I don't have a problem with the SMP Mac Pro going up a bit. I'm just flummoxed by the $2500 Quad system because it just seems to be excessively priced.
The benchmarks will tell.
At any rate, since both Apple and Intel famously drive hard bargains, and Intel no longer has to offer great deals to woo Apple over, I'm sure Apple got the chips early in return for paying Intel lots of money. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if the machine costs more to make now, what with all of its fancy slide-out trays and the my-first-fabric motherboard architecture.
Besides, it's just natural that the Pro will retreat farther and farther into the high-end workstation market. Computational power has reached the point where you can do pro work on an iMac, or a MacBook Pro for that matter. For one thing, the hardware cards that were absolutely necessary 10 or even 5 years ago simply aren't now. For another, it's now possible to offer a 24" IPS panel, white LED backlit, 1920 x 1200 display for an eminently reasonable price.
Even in the last three years... I have what was the top of the line 17" PowerBook G4 three years ago and my jaw dropped when I saw what that machine has become. Software has a lot of catching up to do.
Don't give into the marketing, look at facts. Xeon and Core i7 are brand names. Bloomfield is the base chip. It is available in Core i7 and Xeon 3500 branding. The only difference is ECC memory support. The xeon branding doesn't magically turn from an I4 into a V8. It remains the same chip, pricing and all. It will perform the same no matter what branding is used. Then there is Gainestown (Xeon 5500). Gainestown is nothing more than bloomfield with a second quick path link for multiprocessing.
There are more differences than that ECC memory is one. The possible use of FB-DIMMs in four channels is another, though it's not likely, at least right now, that Apple will be using Becton. Additionally, the i7 parts currently are all 130 watt parts, while Gainstown, except for the not yet available 3.2 GHz part are either 80 or 95 watt parts.
Also 2 QPI links are used, not just one as in i7.
Whatever it might be, we still must use the right names. I don't see the purpose in deliberately confusing the issue, as you seem to want to do.
You say that based on what? Everything I have seen has said the i7 and xeon 3500 are the exact same chip with the only exception being that the i7 has ECC support disabled.
If there are other differences, what are they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
But you have to stop comparing machines built for commercial use to machines built for home use. Even if the performance is comparable, it's still not the same machine.
What difference does it make what the intention of the build is?
If performance is comparable, then comparing pricing is valid. The consumer has the choice of buying either of the two machines, period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The organizations that buy expensive workstations and servers do NOT buy the machines you and a few others here are pushing.
"The organizations that buy expensive workstations"? Aren't we talking about people buying mac pros? There are plenty of people buying these computers to run FCS or Photoshop or Logic or whatever, and if the $1300 machine runs it as well as the $2500 machine, then people are certainly going to notice that the $2500 machine is overpriced for their situation.
And aren't the organizations that buy expensive workstations going to avoid the MP quad anyway since ram is limited at 8 gigs?
According to tests done on sites such as Anandtech, a well respected site, the Nehalems are well ahead of all other Cpu's in most every category.
Another advantage is that this is the beginning of a new line from Intel. When the 32 nm versions come out, the "tick" in their schedule, you will be able to pop those new chips (possibly 8 cores! Much faster speeds) in place of the ones in there now. It might take a bit of doing, but the design of these new machines makes it look MUCH easier than the old machines where the processors were buried, and more than a bit of the machine had to be disassembled to get to them. These are right out in the open.
That's why I opted for the cheaper dual 2.66 model rather than the more expensive dual 2.93 one.
Thanks. That and another reply really helped. I'll stick to my original plan (2x2.66). It'll hurt for now, but I'll get over it in no time. Although our other MP was cheaper, it was paid for in a matter of a week. This one? Two or three weeks.
Enthusiasts may not need more than 8 gbs of RAM but aren't going to pay that price to play and pros often need more than 8 gbs of RAM (or don't want that limitation).
Who's this machine marketed for?
Me? I'm a "pro," in that I make my living off of it and then some — certainly enough to more than justify a $3000 or so computer every few years, but my work (Illustrator and InDesign, mostly, but some photo retouching) doesn't require the gobs and gobs of RAM that some other applications do. Even if I had it, Adobe's software (CS4) only addresss two cores and 4 GB of RAM at a time, so it wouldn't help me much.
