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...
No, Intel just now decided to delete the 45nm version in favor of the 32nm one. It states that quite clearly in the article. Those chips weren't scheduled until the 2nd quarter of 2010, or even the third or forth quarter, as with the 45nm mobile chips that have just now come out. This changes things around considerably.
And, by the way, for everyone who HASN'T read this article, it's about ALL of intel's plans, including those of the Xeons, so it's relevant to this thread.
Well the B&W was $1599 to $2999 depending on the configuration.
In 2007 dollars (that's the latest year most inflation calculators go just now) $1599 equals $2026.03.
$2999 equals $3799.91
I went to 1998 rather than to 1999 to make up for the 2008 year which isn't available yet.
With these prices in mind, it gives a more realistic picture. Using old pricing is worthless in these discussions, as it makes people think that prices were lower than they actually were.
In 2007 dollars (that's the latest year most inflation calculators go just now) $1599 equals $2026.03.
$2999 equals $3799.91
I went to 1998 rather than to 1999 to make up for the 2008 year which isn't available yet.
With these prices in mind, it gives a more realistic picture. Using old pricing is worthless in these discussions, as it makes people think that prices were lower than they actually were.
What do you expect when people can't even balance their own checkbooks to speculative markets costing trillions of theoretical value in markets disappear and people act as if they had no idea how?
I expect in ten years people will need to revisit inflation again but they'll spin this dead horse up as often as they do the lame car analogies.
What do you expect when people can't even balance their own checkbooks to speculative markets costing trillions of theoretical value in markets disappear and people act as if they had no idea how?
I expect in ten years people will need to revisit inflation again but they'll spin this dead horse up as often as they do the lame car analogies.
I know. It's unfortunate. It just bothers me that people will use old prices to compare that item to a current one, as though it actually means something.
It has the intentional purpose of making current products look worse than they really are. The cheapest iMac today, in standard config is $1199. That's only $400 less than the old low standard config price of the B/W Powermac, so it looks bad.
But at proper pricing, it's really $827.03 less, a big difference.
iMac 2010 would most likely use a Clarkdale proc but a high end version (the mythical 28" iMac) could use a 32nm 6 core Gulftown.
If analysts think a quad core iMac would cannibalize Mac Pro sales they're going to be in a tizzy regarding a 6-core iMac vs Mac Pro.
Sure, it's not just performance.
Already the 3.06GHz iMac outperforms the mid priced Mac Pro in Photoshop, as that doesn't use more than two cores yet, and the extra speed of the cpu's in the iMac allow the System Software to not bog the machine down.
Hopefully, Grand Central will allow the promise of parallelism to function much better, and those multi cpu, multi core, threading machines will get a leg up again.
But, the truth is that my daughters 3.06 iMac does a pretty darn good job with 100 MB files. Few people deal with bigger files than that, unless they use medium format or larger, or do large comping work. Everyone else will find iMacs to be more than good enough.
I know. It's unfortunate. It just bothers me that people will use old prices to compare that item to a current one, as though it actually means something.
It has the intentional purpose of making current products look worse than they really are. The cheapest iMac today, in standard config is $1199. That's only $400 less than the old low standard config price of the B/W Powermac, so it looks bad.
But at proper pricing, it's really $827.03 less, a big difference.
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.
This is the only reason these clone makers will make money. If you had to decide between the low end clones and the Macs, the savings are not really worth the effort but for high end use, it is very much worth it.
The thing is any seasoned Mac user will know Apple can release an update that will break compatibility with your hackintosh. And new switchers will only get frustrated at MacOS and Apple when it breaks due to an upgrade.
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.
This is the only reason these clone makers will make money. If you had to decide between the low end clones and the Macs, the savings are not really worth the effort but for high end use, it is very much worth it.
I've found the opposite to be true. Apple's higher-end spec comparisons put Apple's offering lower than other major vendors.
As for RAM prices in the Mac Pro, they use the more costly FB-DIMMs as they are required for those Xeons. That is not the case with Core i7.
This is a must read folks. 2010 is going to be an interesting year for configurations.
Core i7 will be supplanted with a 6-Core 12-thread proc there will be no quad core 32nm product until Sandy Bridge
Lynnfield will perform very close to Core i7 so it's worth waiting for if an immediate purchase isn't going to be made.
So let's see
iMac 2010 would most likely use a Clarkdale proc but a high end version (the mythical 28" iMac) could use a 32nm 6 core Gulftown.
If analysts think a quad core iMac would cannibalize Mac Pro sales they're going to be in a tizzy regarding a 6-core iMac vs Mac Pro.
