Scroll up to the one where you debate whether it'll be announced at WWDC or WWDC.
Unless I misunderstood it and the joke is on me. Which is probably the case.
I was hoping someone else would bring that up, because being the newbie in the thread, I wasn't sure if it was an inside joke or something.
But I definitely think (and this is obviously opinion):
Dual Woodcrests - 2.0/2.33/2.66 or 2.0/2.33/3.0 at current price points.
Possible Conroe-based Mac Pro at a $1600-$1800 price (2.6 GHz-ish)
iMacs get Conroes in the 2.0-2.5 range
Even if a Conroe-based low-end Mac Pro draws iMac or Woodcrest Mac Pro sales, Apple profits because that will be it's highest margin Mac short of the top-end Quad, since the low end Mac Pro would be a 20 inch iMac minus the nice screen, IR, and iSight in a Mac Pro case (in terms of components purchased, it'd obviously be expandable). That'd make it cheaper than the top-end iMac and it could sell for slightly more.
I'm going to out on a limb here and say that Apple want to make a huge impact with the Intel Mac Pro, I predict
- A new case
- ALL QUAD 2.33/2.66/3.0 Ghz all on 1333Mhz FSB
- wider range of pro graphics BTO
- new line of Cinema displays to match
- 8x FB-DIMM sockets = 32Gb ram max
plus other cool stuff
Apple will want to stay in front, and every man (+ dog) will have a Woodcrest workstation available from the release, Apple will need to try harder to justify the price differential
I'm going to out on a limb here and say that Apple want to make a huge impact with the Intel Mac Pro, I predict
- A new case
- ALL QUAD 2.33/2.66/3.0 Ghz all on 1333Mhz FSB
- wider range of pro graphics BTO
- new line of Cinema displays to match
- 8x FB-DIMM sockets = 32Gb ram max
plus other cool stuff
Apple will want to stay in front, and every man (+ dog) will have a Woodcrest workstation available from the release, Apple will need to try harder to justify the price differential
That doesn't sound remotely "out on a limb" unless you think that the 2.33 GHz QUAD will debut at $2000. That just doesn't workable in terms of keeping a decent margin. I think 2.0/2.33/3.0 is a reasonable "high-end" expectation, because it upgrades each model a good bit while retaining nice margins. The lower two go from dual to quad, and the high end Quad gets a .5 GHz speed bump.
4 GB RAM sticks exist, but as I understand it are rare, although the motherboard would likely support them when they are more common. I don't foresee that being much of a BTO option.
Graphics - well, it could easily ship with a 7800, with BTO for a 7900-something, SLI, and a Quadro FX workstation card. My only question is whether an SLI configuration would be able to effectively drive 2 30 inch monitors.
ACDs - add an iSight, maybe an IR port with remote, and hopefully a slight price drop. I'd love to see a 17 or 18 inch model that's cheap enough to afford for the non-rich, because I'd totally get it.
Do we really think that Apple will be that generous to have an all Quad lineup? It's just that, at the moment, having just the top end as a quad is the one thing that would make me go high end over the low/mid ones.
Do we really think that Apple will be that generous to have an all Quad lineup? It's just that, at the moment, having just the top end as a quad is the one thing that would make me go high end over the low/mid ones.
David
I'm thinking 2 of each, but all quad could happen because it usually does. Apple usually releases an all dual socket lineup, and their fist revision is to add a single socket version into the equation. IF they did that it gives better advantage to the iMac because it could see a Conroe before the revision.
June 19th; the same day as Dell. HP and Boxx have already announced their Woodcrest workstations; Apple can't afford to wait.
What Apple can afford is speculative, and opinionated. I hear what Apple has to do to stay alive in this forum every week, but usually Apple does what they want, and they end up making tons of cash anyway, but I'll let Apple make that call. June 19th seems to be a farce. I think you missed some posts, or maybe intel has confirmed that within the past day, but AFAIAC that date was a hoax.
You bet June? Let's see. The first set of processors (Woodcrest) ship out on the 19th of June - that is what intel has on hand to every manufacturer they supply. That shipment is undoubtedly sold out. I'm sure they are ramping up a second run though. Conroe is next at about the same time in July. Merom is again at about the same time in August.
So Apple will get these babies out the door in 10 days from their arrival with only the Woodcrest configuration available, and probably in limited supply? Hmmm... I'm sticking with my guess that it will be a bit later.
