PDA

View Full Version : Mac Pro and Woodcrest: Confirmed?


Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jul 11, 2006, 09:51 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

AppleInsider claims they have confirmation (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1877) that Apple will be using Intel's Xeon 5100 series processors, also known as "Woodcrest" to power their next generation Intel-based Mac Pro Workstations.

Previous claims (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060609094241.shtml) indicated that the Mac Pro would continue the Quad-core tradition set by the latest batch of PowerMac G5's. However, in order for an Intel-based "Quad" to be developed, a multi-processor machine would be required, which inherently leaves out the use of Core 2 Duo "Conroe" based microprocessors, as they do not support multi-processor configurations.

Of note, ThinkSecret has maintained (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) that they believe the Mac Pro will utilize Core 2 Duo (Conroe).

Additionally, AppleInsider speculates that Conroe may be used in a future iMac revision, while Merom will be used in future MacBook Pros and Yonah will remain in the MacBook and Mac Mini.

Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Mac_Pro_and_Woodcrest_Confirmed)

FF_productions
Jul 11, 2006, 09:54 PM
I cannot wait!!!

AJ Muni
Jul 11, 2006, 10:00 PM
WOW if this is indeed true...and appleinsider has been pretty reliable lately..

Grimace
Jul 11, 2006, 10:01 PM
My credit card is ready! I would love a machine to make Aperture a little more zippy.

Will_reed
Jul 11, 2006, 10:12 PM
I wonder if this will be good enough to cut my 4k footage off my yet to purchase red camera. How ever I think the quad g5 would be enough.

shelterpaw
Jul 11, 2006, 10:15 PM
I wonder if this will be good enough to cut my 4k footage off my yet to purchase red camera. How ever I think the quad g5 would be enough.What's a g5? :p

w_parietti22
Jul 11, 2006, 10:19 PM
Xeon! Conroe (Core 2 Duo)is going in the iMac

Silentwave
Jul 11, 2006, 10:20 PM
YAY!

not that this was a big surprise. only other possibility is a high end Conroe in the low end machines. anything less than WC in the high end would be insulting.

iMac may well get Conroe (which could be either 2.4 or 2.67 but not the extremes due to the higher TDP, and conroe does not go slower than 2.4) but you never know we may see Allendale, which is a version of Conroe with a smaller L2 but the same FSB going from 1.6 up to 2.4ghz. Conroe is more likely, as is Merom, as both have 4MB L2s above 2ghz.

iMeowbot
Jul 11, 2006, 10:25 PM
As even AI note, there's not much difference between the two chips. This is about as exciting as finding out that a faucet will have a red handle if it runs hot water, blue if cold. Whee.

topicolo
Jul 11, 2006, 10:27 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.

cgc
Jul 11, 2006, 10:39 PM
My credit card is ready and I have the green light to buy...muahaha...time to finally replace my 400MHz G4 Sawtooth Tower...

Silentwave
Jul 11, 2006, 10:39 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.

but worth it :D. if they get conroe i fully expect that most every G5 will be outclassed by IMACS at many applications. Depends on how much RAM they give it though. I hope they give imac at least 4GB capacity, and 256VRAM.

Dr.Gargoyle
Jul 11, 2006, 10:42 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)

iAlan
Jul 11, 2006, 10:42 PM
I guess time will tell, but Apple needs to get something kickass out the door around WWDC. I think we have all been waiting for hte final piece in the puzzle: pro laptops - covered, consumer laptops - covered, consumer desktop - covered, pro desktops - waiting...

ricgnzlzcr
Jul 11, 2006, 10:47 PM
Wow, I seriously want one and seriously don't need one. That sounds like amazing power

Fiveos22
Jul 11, 2006, 10:53 PM
mmm, AppleInsider vs. Thinksecret

Is this a deathmatch? I think both sites should put something on the line, a little wager, to make this face-off more interesting. Perhaps each should wager their URL... that would be cool.

dmw007
Jul 11, 2006, 10:57 PM
The Mac Pros are going to receive Woodcrest processors. :)

My credit card is ready!
My credit card is ready and I have the green light to buy...muahaha...time to finally replace my 400MHz G4 Sawtooth Tower...

