Theoretically, yes, Clovertown should work. It is using the same chipset, but there is no guarantee that it will work. It has a higher TDP, so cooling will be an issue.
I haven't seen anything on prices, but I can imagine it'll probally be at least $700 per processor retail.
Theoretically, yes, Clovertown should work. It is using the same chipset, but there is no guarantee that it will work. It has a higher TDP, so cooling will be an issue.
I haven't seen anything on prices, but I can imagine it'll probally be at least $700 per processor retail.
Will apple come out with a bios update to be able use them or will they force you to buy a new mac to get them?
Apple did indeed create a good overall value proposition with the new Mac Pro, in fact I ordered one for myself (huzzah!). But part of me is still bothered by the fact that Apple has, yet again, raised the entry barrier to its pro line. One upon a time, back in ye olden days, PowerMacs started out at around $1,500. Then the entry price jumped to $1,600. Then $1,700. Then $1,800. Lately it has topped out right at $2,000. Today that price is now $2,500.
Now I won't argue that the new Mac Pro isn't good overall value, but you cannot deny that a rather obvious gulf exists between the consumer desktop segment and Apple's Pro line. And it's a pretty damn big one. From anecdotal evidence I can tell you that a vast untapped market of PC users who want a standard non-integrated desktop exists. A $2,500 Mac Pro isn't going to lure them. Apple needs a standalone machine in the sub-grand space.
This topic has probably been beaten to death already, but I feel that it needs repeating if only to help grow Apple's market.
and haveing a high end system with out SLI or CrossFire is also needed to grow Apple's market for high end gameing / video market.
I think that dell, compaq, and others as well as amd's 4x4 system will kill apple on that. Even more so if you can get more ram and 2 good video cards in a 4x4 system for the same price as a mac pro.
I'm not trying to just start an argument with you, but why? Why shouldn't the iMac grow in processing power over the next year or so (until the core 2 replacement comes)? Merom will basically be unchanged over it's lifespan unless Intel changes course. It will peak at 2.3 ghz and offers little over the current core duo. Yes Santa Rosa will come and help a little but really, can you just sit still with the iMac as it is today for the next 1-2 years.
If conroe doesn't go in iMac where does it go? I guess Apple could intro a prosumer headless desktop but a lot of people are turning blue waiting for this. Apple isn't obligated to use Conroe but doesn't it make sense given that Conroe is probably the best chip for the money that Intel has?
I wasn't talking about processing power, I was talking about one machine's life span.
Merom is just the low voltage version of conroe. When one is updated, so will the other. What does conroe have that Merom doesn't? The 965 Broadwater chipset. However to get that you're going to need a system that is more power hungry and louder. It is also going to more failure prone do to the tight space involved. At the end of the day, the iMac is a family computer not a prosumer machine. They are not going to need the small bit of extra speed and something that isn't constantly blowing a fan might appeal to them. Plus, I've said this before, but putting Merom in the current iMac involves writing a new firmware patch and switching the chip supply.
and haveing a high end system with out SLI or CrossFire is also needed to grow Apple's market for high end gameing / video market.
I think that dell, compaq, and others as well as amd's 4x4 system will kill apple on that. Even more so if you can get more ram and 2 good video cards in a 4x4 system for the same price as a mac pro.
The multi-GPU gaming market makes the Mac look as big as everyone around here apparently thinks it is. There are not that many of them and they tend to either build their own or go with a boutique company. Dell found that out the hard way the original XPS form factor. The single slot solution I proposed is as close as you're going to get,
I wasn't talking about processing power, I was talking about one machine's life span.
Merom is just the low voltage version of conroe. When one is updated, so will the other. What does conroe have that Merom doesn't? The 965 Broadwater chipset. However to get that you're going to need a system that is more power hungry and louder. It is also going to more failure prone do to the tight space involved. At the end of the day, the iMac is a family computer not a prosumer machine. They are not going to need the small bit of extra speed and something that isn't constantly blowing a fan might appeal to them. Plus, I've said this before, but putting Merom in the current iMac involves writing a new firmware patch and switching the chip supply.
Well Ben I take a different view I guess. The iMac in my estimation is more than just a consumer machine. It has to be that plus a little prosumer as well IMO. Look at the gulf (performance wise) that now exists between the iMac and the Mac Pro. While Merom and Conroe do have much in common, Conroe clocks much higher and has a greater FSB. I think it will prove to be considerably faster than Merom. I guess I just don't want a nonportable laptop.
The problem is that Apple doesn't make such a machine and everyone has to make do with what they offer. A machine that has a single hard drive, notebook optical drive, and non-replaceable display is far from what a prosumer wants.
The problem is that Apple doesn't make such a machine and everyone has to make do with what they offer. A machine that has a single hard drive, notebook optical drive, and non-replaceable display is far from what a prosumer wants.
Unfortunately that sums up our quagmire, in a nutshell. The mantra of the Mac experience seems to be..."make do with what Apple offers". In my case, that leaves me paying far more for a machine that really doesn't meet my needs simply to acquire a decent non-integrated system. I had originally expected to spend somewhere between $1,800 - $2,000 for Apple's PowerMac successor. Today I am now in the hole for more than $2,600. Thanks Apple!
