"First we can probably agree that most mini sales will go to the new xMac $399-$1499 lineup. I padded the number by $100 to $499 rather than pick the $399 number."
And the margins and net profit on an xMac in this range would be better than the mini's(ie: cheaper cpu, cheaper/faster hard-drive)
I commend your attempts and numbers, but without meaningful data on the % sales of each model of iMac and Mac mini and what Apple's margins and net profits are on each model, we could argue these numbers endlessly and come to no real conclusions. uh, er, oh wait that is what we have been doing, nevermind, continue, your analysis is interesting.
There are a lot of people in this thread that disagree with that. I personally feel a $1500 tower wouldn't be a cube all over again. It would be like the low end powermacs in the g3 and g4 days. Every powermac started at 1500. Not $2200. That is 700 more than the oldschoolers were used to buying low end powermacs. About every 2-3 years I was buying a new powermac. Actually this trend started with me in 1993 when I bought a powermac 6100 for 1500. Up until the dual 2.0 g5 I bought for 2k in 2004. Every mac I bought between those dates were towers and between 1500 and 2000. These were well selling machines. All of this seemed to change with the switch to IBM... the 1500 dollar tower seemed to disappear! Why? Probably because the cpu's skyrocketed in price. That is about all I can think of. Or apple wanted more profit?
I agree with you 100% The last Mac desktop I bought was a Blue and White G3. Best Computer I've ever owned by far. Nothing that Apple's made since has been able to live up to it for the equivalent price. I've owned all in ones before I've used iMacs before and quite frankly the experience wasn't so great. For novices or light duty users the iMac is a great machine. The problem is that there is more to the computer industry than novices or professionals. Apple has nothing in between, so I'm stuck with a laptop for the light duty stuff and a PC doing the heavy lifting.
I know I'm a bit late to the discussion but why position the new tower at the low end? Wouldn't it make more sense positioned as a 'prosumer' machine? Say with a 2.4 ghz conroe and a 2.6 ghz conroe one expansion slot and priced starting at say $1200 USD. (I know I've not put in all the specs)
That's what I'm kinda calling for, except for foregoing the extra engineering costs and using the Mac Pro case. The novices are well covered.
Sure. Why not. The only caveat I've had with that is that it's a lot simpler for Apple to simply remove a Woodcrest than build a new MB and Conroe line. Plus they get to maintain their server part volume if not increase it a bit.
Other than the FB-DIMM slowdown a single 3Ghz Woodcrest isn't a shabby machine...
Vinea
Yes, it's a great machine, but $3300 is about double of what I'm willing to spend.
"First we can probably agree that most mini sales will go to the new xMac $399-$1499 lineup. I padded the number by $100 to $499 rather than pick the $399 number."
And the margins and net profit on an xMac in this range would be better than the mini's(ie: cheaper cpu, cheaper/faster hard-drive)
No, using Mr. H's model (as I understand it anyway) Apple maintains the 28% margins and simply moves prices down accordingly to gain share. I can pretty much be safe in assuming that Dell/HP/et al AREN'T making 28% margins in this price category.
Quote:
I commend your attempts and numbers, but without meaningful data on the % sales of each model of iMac and Mac mini and what Apple's margins and net profits are on each model, we could argue these numbers endlessly and come to no real conclusions. uh, er, oh wait that is what we have been doing, nevermind, continue, your analysis is interesting.
Like I said, its a rough analysis. Lies, damn lies and market projections...you can make those look like anything.
Heck, if you put growth rate at 50% it's an instant no brainer. Make that spreadsheet as favorable to Mr. H as you like.
Here's the rub...we have lousy visibility into these numbers. Apple has much better visbility and much better models than simple multiplication in a spreadsheet. Its easy to show that if you can sustain X+1% growth its a no brainer long term over X% growth.
Yet Apple doesn't do this. Why? Because they like leaving $2B on the table? That can't be the right answer. They're timid? Doesn't seem that way. Steve Jobs/Apple is too idealistic to do real man's business (the Michael Dell theory)? Um. Perhaps partially...but Dell is eating them words today. Market projections of rapid growth in a mature market against entrenched market leaders is risky risky business? Bingo.
