Since we're talking about dual-socket boards, $300 is a reasonable starting point. You won't find anything near $100 retail. Plus, of course, the dual-capable Xeon processors will be more expensive than the regular Conroes at a given speed. A half-full dual-capable system just doesn't make much financial sense.
Of course. I didn't mean to say that dual socket boards would be going for $100, but I've seen them for under $300.
Hey, onlooker, pass the pipe already, I think you've had enough.
While I still don't think that Apple will do it, there is ALMOST precedent here. The single cpu Powermac G5's have had the full size mobo, even though it would have been cheaper to go with a smaller board. But Apple chose not to do that because of economy of scale. I could see a possiblity of them using a dual socket board populated with just one socket and chip. That's a small possibility.
Of course, you would have to send the machine in to an upgrader so they could solder the additional socket in along with the chip. Possibly other minor chips would be missing as well.
Not a great chance of this happening, but a possibility.
I will never buy an all-in-one desktop or a completely unexpandable repackaged notebook like the mini.
Your loss.
quote:You'll also start a really nice trend of getting me to buy new Macs.
Hardly, since those people are the same ones unwilling to pay any margin whatsoever. And since they'll be able to easily upgrade single components (which, mind you, is a complete waste of money, but that doesn't stop them), which is to Apple's loss (no revenues at all), why would Apple possibly allow that?
I prefer to think of it as my gain. Why should I throw away my display every time I feel the need for a newer Mac?
As for the mini it's a nice little machine, but every tower I've owned has had a card added or changed. For example when I had my G4 towers a new technology called USB 2.0 was introduced. Eventually I decided it would benefit me to have such connections. If I'd had an iMac I'd have had to buy a whole new computer. Instead I spent $39 on a PCI card. Once again I really don't see where I lose.
Your assertion that people like me will always buy old Macs is completely false. I spent $1500 on my used G5 tower. It's bigger than I want, has more slots than I need, has (by today's standards) slow processors, outdated RAM, and very little warranty. If there had been a new Mac available like I described in two previous posts with up-to-date components and a full warranty Apple would've gotten my $1500.
While I still don't think that Apple will do it, there is ALMOST precedent here. The single cpu Powermac G5's have had the full size mobo, even though it would have been cheaper to go with a smaller board. But Apple chose not to do that because of economy of scale. I could see a possiblity of them using a dual socket board populated with just one socket and chip. That's a small possibility.
Of course, you would have to send the machine in to an upgrader so they could solder the additional socket in along with the chip. Possibly other minor chips would be missing as well.
Not a great chance of this happening, but a possibility.
But they didn't have two sockets with one of them open. I don't see where that can be called "almost" in any way.
But they didn't have two sockets with one of them open. I don't see where that can be called "almost" in any way.
Sure it could. The board was designed in such a way (you could see it if you looked) that a few more traces on the mobo, and a dual socket could have been installed. It wasn't that far off.
Anyway, AMD is pushing the idea. While we usually don't like what he says, Enderle is reporting from Computex that:
" Interestingly, dual socket configurations have traditionally been discouraged by Intel for consumer use and this new AMD configuration is clearly a consumer offering. One notable aspect, though, is that you only have to have one socket populated, providing an upgrade path similar to what Nvidia has with SLI and ATI has with Crossfire."
Yup, AMD just introduced this "4x4" dual-socket setup for gamers. But I don't imagine there will be much uptake because the multithreading support in games is currently so poor, and the motherboards really aren't any cheaper than the professional stuff. Personally I think it's kinda stupid -- once you've sunk that much cost, you might as well get ECC RAM and have a "real computer"
I think the Mac Pro will have a standard dual-socket motherboard in all its machines. Whether there will be a low-end model with only one dualcore cpu, I think is less likely because this will go into that nebulous "better-than-imac midi pro tower" that everyone seems to be craving.
I personally will be blown away if this midi pro tower single woodcrest shows up, with the expandability that people demand.
I will be even more stunned if the Mac Pro quads have the expandability that everyone is craving.
But in my wishlist this would be the simplest solution for Apple:
1. Modify the g5 case design slightly
2. Use same motherboard for quad extreme, quad pro, and single-socket-populated dual pro.
3. Have expandable drive bays, PCI Express, PCI slots, etc. that people demand across the range.
4. NO SLI for Mac.
5. Upgrading the dual pro with another woodcrest cpu would be a possible "medium-to-hard" mod.
6. NO watercooling, all air.
That would be "most satisfaction for pros" for "minimal redesign costs".