I have one dumb question and one...well maybe two dumb questions.
1. Does the Mac Pro include all four Hard Drive bays, even if you don't order four hard drives from Apple? With the xServe, I think you had to buy the trays separate if you didn't order it full of drives to begin with.
2. How does the stock Geforce 7300 GT fair in Apple's Motion vs the Radeon X1900 XT?
Being extremely price/performance competitive with workstations and servers is a great move on Apple's part. My understanding is that Dell sells their consumer machines at cuthroat price and try to make up for it in the higher end market. With the adoption of Intel's Xeon, Apple is in a position to kick some ass. Apple's incredibly elegant case (the interior) is just icing on the cake.
XP has issues with going beyond two core, at least in the client Professional version. Home doesn't even see the second processor. PPC apps should be on dual-2.3 PM levels (as a Wild Ass Guess), unless it's Altivec heavy.
Only thing that miffs me is that the RAM is 667 versus 800 but whatever, the rest is great!
The system is not only running quad channel RAM, the memory bandwidth matches the combined bandwidth of the dual FSBs. You probably aren't going to get a lot better than that until the FSB is upped.
I hope you're wrong. Yes the iMac would require a redesign but better now than later.
The same iMac enclosure handled the G5 pretty well, and quietly, Core Duo used the iSight G5 iMac case. Going to Conroe instead of Merom would save Apple about $100 per chip.
Dell has that beat. Max out a Precision 690 workstation and you'd be out nearly $70k. But then, they offer the ability to run 5x 15kRPM SAS drives, 64GB of RAM, hardware RAID, SLI, four years on-site support and a few other goodies. The figure used to be $80k a month ago, but I think the cost of the RAM went down a bit.
Oops. I mistyped that. I meant to say Apple needs a standalone machine in the sub-two grand space.
Actually, if you downgrade the processor to the 2.0 ghz cores and the HD down to 160 gb, the price for the Mac Pro is $2124 full retail and $1924 with education discount.. That's a smokin deal for a four core machine and pretty darn close to the $2000 space.
XP has issues with going beyond two core, at least in the client Professional version. Home doesn't even see the second processor. PPC apps should be on dual-2.3 PM levels (as a Wild Ass Guess), unless it's Altivec heavy.
I wonder if MS is going 2 have 2 tweak XP to work with these new machines . I guess thats why they don't want to further develop Virtual PC.
Comments
Not that I need that much power or have that much money, just wondering.
I haven't seen anything on prices, but I can imagine it'll probally be at least $700 per processor retail.
Theoretically, yes, Clovertown should work. It is using the same chipset, but there is no guarantee that it will work. It has a higher TDP, so cooling will be an issue.
I haven't seen anything on prices, but I can imagine it'll probally be at least $700 per processor retail.
Will apple come out with a bios update to be able use them or will they force you to buy a new mac to get them?
Apple did indeed create a good overall value proposition with the new Mac Pro, in fact I ordered one for myself (huzzah!). But part of me is still bothered by the fact that Apple has, yet again, raised the entry barrier to its pro line. One upon a time, back in ye olden days, PowerMacs started out at around $1,500. Then the entry price jumped to $1,600. Then $1,700. Then $1,800. Lately it has topped out right at $2,000. Today that price is now $2,500.
Now I won't argue that the new Mac Pro isn't good overall value, but you cannot deny that a rather obvious gulf exists between the consumer desktop segment and Apple's Pro line. And it's a pretty damn big one. From anecdotal evidence I can tell you that a vast untapped market of PC users who want a standard non-integrated desktop exists. A $2,500 Mac Pro isn't going to lure them. Apple needs a standalone machine in the sub-grand space.
This topic has probably been beaten to death already, but I feel that it needs repeating if only to help grow Apple's market.
and haveing a high end system with out SLI or CrossFire is also needed to grow Apple's market for high end gameing / video market.
I think that dell, compaq, and others as well as amd's 4x4 system will kill apple on that. Even more so if you can get more ram and 2 good video cards in a 4x4 system for the same price as a mac pro.
I'm not trying to just start an argument with you, but why? Why shouldn't the iMac grow in processing power over the next year or so (until the core 2 replacement comes)? Merom will basically be unchanged over it's lifespan unless Intel changes course. It will peak at 2.3 ghz and offers little over the current core duo. Yes Santa Rosa will come and help a little but really, can you just sit still with the iMac as it is today for the next 1-2 years.
If conroe doesn't go in iMac where does it go? I guess Apple could intro a prosumer headless desktop but a lot of people are turning blue waiting for this. Apple isn't obligated to use Conroe but doesn't it make sense given that Conroe is probably the best chip for the money that Intel has?
I wasn't talking about processing power, I was talking about one machine's life span.