Yes, it's a great machine, but $3300 is about double of what I'm willing to spend.
Eh...a 2.66Ghz Woodcrest box from Dell is $2K. By Q2 with the quad cores in full swing you might get a 3Ghz for that or less with the 2.66 Ghz hopefully down to that $1700 price point. Meh...we'd have to see Intel's speed roadmap for 2007-8 to guess when the price drops would be.
I know I'm a bit late to the discussion but why position the new tower at the low end? Wouldn't it make more sense positioned as a 'prosumer' machine? Say with a 2.4 ghz conroe and a 2.6 ghz conroe one expansion slot and priced starting at say $1200 USD. (I know I've not put in all the specs)
I guess that these machines lives in Mr. H's xMac line up at those price points so the "why not" is covered in those long winded analysis above.
The short version is I think iMacs get trashed and the average unit price takes a dip unless you can make it up in monitor sales leading to keeping the same margins but Apple making less profit overall.
The primary advantage in the low end Pro is a) it meets the need a little better for those that want a tower but don't want to spend $2K+ and b) Intel discounts on volume and keeping to the more expensive Xeons keeps your volume up a bit for better discounts while still offering a $1600-$1700 machine.
Eh...a 2.66Ghz Woodcrest box from Dell is $2K. By Q2 with the quad cores in full swing you might get a 3Ghz for that or less with the 2.66 Ghz hopefully down to that $1700 price point. Meh...we'd have to see Intel's speed roadmap for 2007-8 to guess when the price drops would be.
Vinea
I configured two dell workstations, the 390 and the 490, with the exact same same set up single 2.66ghz CPU with 1GB 667mhz RAM, a 250 GB hard drive, 16x DVD-burner and the low end video card.
The Xeon based 490 came in at $2227
The C2D based 390 came in at $1742
An approximately $500 difference for a second CPU slot, workstation motherboard, and extra 8GB of ram which would be of no use to a prosumer. If you want the Xeon name, Conroe is also available as the Xeon 3000 series.
And if I were your average switcher looking to get a Mac, I would see the iMac that looks cooler and has a monitor for only $75 more and NOT buy the tower.
I'd like to add a comment to my first reply. I was focused on component cost for the 17 inch LCD panel and was ignoring the added assembly and testing costs associated with the iMac display. I now think the "equal dollar profit" price of a mini tower would be closer to $100, not $75. It's a minor point, but a tower could sell for $1099 as opposed to the $1199 iMac, with comparable specifications.
Indeed I haven't. Neither you nor anyone else said anything to convince me that [$399 to $799 towers] would cannibalise sales of the iMac any more significantly than the current Mac Mini.
I agree, and it seems obvious. Mac users can purchase the Mac Mini right now, so we know the market split between the Mini and iMac, or at least Apple has these figures. Why would a little tower with almost identical specifications and performance change anything? I am assuming the cheap tower, being cheaper, would replace the Mac Mini.
Now the only real marketing difference I see is that a little tower might be more attractive to switchers, but those would mostly be additional sales, not sales taken away from the iMac.
Quote:
I have already suggested that my proposal would impact negatively on revenue and earnings for the first year or so, but in a minor fashion, and then start to impact positively.
I don't think there would be any negative impact. To the contrary, attracting more switchers could only be a positive impact. Unless of course you are suggesting a lower profit. Personally, I'd go for the same dollar profit strategy here, even if it mean raising the $399 starting point.
I have a few observations here. First, I had been proposing a redesigned, larger Mac Mini for the entry level, using standard drives and CPUs to keep cost down. Yet, the tower concept is appealing to me also.
I do not believe your low-end tower should be anything like the mid range prosumer tower we have discussed in this thread. I now see this prosumer version starting at $1099, going up to about $1999, for typical upgrades in CPU, graphics card, HDD capacity, second HDD, and RAM. The case and power supply for this model would cost more than necessary for an entry level box.