Huh? That's even more crazy. What will ECC RAM do for gamers????
His point was that since games don't make very much use of SMP, adding a second CPU or CPUs with multiple cores makes as much sense as getting ECC RAM. If you're going to add that second CPU, you might as well add that ECC RAM since none of that stuff will improve your gaming...but at least you'll have a computer that crunches numbers without problems.
Yup, AMD just introduced this "4x4" dual-socket setup for gamers. But I don't imagine there will be much uptake because the multithreading support in games is currently so poor, and the motherboards really aren't any cheaper than the professional stuff. Personally I think it's kinda stupid -- once you've sunk that much cost, you might as well get ECC RAM and have a "real computer"
Yeah I'm starting get your point... you know if you take a PC rig and put a mid-range singlecore Athlon64, the CPU's fine... the graphics card will be the limiting factor.
If you look at Tom's or Anand it's only when you setup 7900superduperGTXXXXXblahblahblah in SLI doing 150+ frames per second (yes, hundred fifty over frames per second OMGWTF) that they've been able to then show differences in frames per second based on Athlon64, Athlon64-X2, Conroe...
Sometimes, the whole PC enthusiast/ gaming/ overclocking world seems so stupid and crazy it boggles the mind. Yet there's tons of branding wars and manufacturers vying for space to push out and sell the latest and greatest, from high-end to low-end, that it's all a self-perpetuating cycle that if you step back for a while, looks ridiculous.
I suppose a hardcore PC enthusiast though might look at our Mac fetishism as quite bizzare as well.
However if you're a Mac fetishist and a PC enthusiast/ overclocker then you've really got issues. Ah, whatever, these hobbies are cheaper than drugs or therapy
And the computer and computer accessory business is important for all those jobs and GDP for many countries. Not to mention then the mobile phone and PDA industry. Hmmm...
(I guess I'm getting reflective here for a moment because being chronically unemployed at the moment, I've got to bite my tongue and look at various jobs that might not jive with my initial haughty philosophy on certain things [eg. I hate windows mobile with a searing passion])
The gaming designers have said that they expect games to use a second core before too long. With the experience of writing for the 360, which has three cores, and the PS3 which has an even more difficult scheme, two cores will be seen as necessary. Dual chips, well, we'll see. If they are going to be there, then they will be used, but if few machines will have them, then maybe not.
Right now, AMD is introducing this scheme to compete with Conroe and Woodcrest, both of which beat AMD's offerings at games pretty handily. With no major improvements in their K8 line coming (even the K8L is not a major leap), they have to show something, even if it is much more expensive, and uses much more power. I looks like Intel from a year back.
I am not a big fan of component upgrading (except for HDD, optical drive and memory). You feel better if you know that you can add a network card, USB or something if the on-board fails. But in reality it is very rare. A balanced configuration (for it's intended purpose) can last few years anyway.
Upgrading the processor is one of the most questionable benefits. A lot of my friends are doing it but than they have old memory (motherboard), old graphics, old HDD interface... And in 6 months they end up with a new computer in the old case. Well, if the old power supply is good enough. I don't think it's wise.
Adding a second processor to an old mobo is even more questionable if not problematic. We had some bad experience with this few years back:
A customer was buying a PC for particular production purposes. The recommended configuration for the software was calling for a dual processor mobo. Then the budget was cut some 20% and our customer had to tweak the configuration here and there. They saved on the second processor with everything else intact including dual-processor version of W2K. "We will by one more in the future, the system will not be fully deployed at the beginning anyway". A year and a half later they wanted to by second processor. But you could not find the same processor anymore, the Pentiums moved to a new process (and improved core) so adding a second processor proved to be problematic. Throwing the old processor and adding 2 new ones would do but due to the other improvements (see above) the customer decided to buy a new computer altogether and reposition the old one for other purposes. Not big savings at the end of the day.
Having an empty processor socket on the mobo (no matter Mac or not) will be a psychological advantage with limited practical benefit IMO. Upgrading after 6 months is a hobbyist approach and after 2 or more years - problematic or waste of money at best.
The next-generation heavyweight game engines are multi-core aware. Dismissing dual processors for gaming simply because of current games which are single-core aware is extremely shortsighted, when the Unreal Engine 3, which currently has over two dozen titles licensing it, is dual-core optimized.
