The Nehalem Xeons are due in March or so...I just hope they don't get delayed.
OK, I was hoping we might hear something earlier, but does this mean there might be some announcement dovetailing a release date for Snow Leopard and Pro Apps like Aperture as well, as I get the feeling they are all getting a bit long in the teeth compared to their competitors. Some of the things in SL such as Grand Central & Open CL tied to the new processors and apps that could be upgraded to use them would be quite a bang.
OK, I was hoping we might hear something earlier, but does this mean there might be some announcement dovetailing a release date for Snow Leopard and Pro Apps like Aperture as well, as I get the feeling they are all getting a bit long in the teeth compared to their competitors. Some of the things in SL such as Grand Central & Open CL tied to the new processors and apps that could be upgraded to use them would be quite a bang.
The advantages of a new system with SL (not to mention the tech on its own) is making me feel tempted to upgrade the minute the new one comes out, even though I dont think it would speed up my work enough to justify it :-p
I'm not certain if the performance gain for the Mac Pro is going to be that huge with the jump to Nehalem. For the macbooks, macbook pros, and iMacs, Nehalem is a big deal.
I wanted to buy a MacPro last summer, but I bought a 3.06 GHz iMac instead, in a sense, "waiting" for a new Nelhalem-equipped Pro to come out.
Likely a great choice. Let's say you decide to sell your iMac and move to that Mac Pro in 2-3 years. By then we'll have the 32nm Nehalem chips and we'll be knocking on 10.7's doors. As much as I love new technology from Apple they usually are conservative about utilizing the technology until more of a critical mass has been established. For instance the new iWork and iLife are just now starting to leverage the Core Animation seen in Leopard and other technology.
10.7 will have second generation OpenCL and probably further tweak GrandCentral and other API to great effect. I don't think anyone is really missing out with a new Dual Core computer and Snow Leopard due to be released.
A year from now we will have Nehalem quad cores with grand central - open CL code utilizing loads of GPU power, snow leopard nirvana and iworks.
Windows user will have Nehalem quad cores with direct horsesh1tXI which will require patches until 2011 to work on 5% of applications and still crash all the time. Vista plus drivers (dubbed Windows 7) will be out and suffering from patch hell as usual as they try to prevent the 100 security loopholes. All the rest of CPU power will be used to run antivirus software with an Avogadro's number of virus definitions (10 to power 23 viruses). MS Office will have released Office 2010, where all the most used commands get buried in 10 layers of dialog boxes.
I'm not certain if the performance gain for the Mac Pro is going to be that huge with the jump to Nehalem. For the macbooks, macbook pros, and iMacs, Nehalem is a big deal.
These i7 chips are already out, if I'm not mistaken. Benchmarks have been performed. They all feature at least 4 cores and are set up to run especially well for multi-threading due to the reserved caches. But there is less cache.
The results I've seen show a power advantage but not much computational advantage. For the portables and the iMac the leap is big, however, because they all become 4-core machines instead of 2-core machines. The Mac Pro is still an 8 core machine.
Well, they're not delayed. Dell had an i7 dekstop last November?
Did the Dell i7 ship in 2008 though?
It is weird that the new Mac Pro hasn't at least been announced.
The machines were last updated more than a year ago. You'd have to be crazy to buy one right now.
Considering the Pro's target market and the current corporate climate, giving a couple months lead time between announcement and shipping might be a good idea. The credit crunch means that companies may need extra time to deal with financing issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
Only Apple doesn't have the cheap and available Nehalem desktop in a mid-tower.
There will be no mid-tower Lemon.
If they can bring a single processor Mac Pro model at $1899. we'll count our blessings.
The machines were last updated more than a year ago. You'd have to be crazy to buy one right now.
I'd 2nd that. And Apple says that Mac Pro sales are 'sluggish'. Hahhahah. Are they surprised?
Out of date cpu and gpu, small HD and ram? All in the world's 'best' workstation?
It's poor to not at least update the ram, hd and GPU. These ARE things that are in their control. Other PC vendors, smaller than Apple can do it and at much cheaper prices.