I sort of like the idea of a micro tower, maybe no more than 8 inches high. The case could be a strong white plastic, and it may be restricted to just one PCI-e card. Apples industrial design team could come with a beautiful design on this I think, though it would lack the 'class' of the prosumer tower.
Basically, the micro tower would have integrated graphics, which could be upgraded with the PCI-e slot, if it is not used for something else. The power supply need not equal the prosumer tower supply, with only one slot on board. I may differ with you in that I suggest a desktop CPU over laptop, to keep cost down. With the tower configuration, there should be no problem cooling the lower performance CPUs.
I configured two dell workstations, the 390 and the 490, with the exact same same set up single 2.66ghz CPU with 1GB 667mhz RAM, a 250 GB hard drive, 16x DVD-burner and the low end video card.
The Xeon based 490 came in at $2227
The C2D based 390 came in at $1742
An approximately $500 difference for a second CPU slot, workstation motherboard, and extra 8GB of ram which would be of no use to a prosumer. If you want the Xeon name, Conroe is also available as the Xeon 3000 series.
Wierd...mine came out to $2,348 and $1723 with those specs. Mmmm...difference business segment? I must have picked something different. I didn't bump the disk drives when I had that closer to $2,0xx number.
Anyway, yes a Conroe would be cheaper. And I've got no objections to the notion that Apple could offer a $1699 E6700 machine.
The caveat is the for whatever reason Apple's 2.66Ghz Woodcrest box is a better deal by $400 than you can get at Dell and the BTO pricing moving up and down don't seem to match Intel's price list. Still, $2027 > $1742 even if you give Apple a magical $200 price break.
The other minor point is that Dell sells a lot of Conroe boxes. I'm going to guess they will pay less than Apple for the E6700. There's no way Apple gets the same volume discount.
I sort of like the idea of a micro tower, maybe no more than 8 inches high.
And 8 inches wide and deep? Its called a Cube. Sell it for $1499 with a 2.33 Merom, GMA X3000, 250GB HD, wireless, bluetooth, remote and a single 16x PCIe slot and it should be a winner. A bit pricey but not nearly as bad as the original cube.
If you think its too pricey with a GMA toss in a mid range vid card and allow folks the BTO that away.
Apple is rumored to be doing some AMD chips. That seems silly to me unless the Intel supply hiccup is more than a temporary glitch but you can do a AMD X2 for cheap...within the $399 pricepoint (Dell's slim tower C521 is a AMD64 X2 3200 for $371). That's not too shabby a machine...probably as good as the current low end minis when you factor in the faster desktop drive performance.
Vinea
What about a MAC PRO GAMER
AMD 4x4 system
High end video
SLI with 2-4 video cards AMD 4x4 can use 4 video cards at x16 x8 x16 x8 as A BTO
High end sound blaster XFI
Hard ware SATA II Raid card in on of the pci-e slots as A BTO?
DESKTOP RAM Up to 4 gig / 8 gig?
4 gig-e ports with hardware offloading and teaming are part chip set for AMD 4X4
I just want to restate the bulk price of the CPUs we're talking about:
MEROM- - -CONROE
1.66 $209 - 1.86 $183
1.83 $241 - 2.13 $224
2.00 $294 - 2.40 $316
2.16 $423 - 2.66 $530
2.33 $637 - 2.93 $999 or quad 2.66 $999
- - - - - - - future quad 2.40 $851
You can see that Conroe is cheaper than Merom at any speed.
And there are no mobile GMA X3000 yet (will come with Santa Rosa...). So no Merom with GMA3000.
The choice today if between a 945 motherboard (Yonah/Merom) or a 965/975 motherboard (Conroe/Kentsfield).
If the enclosure is big enough to passively cool a Conroe, it would certainly be a better choice, faster for the same price, and a faster FSB too (667 vs 1066).
Whatever enclosure would be chosen, cube or small tower, it would cost less than any iMac enclosure+display. And to simpify the comparaisons, lets say other components cost the same...