You're right, I'm apprehensive about the 8GB limitation, because I'd like for my next desktop to last me a good long while, and to take advantage of the large memory addressing that is supposedly coming in CS5. But regardless, this machine would be a huge step up from my dual 2GHz G5 (which, incidentally, still runs very nicely and has a "mere" 6GB of RAM in it, so maybe I don't really need more than 8GB of RAM after all)...
I would definitely consider one of the quads, were I in the market for one right now. (I'm not, but only because I just bought a 15" MBP a month ago. And I'll probably hold off on buying a new computer until it would actually give me a huge benefit — specifically, AFTER CS5 is available in a year or whenever.)
The processors are VERY good. Wait for the benchmarks: they will be smoking fast machines, faster than the similarly-priced Penryn 8-cores with the same amount of RAM.
And, yes, they ARE pro machines. Prices fall — and they rise, too. It happens. It's the cost of doing business. If the difference between a VERY good $3500 machine and an also-VERY-good $2500 is causing you grief, you're probably just a tech-savvy hobbyist, not actually earning your living off of your Mac. (Or maybe you have kids, or something. I don't mean to be as condescending as that sounds.) But it's really not that expensive, if you're earning your living off of your computer.
You say that based on what? Everything I have seen has said the i7 and xeon 3500 are the exact same chip with the only exception being that the i7 has ECC support disabled.
If there are other differences, what are they?
I answered that in the post above the one you made to me.
Quote:
What difference does it make what the intention of the build is?
If performance is comparable, then comparing pricing is valid. The consumer has the choice of buying either of the two machines, period.
No, not true.
While the consumer might choose to buy a much more robust machine at a higher price, that's not where the machine is being marketed.
You have every right to complain that Apple doesn't MAKE a consumer tower. You would be right in that. I bemoan that fact as well.
But to complain that the Mac Pro isn't that machine is wrong.
You could sadly state that you wish you could afford it. That would make sense.
But to say that their commercial workstation should be cheaper, or somehow be affordable to those Apple isn't making it for, isn't helpful. You can say it until you're blue in the face, and it won't help.
Other general purpose computer companies such as Dell and Hp do make consumer boxes. Boxx does not. Are you going to go to their site and log on to their forums to complain that they should make a $1,500 box for you?
If not, why not?
Quote:
"The organizations that buy expensive workstations"? Aren't we talking about people buying mac pros? There are plenty of people buying these computers to run FCS or Photoshop or Logic or whatever, and if the $1300 machine runs it as well as the $2500 machine, then people are certainly going to notice that the $2500 machine is overpriced for their situation.
And aren't the organizations that buy expensive workstations going to avoid the MP quad anyway since ram is limited at 8 gigs?
Most of these boxes are bought by companies or other organizations, not individuals. It was different many years ago, but not now.
For many of these uses an iMac suffices these days. You'd be surprised. Now with 8 GB RAM, I expect many more pros that are price limited to move to a 24" model. It has a very good screen, once calibrated.
The truth is that very few pros need 8 Gb RAM. People seem to like to think they do, but they don't.
Thanks. That and another reply really helped. I'll stick to my original plan (2x2.66). It'll hurt for now, but I'll get over it in no time. Although our other MP was cheaper, it was paid for in a matter of a week. This one? Two or three weeks.
That's correct. for someone who s actually making a "real' living, the cost will be written down quickly. For those who aren't making much, if any money off their machine, its different.
I did get the tick and tock thingie mixed up though, it's actually Intel's Tock right now. The tick is a new process. But that doesn't change what I said.
No, they are not. Apple doesn't make an i7 machine for consumers, or for anyone. When the single cpu Xeon workstations come out from others, you can then compare the costs.
They're not going much more expensive than the i7 machines. Why because with the exception of ECC memory and Quadro/FirePro graphics, they are the consumer i7 machines in a different case.
Sorry to disturb you about the big Apple's pricing thing but...
Here in Belgium, if I go on the Dell's website and configure a Core i7 workstation, I've got this :
Dell XPS 730x
Core i7 Extreme Edition 965 - 3,20 GHz, 6,4 GT/s
Genuine Windows Vista SP1 Home Premium (64 BIT)
Microsoft® Works 9
Serial ATA 750 Go
3 GB SDRAM DDR3 1067 MHz (Max 6 GB !!!)
NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 280
DVD+/- RW 16X
Dell Keyboard & Mouse
1 Year Premium Warranty Support
... for 3.629,15 € incl taxes (21%)
Compare to the Mac Pro Quad...