Merom is just the low voltage version of conroe. When one is updated, so will the other. What does conroe have that Merom doesn't? The 965 Broadwater chipset. However to get that you're going to need a system that is more power hungry and louder. It is also going to more failure prone do to the tight space involved. At the end of the day, the iMac is a family computer not a prosumer machine. They are not going to need the small bit of extra speed and something that isn't constantly blowing a fan might appeal to them. Plus, I've said this before, but putting Merom in the current iMac involves writing a new firmware patch and switching the chip supply.
and haveing a high end system with out SLI or CrossFire is also needed to grow Apple's market for high end gameing / video market.
I think that dell, compaq, and others as well as amd's 4x4 system will kill apple on that. Even more so if you can get more ram and 2 good video cards in a 4x4 system for the same price as a mac pro.
The multi-GPU gaming market makes the Mac look as big as everyone around here apparently thinks it is. There are not that many of them and they tend to either build their own or go with a boutique company. Dell found that out the hard way the original XPS form factor. The single slot solution I proposed is as close as you're going to get,
I wasn't talking about processing power, I was talking about one machine's life span.
Merom is just the low voltage version of conroe. When one is updated, so will the other. What does conroe have that Merom doesn't? The 965 Broadwater chipset. However to get that you're going to need a system that is more power hungry and louder. It is also going to more failure prone do to the tight space involved. At the end of the day, the iMac is a family computer not a prosumer machine. They are not going to need the small bit of extra speed and something that isn't constantly blowing a fan might appeal to them. Plus, I've said this before, but putting Merom in the current iMac involves writing a new firmware patch and switching the chip supply.
Well Ben I take a different view I guess. The iMac in my estimation is more than just a consumer machine. It has to be that plus a little prosumer as well IMO. Look at the gulf (performance wise) that now exists between the iMac and the Mac Pro. While Merom and Conroe do have much in common, Conroe clocks much higher and has a greater FSB. I think it will prove to be considerably faster than Merom. I guess I just don't want a nonportable laptop.
The problem is that Apple doesn't make such a machine and everyone has to make do with what they offer. A machine that has a single hard drive, notebook optical drive, and non-replaceable display is far from what a prosumer wants.
Unfortunately that sums up our quagmire, in a nutshell. The mantra of the Mac experience seems to be..."make do with what Apple offers". In my case, that leaves me paying far more for a machine that really doesn't meet my needs simply to acquire a decent non-integrated system. I had originally expected to spend somewhere between $1,800 - $2,000 for Apple's PowerMac successor. Today I am now in the hole for more than $2,600. Thanks Apple!
The best part.
I say, I say the best part is this:
A fully tricked out Mac Pro from the Apple Store worked out to . . .
Wait for it . . .
$17,981.81 with tax of course.
Yeah man. Apple sells an $18k computer.
In the stupefied words of Keanu Reeves:
Woah.
1. Does the Mac Pro include all four Hard Drive bays, even if you don't order four hard drives from Apple? With the xServe, I think you had to buy the trays separate if you didn't order it full of drives to begin with.
2. How does the stock Geforce 7300 GT fair in Apple's Motion vs the Radeon X1900 XT?
Being extremely price/performance competitive with workstations and servers is a great move on Apple's part. My understanding is that Dell sells their consumer machines at cuthroat price and try to make up for it in the higher end market. With the adoption of Intel's Xeon, Apple is in a position to kick some ass. Apple's incredibly elegant case (the interior) is just icing on the cake.
Only thing that miffs me is that the RAM is 667 versus 800 but whatever, the rest is great!
The system is not only running quad channel RAM, the memory bandwidth matches the combined bandwidth of the dual FSBs. You probably aren't going to get a lot better than that until the FSB is upped.
I hope you're wrong. Yes the iMac would require a redesign but better now than later.
The same iMac enclosure handled the G5 pretty well, and quietly, Core Duo used the iSight G5 iMac case. Going to Conroe instead of Merom would save Apple about $100 per chip.
Wait. Wait.
Yeah man. Apple sells an $18k computer.
In the stupefied words of Keanu Reeves:
Dell has that beat. Max out a Precision 690 workstation and you'd be out nearly $70k. But then, they offer the ability to run 5x 15kRPM SAS drives, 64GB of RAM, hardware RAID, SLI, four years on-site support and a few other goodies. The figure used to be $80k a month ago, but I think the cost of the RAM went down a bit.
Oops. I mistyped that. I meant to say Apple needs a standalone machine in the sub-two grand space.
Actually, if you downgrade the processor to the 2.0 ghz cores and the HD down to 160 gb, the price for the Mac Pro is $2124 full retail and $1924 with education discount.. That's a smokin deal for a four core machine and pretty darn close to the $2000 space.
XP has issues with going beyond two core, at least in the client Professional version. Home doesn't even see the second processor. PPC apps should be on dual-2.3 PM levels (as a Wild Ass Guess), unless it's Altivec heavy.
I wonder if MS is going 2 have 2 tweak XP to work with these new machines
Wait. Wait.
The best part.
I say, I say the best part is this:
A fully tricked out Mac Pro from the Apple Store worked out to . . .
Wait for it . . .
$17,981.81 with tax of course.
Yeah man. Apple sells an $18k computer.
In the stupefied words of Keanu Reeves:
Woah.
Is that with or without the afterburner? Now that we have Time Machine, I sure hope it enables Sliding....