I believe we would have the following battles:
17" 1.83 iMac vs 2.13 xMac $999 (512MB RAM, Combo, GMA, etc...) -$17 on the CPU
17" 2.00 iMac vs 2.40 xMac $1199 (1GB RAM, Superdrive, GMA, etc...) +$22 on the CPU, but GMA vs X1600 GPU
20" 2.16 iMac vs 2.66 xMac $1499 (1GB RAM, Superdrive, 7300GT, etc...) +$107 on the CPU but cost of 20" LCD vs 17" LCD
24" 2.16 iMac vs 2.93 xMac or quad 2.66 xMac $1999 (the same) +$576 on the CPU, but cost of 24" LCD...
So for the same price you could have:
- a faster computer without display,
or
- a slower but very good looking and silent all-in-one.
Have a display, need/want room for expansion... buy a xMac.
You just need a computer with everything inside... buy an iMac.
And if you bundle the 2.13 xMac with a 20" Apple display, it will cost $1698 which is more than the 20" iMac.
And if you bundle it with a real cheap 17" display (ViewSonic VA702SB Silver-Black $169), it will cost already $1168, for $31 more you can have the 2.00GHz 17" iMac...
I didn't used the 1.86 Conroe because it is only $41 cheaper than the 2.13 version.
And the future quad 2.40 could use the sweet $1799 spot.
I think this would please both the iMac lovers and the xMac fanatics.
SLI with 2-4 video cards AMD 4x4 can use 4 video cards at x16 x8 x16 x8 as A BTO
High end sound blaster XFI
Hard ware SATA II Raid card in on of the pci-e slots as A BTO?
DESKTOP RAM Up to 4 gig / 8 gig?
4 gig-e ports with hardware offloading and teaming are part chip set for AMD 4X4
Not sure how much you're keeping up on the Quad SLI, but all tests so far have rendered NO increase in performance. Refer to Maximum PC last month. They weren't sure if it was a driver issue or a software issue or a hardware issue. But they were pretty underwhelmed.
I really don't know how often mac users will even use SLI. I can see 3d developers use it. And the gamers that use windows on their macs. Also I see absolutely no reason to go with AMD over intel. The cpu's are about the same price yet intel stomps on amd in performance. AMD x2 5000+ is about the same price as the e6600. Why would apple want to kill their quantity discount with intel in order to have a weaker desktop? BTW this is coming from an ex-amd fan. The sound card is interesting. I do think apple needs a better sound processor. Realtek just doesn't cut it.
You can find a faster/cheaper Conroe for any Merom chips available.
the 2.66 Conroe cheaper than the 2.33 Merom
the 2.40 Conroe cheaper than the 2.16 Merom
the 2.13 Conroe cheaper than the 2.00 and the 1.83 Merom
the 1.86 Conroe cheaper than the 1.66 Merom
Only the 2.93 Conroe and Quad-core Kentsfield are more expensive than Merom (but they also are another class).
I don't think the xMac needs to sit exactly between the iMac and the Mac Pro, to have to be clocked more than the iMac and less than the Mac Pro...? Even at YOUR prices there will be compared...
But anyway:
$1199 or $1249 for the 2.40 xMac OK $50, why the odd price?
$1499 or $1699 for the 2.66 xMac, why the $450 premium? Should be $220-300 max.
$1999 or $2499 for the 2.93 xMac, why the $800 premium? Should be $470-500 max. And why the $2499 price tag that's already the 2.66 Mac Pro slot.
I think that the 2.93 or quad xMac (using 2.66 Kentsfield $999), has be cheaper than the quad 2.66 Xeon Mac Pro.
Anyway, having a couple of xMacs in the $1199-1699 range, would be good enough for me!
PS: don't forget the additional HD bays and (at YOUR price) no less than 3 PCIe slots (one being 16x is enough, nothing too fancy).
Comments
And the margins and net profit on an xMac in this range would be better than the mini's(ie: cheaper cpu, cheaper/faster hard-drive)
I commend your attempts and numbers, but without meaningful data on the % sales of each model of iMac and Mac mini and what Apple's margins and net profits are on each model, we could argue these numbers endlessly and come to no real conclusions. uh, er, oh wait that is what we have been doing, nevermind, continue, your analysis is interesting.