I stand by my june estimation. Apple is FAMOUS for announcing and shipping a few computers... then not shipping any more for months later. Watch... they will ship 100 computers or so and say they were first.
Quote:
All the time stuff aside on release dates.
How on earth can you think Apple is intels biggest client? They have less than 4% marketshare, and 2/3 of that are not PowerMac's.
Sorry it took so long to reply, appleinsider never sent me update emails.
But yah, with dell moving to amd and intel... intel lost a big chunk. And I want to clarify.. I meant to say apple was going to be their biggest customer in the future... obviously once they move all their machines over. Who's bigger?
But yah, with dell moving to amd and intel... intel lost a big chunk. And I want to clarify.. I meant to say apple was going to be their biggest customer in the future... obviously once they move all their machines over. Who's bigger?
I don't think so. Dell is planning on using some AMD chips (Opteron) in some of their high end multi-processor servers. Dell will still be Intel's biggest customer for some time. If core 2 duo doesn't live up to it's promise (unlikely in my opinion) then maybe Dell broadens their AMD offerings at some point in the future.
We will see soon. Woodcrest will be here in June and Conroe in July. The comparissons will follow and core 2 will either get Intel back in the game ( in terms of speed and power consumption) or it won't.
Apple could even announce them on June 6th for christ's sake. The release date of the Intel chips is not important.
Think of it this way:
We never knew what the official release date of the PowerPC G5 was. It could have been a full two weeks after the product announcement. Heck, it would seem that the 2.0GHz ones started being produced a MONTH OR TWO after the product announcement.
So the only real difference here is that we know when it's supposed to be released to the PC world. Not only might Apple have early availability to the chips, but they're also perfectly able to announce a product well before its components are in large-scale production - after all, they've done it before.
Apple could even announce them on June 6th for christ's sake. The release date of the Intel chips is not important.
Think of it this way:
We never knew what the official release date of the PowerPC G5 was. It could have been a full two weeks after the product announcement. Heck, it would seem that the 2.0GHz ones started being produced a MONTH OR TWO after the product announcement.
So the only real difference here is that we know when it's supposed to be released to the PC world. Not only might Apple have early availability to the chips, but they're also perfectly able to announce a product well before its components are in large-scale production - after all, they've done it before.
Apple could even announce them on June 6th for christ's sake. The release date of the Intel chips is not important.
Think of it this way:
We never knew what the official release date of the PowerPC G5 was. It could have been a full two weeks after the product announcement. Heck, it would seem that the 2.0GHz ones started being produced a MONTH OR TWO after the product announcement.
So the only real difference here is that we know when it's supposed to be released to the PC world. Not only might Apple have early availability to the chips, but they're also perfectly able to announce a product well before its components are in large-scale production - after all, they've done it before.
..so they will probably announce them at WWDC for shipping in October then ?
Well, it's different this time because we know when the chips are supposed to be coming out, and Apple has competition using the same chips this time around.
Well, it's different this time because we know when the chips are supposed to be coming out, and Apple has competition using the same chips this time around.
That's true. Apple can't hide with IBM and Freescale anymore. When the chips are announced, and everyone else has machines, people will turn to Apple, and say; "So, where are yours?" Apple can't run from that any longer. It's not what they want. They can't control the timing anymore.
They could tell IBM and Freescale to hold off on the announcement of the chips until Apple was ready, but they can't do that to Intel. They have to ride the releases along with everyone else.
They also have to keep up with the crowd. So far, they've done that with the MBP and MB, but not with the iMac, or the Mini. I wonder why?
That's true. Apple can't hide with IBM and Freescale anymore. When the chips are announced, and everyone else has machines, people will turn to Apple, and say; "So, where are yours?" Apple can't run from that any longer. It's not what they want. They can't control the timing anymore.
They could tell IBM and Freescale to hold off on the announcement of the chips until Apple was ready, but they can't do that to Intel. They have to ride the releases along with everyone else.
They also have to keep up with the crowd. So far, they've done that with the MBP and MB, but not with the iMac, or the Mini. I wonder why?
I'm failing to see why apple would want to stall a cpu manufacturer from releasing a cpu? What would prevent apple from not being ready? I can kind of see it with IBM / Freescale since apple made the motherboards... but now intel is making the boards... So what would they stall for?
Comments
Originally posted by Placebo
Scroll up to the one where you debate whether it'll be announced at WWDC or WWDC.
Unless I misunderstood it and the joke is on me. Which is probably the case.
I was hoping someone else would bring that up, because being the newbie in the thread, I wasn't sure if it was an inside joke or something.
