MB
2 x NVIDIA GeForce 8300 GT 256MB [Add $149]
ATI Radeon X2000 GT ???MB [Add $249] (set for Q1 2007 launch, memory support up to 2GB)
3 x NVIDIA GeForce 8300 GT 256MB [Add $299]
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB [Add $399]
4 x NVIDIA GeForce 8300 GT 256MB [Add $449]
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB, Stereo 3D (2 x dual-link DVI) [Add $1649]
Perhaps, as has been stated by many loyalists, instead of giving us 16 zillion cores etc, Apple should give us an actual mid-tower.
I don't want a weakling mini that I can't upgrade, I don't want an iMac because I have a display I love, and I don't want to spend $2500 on something that has about 200% more power than I need BUT I still want to add an extra HD, switch out the video card etc etc...
Tell me about it. There's a Snoopy thread all about it... (See 'Return of Macintosh' thread...)
I'd love to see a Mid-Tower with Conroe in it.
Yeesh. It's so obvious. Having a tower starting at £1695 is absolutely ridiculous.
And Apple wonder why Mac Pro sales are in the toilet. You'll be lucky to break 100k Mac pro sales with those kind of prices. What about all those Gaming PC switchers or plain old 'I want a tower' PC potential switchers?
Tell me about it. There's a Snoopy thread all about it... (See 'Return of Macintosh' thread...)
I'd love to see a Mid-Tower with Conroe in it.
Yeesh. It's so obvious. Having a tower starting at £1695 is absolutely ridiculous.
...
Lemon Bon Bon
In the other thread... there are also talks about a single CPU Mac Pro (just take one out from the current model). It would be interesting to see the difference in performance with one CPU off (I don't know if any tech web site has done this kind of test...).
This would allow for a full featured Mac Pro (all the ports, bays, slots...) but for a more reasonable price. If Apple doesn't charge their CPU BTO taxes like they are doing right now on the dual CPU Pro (see the other thread for more details)...
Single 2.66GHz Mac Pro $1799 ($2499 - $700 for the missing 2.66GHz Xeon) £1200?
Single 2.00GHz Mac Pro $1499 ($1799 - $300 ($690 - $316 + $74 BTO taxe)) £1000?
Single 3.00GHz Mac Pro $1999 ($1799 + $200 ($851 - $690 + $39 BTO taxe)) £1350?
I don't believe Intel will cut prices on the Xeon anytime soon, but there are rumors of a major re-pricing for late April, around the launch of Santa Rosa, Bearlake, etc...
We'll see...
For the upper models (octo-cores):
- Xeon E5335 (Quad 2.00GHz) will be priced at $690 = Xeon E5150 (Dual 2.66GHz) = $2499
- Xeon E5345 (Quad 2.33GHz) will be priced at $851 = Xeon E5160 (Dual 3.00GHz) = $3299
- Xeon E5355 (Quad 2.66GHz) will be priced at $1172 = +$321 per CPU ======== $3999?
What about a 3x2 line-up for the Spring:
Single Dual-Core 2.00GHz Mac Pro $1499
Single Dual-Core 2.66GHz Mac Pro $1799 (+ Optional 3.00GHz version for $1999)
Dual Dual-Core 2.00GHz Mac Pro $2199
Dual Dual-Core 2.66GHz Mac Pro $2499 (+ Optional 3.00GHz version for $3299)
Dual Quad-Core 2.33GHz Mac Pro $3299
Dual Quad-Core 2.66GHz Mac Pro $3999
One enclosure.
One motherboard.
Same options.
Four/Five CPU choices instead of the current Three.
I understand that no one other than Apple, and perhaps not even then, knows how long our investment my be good for, but we're wondering if we'll get five or six years of use out of a new workstation.
Our main workstation is a single-processor 733MHz G4 with 1.25 GHz of memory. Of course, we're running OS X 10.4.8 and have an extra internal hard drive and two external hard drives. Our main killer is Photoshop CS2, especially in 16-bit mode while running iTunes.
The raw files with which we begin editing in Photoshop are from the Canon 20D, which creates 8.2-megapixel files.
My wife and I plan to purchase a new workstation (we're waiting for the next Mac Pro update) with the fastest-available processors, five (or more) gigabytes of memory, and a dual-terabyte-drive striped RAID. We also plan to purchase the 30" HD Cinema Display.
Will our approximate US$6.5K investment last for five or six years? We ordered our current workstation in January 2001 and it was delivered March 6, 2001. We're fairly satisfied with our current investment.