Same here, I am ready to buy a Mac Pro. :)

FoxyKaye
Jul 11, 2006, 10:57 PM
So, what, this leaves us with:

* Mac Pro - Xeon/Woodcrest
* iMac - Core2 Duo/Conroe
* Mac Mini - Core Duo or Core2 Duo

Would the laptops get updated with the Core2 Duo - Intel's roadmap has some lower watt stuff that IIRC were Conroe varients, can't remember if there's a portable varient of the Woodcrest... Though any lower wattage processor would be nice, since our office's MacBook actually left a red mark on my left leg from where I was resting it during an extended meeting...

It's going to be fun to see what comes out of WWDC!

Hunabku
Jul 11, 2006, 10:59 PM
For its high end, there is no way on earth apple would release anything less then a quad woodcrest. If they did it would be dead in the water. The advantage of having apps like Photoshop not universal is that apple has to give us that much more horsepower to run them under rosetta.

Of course the chips will be woodcrest otherwise steves key note at wdc of the systems would be utter poo-crap - and we all know apple builds products just so steve-o can be the man on stage---

:rolleyes:

carlos700
Jul 11, 2006, 11:02 PM
…conroe does not go slower than 2.4…


Intel Core 2 Duo (Conroe) will launch in 2.66GHz, 2.4GHz, 2.13GHz, and 1.86GHz flavors. With 2.66GHz and 2.4GHz with 4MB shared L2 cache and the 2.13GHz and 1.86GHz models with 2MB shared L2 cache. There will also be a Core 2 Extreme at 2.93GHz with 4MB shared L2 cache. All will run on a 1066MHz frontside bus.

Silentwave
Jul 11, 2006, 11:05 PM
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)

they'll be priced about in line with comparable systems. but that ain't cheap. I priced a dell precision workstation with dual xeon 5160 (3ghz woodcrest), 4GB 533 mhz DDR2 FB-DIMM RAM (apple may just use 667, only $50 more for the 4 gigs) , 2x500GB SATA 3gbps HD, 512mb Quadro FX 4500, no monitor, speakers etc. and it came out to just shy of $7800.

I then went on the apple store site, built a PM G5 quad with 4GB ECC 533mhz DDR2 SDRAM (4x1gb) which is not as expensive as FBDIMM memory, 2x500GB Sata HDDs (but i think sata 1.5gbps not 3.0), quadro FX 4500, and so on and it came out to a tad over $7000, just shy of $7300 when you add applecare in, since the dell workstation has an included 3 year plan.

if you add in a 20" LCD to each, the PM is cheaper by about 150.

I don't know how much more FB-DIMM will cost from apple, or how much they'll charge for sata3gbps HDs or how much more the woodcrests will cost versus the G5s. But we may see a price jump in the top end. Still we will see a nice jump in performance as well.

Of course if we adjust the above scenario away from the 3ghz Xeon 5160, to 2 of the more affordable Xeon 5150, 2.67GHz dual cores, ( 1333mt/s FSB, 4MB L2 just like the 3ghz) , the prices change a lot. $800 cut right there on the processors. The Dell is now cheaper by $350, no monitors.


FB-DIMM ram is pretty expensive. Apple cannot afford to put a huge premium on it though like they do now. Granted, it always has ECC so that is nice.

All i hope is that they have dual 3ghz woodcrests and are good enough that when I get one with clovertown MP or tigerton next year, i can get up to 64GB RAM, and at least 3 SAS or SATA 3g drives (its not called sata II).

jrhone
Jul 11, 2006, 11:06 PM
AWESOME.....I will buy one as SOON as its released.....Logic Pro with Woodcrest......YUMMMM.....

sinisterdesign
Jul 11, 2006, 11:06 PM
from my source, i can confirm that they will indeed have 2 dual cores.

i've also been told that the case has only minor changes, which kind of sucks. i'm hoping it's still smaller than the big chunk of aluminum under my desk.

GraphicArmy
Jul 11, 2006, 11:07 PM
Yeah, I hope apple lower their price point for the pro models. It is way too much. I love mac computer, but come on; the prices vs the PC suckass.