But I definitely think (and this is obviously opinion):
Dual Woodcrests - 2.0/2.33/2.66 or 2.0/2.33/3.0 at current price points.
Possible Conroe-based Mac Pro at a $1600-$1800 price (2.6 GHz-ish)
iMacs get Conroes in the 2.0-2.5 range
Even if a Conroe-based low-end Mac Pro draws iMac or Woodcrest Mac Pro sales, Apple profits because that will be it's highest margin Mac short of the top-end Quad, since the low end Mac Pro would be a 20 inch iMac minus the nice screen, IR, and iSight in a Mac Pro case (in terms of components purchased, it'd obviously be expandable). That'd make it cheaper than the top-end iMac and it could sell for slightly more.
- A new case
- ALL QUAD 2.33/2.66/3.0 Ghz all on 1333Mhz FSB
- wider range of pro graphics BTO
- new line of Cinema displays to match
- 8x FB-DIMM sockets = 32Gb ram max
plus other cool stuff
Apple will want to stay in front, and every man (+ dog) will have a Woodcrest workstation available from the release, Apple will need to try harder to justify the price differential
Originally posted by Thereubster
I'm going to out on a limb here and say that Apple want to make a huge impact with the Intel Mac Pro, I predict
- A new case
- ALL QUAD 2.33/2.66/3.0 Ghz all on 1333Mhz FSB
- wider range of pro graphics BTO
- new line of Cinema displays to match
- 8x FB-DIMM sockets = 32Gb ram max
plus other cool stuff
Apple will want to stay in front, and every man (+ dog) will have a Woodcrest workstation available from the release, Apple will need to try harder to justify the price differential
That doesn't sound remotely "out on a limb" unless you think that the 2.33 GHz QUAD will debut at $2000. That just doesn't workable in terms of keeping a decent margin. I think 2.0/2.33/3.0 is a reasonable "high-end" expectation, because it upgrades each model a good bit while retaining nice margins. The lower two go from dual to quad, and the high end Quad gets a .5 GHz speed bump.
4 GB RAM sticks exist, but as I understand it are rare, although the motherboard would likely support them when they are more common. I don't foresee that being much of a BTO option.
Graphics - well, it could easily ship with a 7800, with BTO for a 7900-something, SLI, and a Quadro FX workstation card. My only question is whether an SLI configuration would be able to effectively drive 2 30 inch monitors.
ACDs - add an iSight, maybe an IR port with remote, and hopefully a slight price drop. I'd love to see a 17 or 18 inch model that's cheap enough to afford for the non-rich, because I'd totally get it.
The freakin' MacBooks are dual core. Does someone here think the ProMacs would even go there? Apple needs to start moving these things.
David
Originally posted by iMacfan
Do we really think that Apple will be that generous to have an all Quad lineup? It's just that, at the moment, having just the top end as a quad is the one thing that would make me go high end over the low/mid ones.
David
I'm thinking 2 of each, but all quad could happen because it usually does. Apple usually releases an all dual socket lineup, and their fist revision is to add a single socket version into the equation. IF they did that it gives better advantage to the iMac because it could see a Conroe before the revision.
Tuesday June27th?
The next Tuesday after that is Independance Day in the U.S.
Originally posted by DHagan4755
Assuming Woodcrest ships on June 26 and that Apple will use them in the Power Mac G5 replacement, when do you think Apple will announce them?
June 19th; the same day as Dell. HP and Boxx have already announced their Woodcrest workstations; Apple can't afford to wait.
Originally posted by wmf
June 19th; the same day as Dell. HP and Boxx have already announced their Woodcrest workstations; Apple can't afford to wait.
I still can't help but to think apple will ship the woodcrest machines first.
What do you guys think?
Originally posted by wmf
June 19th; the same day as Dell. HP and Boxx have already announced their Woodcrest workstations; Apple can't afford to wait.
What Apple can afford is speculative, and opinionated. I hear what Apple has to do to stay alive in this forum every week, but usually Apple does what they want, and they end up making tons of cash anyway, but I'll let Apple make that call. June 19th seems to be a farce. I think you missed some posts, or maybe intel has confirmed that within the past day, but AFAIAC that date was a hoax.
Originally posted by onlooker
You bet June? Let's see. The first set of processors (Woodcrest) ship out on the 19th of June - that is what intel has on hand to every manufacturer they supply. That shipment is undoubtedly sold out. I'm sure they are ramping up a second run though. Conroe is next at about the same time in July. Merom is again at about the same time in August.