I don't know why they have to nail the Mac Pro to server processors. They could use the desktop i7 processors as single quad desktops as a line of 'mid-towers' below the main ubers.
Apple are too rigid.
I guess only Apple can't see that out of date desktops, outrageous prices for out of date desktops and 'sluggish' sales aren't somehow connected...
It's poor to not at least update the ram, hd and GPU. These ARE things that are in their control. Other PC vendors, smaller than Apple can do it and at much cheaper prices.
There's also a 3.4GHz Harpertown Xeon they could use. Though not much point this late.
I don't know why they have to nail the Mac Pro to server processors. They could use the desktop i7 processors as single quad desktops as a line of 'mid-towers' below the main ubers.
Apple are too rigid.
Of course you know LBB but it still doesn't make sense to you nor many of us. Apple doesn't want a Mac Pro based on desktop Intel procs. That area is for the iMac which they've thinned down to the point where cramming anything beyond a mobile processor is difficult for cooling.
Of course you know LBB but it still doesn't make sense to you nor many of us. Apple doesn't want a Mac Pro based on desktop Intel procs. That area is for the iMac which they've thinned down to the point where cramming anything beyond a mobile processor is difficult for cooling.
Apple has really pinned both the Mac Pro and the iMac into a corner. Even if Apple uses the new cooler quad-core Penryns in the iMac, it will still lag behind the current Nehalems used by Dell and HP. You can get a $1700 Nehalem-based Dell with 24" monitor that currently beats the Mac Pro in several types of tests (because of Nehalem's superior memory bus). And worse it beats the future quad-core Penryn iMac because of Penryn's FSB and Nehalem's better integer execution (plus hyperthreading will help in threaded apps). So you can buy a computer now that beats a future (and more expensive) iMac, and gets close to beating the existing Mac Pro in many situations (which is typically $1000+ more expensive than the Nehalem systems out now). Why you would buy a new/still unavailable iMac that is already outdated is beyond me--especially knowing Apple, it will come with a subpar graphics card to offset the heat produced by the quad core Penryns.
But what's really sad to me: Apple is so slow updating its systems, that by the time Apple finally releases updated Mac Pros and iMacs, Dell and HP will already have upped the specs on their Nehalem systems.
It seems like all Apple wants to sell are MacBooks--but with netbooks taking the world by storm, they may loose that edge soon.
It comes down to the fact that the computer market is shifting. And I think Apple's product line goes more and more out of sync. Apple needs to adjust as well.
The major shifting trends?
- From desktops to laptops.
- A realisation by many that they don't actually need all that power.
- Huge storage space with easy access for all on the network.
While there are many who like cheap component swaps and the ability to keep their LCD when buying a new system, I think this is fading. At least in the consumer realm.
Few consumers ever swap components and monitors are so cheap these days that you'd rather go for a higher resolution next time you upgrade your desktop than keeping your old. Or you just want to go dual-monitor.
With the price drop of laptops in recent years, these people go for mobility instead.
And many people notice they don't actually use their computers all that much. Internet and email and the odd text document is probably enough for many. Not everyone is a hard-core gamer or professional graphic artist.
These people are more likely to buy a cheap laptop or netbook next time they upgrade.
Apple's product mix?
The MacPro is actually well positioned. If professionals buy desktops they want all the power they can get, server parts are welcome. And they don't want to change hardware every 3 months either so conservative buying patters warrant 1 year update cycles. Although it's been more than a year now, probably Intel's fault.
The iMac is a problem child IMHO. It uses laptop parts without being a laptop. So you lose the portability for a bigger screen. I can see this being a problem soon and the iMac will have to split in 2 categories:
- a 'mobile desktop' with a much bigger screen, why not a 20" or 22" 'laptop'? If Apple uses wide-screen displays these 'laptops' won't be that deep. At least mobile parts make sense.
- a 'phatter' iMac which uses desktop parts only. Whether this will still be an AIO, I don't know. Since the LED display provide power too these days, I can imagine that future iMacs are monitor less and will be charged though separate displays giving users more variations choosing beween base system and display.