I know Macs are way better then PC, but PCs are good tool too.

Silentwave
Jul 11, 2006, 11:13 PM
Intel Core 2 Duo (Conroe) will launch in 2.66GHz, 2.4GHz, 2.13GHz, and 1.86GHz flavors. With 2.66GHz and 2.4GHz with 4MB shared L2 cache and the 2.13GHz and 1.86GHz models with 2MB shared L2 cache. There will also be a Core 2 Extreme at 2.93GHz with 4MB shared L2 cache. All will run on a 1066MHz frontside bus.
The current list of core 2 microprocessors includes:

Conroe: Core 2 Duo
1066 Mt/S FSB, 4MB L2 cache:
E6600 2.4GHz
E6700 2.66GHz
Release on both: July 27th

Core 2 Extreme
1066mt/s FSB, 4mb L2 cache:
X6800 2.93GHz- July 27th
X6900 3.2GHz (no release date yet, expected by end of 2006)

Allendale: core 2 duo
1066 Mt/S FSB, 2MB L2 cache
E6500 2.4GHz- Q4 2006
E6400 2.13GHz- July 27th
E6300 1.86GHz- July 27th
E6200 1.6GHz- Q4 2006

800Mt/s FSB, 2MB L2 Cache
E4200 1.6GHz- Q4 2006.

gerrycurl
Jul 11, 2006, 11:16 PM
there's no way apple's going to use woodcrest in the upcoming powermac rev because there are no motherboards for socket 771 (woodcrest) that support anything above pci express 8x. powermac's are going to be high end workstations for print, graphics, and media shops, 8x pci express won't cut it.

look around at all the motherboard manufacturers (nvidia, ati, asus, msi, etc) none of them have a woodcrest platform available. apple always uses some other motherboard vendor like supermicro.

the upcoming powermac's will use core duo 2 and extremes. unfortunately we won't have a quad processor intel powermac just yet. but i bet the core duo 2 extreme will still show processing improvements above and beyond the quad g5 which will be good enough.

the only way i see this happening is if apple ships the powermac in 2007 when the socket 771 boards start using 16x pci express.

Deimo
Jul 11, 2006, 11:17 PM
Here's a little list i put together last week of my predictions for the next 6 months or so of a roadmap (whenever merom goes to 800 MHz on its bus, so maybe 9 months)

Portable:
MacBook: Yonah through 1q 2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter

MacBook Pro: Yonah through 3q2006, 667MHz bus Merom through 1q2007,
800MHz bus Merom thereafter



Desktop:
Mac mini: Yonah through 1q2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter

iMac: Yonah through 3q2006, 800MHz bus Conroe thereafter

Mac Pro: 1333MHz bus Woodcrest

Silentwave
Jul 11, 2006, 11:19 PM
Yeah, I hope apple lower their price point for the pro models. It is way too much. I love mac computer, but come on; the prices vs the PC suckass.

I know Macs are way better then PC, but PCs are good tool too.

As I said above, I don't think the difference will be terribly huge. But if apple doesn't move the prices of their top computers too much we'll be in for a good price comparitively. Apple is also likely to offer a larger amount of RAM available. The Dell workstations I configured in the post could only be configured with up to 4GB RAM, anything else you had to add yourself. Of course, apple RAM may be more expensive by a good deal so we will probably see a lot of people buying 3rd party here.

And lets see if apple has another quad at 2x 2.3ghz dual core, that saves $520 more versus the 2x2.66 DC quad, or $1340 versus the 2x3GHz DC quad. Past that point you have diminishing returns. Quad core 2x2.0GHz dual core saves you $260 over the 2.3GHz, $780 over the 2.66, or $1600 over the 3GHz.