So Apple will get these babies out the door in 10 days from their arrival with only the Woodcrest configuration available, and probably in limited supply? Hmmm... I'm sticking with my guess that it will be a bit later.
I stand by my june estimation. Apple is FAMOUS for announcing and shipping a few computers... then not shipping any more for months later. Watch... they will ship 100 computers or so and say they were first.
All the time stuff aside on release dates.
How on earth can you think Apple is intels biggest client? They have less than 4% marketshare, and 2/3 of that are not PowerMac's.
Sorry it took so long to reply, appleinsider never sent me update emails.
But yah, with dell moving to amd and intel... intel lost a big chunk. And I want to clarify.. I meant to say apple was going to be their biggest customer in the future... obviously once they move all their machines over. Who's bigger?
Originally posted by emig647
But yah, with dell moving to amd and intel... intel lost a big chunk. And I want to clarify.. I meant to say apple was going to be their biggest customer in the future... obviously once they move all their machines over. Who's bigger?
I don't think so. Dell is planning on using some AMD chips (Opteron) in some of their high end multi-processor servers. Dell will still be Intel's biggest customer for some time. If core 2 duo doesn't live up to it's promise (unlikely in my opinion) then maybe Dell broadens their AMD offerings at some point in the future.
We will see soon. Woodcrest will be here in June and Conroe in July. The comparissons will follow and core 2 will either get Intel back in the game ( in terms of speed and power consumption) or it won't.
Think of it this way:
We never knew what the official release date of the PowerPC G5 was. It could have been a full two weeks after the product announcement. Heck, it would seem that the 2.0GHz ones started being produced a MONTH OR TWO after the product announcement.
So the only real difference here is that we know when it's supposed to be released to the PC world. Not only might Apple have early availability to the chips, but they're also perfectly able to announce a product well before its components are in large-scale production - after all, they've done it before.
Originally posted by Placebo
Apple could even announce them on June 6th for christ's sake. The release date of the Intel chips is not important.
Think of it this way:
We never knew what the official release date of the PowerPC G5 was. It could have been a full two weeks after the product announcement. Heck, it would seem that the 2.0GHz ones started being produced a MONTH OR TWO after the product announcement.
So the only real difference here is that we know when it's supposed to be released to the PC world. Not only might Apple have early availability to the chips, but they're also perfectly able to announce a product well before its components are in large-scale production - after all, they've done it before.
You can't argue with logic like that. 8)
Originally posted by Placebo
Apple could even announce them on June 6th for christ's sake. The release date of the Intel chips is not important.
Think of it this way:
We never knew what the official release date of the PowerPC G5 was. It could have been a full two weeks after the product announcement. Heck, it would seem that the 2.0GHz ones started being produced a MONTH OR TWO after the product announcement.
So the only real difference here is that we know when it's supposed to be released to the PC world. Not only might Apple have early availability to the chips, but they're also perfectly able to announce a product well before its components are in large-scale production - after all, they've done it before.
..so they will probably announce them at WWDC for shipping in October then ?
Originally posted by Placebo
Well, it's different this time because we know when the chips are supposed to be coming out, and Apple has competition using the same chips this time around.
That's true. Apple can't hide with IBM and Freescale anymore. When the chips are announced, and everyone else has machines, people will turn to Apple, and say; "So, where are yours?" Apple can't run from that any longer. It's not what they want. They can't control the timing anymore.
They could tell IBM and Freescale to hold off on the announcement of the chips until Apple was ready, but they can't do that to Intel. They have to ride the releases along with everyone else.
They also have to keep up with the crowd. So far, they've done that with the MBP and MB, but not with the iMac, or the Mini. I wonder why?
Originally posted by melgross
That's true. Apple can't hide with IBM and Freescale anymore. When the chips are announced, and everyone else has machines, people will turn to Apple, and say; "So, where are yours?" Apple can't run from that any longer. It's not what they want. They can't control the timing anymore.
They could tell IBM and Freescale to hold off on the announcement of the chips until Apple was ready, but they can't do that to Intel. They have to ride the releases along with everyone else.
They also have to keep up with the crowd. So far, they've done that with the MBP and MB, but not with the iMac, or the Mini. I wonder why?
I'm failing to see why apple would want to stall a cpu manufacturer from releasing a cpu? What would prevent apple from not being ready? I can kind of see it with IBM / Freescale since apple made the motherboards... but now intel is making the boards... So what would they stall for?