Mac Pro 2009
Intel Xeon 3500 - 2,93 GHz, 6,4 GT/s
Mac OS X 10.5
Serial ATA 1 To
3 Gb SDRAM DDR3 1066 MHz (Max 8 GB)
ATI Radeon HD 4870
SuperDrive 18X
Apple Keyboard & Mouse
Airport Card
1 Year Warranty
... 3.064,00 € incl taxes (21%)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
They're not going much more expensive than the i7 machines. Why because with the exception of ECC memory and Quadro/FirePro graphics, they are the consumer i7 machines in a different case.
Found this on the net, can't remember where...
"If you’ve tried to research the differences between Intel’s top-end Core i7-965 Extreme Edition and the midrange 940 and budget 920 parts, you’re probably as confused as us. And we even have direct access to Intel. But the technical differences between these parts are enormously important for system builders when you consider the price disparity -- $1000 for a Core i7-965 compared to under $300 for a Core i7-920.
What we do know is that the Core i7-965 has unlocked multipliers going up and down (although we have to point out that we have not seen any motherboards with multipliers that let you actually set it higher. You can only do that by increasing the Turbo Mode ratio.)
One other known fact is that you cannot set the Turbo Mode ratios on the 940 and 920. OK fine. But what else is different? Intel told us as recently as two months ago that the QPI was locked at 4.8GT/s to prevent you from running it at the Extreme’s 6.4GT/s speed. Memory ratios, however, are supposed to be unlocked. But maybe not."
That's like calling a four cylinder engine essentially the same as an eight cylinder engine. Sure, they are conceptually the same, but the performance is not.
I hope you don't actually claim to be knowledgeable about this stuff, because that analogy is so far from the truth its pathetic. The Xeon 5xxx series and Core i7 ARE CUT FROM THE SAME LITERAL SILICON DIE. While they may pluck out the most stable and efficient units during verification to sell as server-grade Xeons and perhaps tweak the CPU frequencies, Cache, and QPI clocks, they are otherwise identical...
edit: I am not implying that a Xeon workstation should be compared to an i7 desktop in price.. Understandably, the Xeons are a lot more expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
But trying to find reasons why the Mac Pro is overpriced is not helpful, because the customers for these machines, for the most part, don't care. These are very popular in scientific research. In engineering, publishing, graphics, movie editing, audio work,...
We'll see about that considering MANY "prosumers" and enthusiasts buy the Mac Pro (or did).
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
When we consider where prices are relative to where they used to be years ago..
Years ago? How about 2 months ago??? The new Mac Pro has exorbitantly increased in price while using components that are similar in cost -- particularly as the CPUs are actually CHEAPER than the old Harpertowns when they were released.
The new machines are at their beginning, and that new shiney 8 core, higher speed 32 nm chip coming off the lines in 2010 will be able to be popped into this new machine that's just come out..
What in particular are you referring to? Beckton 8-core is 45nm and quad-socket only, while the replacement to the new Mac Pro CPUs is 32nm Westmere in 2010 but those are only 6-core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorph
...
First, high end kit always has a fat profit margin on it. Always. I don't know why people are acting as if fat margins were introduced with this update. This is partly to compensate for low sales volume, partly because the people serious about getting the latest and greatest have never begrudged the extra money.
Fat margins? sure.. I think we expect that from Apple. Again, this is about the huge INCREASE in margins over the last Mac Pro model. The new Nehalem platform and CPUs actually COST THE SAME OR LESS THAN THE PREVIOUS MODEL's HARPERTOWN QUAD-COREs(Before the new ones were released).
I ordered a Mac Pro last week and expected it here tomorrow. I received a call tonight from an Apple Rep offering to complete my order as spec'd or "upgrade' to the new configuration. There is about $400 difference in Apple's favor. I ordered the 3.0 Quad Xeon processor and now need to pay $100 more to get a 2.66. ($1000 less to go with the 2.26) 3.0 to 2.66 for more money seems like that's paying more for less. Am I missing something?
The rest is a push more memory (up 2G) More HD space 640GB (up from 500) faster Superdrive (18x up from 16x with added dual layer)
Apple Rep says I can have the machine I ordered or go latest and greatest. ($$$???) I am a illustrator designer and will be using everything(i.e. Photoshop, Flash, Final Cut, After Effects, Zbrush, Mudbox, etc...)