There are a lot of people in this thread that disagree with that. I personally feel a $1500 tower wouldn't be a cube all over again. It would be like the low end powermacs in the g3 and g4 days. Every powermac started at 1500. Not $2200. That is 700 more than the oldschoolers were used to buying low end powermacs. About every 2-3 years I was buying a new powermac. Actually this trend started with me in 1993 when I bought a powermac 6100 for 1500. Up until the dual 2.0 g5 I bought for 2k in 2004. Every mac I bought between those dates were towers and between 1500 and 2000. These were well selling machines. All of this seemed to change with the switch to IBM... the 1500 dollar tower seemed to disappear! Why? Probably because the cpu's skyrocketed in price. That is about all I can think of. Or apple wanted more profit?
I agree with you 100% The last Mac desktop I bought was a Blue and White G3. Best Computer I've ever owned by far. Nothing that Apple's made since has been able to live up to it for the equivalent price. I've owned all in ones before I've used iMacs before and quite frankly the experience wasn't so great. For novices or light duty users the iMac is a great machine. The problem is that there is more to the computer industry than novices or professionals. Apple has nothing in between, so I'm stuck with a laptop for the light duty stuff and a PC doing the heavy lifting.
Vinea,
I know I'm a bit late to the discussion but why position the new tower at the low end? Wouldn't it make more sense positioned as a 'prosumer' machine? Say with a 2.4 ghz conroe and a 2.6 ghz conroe one expansion slot and priced starting at say $1200 USD. (I know I've not put in all the specs)
That's what I'm kinda calling for, except for foregoing the extra engineering costs and using the Mac Pro case. The novices are well covered.
Sure. Why not. The only caveat I've had with that is that it's a lot simpler for Apple to simply remove a Woodcrest than build a new MB and Conroe line. Plus they get to maintain their server part volume if not increase it a bit.
Other than the FB-DIMM slowdown a single 3Ghz Woodcrest isn't a shabby machine...
Vinea
Yes, it's a great machine, but $3300 is about double of what I'm willing to spend.
"First we can probably agree that most mini sales will go to the new xMac $399-$1499 lineup. I padded the number by $100 to $499 rather than pick the $399 number."
And the margins and net profit on an xMac in this range would be better than the mini's(ie: cheaper cpu, cheaper/faster hard-drive)
No, using Mr. H's model (as I understand it anyway) Apple maintains the 28% margins and simply moves prices down accordingly to gain share. I can pretty much be safe in assuming that Dell/HP/et al AREN'T making 28% margins in this price category.
I commend your attempts and numbers, but without meaningful data on the % sales of each model of iMac and Mac mini and what Apple's margins and net profits are on each model, we could argue these numbers endlessly and come to no real conclusions. uh, er, oh wait that is what we have been doing, nevermind, continue, your analysis is interesting.
Like I said, its a rough analysis. Lies, damn lies and market projections...you can make those look like anything.
Heck, if you put growth rate at 50% it's an instant no brainer. Make that spreadsheet as favorable to Mr. H as you like.
Here's the rub...we have lousy visibility into these numbers. Apple has much better visbility and much better models than simple multiplication in a spreadsheet. Its easy to show that if you can sustain X+1% growth its a no brainer long term over X% growth.
Yet Apple doesn't do this. Why? Because they like leaving $2B on the table? That can't be the right answer. They're timid? Doesn't seem that way. Steve Jobs/Apple is too idealistic to do real man's business (the Michael Dell theory)? Um. Perhaps partially...but Dell is eating them words today. Market projections of rapid growth in a mature market against entrenched market leaders is risky risky business? Bingo.
Vinea
Yes, it's a great machine, but $3300 is about double of what I'm willing to spend.
Eh...a 2.66Ghz Woodcrest box from Dell is $2K. By Q2 with the quad cores in full swing you might get a 3Ghz for that or less with the 2.66 Ghz hopefully down to that $1700 price point. Meh...we'd have to see Intel's speed roadmap for 2007-8 to guess when the price drops would be.