The MacBook is an amazing consumer laptop, but it won't fill the need for people who are happy with a netbook.
I imagine Apple will fill this spot with an iPodBook at some point, running a defined set of applications (mail, safari and iWork) and games.
And I think there is room for a media/storage server that's also an application/terminal server.
People need huge storage for their movies (purchased or home movies) and photos. There's been talk about Apple entering the home server business.
But what if this home server is also an application server? People could buy a Mac home server and attach as many 'dumb screens' as they want, with each becoming a full-featured 'medium powered' Mac.
Or use your iPodBook to access it when running more power/memory-hungry applications.
The only open question is whether a 20" laptop needs to be a high-end or middle-of-the-road machine. If it were to replace the 24" iMac it needs to be cheap.
On the other hand it would provide enough internal room for dual CPUs and dual HDs.
So why not both? Offer a basic version as cheap as possible with built-to-order options that can make the machine up to 4 times as expensive (and powerful). Best of both worlds.
But what's really sad to me: Apple is so slow updating its systems, that by the time Apple finally releases updated Mac Pros and iMacs, Dell and HP will already have upped the specs on their Nehalem systems.
It seems like all Apple wants to sell are MacBooks--but with netbooks taking the world by storm, they may loose that edge soon.
Yes but we're not comparing the right product. HP and Dell are waiting for the same Xeon Nehalem chips that Apple is.
If the iMac hits quad core with Penryn chips I'm happy because Apple can always wait for the next "tock" cycle for Nehalem and jump on the process shrink.
The Mac Pro needs Nehalem Xeon period. I don't really care about desktop single socket Core 17 chips. If someone needs the speed waiting another month or two shouldn't be that hard.
Comments
The Nehalem Xeons are due in March or so...I just hope they don't get delayed.
OK, I was hoping we might hear something earlier, but does this mean there might be some announcement dovetailing a release date for Snow Leopard and Pro Apps like Aperture as well, as I get the feeling they are all getting a bit long in the teeth compared to their competitors. Some of the things in SL such as Grand Central & Open CL tied to the new processors and apps that could be upgraded to use them would be quite a bang.
OK, I was hoping we might hear something earlier, but does this mean there might be some announcement dovetailing a release date for Snow Leopard and Pro Apps like Aperture as well, as I get the feeling they are all getting a bit long in the teeth compared to their competitors. Some of the things in SL such as Grand Central & Open CL tied to the new processors and apps that could be upgraded to use them would be quite a bang.
The advantages of a new system with SL (not to mention the tech on its own) is making me feel tempted to upgrade the minute the new one comes out, even though I dont think it would speed up my work enough to justify it :-p
OK, any one have any idea when we could hope to see this?
I do not intend getting a current model as its now over 1 year old.
Yes, Apple will launch the new Mac Pro whenever it becomes ready for launch. Does that answer your question?
I wanted to buy a MacPro last summer, but I bought a 3.06 GHz iMac instead, in a sense, "waiting" for a new Nelhalem-equipped Pro to come out.
Likely a great choice. Let's say you decide to sell your iMac and move to that Mac Pro in 2-3 years. By then we'll have the 32nm Nehalem chips and we'll be knocking on 10.7's doors. As much as I love new technology from Apple they usually are conservative about utilizing the technology until more of a critical mass has been established. For instance the new iWork and iLife are just now starting to leverage the Core Animation seen in Leopard and other technology.
10.7 will have second generation OpenCL and probably further tweak GrandCentral and other API to great effect. I don't think anyone is really missing out with a new Dual Core computer and Snow Leopard due to be released.
Windows user will have Nehalem quad cores with direct horsesh1tXI which will require patches until 2011 to work on 5% of applications and still crash all the time. Vista plus drivers (dubbed Windows 7) will be out and suffering from patch hell as usual as they try to prevent the 100 security loopholes. All the rest of CPU power will be used to run antivirus software with an Avogadro's number of virus definitions (10 to power 23 viruses). MS Office will have released Office 2010, where all the most used commands get buried in 10 layers of dialog boxes.