Deimo
Jul 11, 2006, 11:19 PM
One thing i was just thinking... with some laptop vendors considering Conroe due to it being pretty damn efficient, how about this one:

MacBook - Merom - optimized for LONG battery life
MacBook Pro - Conroe - optimized to be a true mobile professional workstation

Silentwave
Jul 11, 2006, 11:22 PM
there's no way apple's going to use woodcrest in the upcoming powermac rev because there are no motherboards for socket 771 (woodcrest) that support anything above pci express 8x. powermac's are going to be high end workstations for print, graphics, and media shops, 8x pci express won't cut it.

look around at all the motherboard manufacturers (nvidia, ati, asus, msi, etc) none of them have a woodcrest platform available. apple always uses some other motherboard vendor like supermicro.

the only way i see this happening is if apple ships the powermac in 2007 when the socket 771 boards start using 16x pci express.

just wondering, have you not seen my posts on the dell workstation? that has dual woodcrests, and, be still my heart 16X PCI EXPRESS! :) That's how it has the quadro FX 4500 video card. And you can even get a version that has a riser for a 2nd PCI-Express 16X slot so you can have 2x the Quadro 4500!

Also, According to the articles on the appleinsider site, apple has had INTEL doing the logic board.

ezekielrage_99
Jul 11, 2006, 11:27 PM
I wonder I they put a Xeon in a Mac will it come with Intergrated graphics :confused: ;)

I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......

Silentwave
Jul 11, 2006, 11:30 PM
One thing i was just thinking... with some laptop vendors considering Conroe due to it being pretty damn efficient, how about this one:

MacBook - Merom - optimized for LONG battery life
MacBook Pro - Conroe - optimized to be a true mobile professional workstation

unlikely. MBPs already have heating issues, and Yonah core duo standard voltage is designed with a TDP of up to 31W. Merom has up to 35W.
Conroe and Allendale both are TDP 65W throughout the range except teh Conroe extremes which are TDP of 80W. No info yet on the Low Votlage or Ultra Low Voltage Meroms, but if any high end processor beyond merom were to get into the MBPs, which i doubt due to the need for a different socket, i'd actually call it as Woodcrest!

The dual core Xeon 5148 Low Voltage, clocking at 2.33GHz with 4MB L2 cache and 1333MT/S FSB has a TDP of 40W- only 5W higher than the Meroms.

gerrycurl
Jul 11, 2006, 11:31 PM
i don't see a single pci express 16 x slot on any of the dell poweredge servers, what site are you looking at?

even intel's reference 5000 series motherboards for woodcrest lacks 16x pci express.

will be interesting to see.

just wondering, have you not seen my posts on the dell workstation? that has dual woodcrests, and, be still my heart 16X PCI EXPRESS! :) That's how it has the quadro FX 4500 video card. And you can even get a version that has a riser for a 2nd PCI-Express 16X slot so you can have 2x the Quadro 4500!

Also, According to the articles on the appleinsider site, apple has had INTEL doing the logic board.

Silentwave
Jul 11, 2006, 11:32 PM
Here's a little list i put together last week of my predictions for the next 6 months or so of a roadmap (whenever merom goes to 800 MHz on its bus, so maybe 9 months)

Portable:
MacBook: Yonah through 1q 2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter

MacBook Pro: Yonah through 3q2006, 667MHz bus Merom through 1q2007,
800MHz bus Merom thereafter



Desktop:
Mac mini: Yonah through 1q2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter

iMac: Yonah through 3q2006, 800MHz bus Conroe thereafter

Mac Pro: 1333MHz bus Woodcrest
I agree for the most part, but there is no conroe with 800MHz FSB, and the only core 2 desktop processor with it will be a single variant of Allendale at 1.6GHz. If it gets Core 2, iMac will see at least 1066MHz FSB.

Silentwave
Jul 11, 2006, 11:32 PM
i don't see a single pci express 16 x slot on any of the dell poweredge servers, what site are you looking at?

even intel's reference 5000 series motherboards for woodcrest lacks 16x pci express.

will be interesting to see.

Why are you looking at servers? that would be XServe. We're talking workstations here. Go to Dell's Precision workstation series for the medium&large businesses.