Vinea
Vinea,
I know I'm a bit late to the discussion but why position the new tower at the low end? Wouldn't it make more sense positioned as a 'prosumer' machine? Say with a 2.4 ghz conroe and a 2.6 ghz conroe one expansion slot and priced starting at say $1200 USD. (I know I've not put in all the specs)
I guess that these machines lives in Mr. H's xMac line up at those price points so the "why not" is covered in those long winded analysis above.
The short version is I think iMacs get trashed and the average unit price takes a dip unless you can make it up in monitor sales leading to keeping the same margins but Apple making less profit overall.
The primary advantage in the low end Pro is a) it meets the need a little better for those that want a tower but don't want to spend $2K+ and b) Intel discounts on volume and keeping to the more expensive Xeons keeps your volume up a bit for better discounts while still offering a $1600-$1700 machine.
Vinea
Eh...a 2.66Ghz Woodcrest box from Dell is $2K. By Q2 with the quad cores in full swing you might get a 3Ghz for that or less with the 2.66 Ghz hopefully down to that $1700 price point. Meh...we'd have to see Intel's speed roadmap for 2007-8 to guess when the price drops would be.
Vinea
I configured two dell workstations, the 390 and the 490, with the exact same same set up single 2.66ghz CPU with 1GB 667mhz RAM, a 250 GB hard drive, 16x DVD-burner and the low end video card.
The Xeon based 490 came in at $2227
The C2D based 390 came in at $1742
An approximately $500 difference for a second CPU slot, workstation motherboard, and extra 8GB of ram which would be of no use to a prosumer. If you want the Xeon name, Conroe is also available as the Xeon 3000 series.
And if I were your average switcher looking to get a Mac, I would see the iMac that looks cooler and has a monitor for only $75 more and NOT buy the tower.
I'd like to add a comment to my first reply. I was focused on component cost for the 17 inch LCD panel and was ignoring the added assembly and testing costs associated with the iMac display. I now think the "equal dollar profit" price of a mini tower would be closer to $100, not $75. It's a minor point, but a tower could sell for $1099 as opposed to the $1199 iMac, with comparable specifications.
Indeed I haven't. Neither you nor anyone else said anything to convince me that [$399 to $799 towers] would cannibalise sales of the iMac any more significantly than the current Mac Mini.
I agree, and it seems obvious. Mac users can purchase the Mac Mini right now, so we know the market split between the Mini and iMac, or at least Apple has these figures. Why would a little tower with almost identical specifications and performance change anything? I am assuming the cheap tower, being cheaper, would replace the Mac Mini.
Now the only real marketing difference I see is that a little tower might be more attractive to switchers, but those would mostly be additional sales, not sales taken away from the iMac.
I have already suggested that my proposal would impact negatively on revenue and earnings for the first year or so, but in a minor fashion, and then start to impact positively.
I don't think there would be any negative impact. To the contrary, attracting more switchers could only be a positive impact. Unless of course you are suggesting a lower profit. Personally, I'd go for the same dollar profit strategy here, even if it mean raising the $399 starting point.
I have a few observations here. First, I had been proposing a redesigned, larger Mac Mini for the entry level, using standard drives and CPUs to keep cost down. Yet, the tower concept is appealing to me also.
I do not believe your low-end tower should be anything like the mid range prosumer tower we have discussed in this thread. I now see this prosumer version starting at $1099, going up to about $1999, for typical upgrades in CPU, graphics card, HDD capacity, second HDD, and RAM. The case and power supply for this model would cost more than necessary for an entry level box.
I sort of like the idea of a micro tower, maybe no more than 8 inches high. The case could be a strong white plastic, and it may be restricted to just one PCI-e card. Apples industrial design team could come with a beautiful design on this I think, though it would lack the 'class' of the prosumer tower.