Opinions? Out with the old pay for the new or hold onto 3.0 processor and lose the extras...
Fat margins? sure.. I think we expect that from Apple. Again, this is about the huge INCREASE in margins over the last Mac Pro model. The new Nehalem platform and CPUs actually COST THE SAME OR LESS THAN THE PREVIOUS MODEL's HARPERTOWN QUAD-COREs(Before the new ones were released).
Can you prove this? Are you are you speculating? I wasn't aware any of these prices had been announced yet?
I ordered a Mac Pro last week and expected it here tomorrow. I received a call tonight from an Apple Rep offering to complete my order as spec'd or "upgrade' to the new configuration. There is about $400 difference in Apple's favor. I ordered the 3.0 Quad Xeon processor and now need to pay $100 more to get a 2.66. ($1000 less to go with the 2.26) 3.0 to 2.66 for more money seems like that's paying more for less. Am I missing something?
The rest is a push more memory (up 2G) More HD space 640GB (up from 500) faster Superdrive (18x up from 16x with added dual layer)
Apple Rep says I can have the machine I ordered or go latest and greatest. ($$$???) I am a illustrator designer and will be using everything(i.e. Photoshop, Flash, Final Cut, After Effects, Zbrush, Mudbox, etc...)
Opinions? Out with the old pay for the new or hold onto 3.0 processor and lose the extras...
Thanks!
Keep in mind these new cpu's have hyperthreading. So if you get a 2.26 you are getting 16 virtual cores. If I were you, I'd go with the new 8 core 2.26... it is going to last you much longer with snow leopard's GCD and OpenCL. Also the new cpu's offer virtualization... so better compatibility with VMWare running windows if that is a factor to you. It is to me because I have to test ie6 against web apps.
Ok so they are comparing a 3.2ghz (harpertown) to a 2.93ghz (nehalem). Most hte tests are roughly 1.5x faster.
So there is a 300mhz difference (give or take). And the speed is comparable. Well lets look at slower models.
If the 300mhz difference is roughly 1.5x faster and we look at the 2.26 (nehalem) vs the 2.8 (harpertown) we are now dealing with a 540mhz difference. That makes them relatively even using apple's own benchmarks.
You can pick up a octo 2.8 refurb for around 2200, that's almost a 1k difference for the same performance. I'm really considering just picking up a refurb instead.
They're not going much more expensive than the i7 machines. Why because with the exception of ECC memory and Quadro/FirePro graphics, they are the consumer i7 machines in a different case.
I hope you don't actually claim to be knowledgeable about this stuff, because that analogy is so far from the truth its pathetic. The Xeon 5xxx series and Core i7 ARE CUT FROM THE SAME LITERAL SILICON DIE. While they may pluck out the most stable and efficient units during verification to sell as server-grade Xeons and perhaps tweak the CPU, Cache, and QPI clocks, they are otherwise identical...
It doesn't matter that the basic chip is the same. The extra functions give it extra performance, they always do.
The point though is not even that, it's simply the point of calling things by their correct names. I just don't know why that's so difficult for you.
If you went to Ford, and asked for a Ford rather than a Mercury model, you would get the wrong one, even though they are mostly the same.
Quote:
We'll see about that considering MANY "prosumers" and enthusiasts buy the Mac Pro (or did).
I don't know what you mean by "many". People who have the money will.
Quote:
Years ago? How about 2 months ago??? The new Mac Pro has exorbitantly increased in price while using components that are similar in cost -- particularly as the CPUs are actually CHEAPER than the old Harpertowns when they were released.
You missed that one entirely. I, and a couple of others here were talking about machines "years" ago. If you followed the posts, you would see what we meant.
What in particular are you referring to? Beckton 8-core is 45nm and quad-socket only, while the replacement to the new Mac Pro CPUs is 32nm Westmere in 2010 but those are only 6-core.
I know it is, that's why I said that Apple isn't likely to use it. Intel indicated that they will also have two socket 8 core chips.
Quote:
Fat margins? sure.. I think we expect that from Apple. Again, this is about the huge INCREASE in margins over the last Mac Pro model.
You don't know any of that. That's just something you are guessing at.