KindredMAC
Jul 11, 2006, 11:37 PM
My DualCore 2.0 PM G5 is just fine and will be REALLY fine until CS 3 is released next spring/summer. Until then, I wouldn't be able to fully utilize the new Mac Pro. I installed my CS 2 on my MacBook and what a dog compared to my G5 at home and my G5 at work. Granted my buddy who is stuck on a 867 QuickSilver at work says that it runs about the same, but that doesn't cut it when I've been using a G5 for 2 years at work and 6 months at home.

I hope that the "little apps" out there hurry up and get converted over quicker than has been happening. Flash Player has bugged me. They keep using "Betas" and "trials". Flip4Mac hasn't released their update yet for Universal so viewing WMV's is near impossible on the MacIntels. Little things like that make a world of difference.

JackSYi
Jul 11, 2006, 11:41 PM
I like Appleinsider, and I believe that they are going to be right. But since this is all speculation at this point, anything can happen. Either way Mac users win.

BWhaler
Jul 11, 2006, 11:47 PM
I certainly don't know, but in the past I thought Apple would of gone with the Conroe chip.

But Apple is being very aggressive these days, and appears to be going to marketshare now that Microsoft is showing serious signs of aging.

My hope is for the Woodcrest chip. I would buy that in a heart beat since it is 64 bit and more future proof. A conroe system will make me wait out a year (like I did with the MBPros...I've been waiting on the real chip the Core 2 Duo...)

odedia
Jul 12, 2006, 12:00 AM
Hate to say I told you so (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2559135#post2559135) ;)

Oded S.

generik
Jul 12, 2006, 12:02 AM
Here's a little list i put together last week of my predictions for the next 6 months or so of a roadmap (whenever merom goes to 800 MHz on its bus, so maybe 9 months)

Portable:
MacBook: Yonah through 1q 2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter

MacBook Pro: Yonah through 3q2006, 667MHz bus Merom through 1q2007,
800MHz bus Merom thereafter



Desktop:
Mac mini: Yonah through 1q2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter

iMac: Yonah through 3q2006, 800MHz bus Conroe thereafter

Mac Pro: 1333MHz bus Woodcrest

I doubt it will be like this. While this was the trend back in the PPC days when consumers have no alternatives to make comparisons with, people can make direct comparisons now, and no way will your Macbook look remotely attractive when a PC at 70% of the price has better specs.

"It runs MacOS" just doesn't cut it to switchers, sad to say. The corollary to that is "PCs come with Windows Vista".

Capt Underpants
Jul 12, 2006, 12:08 AM
Hate to say I told you so (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2559135#post2559135) ;)

Oded S.

I'm sticking to my belief that the iMacs will get Merom.

We'll soon see...

macenforcer
Jul 12, 2006, 12:17 AM
I hate to say it but since I got my macbook black I have been using winxp and not osx. XP runs faster, is compatible with all apps like photoshop and office natively and runs perfectly. I have been very impressed. So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing. (core 2 duo chip on order from buy.com)

Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.

If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.

For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.

After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.

Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.

I guess I am a half reverse switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!

Silentwave
Jul 12, 2006, 12:19 AM
I hate to say it but since I got my macbook black I have been using winxp and not osx. XP runs faster, is compatible with all apps like photoshop and office natively and runs perfectly. I have been very impressed. So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing. (core 2 duo chip on order from buy.com)

Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.

If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.

For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.

After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.

Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.

I guess I am a half switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!

Have fun!

macenforcer
Jul 12, 2006, 12:20 AM
Have fun!


Already am. Thanks. :cool:

BlizzardBomb
Jul 12, 2006, 12:34 AM
If Apple don't do some sort of Mini-tower hopefully one of the slow models (2GHz or slower) would be used as just a dual so we could have a budget PowerMac. Probably not likely, but with customers now able to make direct comparisons with PCs, it makes sense to have a cheap option. Great news though, although most of us knew it was coming.

For those of you who want to speculate:

http://guides.macrumors.com/Woodcrest

sisyphus
Jul 12, 2006, 12:35 AM
So this'll mean one of 3 things.

1) At least 1 Mac Pro will have dual Woodcrests and the rest will have Conroes. Similar to the current PM design.