The next-generation heavyweight game engines are multi-core aware. Dismissing dual processors for gaming simply because of current games which are single-core aware is extremely shortsighted, when the Unreal Engine 3, which currently has over two dozen titles licensing it, is dual-core optimized.
That's right.
I also forgot to mention that each of the cores in the 360 has two threads. In a computer, that would show up as six cpu's.
I can't pretend to know exactly what Apple has planned for the PowerMac revision, but I do know it will be one of the most highly anticipated personal computer releases ever.
I'm thinking of the empty socket situation as a packaging issue. As much control and micromanagement as Apple likes to exert over their hardware designs, I would be extremely surprised to see if, for instance, they packaged a machine with not only an empty socket but also one of their "custom monogramed" heatsinks. If you recall the single CPU G5 machines had a similar sized heatsink, at least cosmetically, as the dual machines did, and I've not taken one apart but I suspect it had no pickup for the second CPU that wasn't there.
While functionally this is trivial to overcome?just add your own after-market heatsink?I would be surprised if Steve let their customers dirty up the interiors with such a solution easily, and worst case they could pull one of their proprietary wind channel designs that makes such a move impractical.
Also, what's to stop Apple from using similarly clocked Conroe CPUs in the single CPU designs to save cost, considering how much cheaper the Conroes are likely to be? On an upside, I could certainly see Apple releasing a mini-tower configuration with a single Conroe CPU, and relegating the dual Woodcrest designs to full towers.
The next-generation heavyweight game engines are multi-core aware. Dismissing dual processors for gaming simply because of current games which are single-core aware is extremely shortsighted, when the Unreal Engine 3, which currently has over two dozen titles licensing it, is dual-core optimized.
Unreal Engine 3 is one of the very few engines that will be SMP-aware.
Sweeney knows his shit...unlike Carmack who's confused and beleaguered about the whole SMP concept (and made a quick escape to phone games...phone games fer christsake, roflollerskates), Sweeney actually has a working, running engine that will push SMP computers to their limits.
Thanks to Ryan Gordon, this engine should make it to Mac and thanks to the awesomeness of UE3, lots of games will use the engine which means porting these games to Mac should be fairly easy once Ryan Gordon releases the Linux and Mac OS X version of Unreal 2k7.
The next-generation heavyweight game engines are multi-core aware. Dismissing dual processors for gaming simply because of current games which are single-core aware is extremely shortsighted, when the Unreal Engine 3, which currently has over two dozen titles licensing it, is dual-core optimized.
Yeah, but dual-core is already totally mainstream. How long until gaming is optimized for four cores? I'd be suprised if the scalablity makes these expensive 4x4 systems anywhere worthwhile for the gamer.
Also, let's not stereotype all PC gamers as people who buy ridiculously expensive and over-speced systems -- on the other end of the spectrum a lot of people are overclocking a $100 Pentium-D chip.
Comments
Originally posted by IntlHarvester
Since we're talking about dual-socket boards, $300 is a reasonable starting point. You won't find anything near $100 retail. Plus, of course, the dual-capable Xeon processors will be more expensive than the regular Conroes at a given speed. A half-full dual-capable system just doesn't make much financial sense.
Of course. I didn't mean to say that dual socket boards would be going for $100, but I've seen them for under $300.
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
Hey, onlooker, pass the pipe already, I think you've had enough.
While I still don't think that Apple will do it, there is ALMOST precedent here. The single cpu Powermac G5's have had the full size mobo, even though it would have been cheaper to go with a smaller board. But Apple chose not to do that because of economy of scale. I could see a possiblity of them using a dual socket board populated with just one socket and chip. That's a small possibility.
Of course, you would have to send the machine in to an upgrader so they could solder the additional socket in along with the chip. Possibly other minor chips would be missing as well.
Not a great chance of this happening, but a possibility.
Originally posted by Chucker
quote:Originally posted by Bregalad
I will never buy an all-in-one desktop or a completely unexpandable repackaged notebook like the mini.
Your loss.
quote:You'll also start a really nice trend of getting me to buy new Macs.
Hardly, since those people are the same ones unwilling to pay any margin whatsoever. And since they'll be able to easily upgrade single components (which, mind you, is a complete waste of money, but that doesn't stop them), which is to Apple's loss (no revenues at all), why would Apple possibly allow that?