Comments
You mean 200% don't you?
D'Oh!!
I'm aware that the Mac Pro is not a home machine. I'm not even considering getting one. I don't have any idea if it is or isn't fairly priced.
But right now it's the ONLY quad core machine that Apple offer.
What quad core Mac would you recommend to a friend?
It would depend on what it's being used for.
Someone else asked that question last night, and I gave the same answer, but he hasn't gotten back here.
Amorph
I don't have a problem with the SMP Mac Pro going up a bit. I'm just flummoxed by the $2500 Quad system because it just seems to be excessively priced.
The benchmarks will tell.
At any rate, since both Apple and Intel famously drive hard bargains, and Intel no longer has to offer great deals to woo Apple over, I'm sure Apple got the chips early in return for paying Intel lots of money. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if the machine costs more to make now, what with all of its fancy slide-out trays and the my-first-fabric motherboard architecture.
Besides, it's just natural that the Pro will retreat farther and farther into the high-end workstation market. Computational power has reached the point where you can do pro work on an iMac, or a MacBook Pro for that matter. For one thing, the hardware cards that were absolutely necessary 10 or even 5 years ago simply aren't now. For another, it's now possible to offer a 24" IPS panel, white LED backlit, 1920 x 1200 display for an eminently reasonable price.
Even in the last three years... I have what was the top of the line 17" PowerBook G4 three years ago and my jaw dropped when I saw what that machine has become. Software has a lot of catching up to do.
Don't give into the marketing, look at facts. Xeon and Core i7 are brand names. Bloomfield is the base chip. It is available in Core i7 and Xeon 3500 branding. The only difference is ECC memory support. The xeon branding doesn't magically turn from an I4 into a V8. It remains the same chip, pricing and all. It will perform the same no matter what branding is used. Then there is Gainestown (Xeon 5500). Gainestown is nothing more than bloomfield with a second quick path link for multiprocessing.
There are more differences than that ECC memory is one. The possible use of FB-DIMMs in four channels is another, though it's not likely, at least right now, that Apple will be using Becton. Additionally, the i7 parts currently are all 130 watt parts, while Gainstown, except for the not yet available 3.2 GHz part are either 80 or 95 watt parts.
Also 2 QPI links are used, not just one as in i7.
Whatever it might be, we still must use the right names. I don't see the purpose in deliberately confusing the issue, as you seem to want to do.
No, they are not.
You say that based on what? Everything I have seen has said the i7 and xeon 3500 are the exact same chip with the only exception being that the i7 has ECC support disabled.
If there are other differences, what are they?
But you have to stop comparing machines built for commercial use to machines built for home use. Even if the performance is comparable, it's still not the same machine.
What difference does it make what the intention of the build is?
If performance is comparable, then comparing pricing is valid. The consumer has the choice of buying either of the two machines, period.
The organizations that buy expensive workstations and servers do NOT buy the machines you and a few others here are pushing.
"The organizations that buy expensive workstations"? Aren't we talking about people buying mac pros? There are plenty of people buying these computers to run FCS or Photoshop or Logic or whatever, and if the $1300 machine runs it as well as the $2500 machine, then people are certainly going to notice that the $2500 machine is overpriced for their situation.
And aren't the organizations that buy expensive workstations going to avoid the MP quad anyway since ram is limited at 8 gigs?
According to tests done on sites such as Anandtech, a well respected site, the Nehalems are well ahead of all other Cpu's in most every category.
Another advantage is that this is the beginning of a new line from Intel. When the 32 nm versions come out, the "tick" in their schedule, you will be able to pop those new chips (possibly 8 cores! Much faster speeds) in place of the ones in there now. It might take a bit of doing, but the design of these new machines makes it look MUCH easier than the old machines where the processors were buried, and more than a bit of the machine had to be disassembled to get to them. These are right out in the open.
That's why I opted for the cheaper dual 2.66 model rather than the more expensive dual 2.93 one.
Thanks. That and another reply really helped. I'll stick to my original plan (2x2.66). It'll hurt for now, but I'll get over it in no time. Although our other MP was cheaper, it was paid for in a matter of a week. This one? Two or three weeks.
Enthusiasts may not need more than 8 gbs of RAM but aren't going to pay that price to play and pros often need more than 8 gbs of RAM (or don't want that limitation).
Who's this machine marketed for?