We understand that most of you don't wait this long before updating, but we also maintain a PowerBook G4 and photographic printers, so we're trying to get the most bang for our techno-buck.
I understand that no one other than Apple, and perhaps not even then, knows how long our investment my be good for, but we're wondering if we'll get five or six years of use out of a new workstation.
Our main workstation is a single-processor 733MHz G4 with 1.25 GHz of memory. Of course, we're running OS X 10.4.8 and have an extra internal hard drive and two external hard drives. Our main killer is Photoshop CS2, especially in 16-bit mode while running iTunes.
The raw files with which we begin editing in Photoshop are from the Canon 20D, which creates 8.2-megapixel files.
My wife and I plan to purchase a new workstation (we're waiting for the next Mac Pro update) with the fastest-available processors, five (or more) gigabytes of memory, and a dual-terabyte-drive striped RAID. We also plan to purchase the 30" HD Cinema Display.
Will our approximate US$6.5K investment last for five or six years? We ordered our current workstation in January 2001 and it was delivered March 6, 2001. We're fairly satisfied with our current investment.
We understand that most of you don't wait this long before updating, but we also maintain a PowerBook G4 and photographic printers, so we're trying to get the most bang for our techno-buck.
Thank you for entertaining our question.
Sincerely,
Jaddie & Becky
I have no problem with that time frame.
Wait for the update to the MacPro - which could/should be any day.
The Monitor I'd put on hold, unless absolutely necessary.
fwiw - I work to a 3-4 year cycle but that's only because I edit video. If I was print/photo based I'd buy only as required or using an accounting depreciation method.
Comments
Yeah. It would be terrible if I just had to start deleting those long-winded diatribes against each other. Which is what I will do if they continue. The flag is set.
MIne is a white flag. I keep saying I'm done and vinea has mellowed too.
So, do you think the Mac Pro update will provide machines that are actually faster than the current Mac Pros?
I understand there's been some testing by third parties in which the newest quad-core processors were installed into current Mac Pros. I understand that there was almost no performance improvement, and in some cases the newer processors performed less well than the chips shipping in current Mac Pros. The applications I use the most that could really benefit from greater speed are Photoshop, Bridge, and Lightroom.
Do you think that by the time Apple actually updates the Mac Pro, quad-core chips in 3GHz form will be an option?
Lundy, I live in Georgia, too. I'm north of the perimeter in Buford. It's a pleasure to read your posts.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
PhotoShop World is April 4 - 6, so I would bet that CS3 would be out by then (March seems to be the consensus betting around the web).
If that other site sited above is correct about a Feb 20th announcement and March 24 Leopard release, that would put CS3 as coming out about the same time.
Could this really just be coincidence?
Here's hoping for March coming in like a lion and going out like a Leopard.
Dear Friends
So, do you think the Mac Pro update will provide machines that are actually faster than the current Mac Pros.... Do you think that by the time Apple actually updates the Mac Pro, quad-core chips in 3GHz form will be an option?
Lundy, I live in Georgia, too. I'm north of the perimeter in Buford. It's a pleasure to read your posts.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
Jaddie,
From what I have read at the Adobe forums and elsewhere, processors are a part of the speed hit, but more than two cores aren't really being utilized right now. Every post from the Adobe engineers that I've read says that the best way to improve PhotoShop's speed is to add RAM.
I don't think you'll get any better performance from an 8-core machine in PhotoShop from what I've read and the money would probably be better spent on RAM instead.
BTW, my wife and I are coming to Atlanta in Feb, any suggestions for good restaurants?
Cheers.
BTW, my wife and I are coming to Atlanta in Feb, any suggestions for good restaurants?
Cheers.
Dear Don
Well, you shouldn't pass through Atlanta without checking out Atlanta's favorite fast-food restaurant, the Varsity, which is located at North Avenue and I-75/85. If you're a vegetarian, enjoy fries and a shake.
There are a bunch of hoity-toity restaurants in Buckhead, an affluent, unincorporated suburb of Atlanta. See http://www.buckheadrestaurants.com/ for a list of the restaurants. My wife and I enjoyed some of the best pizza we've ever had while traveling from Atlanta to Buckhead. I don't recall the exact name of the restaurant, but I do recall that it had the words Pizza Oven in its title.
If you happen to head thirty miles north of Atlanta, please let me know and I'll give you the names of three excellent Italian restaurants that are privately owned.