Upgrading the desktop Macs could be done without being so extreme, offering a nice range of products instead of a bunch underpowered/overpriced/overpowered products:
Q1 2009
Mac mini 25W C2D 2.00/2.40GHz 2C/2T
20" iMac 55W C2D 2.66/2.80GHz 2C/2T
24" iMac 65W C2Q 2.66/2.83GHz 4C/4T
Q2 2009
Mac Pro single Core i7 2.66/3.20GHz 3GB RAM 4C/8T
Mac Pro dual Xeon 2.66/3.20GHz 6GB RAM 8C/16T
Q3 2009 (with Snow Leopard)
20" iMac 65W C2Q 2.33/2.50GHz 4C/4T (the Q8300s @ 2.50GHz will be released in Q2)
Upgrading the desktop Macs could be done without being so extreme, offering a nice range of products instead of a bunch underpowered/overpriced/overpowered products:
Q1 2009
Mac mini 25W C2D 2.00/2.40GHz 2C/2T
20" iMac 55W C2D 2.66/2.80GHz 2C/2T
24" iMac 65W C2Q 2.66/2.83GHz 4C/4T
Q2 2009
Mac Pro single Core i7 2.66/3.20GHz 3GB RAM 4C/8T
Mac Pro dual Xeon 2.66/3.20GHz 6GB RAM 8C/16T
Q3 2009 (with Snow Leopard)
20" iMac 65W C2Q 2.33/2.50GHz 4C/4T (the Q8300s @ 2.50GHz will be released in Q2)
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.
This is the only reason these clone makers will make money. If you had to decide between the low end clones and the Macs, the savings are not really worth the effort but for high end use, it is very much worth it.
I agree.
I do think that with the new Mac Pro, we will see 3 GB RAM being offered as standard. With the three channels of memory, Apple would have to give 1 GB per channel, unless they were to give 512 MB per channel, which would be ridiculous.
Upgrading the desktop Macs could be done without being so extreme, offering a nice range of products instead of a bunch underpowered/overpriced/overpowered products:
Q1 2009
Mac mini 25W C2D 2.00/2.40GHz 2C/2T
20" iMac 55W C2D 2.66/2.80GHz 2C/2T
24" iMac 65W C2Q 2.66/2.83GHz 4C/4T
Q2 2009
Mac Pro single Core i7 2.66/3.20GHz 3GB RAM 4C/8T
Mac Pro dual Xeon 2.66/3.20GHz 6GB RAM 8C/16T
Q3 2009 (with Snow Leopard)
20" iMac 65W C2Q 2.33/2.50GHz 4C/4T (the Q8300s @ 2.50GHz will be released in Q2)
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?
Comments
Heh.
...
But...Apple doesn't 'get that'. I guess. Anyone remember how much the G3 tower were?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Well the B&W was $1599 to $2999 depending on the configuration.
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...
No, Intel just now decided to delete the 45nm version in favor of the 32nm one. It states that quite clearly in the article. Those chips weren't scheduled until the 2nd quarter of 2010, or even the third or forth quarter, as with the 45nm mobile chips that have just now come out. This changes things around considerably.
And, by the way, for everyone who HASN'T read this article, it's about ALL of intel's plans, including those of the Xeons, so it's relevant to this thread.
Well the B&W was $1599 to $2999 depending on the configuration.
In 2007 dollars (that's the latest year most inflation calculators go just now) $1599 equals $2026.03.
$2999 equals $3799.91
I went to 1998 rather than to 1999 to make up for the 2008 year which isn't available yet.
With these prices in mind, it gives a more realistic picture. Using old pricing is worthless in these discussions, as it makes people think that prices were lower than they actually were.
Link to the Inflation Calculator.
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
Very startling results running databases. But read the whole thing as it's relevant to our usage for the Mac Pro as well.
It seems that the more info and testing comes out, the stronger these Nehalems look.
http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=554
In 2007 dollars (that's the latest year most inflation calculators go just now) $1599 equals $2026.03.
$2999 equals $3799.91
I went to 1998 rather than to 1999 to make up for the 2008 year which isn't available yet.
With these prices in mind, it gives a more realistic picture. Using old pricing is worthless in these discussions, as it makes people think that prices were lower than they actually were.
Link to the Inflation Calculator.
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
What do you expect when people can't even balance their own checkbooks to speculative markets costing trillions of theoretical value in markets disappear and people act as if they had no idea how?
I expect in ten years people will need to revisit inflation again but they'll spin this dead horse up as often as they do the lame car analogies.
This is a must read folks. 2010 is going to be an interesting year for configurations.