Basically, the micro tower would have integrated graphics, which could be upgraded with the PCI-e slot, if it is not used for something else. The power supply need not equal the prosumer tower supply, with only one slot on board. I may differ with you in that I suggest a desktop CPU over laptop, to keep cost down. With the tower configuration, there should be no problem cooling the lower performance CPUs.
I configured two dell workstations, the 390 and the 490, with the exact same same set up single 2.66ghz CPU with 1GB 667mhz RAM, a 250 GB hard drive, 16x DVD-burner and the low end video card.
The Xeon based 490 came in at $2227
The C2D based 390 came in at $1742
An approximately $500 difference for a second CPU slot, workstation motherboard, and extra 8GB of ram which would be of no use to a prosumer. If you want the Xeon name, Conroe is also available as the Xeon 3000 series.
Wierd...mine came out to $2,348 and $1723 with those specs. Mmmm...difference business segment? I must have picked something different. I didn't bump the disk drives when I had that closer to $2,0xx number.
Anyway, yes a Conroe would be cheaper. And I've got no objections to the notion that Apple could offer a $1699 E6700 machine.
The caveat is the for whatever reason Apple's 2.66Ghz Woodcrest box is a better deal by $400 than you can get at Dell and the BTO pricing moving up and down don't seem to match Intel's price list. Still, $2027 > $1742 even if you give Apple a magical $200 price break.
The other minor point is that Dell sells a lot of Conroe boxes. I'm going to guess they will pay less than Apple for the E6700. There's no way Apple gets the same volume discount.
Vinea
I sort of like the idea of a micro tower, maybe no more than 8 inches high.
And 8 inches wide and deep? Its called a Cube. Sell it for $1499 with a 2.33 Merom, GMA X3000, 250GB HD, wireless, bluetooth, remote and a single 16x PCIe slot and it should be a winner. A bit pricey but not nearly as bad as the original cube.
If you think its too pricey with a GMA toss in a mid range vid card and allow folks the BTO that away.
Vinea
Apple is rumored to be doing some AMD chips. That seems silly to me unless the Intel supply hiccup is more than a temporary glitch but you can do a AMD X2 for cheap...within the $399 pricepoint (Dell's slim tower C521 is a AMD64 X2 3200 for $371). That's not too shabby a machine...probably as good as the current low end minis when you factor in the faster desktop drive performance.
Vinea
What about a MAC PRO GAMER
AMD 4x4 system
High end video
SLI with 2-4 video cards AMD 4x4 can use 4 video cards at x16 x8 x16 x8 as A BTO
High end sound blaster XFI
Hard ware SATA II Raid card in on of the pci-e slots as A BTO?
DESKTOP RAM Up to 4 gig / 8 gig?
4 gig-e ports with hardware offloading and teaming are part chip set for AMD 4X4
MEROM- - -CONROE
1.66 $209 - 1.86 $183
1.83 $241 - 2.13 $224
2.00 $294 - 2.40 $316
2.16 $423 - 2.66 $530
2.33 $637 - 2.93 $999 or quad 2.66 $999
- - - - - - - future quad 2.40 $851
You can see that Conroe is cheaper than Merom at any speed.
And there are no mobile GMA X3000 yet (will come with Santa Rosa...). So no Merom with GMA3000.
The choice today if between a 945 motherboard (Yonah/Merom) or a 965/975 motherboard (Conroe/Kentsfield).
If the enclosure is big enough to passively cool a Conroe, it would certainly be a better choice, faster for the same price, and a faster FSB too (667 vs 1066).
Whatever enclosure would be chosen, cube or small tower, it would cost less than any iMac enclosure+display. And to simpify the comparaisons, lets say other components cost the same...
I believe we would have the following battles:
17" 1.83 iMac vs 2.13 xMac $999 (512MB RAM, Combo, GMA, etc...) -$17 on the CPU
17" 2.00 iMac vs 2.40 xMac $1199 (1GB RAM, Superdrive, GMA, etc...) +$22 on the CPU, but GMA vs X1600 GPU
20" 2.16 iMac vs 2.66 xMac $1499 (1GB RAM, Superdrive, 7300GT, etc...) +$107 on the CPU but cost of 20" LCD vs 17" LCD
24" 2.16 iMac vs 2.93 xMac or quad 2.66 xMac $1999 (the same) +$576 on the CPU, but cost of 24" LCD...