More on topic, I plan to start with 5GB of RAM in the new Mac Pro. I also plan to start with a two-drive striped RAID. I'm hoping to see a major improvement over my single-processor 733MHz G4 that has 1.25GB of RAM. I work 16-bit files in Photoshop a lot. I keep them at 16 bits until saviing a print-ready or screen-optimized file, so all of the editing is done in 16-bit mode.
Maybe the Mac Pro update won't feature a total of eight cores at 2.66GHz. Maybe we'll be surprised and see a total of four cores at 3.6GHz. I probably won't upgrade until Creative Suite actually ships, and if I think another Mac Pro update is imminent, I'll probably wait just a bit longer.
Surely Adobe is going to use Photoshop World in Boston as the platform from which to officially introduce Creative Suite 3.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
Dear Friends
So, do you think the Mac Pro update will provide machines that are actually faster than the current Mac Pros?
Well, I am expecting a higher high-end and to move the current high-end to the middle, as Apple usually does.
I understand there's been some testing by third parties in which the newest quad-core processors were installed into current Mac Pros. I understand that there was almost no performance improvement, and in some cases the newer processors performed less well than the chips shipping in current Mac Pros. The applications I use the most that could really benefit from greater speed are Photoshop, Bridge, and Lightroom.
Do you think that by the time Apple actually updates the Mac Pro, quad-core chips in 3GHz form will be an option?
This is an interesting thing. What I would like to see is for them to make the high-end to be dual-quad, and the others to be dual-dual, with a significant price break. A dual-dual 2.33, say for example, might let them price it at something like $1699. I know, dream on.. but they have done this before, setting the low-end at single processor and the high-end at dual. And presto - there is the xMac that people are talking about. I don't think they will go to four models, but they could have something like this:
2.33 gHz dual-dual: $1699
2.66 gHz dual-quad: $2499
3.00 gHz dual-quad: $2999
Though I expect the low-end could conceivably be 2.33 single-chip dual core if they perceive a need for it.
Lundy, I live in Georgia, too. I'm north of the perimeter in Buford. It's a pleasure to read your posts.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
Thanks! Pleased to make your acquaintance. My aunt lives in Buford on the lake. She's 94 years old and sharp as a tack.
Jaddie,
From what I have read at the Adobe forums and elsewhere, processors are a part of the speed hit, but more than two cores aren't really being utilized right now. Every post from the Adobe engineers that I've read says that the best way to improve PhotoShop's speed is to add RAM.
I don't think you'll get any better performance from an 8-core machine in PhotoShop from what I've read and the money would probably be better spent on RAM instead.
Yep. The Photoshop performance guy says that bandwidth is the main problem - so going from the pathetic 167 mHz bus of the G4 to the gigahertz+ buses of the G5 and the higher end Intel chips should have had a huge effect on performance. I don't know enough about the Intel quads to know how their buses are set up, but I am afraid that the cores on one chip have to share that chip's frontside bus bandwidth, which could limit the gains of having more cores to some extent.
BTW, my wife and I are coming to Atlanta in Feb, any suggestions for good restaurants?
Cheers.
Definitely the Varsity as mentioned above. This is the largest drive-in restaurant in the world. It's worth it just to go in and see how huge it is.
http://www.thevarsity.com
For more refined dining, I recommend the following:
1. Ray's In The City (fantastic seafood) - downtown Atlanta http://www.raysrestaurants.com/ritc/index.htm
2. Watershed Restaurant in Decatur - Martha Stewart ate here on her recent visit. http://www.watershedrestaurant.com/
3. The Horseradish Grill in Buckhead - fabulous upscale Southern cuisine. http://www.horseradishgrill.com/
Dear Don
Well, you shouldn't pass through Atlanta without checking out Atlanta's favorite fast-food restaurant, the Varsity, which is located at North Avenue and I-75/85. If you're a vegetarian, enjoy fries and a shake.
There are a bunch of hoity-toity restaurants in Buckhead, an affluent, unincorporated suburb of Atlanta. See http://www.buckheadrestaurants.com/ for a list of the restaurants. My wife and I enjoyed some of the best pizza we've ever had while traveling from Atlanta to Buckhead. I don't recall the exact name of the restaurant, but I do recall that it had the words Pizza Oven in its title.