2) All the Mac Pros will have dual Woodcrests and the iMacs will be upgraded to Conroes. I find this unlikely as Steve-o doesn't like "noisy fans" and the extra heat of the Conroes and faster bus chips etc. would cause the fans to come on more often.

3) The Mac Pros will all have dual Woodcrests, the MBP & iMac will get Meroms, the MB and Mac mini will stick with the Yonahs. So what will use the Conroes? How about the Apple Mac. A simple box with a Conroe processor, a real replaceable video card, no additional PCI slots (those are reseved for the Pro models), with room for one or two full size HDs, a DVD, wireless, bluetooth, etc... This is the real machine most people have been clamouring for. A fast unhampered machine that is more than the iMac but less than the Mac Pro (as will be reflected by the price).

I've never used any of the PCI slots on my PowerMacs and don't expect that I ever will, but the ability to put any video card in is appealing. The iMac is nice and quite useful, but just slightly less than what is needed in many cases. The PowerMac has been more or less uncompromising speed and generally more than I wanted when I bought. With all of the emphasis on the name 'Mac' in the new naming scheme and a more competitive landscape now that we've gone Intel, I think (hope) this is the machine Apple will use to complete its desktop lineup.

The Apple Mac... Nice sound to it, no?

mjstew33
Jul 12, 2006, 12:42 AM
Same here, I am ready to buy a Mac Pro. :)
But why?

You have a MacBook Pro AND a PowerMac G5 DUAL 2.3GHz.

What the hell do you do that requires such a powerful machine? :rolleyes:

iMikeT
Jul 12, 2006, 12:47 AM
With all of these options, I don't know what to think any more.:confused:

Danksi
Jul 12, 2006, 12:52 AM
I've never used any of the PCI slots on my PowerMacs and don't expect that I ever will, but the ability to put any video card in is appealing. The iMac is nice and quite useful, but just slightly less than what is needed in many cases. The PowerMac has been more or less uncompromising speed and generally more than I wanted when I bought. With all of the emphasis on the name 'Mac' in the new naming scheme and a more competitive landscape now that we've gone Intel, I think (hope) this is the machine Apple will use to complete its desktop lineup.

The Apple Mac... Nice sound to it, no?

I like the idea of a cut down Mac Pro, but perhaps something with at least one PCI slot, or even an Expresscard as used on the MBPro. Useful expansion, so long as it is all user-servicable.

Evangelion
Jul 12, 2006, 01:02 AM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.

In a way, yes. And I think that ThinkSecret is right as well: I bet that we will see a "MacPro Mini" featuring a mini-tower-design (or maybe pizzabox) that will use Conroe. MacPro would be all quad-core. The Mini would cost $1499 - $1999, whereas MacPro would cost $2499 - $3499. iMac would get Merom.

I made this prediction a while ago, and I still stand by it.

Evangelion
Jul 12, 2006, 01:13 AM
So this'll mean one of 3 things.

1) At least 1 Mac Pro will have dual Woodcrests and the rest will have Conroes. Similar to the current PM design.

Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.

3) The Mac Pros will all have dual Woodcrests, the MBP & iMac will get Meroms, the MB and Mac mini will stick with the Yonahs. So what will use the Conroes? How about the Apple Mac. A simple box with a Conroe processor, a real replaceable video card, no additional PCI slots (those are reseved for the Pro models), with room for one or two full size HDs, a DVD, wireless, bluetooth, etc...

What I think will happen is that the "MacPro Mini" will have one 16x PCI-E slot, and maybe two PCI-E 8x slots. MacPro would have two 16x PCI-E slots (for dual-graphics), and maybe 3 PCI-E 8x slots. MacPro would also have four drive-bays for HD's (hot-swappable, maybe? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2600408#post2600408)), whereas MacPro Mini would have just two. MacPro would be all quad (starting from 2x 2Ghz, through 2x 2.33Ghz to 2x 3Ghz), whereas Mini would be 1x 2.33Ghz and 1x 2.66Ghz.

If they did something like that, I would buy one in a heartbeat. But MacPro would still offer substantial benefits over the Mini, so the people looking at the $1999 MacPro Mini would start to think "why not spend just a bit more, and get a MacPro with all these additional features?". We are already seeing that in iPods :).