Me? I'm a "pro," in that I make my living off of it and then some — certainly enough to more than justify a $3000 or so computer every few years, but my work (Illustrator and InDesign, mostly, but some photo retouching) doesn't require the gobs and gobs of RAM that some other applications do. Even if I had it, Adobe's software (CS4) only addresss two cores and 4 GB of RAM at a time, so it wouldn't help me much.
You're right, I'm apprehensive about the 8GB limitation, because I'd like for my next desktop to last me a good long while, and to take advantage of the large memory addressing that is supposedly coming in CS5. But regardless, this machine would be a huge step up from my dual 2GHz G5 (which, incidentally, still runs very nicely and has a "mere" 6GB of RAM in it, so maybe I don't really need more than 8GB of RAM after all)...
I would definitely consider one of the quads, were I in the market for one right now. (I'm not, but only because I just bought a 15" MBP a month ago. And I'll probably hold off on buying a new computer until it would actually give me a huge benefit — specifically, AFTER CS5 is available in a year or whenever.)
The processors are VERY good. Wait for the benchmarks: they will be smoking fast machines, faster than the similarly-priced Penryn 8-cores with the same amount of RAM.
And, yes, they ARE pro machines. Prices fall — and they rise, too. It happens. It's the cost of doing business. If the difference between a VERY good $3500 machine and an also-VERY-good $2500 is causing you grief, you're probably just a tech-savvy hobbyist, not actually earning your living off of your Mac. (Or maybe you have kids, or something. I don't mean to be as condescending as that sounds.) But it's really not that expensive, if you're earning your living off of your computer.
You say that based on what? Everything I have seen has said the i7 and xeon 3500 are the exact same chip with the only exception being that the i7 has ECC support disabled.
If there are other differences, what are they?
I answered that in the post above the one you made to me.
What difference does it make what the intention of the build is?
If performance is comparable, then comparing pricing is valid. The consumer has the choice of buying either of the two machines, period.
No, not true.
While the consumer might choose to buy a much more robust machine at a higher price, that's not where the machine is being marketed.
You have every right to complain that Apple doesn't MAKE a consumer tower. You would be right in that. I bemoan that fact as well.
But to complain that the Mac Pro isn't that machine is wrong.
You could sadly state that you wish you could afford it. That would make sense.
But to say that their commercial workstation should be cheaper, or somehow be affordable to those Apple isn't making it for, isn't helpful. You can say it until you're blue in the face, and it won't help.
Other general purpose computer companies such as Dell and Hp do make consumer boxes. Boxx does not. Are you going to go to their site and log on to their forums to complain that they should make a $1,500 box for you?
If not, why not?
"The organizations that buy expensive workstations"? Aren't we talking about people buying mac pros? There are plenty of people buying these computers to run FCS or Photoshop or Logic or whatever, and if the $1300 machine runs it as well as the $2500 machine, then people are certainly going to notice that the $2500 machine is overpriced for their situation.
And aren't the organizations that buy expensive workstations going to avoid the MP quad anyway since ram is limited at 8 gigs?
Most of these boxes are bought by companies or other organizations, not individuals. It was different many years ago, but not now.
For many of these uses an iMac suffices these days. You'd be surprised. Now with 8 GB RAM, I expect many more pros that are price limited to move to a 24" model. It has a very good screen, once calibrated.
The truth is that very few pros need 8 Gb RAM. People seem to like to think they do, but they don't.
Thanks. That and another reply really helped. I'll stick to my original plan (2x2.66). It'll hurt for now, but I'll get over it in no time. Although our other MP was cheaper, it was paid for in a matter of a week. This one? Two or three weeks.
That's correct. for someone who s actually making a "real' living, the cost will be written down quickly. For those who aren't making much, if any money off their machine, its different.
I did get the tick and tock thingie mixed up though, it's actually Intel's Tock right now. The tick is a new process. But that doesn't change what I said.
No, they are not. Apple doesn't make an i7 machine for consumers, or for anyone. When the single cpu Xeon workstations come out from others, you can then compare the costs.
They're not going much more expensive than the i7 machines. Why because with the exception of ECC memory and Quadro/FirePro graphics, they are the consumer i7 machines in a different case.