If you happen to head thirty miles north of Atlanta, please let me know and I'll give you the names of three excellent Italian restaurants that are privately owned.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
Definitely the Varsity as mentioned above. This is the largest drive-in restaurant in the world. It's worth it just to go in and see how huge it is.
http://www.thevarsity.com
For more refined dining, I recommend the following:
1. Ray's In The City (fantastic seafood) - downtown Atlanta http://www.raysrestaurants.com/ritc/index.htm
2. Watershed Restaurant in Decatur - Martha Stewart ate here on her recent visit. http://www.watershedrestaurant.com/
3. The Horseradish Grill in Buckhead - fabulous upscale Southern cuisine. http://www.horseradishgrill.com/
Thanks for the advice, we will be sure to check them out. We will be staying in the Buckhead area so we appreciate those suggestions.
As for the bus on the quad-cores, I think it is the same as is currently supported for the dual-cores. But I might be mistaken on that.
Well, you shouldn't pass through Atlanta without checking out Atlanta's favorite fast-food restaurant, the Varsity, which is located at North Avenue and I-75/85. If you're a vegetarian, enjoy fries and a shake.
Mmm . . The Varsity (drool) . . . WHADAYAHAVE?!? WHADAYAHAVE?!? Classic. Don't forget to have a Frosted Orange.
Seriously, back on topic: I've been putting off my purchase since December. My money has burned a hole through every pocket I own, but I'm still holding out. At first I was going to go with the big iMac right after MW, but I talked myself out of buying a 24" monitor that I'll have to just give up once the computer inside it is obsolete. Now I'm married to the idea of a Mac Pro but don't want to buy one three days before they announce the octos with brand-spanking-new GPU options. ARRGGGHH!
There should be asupport group for this kind of mental anguish. I suppose forums like this one provide my misery with some company, but I don't think I can hold out for much longer than a couple more weeks.
I am in the same situation in that I don't want to invest $2500 in a Mac Pro only to have the price drop and new options made available within a month or so.
I have no need for an Octo-Pro, I do illustration and whatnot and to the best of my knowledge Adobe isn't going to go core crazy on us anytime soon. So I am hoping for a price-dropped Quad-Pro (quo).
As for the support group...isn't that what these forums are????
I don't want a weakling mini that I can't upgrade, I don't want an iMac because I have a display I love, and I don't want to spend $2500 on something that has about 200% more power than I need BUT I still want to add an extra HD, switch out the video card etc etc...
Instead of giving us another incredibly powerful machine that most of us won't ever use to the full potential, how about giving us something to stop users like me from being more tempted to keep upgrading our PCs to the latest specs for a few hundred dollars a pop...
If things continue this way with Apple having a big hole in their product line, I'm going to investigate building a PC with 'Apple-safe' components just to run OSX on it.
Perhaps, as has been stated by many loyalists, instead of giving us 16 zillion cores etc, Apple should give us an actual mid-tower.
I don't want a weakling mini that I can't upgrade, I don't want an iMac because I have a display I love, and I don't want to spend $2500 on something that has about 200% more power than I need BUT I still want to add an extra HD, switch out the video card etc etc...
Instead of giving us another incredibly powerful machine that most of us won't ever use to the full potential, how about giving us something to stop users like me from being more tempted to keep upgrading our PCs to the latest specs for a few hundred dollars a pop...
If things continue this way with Apple having a big hole in their product line, I'm going to investigate building a PC with 'Apple-safe' components just to run OSX on it.
With Apples market percentage going up there is a chance of a computer in the middle of an iMac, but it just wont happen until there are enough processors available in a wide enough range where the mid tower, the iMac, and the Mac Pro wont take sales from one another. What really has to happen is iMac component costs to go way down, and Apple to do a huge price cut on the iMac. That in turn will give them room to price a computer a little higher than what the iMac goes for now, but still far enough below in price, and power from the Mac pro to where you really see 3 distinct differences in these computers in the same way you see it from the mini, the iMac, and the Pro Mac.
(It will also drive iMac sales through the roof. Everybody loves that computer.)
That way your new line of computers wont do anything but completely separate the people that actually need those few extras (graphics, drive space) at the iMac current price range and similar power level, and not people trying to get a Mac Pro with just enough drives to where they are stealing sales from the Pro line. Basically it will be totally underpowered from the Pro Mac, but Still powerful enough for your everyday user.
I think this will happen once you see all the coding optimization of SIMD units, Multiple cores, and Multi Cored, Multi processor machines from all the pro apps like PS, Maya, renderman, and so on. If there was coding optimization from all the typical pro apps right now you'd probably see a Quad core, Dual socket, Mac Pro with wicked graphics options, and a Dual core conroe (single socket) box with a few drive bays, and an 8X PCI-E graphics card slot and 2 sub slots for other cards. 8X, 4X, 2x.