I prefer to think of it as my gain. Why should I throw away my display every time I feel the need for a newer Mac?
As for the mini it's a nice little machine, but every tower I've owned has had a card added or changed. For example when I had my G4 towers a new technology called USB 2.0 was introduced. Eventually I decided it would benefit me to have such connections. If I'd had an iMac I'd have had to buy a whole new computer. Instead I spent $39 on a PCI card. Once again I really don't see where I lose.
Your assertion that people like me will always buy old Macs is completely false. I spent $1500 on my used G5 tower. It's bigger than I want, has more slots than I need, has (by today's standards) slow processors, outdated RAM, and very little warranty. If there had been a new Mac available like I described in two previous posts with up-to-date components and a full warranty Apple would've gotten my $1500.
Originally posted by melgross
While I still don't think that Apple will do it, there is ALMOST precedent here. The single cpu Powermac G5's have had the full size mobo, even though it would have been cheaper to go with a smaller board. But Apple chose not to do that because of economy of scale. I could see a possiblity of them using a dual socket board populated with just one socket and chip. That's a small possibility.
Of course, you would have to send the machine in to an upgrader so they could solder the additional socket in along with the chip. Possibly other minor chips would be missing as well.
Not a great chance of this happening, but a possibility.
But they didn't have two sockets with one of them open. I don't see where that can be called "almost" in any way.
Originally posted by onlooker
But they didn't have two sockets with one of them open. I don't see where that can be called "almost" in any way.
Sure it could. The board was designed in such a way (you could see it if you looked) that a few more traces on the mobo, and a dual socket could have been installed. It wasn't that far off.
Anyway, AMD is pushing the idea. While we usually don't like what he says, Enderle is reporting from Computex that:
" Interestingly, dual socket configurations have traditionally been discouraged by Intel for consumer use and this new AMD configuration is clearly a consumer offering. One notable aspect, though, is that you only have to have one socket populated, providing an upgrade path similar to what Nvidia has with SLI and ATI has with Crossfire."
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/50997.html
I personally will be blown away if this midi pro tower single woodcrest shows up, with the expandability that people demand.
I will be even more stunned if the Mac Pro quads have the expandability that everyone is craving.
But in my wishlist this would be the simplest solution for Apple:
1. Modify the g5 case design slightly
2. Use same motherboard for quad extreme, quad pro, and single-socket-populated dual pro.
3. Have expandable drive bays, PCI Express, PCI slots, etc. that people demand across the range.
4. NO SLI for Mac.
5. Upgrading the dual pro with another woodcrest cpu would be a possible "medium-to-hard" mod.
6. NO watercooling, all air.
That would be "most satisfaction for pros" for "minimal redesign costs".
Originally posted by sunilraman
Huh? That's even more crazy. What will ECC RAM do for gamers????
His point was that since games don't make very much use of SMP, adding a second CPU or CPUs with multiple cores makes as much sense as getting ECC RAM. If you're going to add that second CPU, you might as well add that ECC RAM since none of that stuff will improve your gaming...but at least you'll have a computer that crunches numbers without problems.
Yup, AMD just introduced this "4x4" dual-socket setup for gamers. But I don't imagine there will be much uptake because the multithreading support in games is currently so poor, and the motherboards really aren't any cheaper than the professional stuff. Personally I think it's kinda stupid -- once you've sunk that much cost, you might as well get ECC RAM and have a "real computer"
Yeah I'm starting get your point... you know if you take a PC rig and put a mid-range singlecore Athlon64, the CPU's fine... the graphics card will be the limiting factor.
If you look at Tom's or Anand it's only when you setup 7900superduperGTXXXXXblahblahblah in SLI doing 150+ frames per second (yes, hundred fifty over frames per second OMGWTF) that they've been able to then show differences in frames per second based on Athlon64, Athlon64-X2, Conroe...
Sometimes, the whole PC enthusiast/ gaming/ overclocking world seems so stupid and crazy it boggles the mind. Yet there's tons of branding wars and manufacturers vying for space to push out and sell the latest and greatest, from high-end to low-end, that it's all a self-perpetuating cycle that if you step back for a while, looks ridiculous.
I suppose a hardcore PC enthusiast though might look at our Mac fetishism as quite bizzare as well.