Here in Belgium, if I go on the Dell's website and configure a Core i7 workstation, I've got this :
Dell XPS 730x
Core i7 Extreme Edition 965 - 3,20 GHz, 6,4 GT/s
Genuine Windows Vista SP1 Home Premium (64 BIT)
Microsoft® Works 9
Serial ATA 750 Go
3 GB SDRAM DDR3 1067 MHz (Max 6 GB !!!)
NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 280
DVD+/- RW 16X
Dell Keyboard & Mouse
1 Year Premium Warranty Support
... for 3.629,15 € incl taxes (21%)
Compare to the Mac Pro Quad...
Mac Pro 2009
Intel Xeon 3500 - 2,93 GHz, 6,4 GT/s
Mac OS X 10.5
Serial ATA 1 To
3 Gb SDRAM DDR3 1066 MHz (Max 8 GB)
ATI Radeon HD 4870
SuperDrive 18X
Apple Keyboard & Mouse
Airport Card
1 Year Warranty
... 3.064,00 € incl taxes (21%)
They're not going much more expensive than the i7 machines. Why because with the exception of ECC memory and Quadro/FirePro graphics, they are the consumer i7 machines in a different case.
Found this on the net, can't remember where...
"If you’ve tried to research the differences between Intel’s top-end Core i7-965 Extreme Edition and the midrange 940 and budget 920 parts, you’re probably as confused as us. And we even have direct access to Intel. But the technical differences between these parts are enormously important for system builders when you consider the price disparity -- $1000 for a Core i7-965 compared to under $300 for a Core i7-920.
What we do know is that the Core i7-965 has unlocked multipliers going up and down (although we have to point out that we have not seen any motherboards with multipliers that let you actually set it higher. You can only do that by increasing the Turbo Mode ratio.)
One other known fact is that you cannot set the Turbo Mode ratios on the 940 and 920. OK fine. But what else is different? Intel told us as recently as two months ago that the QPI was locked at 4.8GT/s to prevent you from running it at the Extreme’s 6.4GT/s speed. Memory ratios, however, are supposed to be unlocked. But maybe not."
Intel QuickPath Interconnect
Get over the fact that a Xeon is not an i7.
That's like calling a four cylinder engine essentially the same as an eight cylinder engine. Sure, they are conceptually the same, but the performance is not.
I hope you don't actually claim to be knowledgeable about this stuff, because that analogy is so far from the truth its pathetic. The Xeon 5xxx series and Core i7 ARE CUT FROM THE SAME LITERAL SILICON DIE. While they may pluck out the most stable and efficient units during verification to sell as server-grade Xeons and perhaps tweak the CPU frequencies, Cache, and QPI clocks, they are otherwise identical...
edit: I am not implying that a Xeon workstation should be compared to an i7 desktop in price.. Understandably, the Xeons are a lot more expensive.
But trying to find reasons why the Mac Pro is overpriced is not helpful, because the customers for these machines, for the most part, don't care. These are very popular in scientific research. In engineering, publishing, graphics, movie editing, audio work,...
We'll see about that considering MANY "prosumers" and enthusiasts buy the Mac Pro (or did).
When we consider where prices are relative to where they used to be years ago..
Years ago? How about 2 months ago??? The new Mac Pro has exorbitantly increased in price while using components that are similar in cost -- particularly as the CPUs are actually CHEAPER than the old Harpertowns when they were released.
The new machines are at their beginning, and that new shiney 8 core, higher speed 32 nm chip coming off the lines in 2010 will be able to be popped into this new machine that's just come out..
What in particular are you referring to? Beckton 8-core is 45nm and quad-socket only, while the replacement to the new Mac Pro CPUs is 32nm Westmere in 2010 but those are only 6-core.
...
First, high end kit always has a fat profit margin on it. Always. I don't know why people are acting as if fat margins were introduced with this update. This is partly to compensate for low sales volume, partly because the people serious about getting the latest and greatest have never begrudged the extra money.
Fat margins? sure.. I think we expect that from Apple. Again, this is about the huge INCREASE in margins over the last Mac Pro model. The new Nehalem platform and CPUs actually COST THE SAME OR LESS THAN THE PREVIOUS MODEL's HARPERTOWN QUAD-COREs(Before the new ones were released).
The rest is a push more memory (up 2G) More HD space 640GB (up from 500) faster Superdrive (18x up from 16x with added dual layer)
Apple Rep says I can have the machine I ordered or go latest and greatest. ($$$???) I am a illustrator designer and will be using everything(i.e. Photoshop, Flash, Final Cut, After Effects, Zbrush, Mudbox, etc...)