That would not infringe of Mac pro sales. You'd also see an iMac with similar spec'ced processor, integrated graphics, at a much lower price point than it has today.
Apple separates their lines quite wisely. They wont flood the market, and destroy a system that worked for them for a ling time. It's easier to read each groups outcome, and predict where your sales will be from the current economy.
My 2¢
1) Touch screens will be coming to a mac near you, maybe its all ready in and just needs to be activated...hmmmmm
2) of course if you have #1, a tablet will be fallowing....
3) because of the cross lisencing time with M$, Apple has the rights to windows APIs, and they will be inplemented in the OS throu a translation layer (kind of like clasic) to avoid Virus infecting OSX
4) New iPod video, think of it as an iPhone, without the phone feature, but still wifi and internet ready for accesing the iTMS
5) not only new look for the displays but larger displays maybe a 42 or 50 inch with multitouch and video camera. one model may include the cpu inside...
6) TV recording on the Mac Mini and front row improvements.
now not all will be done this year, but .... who knows... and be ready when the cat comes home ... it may just surprise you.
This is an interesting thing. What I would like to see is for them to make the high-end to be dual-quad, and the others to be dual-dual, with a significant price break. A dual-dual 2.33, say for example, might let them price it at something like $1699. I know, dream on.. but they have done this before, setting the low-end at single processor and the high-end at dual. And presto - there is the xMac that people are talking about. I don't think they will go to four models, but they could have something like this:
2.33 gHz dual-dual: $1699
2.66 gHz dual-quad: $2499
3.00 gHz dual-quad: $2999
Though I expect the low-end could conceivably be 2.33 single-chip dual core if they perceive a need for it.
I saw it more like
2.66 Ghz dual-dual
3.00 Ghz dual-dual
2.66 Ghz dual-quad
Unless I missed something, Intel didn't have a quad-core 3.0 GHz chip and I doubt they held out announcing it just for Apple.
Two Dual-core 2.33 GHz [subtract $199 (down $100)]
Two Dual-core 2.66 GHz [standard $2399 (down $100)]
Two Dual-core 3.0 GHz [add $599 (down $200)]
Two Dual-quad 2.66 GHz [add $899 (up $100 for previous top)]
I know the woodcrest line will get price cuts by a bit, but it is still the same price point and there is no full-on replacement for it in the next while. I would like to see the PCI-e interface be able to handle SLI/Cross-fire, but don't know if that will happen – at least make it have the power and leave the rest to hackers. For graphics card offers:
NVIDIA GeForce 8300 GT 256MB
2 x NVIDIA GeForce 8300 GT 256MB [Add $149]
ATI Radeon X2000 GT ???MB [Add $249] (set for Q1 2007 launch, memory support up to 2GB)
3 x NVIDIA GeForce 8300 GT 256MB [Add $299]
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB [Add $399]
4 x NVIDIA GeForce 8300 GT 256MB [Add $449]
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB, Stereo 3D (2 x dual-link DVI) [Add $1649]
Now that would make me happy.
Perhaps, as has been stated by many loyalists, instead of giving us 16 zillion cores etc, Apple should give us an actual mid-tower.
I don't want a weakling mini that I can't upgrade, I don't want an iMac because I have a display I love, and I don't want to spend $2500 on something that has about 200% more power than I need BUT I still want to add an extra HD, switch out the video card etc etc...
Tell me about it. There's a Snoopy thread all about it... (See 'Return of Macintosh' thread...)
I'd love to see a Mid-Tower with Conroe in it.
Yeesh. It's so obvious. Having a tower starting at £1695 is absolutely ridiculous.
And Apple wonder why Mac Pro sales are in the toilet. You'll be lucky to break 100k Mac pro sales with those kind of prices. What about all those Gaming PC switchers or plain old 'I want a tower' PC potential switchers?
Honestly...
Lemon Bon Bon
Tell me about it. There's a Snoopy thread all about it... (See 'Return of Macintosh' thread...)
I'd love to see a Mid-Tower with Conroe in it.
Yeesh. It's so obvious. Having a tower starting at £1695 is absolutely ridiculous.
...
Lemon Bon Bon
In the other thread... there are also talks about a single CPU Mac Pro (just take one out from the current model). It would be interesting to see the difference in performance with one CPU off (I don't know if any tech web site has done this kind of test...).