Core i7 will be supplanted with a 6-Core 12-thread proc there will be no quad core 32nm product until Sandy Bridge
Lynnfield will perform very close to Core i7 so it's worth waiting for if an immediate purchase isn't going to be made.
So let's see
iMac 2010 would most likely use a Clarkdale proc but a high end version (the mythical 28" iMac) could use a 32nm 6 core Gulftown.
If analysts think a quad core iMac would cannibalize Mac Pro sales they're going to be in a tizzy regarding a 6-core iMac vs Mac Pro.
What do you expect when people can't even balance their own checkbooks to speculative markets costing trillions of theoretical value in markets disappear and people act as if they had no idea how?
I expect in ten years people will need to revisit inflation again but they'll spin this dead horse up as often as they do the lame car analogies.
I know. It's unfortunate. It just bothers me that people will use old prices to compare that item to a current one, as though it actually means something.
It has the intentional purpose of making current products look worse than they really are. The cheapest iMac today, in standard config is $1199. That's only $400 less than the old low standard config price of the B/W Powermac, so it looks bad.
But at proper pricing, it's really $827.03 less, a big difference.
That changes the argument altogether.
[
So let's see
iMac 2010 would most likely use a Clarkdale proc but a high end version (the mythical 28" iMac) could use a 32nm 6 core Gulftown.
If analysts think a quad core iMac would cannibalize Mac Pro sales they're going to be in a tizzy regarding a 6-core iMac vs Mac Pro.
Sure, it's not just performance.
Already the 3.06GHz iMac outperforms the mid priced Mac Pro in Photoshop, as that doesn't use more than two cores yet, and the extra speed of the cpu's in the iMac allow the System Software to not bog the machine down.
Hopefully, Grand Central will allow the promise of parallelism to function much better, and those multi cpu, multi core, threading machines will get a leg up again.
But, the truth is that my daughters 3.06 iMac does a pretty darn good job with 100 MB files. Few people deal with bigger files than that, unless they use medium format or larger, or do large comping work. Everyone else will find iMacs to be more than good enough.
I know. It's unfortunate. It just bothers me that people will use old prices to compare that item to a current one, as though it actually means something.
It has the intentional purpose of making current products look worse than they really are. The cheapest iMac today, in standard config is $1199. That's only $400 less than the old low standard config price of the B/W Powermac, so it looks bad.
But at proper pricing, it's really $827.03 less, a big difference.
That changes the argument altogether.
Hey, i was just answering a question.
Hey, i was just answering a question.
I know. But the answer should be given with the explanation that the prices aren't meaningful to the argument, unless updated.
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41419/135/
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.
This is the only reason these clone makers will make money. If you had to decide between the low end clones and the Macs, the savings are not really worth the effort but for high end use, it is very much worth it.
New clone maker out and they are offering Core i7:
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41419/135/
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.
This is the only reason these clone makers will make money. If you had to decide between the low end clones and the Macs, the savings are not really worth the effort but for high end use, it is very much worth it.
I've found the opposite to be true. Apple's higher-end spec comparisons put Apple's offering lower than other major vendors.
As for RAM prices in the Mac Pro, they use the more costly FB-DIMMs as they are required for those Xeons. That is not the case with Core i7.
Anand illuminates the Intel Roadmap
This is a must read folks. 2010 is going to be an interesting year for configurations.
Core i7 will be supplanted with a 6-Core 12-thread proc there will be no quad core 32nm product until Sandy Bridge
Lynnfield will perform very close to Core i7 so it's worth waiting for if an immediate purchase isn't going to be made.
So let's see
iMac 2010 would most likely use a Clarkdale proc but a high end version (the mythical 28" iMac) could use a 32nm 6 core Gulftown.
If analysts think a quad core iMac would cannibalize Mac Pro sales they're going to be in a tizzy regarding a 6-core iMac vs Mac Pro.
Upgrading the desktop Macs could be done without being so extreme, offering a nice range of products instead of a bunch underpowered/overpriced/overpowered products:
Q1 2009
Mac mini 25W C2D 2.00/2.40GHz 2C/2T
20" iMac 55W C2D 2.66/2.80GHz 2C/2T
24" iMac 65W C2Q 2.66/2.83GHz 4C/4T
Q2 2009
Mac Pro single Core i7 2.66/3.20GHz 3GB RAM 4C/8T
Mac Pro dual Xeon 2.66/3.20GHz 6GB RAM 8C/16T
Q3 2009 (with Snow Leopard)
20" iMac 65W C2Q 2.33/2.50GHz 4C/4T (the Q8300s @ 2.50GHz will be released in Q2)
24" iMac 65W C2Q 2.66/2.83GHz 4C/4T + improvements (RAM, GPU, HDD, display?)