However if you're a Mac fetishist and a PC enthusiast/ overclocker then you've really got issues. Ah, whatever, these hobbies are cheaper than drugs or therapy
And the computer and computer accessory business is important for all those jobs and GDP for many countries. Not to mention then the mobile phone and PDA industry. Hmmm...
(I guess I'm getting reflective here for a moment because being chronically unemployed at the moment, I've got to bite my tongue and look at various jobs that might not jive with my initial haughty philosophy on certain things [eg. I hate windows mobile with a searing passion])
Right now, AMD is introducing this scheme to compete with Conroe and Woodcrest, both of which beat AMD's offerings at games pretty handily. With no major improvements in their K8 line coming (even the K8L is not a major leap), they have to show something, even if it is much more expensive, and uses much more power. I looks like Intel from a year back.
Upgrading the processor is one of the most questionable benefits. A lot of my friends are doing it but than they have old memory (motherboard), old graphics, old HDD interface... And in 6 months they end up with a new computer in the old case. Well, if the old power supply is good enough. I don't think it's wise.
Adding a second processor to an old mobo is even more questionable if not problematic. We had some bad experience with this few years back:
A customer was buying a PC for particular production purposes. The recommended configuration for the software was calling for a dual processor mobo. Then the budget was cut some 20% and our customer had to tweak the configuration here and there. They saved on the second processor with everything else intact including dual-processor version of W2K. "We will by one more in the future, the system will not be fully deployed at the beginning anyway". A year and a half later they wanted to by second processor. But you could not find the same processor anymore, the Pentiums moved to a new process (and improved core) so adding a second processor proved to be problematic. Throwing the old processor and adding 2 new ones would do but due to the other improvements (see above) the customer decided to buy a new computer altogether and reposition the old one for other purposes. Not big savings at the end of the day.
Having an empty processor socket on the mobo (no matter Mac or not) will be a psychological advantage with limited practical benefit IMO. Upgrading after 6 months is a hobbyist approach and after 2 or more years - problematic or waste of money at best.
Originally posted by Placebo
The next-generation heavyweight game engines are multi-core aware. Dismissing dual processors for gaming simply because of current games which are single-core aware is extremely shortsighted, when the Unreal Engine 3, which currently has over two dozen titles licensing it, is dual-core optimized.
That's right.
I also forgot to mention that each of the cores in the 360 has two threads. In a computer, that would show up as six cpu's.
While functionally this is trivial to overcome?just add your own after-market heatsink?I would be surprised if Steve let their customers dirty up the interiors with such a solution easily, and worst case they could pull one of their proprietary wind channel designs that makes such a move impractical.
Also, what's to stop Apple from using similarly clocked Conroe CPUs in the single CPU designs to save cost, considering how much cheaper the Conroes are likely to be? On an upside, I could certainly see Apple releasing a mini-tower configuration with a single Conroe CPU, and relegating the dual Woodcrest designs to full towers.
Originally posted by Placebo
The next-generation heavyweight game engines are multi-core aware. Dismissing dual processors for gaming simply because of current games which are single-core aware is extremely shortsighted, when the Unreal Engine 3, which currently has over two dozen titles licensing it, is dual-core optimized.
Unreal Engine 3 is one of the very few engines that will be SMP-aware.
Sweeney knows his shit...unlike Carmack who's confused and beleaguered about the whole SMP concept (and made a quick escape to phone games...phone games fer christsake, roflollerskates), Sweeney actually has a working, running engine that will push SMP computers to their limits.
Thanks to Ryan Gordon, this engine should make it to Mac and thanks to the awesomeness of UE3, lots of games will use the engine which means porting these games to Mac should be fairly easy once Ryan Gordon releases the Linux and Mac OS X version of Unreal 2k7.
Originally posted by Placebo
The next-generation heavyweight game engines are multi-core aware. Dismissing dual processors for gaming simply because of current games which are single-core aware is extremely shortsighted, when the Unreal Engine 3, which currently has over two dozen titles licensing it, is dual-core optimized.
Yeah, but dual-core is already totally mainstream. How long until gaming is optimized for four cores? I'd be suprised if the scalablity makes these expensive 4x4 systems anywhere worthwhile for the gamer.
Also, let's not stereotype all PC gamers as people who buy ridiculously expensive and over-speced systems -- on the other end of the spectrum a lot of people are overclocking a $100 Pentium-D chip.