I'm not certain if the performance gain for the Mac Pro is going to be that huge with the jump to Nehalem. For the macbooks, macbook pros, and iMacs, Nehalem is a big deal.
Check http://macosrumors.com/2009/01/09/ne...intel-core-i7/
it seems like it makes a big jump in performance.
The results I've seen show a power advantage but not much computational advantage. For the portables and the iMac the leap is big, however, because they all become 4-core machines instead of 2-core machines. The Mac Pro is still an 8 core machine.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...alem,2057.html
The low end 2.66 GHz Nehalem is faster than previoous 3.2 GHz Core2 quad extreme, in some test much faster...
The Neahlem can also OC to about 4GHz, then one will spank a octacore pro mac.
As a user of Mac with Motorola CPUs I have a urge to kiss Intel right on the logo
Intel inside, happy mac user outside
I would not trust macosrumors for anything but amusement.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...alem,2057.html
The low end 2.66 GHz Nehalem is faster than previoous 3.2 GHz Core2 quad extreme, in some test much faster...
The Neahlem can also OC to about 4GHz, then one will spank a octacore pro mac.
As a user of Mac with Motorola CPUs I have a urge to kiss Intel right on the logo
Intel inside, happy mac user outside
Dr.Boar has a point.
The Nehalem Xeons are due in March or so...I just hope they don't get delayed.
Well, they're not delayed. Dell had an i7 dekstop last November? Only Apple doesn't have the cheap and available Nehalem desktop in a mid-tower.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Well, they're not delayed. Dell had an i7 dekstop last November?
Did the Dell i7 ship in 2008 though?
It is weird that the new Mac Pro hasn't at least been announced.
The machines were last updated more than a year ago. You'd have to be crazy to buy one right now.
Considering the Pro's target market and the current corporate climate, giving a couple months lead time between announcement and shipping might be a good idea. The credit crunch means that companies may need extra time to deal with financing issues.
Only Apple doesn't have the cheap and available Nehalem desktop in a mid-tower.
There will be no mid-tower Lemon.
If they can bring a single processor Mac Pro model at $1899. we'll count our blessings.
The machines were last updated more than a year ago. You'd have to be crazy to buy one right now.
I'd 2nd that. And Apple says that Mac Pro sales are 'sluggish'. Hahhahah. Are they surprised?
Out of date cpu and gpu, small HD and ram? All in the world's 'best' workstation?
It's poor to not at least update the ram, hd and GPU. These ARE things that are in their control. Other PC vendors, smaller than Apple can do it and at much cheaper prices.
I don't know why they have to nail the Mac Pro to server processors. They could use the desktop i7 processors as single quad desktops as a line of 'mid-towers' below the main ubers.
Apple are too rigid.
I guess only Apple can't see that out of date desktops, outrageous prices for out of date desktops and 'sluggish' sales aren't somehow connected...
Lemon Bon Bon.
It's poor to not at least update the ram, hd and GPU. These ARE things that are in their control. Other PC vendors, smaller than Apple can do it and at much cheaper prices.
There's also a 3.4GHz Harpertown Xeon they could use. Though not much point this late.
I don't know why they have to nail the Mac Pro to server processors. They could use the desktop i7 processors as single quad desktops as a line of 'mid-towers' below the main ubers.
Apple are too rigid.
Of course you know LBB but it still doesn't make sense to you nor many of us. Apple doesn't want a Mac Pro based on desktop Intel procs. That area is for the iMac which they've thinned down to the point where cramming anything beyond a mobile processor is difficult for cooling.
Of course you know LBB but it still doesn't make sense to you nor many of us. Apple doesn't want a Mac Pro based on desktop Intel procs. That area is for the iMac which they've thinned down to the point where cramming anything beyond a mobile processor is difficult for cooling.