Please Apple: You know this makes sense! There are LOTS of people waiting for the MacPro Mini!

mjstew33
Jul 12, 2006, 01:23 AM
Or maybe instead of a Mac pro mini, it might be a Mac mini Extreme? :cool:

Scarlet Fever
Jul 12, 2006, 01:26 AM
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X
Funny choice, noting your username...

Apple can't afford to use anything less that 4 x 2.5GHz for their high-end machine, because on paper, it doesnt look as impressive. If Intel cant get the hardware right, Apple should just upgrade the G5 and wait till Intel can get 16x PCI, 4 cores, etc.

Just a moment of reflection... a year ago, if someone asked us which Intel chip we thought would find its way into a PowerMac , we would probably curse them for blasphemy :rolleyes: . Now were having a poll, and getting excited about the prospect of Woodcrest chips...

As to the poster who wished for the Apple Mac, i think that would be brilliant. i want a machine which i can put new parts in, but doesn't cost me an arm to buy. Here, the base model G5 powermac is around 3000, which is out of my price range. If they introduced something like the iMac, but with user replaceable parts, i think they would sell well.

gugy
Jul 12, 2006, 01:38 AM
The new Powermac or Pro Mac, seems to be a nice machine. It will be interesting to see how much faster than the quad G5.

The big question is.

Would any professional that depends on Adobe apps going to buy this machine right away?
Adobe apps are not universal, i doubt that the new Pro Macs will be faster than the current Quad G5 using these apps. Plus, it seems scary to jump on rev. A for this machine.

Everyday, I feel safer for buying my Quad G5 last October and wait for Rev. B for the Pro Mac Intel. I bet the the Quad G5 will retain their value for awhile.

Evangelion
Jul 12, 2006, 01:45 AM
The new Powermac or Pro Mac, seems to be a nice machine. It will be interesting to see how much faster than the quad G5.

The big question is.

Would any professional that depends on Adobe apps going to buy this machine right away?

Why the obsession with Adobe? There are other companies out there as well.

Bakey
Jul 12, 2006, 01:47 AM
I guess time will tell, but Apple needs to get something kickass out the door around WWDC. I think we have all been waiting for hte final piece in the puzzle: pro laptops - covered, consumer laptops - covered, consumer desktop - covered, pro desktops - waiting...

Pro desktops are not quite the last piece of the puzzle! PowerMac replacements and xServes are all that are needed to make "the circle complete".

The iBook, PowerBook, iMac, eMac and Mac mini have all had/have their Intel equivalents as we all know... here's to waiting! And like so many on these forums my CC is clear and ready to melt... ;)

I wonder I they put a Xeon in a Mac will it come with Intergrated graphics :confused: ;)

I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......

I guess they may install integrated graphic chipsets as an option for the 'new' range of xServes [although I'm guessing IG won't be an option - rather they're already there with option of over-riding them via a dedicated graphics card]; I'm obviously speculating and thinking along the lines that the majority of xServe installs are simply that 'installs' and not graphic workhorses, etc.

Either way, the countdown to WWDC has begun...!! :D

gugy
Jul 12, 2006, 01:55 AM
Why the obsession with Adobe? There are other companies out there as well.

Oh really.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.

I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.

081440
Jul 12, 2006, 02:13 AM
Oh really.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.

I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.


So were just assuming that all "pro" users depend on adobe....

What about video editors and sound people, I think they will jump right on, I know I will.

Evangelion
Jul 12, 2006, 02:22 AM
Oh really.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.

I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.

A follow-up question: why the obsession with Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator? There are other apps out there as well. Why does it seem that about 105% of Mac-users are Photoshop-users as well (I bet that PhotoShop-users are in fact in the minority)? Everything related to Apple, OS X and Macs seem to boil down to "but what about PhotoShop?". Well, what about it?

You are worried about the fact that Adobe's apps are not yet Universal? Fine, then don't buy a MacIntel. Problem solved.