This would allow for a full featured Mac Pro (all the ports, bays, slots...) but for a more reasonable price. If Apple doesn't charge their CPU BTO taxes like they are doing right now on the dual CPU Pro (see the other thread for more details)...
Single 2.66GHz Mac Pro $1799 ($2499 - $700 for the missing 2.66GHz Xeon) £1200?
Single 2.00GHz Mac Pro $1499 ($1799 - $300 ($690 - $316 + $74 BTO taxe)) £1000?
Single 3.00GHz Mac Pro $1999 ($1799 + $200 ($851 - $690 + $39 BTO taxe)) £1350?
I don't believe Intel will cut prices on the Xeon anytime soon, but there are rumors of a major re-pricing for late April, around the launch of Santa Rosa, Bearlake, etc...
We'll see...
For the upper models (octo-cores):
- Xeon E5335 (Quad 2.00GHz) will be priced at $690 = Xeon E5150 (Dual 2.66GHz) = $2499
- Xeon E5345 (Quad 2.33GHz) will be priced at $851 = Xeon E5160 (Dual 3.00GHz) = $3299
- Xeon E5355 (Quad 2.66GHz) will be priced at $1172 = +$321 per CPU ======== $3999?
What about a 3x2 line-up for the Spring:
Single Dual-Core 2.00GHz Mac Pro $1499
Single Dual-Core 2.66GHz Mac Pro $1799 (+ Optional 3.00GHz version for $1999)
Dual Dual-Core 2.00GHz Mac Pro $2199
Dual Dual-Core 2.66GHz Mac Pro $2499 (+ Optional 3.00GHz version for $3299)
Dual Quad-Core 2.33GHz Mac Pro $3299
Dual Quad-Core 2.66GHz Mac Pro $3999
One enclosure.
One motherboard.
Same options.
Four/Five CPU choices instead of the current Three.
I understand that no one other than Apple, and perhaps not even then, knows how long our investment my be good for, but we're wondering if we'll get five or six years of use out of a new workstation.
Our main workstation is a single-processor 733MHz G4 with 1.25 GHz of memory. Of course, we're running OS X 10.4.8 and have an extra internal hard drive and two external hard drives. Our main killer is Photoshop CS2, especially in 16-bit mode while running iTunes.
The raw files with which we begin editing in Photoshop are from the Canon 20D, which creates 8.2-megapixel files.
My wife and I plan to purchase a new workstation (we're waiting for the next Mac Pro update) with the fastest-available processors, five (or more) gigabytes of memory, and a dual-terabyte-drive striped RAID. We also plan to purchase the 30" HD Cinema Display.
Will our approximate US$6.5K investment last for five or six years? We ordered our current workstation in January 2001 and it was delivered March 6, 2001. We're fairly satisfied with our current investment.
We understand that most of you don't wait this long before updating, but we also maintain a PowerBook G4 and photographic printers, so we're trying to get the most bang for our techno-buck.
Thank you for entertaining our question.
Sincerely,
Jaddie & Becky
Dear Friends
I understand that no one other than Apple, and perhaps not even then, knows how long our investment my be good for, but we're wondering if we'll get five or six years of use out of a new workstation.
Our main workstation is a single-processor 733MHz G4 with 1.25 GHz of memory. Of course, we're running OS X 10.4.8 and have an extra internal hard drive and two external hard drives. Our main killer is Photoshop CS2, especially in 16-bit mode while running iTunes.
The raw files with which we begin editing in Photoshop are from the Canon 20D, which creates 8.2-megapixel files.
My wife and I plan to purchase a new workstation (we're waiting for the next Mac Pro update) with the fastest-available processors, five (or more) gigabytes of memory, and a dual-terabyte-drive striped RAID. We also plan to purchase the 30" HD Cinema Display.
Will our approximate US$6.5K investment last for five or six years? We ordered our current workstation in January 2001 and it was delivered March 6, 2001. We're fairly satisfied with our current investment.
We understand that most of you don't wait this long before updating, but we also maintain a PowerBook G4 and photographic printers, so we're trying to get the most bang for our techno-buck.
Thank you for entertaining our question.
Sincerely,
Jaddie & Becky
I have no problem with that time frame.
Wait for the update to the MacPro - which could/should be any day.
The Monitor I'd put on hold, unless absolutely necessary.
fwiw - I work to a 3-4 year cycle but that's only because I edit video. If I was print/photo based I'd buy only as required or using an accounting depreciation method.