So for the same price you could have:
- a faster computer without display,
or
- a slower but very good looking and silent all-in-one.
Have a display, need/want room for expansion... buy a xMac.
You just need a computer with everything inside... buy an iMac.
And if you bundle the 2.13 xMac with a 20" Apple display, it will cost $1698 which is more than the 20" iMac.
And if you bundle it with a real cheap 17" display (ViewSonic VA702SB Silver-Black $169), it will cost already $1168, for $31 more you can have the 2.00GHz 17" iMac...
I didn't used the 1.86 Conroe because it is only $41 cheaper than the 2.13 version.
And the future quad 2.40 could use the sweet $1799 spot.
I think this would please both the iMac lovers and the xMac fanatics.
?
What about a MAC PRO GAMER
AMD 4x4 system
High end video
SLI with 2-4 video cards AMD 4x4 can use 4 video cards at x16 x8 x16 x8 as A BTO
High end sound blaster XFI
Hard ware SATA II Raid card in on of the pci-e slots as A BTO?
DESKTOP RAM Up to 4 gig / 8 gig?
4 gig-e ports with hardware offloading and teaming are part chip set for AMD 4X4
Not sure how much you're keeping up on the Quad SLI, but all tests so far have rendered NO increase in performance. Refer to Maximum PC last month. They weren't sure if it was a driver issue or a software issue or a hardware issue. But they were pretty underwhelmed.
I really don't know how often mac users will even use SLI. I can see 3d developers use it. And the gamers that use windows on their macs. Also I see absolutely no reason to go with AMD over intel. The cpu's are about the same price yet intel stomps on amd in performance. AMD x2 5000+ is about the same price as the e6600. Why would apple want to kill their quantity discount with intel in order to have a weaker desktop? BTW this is coming from an ex-amd fan. The sound card is interesting. I do think apple needs a better sound processor. Realtek just doesn't cut it.
I agree.
You can see that Conroe is cheaper than Merom at any speed.
No they are not. The 2.66 and 2.93 Conroe is more expensive than all Merom choices.
The xMac should roughly be here:
2.4GHz Conroe for $1249
2.66 Ghz Conroe at $1699
2.93 Ghz Conroe at $2499
They need to sit between the iMac and MacPro.
The xMac should roughly be here:
2.4GHz Conroe for $1249 , , ,
Very close to my choice, which should keep the dollar profit on the xMac the same as the iMac. Sell a 2.13 GHz Conroe xMac for $1099.
You can find a faster/cheaper Conroe for any Merom chips available.
the 2.66 Conroe cheaper than the 2.33 Merom
the 2.40 Conroe cheaper than the 2.16 Merom
the 2.13 Conroe cheaper than the 2.00 and the 1.83 Merom
the 1.86 Conroe cheaper than the 1.66 Merom
Only the 2.93 Conroe and Quad-core Kentsfield are more expensive than Merom (but they also are another class).
I don't think the xMac needs to sit exactly between the iMac and the Mac Pro, to have to be clocked more than the iMac and less than the Mac Pro...? Even at YOUR prices there will be compared...
But anyway:
$1199 or $1249 for the 2.40 xMac OK $50, why the odd price?
$1499 or $1699 for the 2.66 xMac, why the $450 premium? Should be $220-300 max.
$1999 or $2499 for the 2.93 xMac, why the $800 premium? Should be $470-500 max. And why the $2499 price tag that's already the 2.66 Mac Pro slot.
I think that the 2.93 or quad xMac (using 2.66 Kentsfield $999), has be cheaper than the quad 2.66 Xeon Mac Pro.
Anyway, having a couple of xMacs in the $1199-1699 range, would be good enough for me!
PS: don't forget the additional HD bays and (at YOUR price) no less than 3 PCIe slots (one being 16x is enough, nothing too fancy).