Opinions? Out with the old pay for the new or hold onto 3.0 processor and lose the extras...
Thanks!
Fat margins? sure.. I think we expect that from Apple. Again, this is about the huge INCREASE in margins over the last Mac Pro model. The new Nehalem platform and CPUs actually COST THE SAME OR LESS THAN THE PREVIOUS MODEL's HARPERTOWN QUAD-COREs(Before the new ones were released).
Can you prove this? Are you are you speculating? I wasn't aware any of these prices had been announced yet?
I ordered a Mac Pro last week and expected it here tomorrow. I received a call tonight from an Apple Rep offering to complete my order as spec'd or "upgrade' to the new configuration. There is about $400 difference in Apple's favor. I ordered the 3.0 Quad Xeon processor and now need to pay $100 more to get a 2.66. ($1000 less to go with the 2.26) 3.0 to 2.66 for more money seems like that's paying more for less. Am I missing something?
The rest is a push more memory (up 2G) More HD space 640GB (up from 500) faster Superdrive (18x up from 16x with added dual layer)
Apple Rep says I can have the machine I ordered or go latest and greatest. ($$$???) I am a illustrator designer and will be using everything(i.e. Photoshop, Flash, Final Cut, After Effects, Zbrush, Mudbox, etc...)
Opinions? Out with the old pay for the new or hold onto 3.0 processor and lose the extras...
Thanks!
Keep in mind these new cpu's have hyperthreading. So if you get a 2.26 you are getting 16 virtual cores. If I were you, I'd go with the new 8 core 2.26... it is going to last you much longer with snow leopard's GCD and OpenCL. Also the new cpu's offer virtualization... so better compatibility with VMWare running windows if that is a factor to you. It is to me because I have to test ie6 against web apps.
http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html
Ok so they are comparing a 3.2ghz (harpertown) to a 2.93ghz (nehalem). Most hte tests are roughly 1.5x faster.
So there is a 300mhz difference (give or take). And the speed is comparable. Well lets look at slower models.
If the 300mhz difference is roughly 1.5x faster and we look at the 2.26 (nehalem) vs the 2.8 (harpertown) we are now dealing with a 540mhz difference. That makes them relatively even using apple's own benchmarks.
You can pick up a octo 2.8 refurb for around 2200, that's almost a 1k difference for the same performance. I'm really considering just picking up a refurb instead.
They're not going much more expensive than the i7 machines. Why because with the exception of ECC memory and Quadro/FirePro graphics, they are the consumer i7 machines in a different case.
Riight!
You'll see when they come out.
I hope you don't actually claim to be knowledgeable about this stuff, because that analogy is so far from the truth its pathetic. The Xeon 5xxx series and Core i7 ARE CUT FROM THE SAME LITERAL SILICON DIE. While they may pluck out the most stable and efficient units during verification to sell as server-grade Xeons and perhaps tweak the CPU, Cache, and QPI clocks, they are otherwise identical...
It doesn't matter that the basic chip is the same. The extra functions give it extra performance, they always do.
The point though is not even that, it's simply the point of calling things by their correct names. I just don't know why that's so difficult for you.
If you went to Ford, and asked for a Ford rather than a Mercury model, you would get the wrong one, even though they are mostly the same.
We'll see about that considering MANY "prosumers" and enthusiasts buy the Mac Pro (or did).
I don't know what you mean by "many". People who have the money will.
Years ago? How about 2 months ago??? The new Mac Pro has exorbitantly increased in price while using components that are similar in cost -- particularly as the CPUs are actually CHEAPER than the old Harpertowns when they were released.
You missed that one entirely. I, and a couple of others here were talking about machines "years" ago. If you followed the posts, you would see what we meant.
What in particular are you referring to? Beckton 8-core is 45nm and quad-socket only, while the replacement to the new Mac Pro CPUs is 32nm Westmere in 2010 but those are only 6-core.
I know it is, that's why I said that Apple isn't likely to use it. Intel indicated that they will also have two socket 8 core chips.
Fat margins? sure.. I think we expect that from Apple. Again, this is about the huge INCREASE in margins over the last Mac Pro model.
You don't know any of that. That's just something you are guessing at.