Apple has really pinned both the Mac Pro and the iMac into a corner. Even if Apple uses the new cooler quad-core Penryns in the iMac, it will still lag behind the current Nehalems used by Dell and HP. You can get a $1700 Nehalem-based Dell with 24" monitor that currently beats the Mac Pro in several types of tests (because of Nehalem's superior memory bus). And worse it beats the future quad-core Penryn iMac because of Penryn's FSB and Nehalem's better integer execution (plus hyperthreading will help in threaded apps). So you can buy a computer now that beats a future (and more expensive) iMac, and gets close to beating the existing Mac Pro in many situations (which is typically $1000+ more expensive than the Nehalem systems out now). Why you would buy a new/still unavailable iMac that is already outdated is beyond me--especially knowing Apple, it will come with a subpar graphics card to offset the heat produced by the quad core Penryns.
But what's really sad to me: Apple is so slow updating its systems, that by the time Apple finally releases updated Mac Pros and iMacs, Dell and HP will already have upped the specs on their Nehalem systems.
It seems like all Apple wants to sell are MacBooks--but with netbooks taking the world by storm, they may loose that edge soon.
The major shifting trends?
- From desktops to laptops.
- A realisation by many that they don't actually need all that power.
- Huge storage space with easy access for all on the network.
While there are many who like cheap component swaps and the ability to keep their LCD when buying a new system, I think this is fading. At least in the consumer realm.
Few consumers ever swap components and monitors are so cheap these days that you'd rather go for a higher resolution next time you upgrade your desktop than keeping your old. Or you just want to go dual-monitor.
With the price drop of laptops in recent years, these people go for mobility instead.
And many people notice they don't actually use their computers all that much. Internet and email and the odd text document is probably enough for many. Not everyone is a hard-core gamer or professional graphic artist.
These people are more likely to buy a cheap laptop or netbook next time they upgrade.
Apple's product mix?
The MacPro is actually well positioned. If professionals buy desktops they want all the power they can get, server parts are welcome. And they don't want to change hardware every 3 months either so conservative buying patters warrant 1 year update cycles. Although it's been more than a year now, probably Intel's fault.
The iMac is a problem child IMHO. It uses laptop parts without being a laptop. So you lose the portability for a bigger screen. I can see this being a problem soon and the iMac will have to split in 2 categories:
- a 'mobile desktop' with a much bigger screen, why not a 20" or 22" 'laptop'? If Apple uses wide-screen displays these 'laptops' won't be that deep. At least mobile parts make sense.
- a 'phatter' iMac which uses desktop parts only. Whether this will still be an AIO, I don't know. Since the LED display provide power too these days, I can imagine that future iMacs are monitor less and will be charged though separate displays giving users more variations choosing beween base system and display.
The MacBook is an amazing consumer laptop, but it won't fill the need for people who are happy with a netbook.
I imagine Apple will fill this spot with an iPodBook at some point, running a defined set of applications (mail, safari and iWork) and games.
And I think there is room for a media/storage server that's also an application/terminal server.
People need huge storage for their movies (purchased or home movies) and photos. There's been talk about Apple entering the home server business.
But what if this home server is also an application server? People could buy a Mac home server and attach as many 'dumb screens' as they want, with each becoming a full-featured 'medium powered' Mac.
Or use your iPodBook to access it when running more power/memory-hungry applications.
The only open question is whether a 20" laptop needs to be a high-end or middle-of-the-road machine. If it were to replace the 24" iMac it needs to be cheap.
On the other hand it would provide enough internal room for dual CPUs and dual HDs.
So why not both? Offer a basic version as cheap as possible with built-to-order options that can make the machine up to 4 times as expensive (and powerful). Best of both worlds.
But what's really sad to me: Apple is so slow updating its systems, that by the time Apple finally releases updated Mac Pros and iMacs, Dell and HP will already have upped the specs on their Nehalem systems.
It seems like all Apple wants to sell are MacBooks--but with netbooks taking the world by storm, they may loose that edge soon.
Yes but we're not comparing the right product. HP and Dell are waiting for the same Xeon Nehalem chips that Apple is.
If the iMac hits quad core with Penryn chips I'm happy because Apple can always wait for the next "tock" cycle for Nehalem and jump on the process shrink.
The Mac Pro needs Nehalem Xeon period. I don't really care about desktop single socket Core 17 chips. If someone needs the speed waiting another month or two shouldn't be that hard.
Netbooks....not interested. Low margin low performance.