---
Q1 2010
Mac mini 35W Clarksdale 2.13/2.40GHz 2C/4T
20" iMac 65W Lynnfield 2.40/2.53GHz 4C/8T
24" iMac 65W Lynnfield 2.66/2.80GHz 4C/8T
Q2 2010
Mac Pro single Gulftown 2.66/3.20GHz (or better) 6C/12T
Mac Pro dual Gulftown 2.66/3.20GHz (or better) 12C/24T
...
Upgrading the desktop Macs could be done without being so extreme, offering a nice range of products instead of a bunch underpowered/overpriced/overpowered products:
Q1 2009
Mac mini 25W C2D 2.00/2.40GHz 2C/2T
20" iMac 55W C2D 2.66/2.80GHz 2C/2T
24" iMac 65W C2Q 2.66/2.83GHz 4C/4T
Q2 2009
Mac Pro single Core i7 2.66/3.20GHz 3GB RAM 4C/8T
Mac Pro dual Xeon 2.66/3.20GHz 6GB RAM 8C/16T
Q3 2009 (with Snow Leopard)
20" iMac 65W C2Q 2.33/2.50GHz 4C/4T (the Q8300s @ 2.50GHz will be released in Q2)
24" iMac 65W C2Q 2.66/2.83GHz 4C/4T + improvements (RAM, GPU, HDD, display?)
---
Q1 2010
Mac mini 35W Clarksdale 2.13/2.40GHz 2C/4T
20" iMac 65W Lynnfield 2.40/2.53GHz 4C/8T
24" iMac 65W Lynnfield 2.66/2.80GHz 4C/8T
Q2 2010
Mac Pro single Gulftown 2.66/3.20GHz (or better) 6C/12T
Mac Pro dual Gulftown 2.66/3.20GHz (or better) 12C/24T
...
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
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
24" iMac - 2.93Ghz (est) Core i5 Lynnfield
Macbook Pro - 2.53Ghz Clarskfield 2.66Ghz 17"
Macbook 2.13Ghz Clarksfield 2.4Ghz Clarksfield step up model
Q1 '10
Mac Prosumer - 2.92 Gulftown
Mac Pro - 3.2Ghz and 3.4Ghz Xeon
Q2 "10
iMac Clarkdale
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.
New clone maker out and they are offering Core i7:
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41419/135/
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.
This is the only reason these clone makers will make money. If you had to decide between the low end clones and the Macs, the savings are not really worth the effort but for high end use, it is very much worth it.
I agree.
I do think that with the new Mac Pro, we will see 3 GB RAM being offered as standard. With the three channels of memory, Apple would have to give 1 GB per channel, unless they were to give 512 MB per channel, which would be ridiculous.
I've found the opposite to be true. Apple's higher-end spec comparisons put Apple's offering lower than other major vendors.
As for RAM prices in the Mac Pro, they use the more costly FB-DIMMs as they are required for those Xeons. That is not the case with Core i7.
True, but remember that the processors will be the Xeon, not the i7.
Upgrading the desktop Macs could be done without being so extreme, offering a nice range of products instead of a bunch underpowered/overpriced/overpowered products:
Q1 2009
Mac mini 25W C2D 2.00/2.40GHz 2C/2T
20" iMac 55W C2D 2.66/2.80GHz 2C/2T
24" iMac 65W C2Q 2.66/2.83GHz 4C/4T
Q2 2009
Mac Pro single Core i7 2.66/3.20GHz 3GB RAM 4C/8T
Mac Pro dual Xeon 2.66/3.20GHz 6GB RAM 8C/16T
Q3 2009 (with Snow Leopard)
20" iMac 65W C2Q 2.33/2.50GHz 4C/4T (the Q8300s @ 2.50GHz will be released in Q2)
24" iMac 65W C2Q 2.66/2.83GHz 4C/4T + improvements (RAM, GPU, HDD, display?)
---
Q1 2010
Mac mini 35W Clarksdale 2.13/2.40GHz 2C/4T
20" iMac 65W Lynnfield 2.40/2.53GHz 4C/8T
24" iMac 65W Lynnfield 2.66/2.80GHz 4C/8T
Q2 2010
Mac Pro single Gulftown 2.66/3.20GHz (or better) 6C/12T
Mac Pro dual Gulftown 2.66/3.20GHz (or better) 12C/24T
...
No i7s in the Mac Pro. Only Xeons.
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?