TangoCharlie
Jul 12, 2006, 02:50 AM
As even AI note, there's not much difference between the two chips.
The cores for all the "Core 2" processors are all basically the same, but the packaging is different. Using Xeon 5100 in the Mac Pro makes sense because they are going to want to use dual-cpu (quad core) configurations. Although this may not seem of much importance, the Xeon will cost a lot more, which is an issue.

I still maintain that there's a "hole" in the new line-up, which is there isn't a single-cpu high-clock-rate system. I think Apple needs a Core 2 Extreme based system with the Conroe XE CPU (initially 2.93 GHz then 3.2 GHz).

Oh.... I think the recently introduced edu-iMac will keep its current Core Duo (Yonah) processor after the full iMac has been upgraded to Core 2 Duo. Another thing..... I think the iMac will get Meroms, not Conroes so that Apple doesn't have to change the socket. (Which also implies that the top CPU speed we're going to see in the iMac will be 2.33GHz, leaving a space for faster (2.4GHz to 2.93GHz) in a new enclosure. :cool:

Silentwave
Jul 12, 2006, 02:55 AM
costs are all over the place here... on one hand the core 2 extreme is more expensive than a wood crest...but on the other the woodie is more expensive since there;s 2 and a more specialized logic board. what do I think will happen? I wouldn't be surprised to see a single woody system, just to save costs by having one type of LB/RAM, and larger quantities of the same processor to keep costs and logistics manageable.

Max on Macs
Jul 12, 2006, 03:08 AM
I personally believe that in an effort to cut noise and heat on these higher priced machines, two problems that have always plagued them, the Pentium 66 and 75 will be in use in these systems.

bigandy
Jul 12, 2006, 03:10 AM
here's hoping for a Quad with the Xeon 5160s - 3Ghz each core :D

stunna
Jul 12, 2006, 03:19 AM
I hate to say it but since I got my macbook black I have been using winxp and not osx. XP runs faster, is compatible with all apps like photoshop and office natively and runs perfectly. I have been very impressed. So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing. (core 2 duo chip on order from buy.com)

Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.

If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.

For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.

After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.

Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.

I guess I am a half reverse switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!
You are a smart man.
no sarcasim or anything i'm being serious
At the end of the day you gotta tell yourself why pay more and get less

Evangelion
Jul 12, 2006, 03:55 AM
I still maintain that there's a "hole" in the new line-up, which is there isn't a single-cpu high-clock-rate system. I think Apple needs a Core 2 Extreme based system with the Conroe XE CPU (initially 2.93 GHz then 3.2 GHz).

Since your concern is the high price of the Xeon, I find it ironic that you want to use XE in a Mac, since XE is also VERY expensive. I believe they cost about $1000 a piece.

I believe that the Woodcrests start at around $400, which isn't outrageous price. For the price of once XE you could have two 2Ghz Woodcrests.

THX1139
Jul 12, 2006, 03:59 AM
there's no way apple's going to use woodcrest in the upcoming powermac rev because there are no motherboards for socket 771 (woodcrest) that support anything above pci express 8x. powermac's are going to be high end workstations for print, graphics, and media shops, 8x pci express won't cut it.

look around at all the motherboard manufacturers (nvidia, ati, asus, msi, etc) none of them have a woodcrest platform available. apple always uses some other motherboard vendor like supermicro.

the upcoming powermac's will use core duo 2 and extremes. unfortunately we won't have a quad processor intel powermac just yet. but i bet the core duo 2 extreme will still show processing improvements above and beyond the quad g5 which will be good enough.

the only way i see this happening is if apple ships the powermac in 2007 when the socket 771 boards start using 16x pci express.

The most intelligent post on this thread. Sadly, I agree. We won't see Quad Macs until Kentsfield ships first quarter of 2007. Until then, it's going to be Duo 2 extreme and Quad G5 in the lineup.

On another note, I cracks me up whenever I read any post where people bash the Conroe. They say that having it in anything other than iMac would be disappointing. Well, all I can say is the Conroe is a wicked fast chip and for all instensive purposes, it's just as fast as Woodcrest... if not faster. The only drawback is lack of multi processor support. For that we have to wait until 2007.

Come WWDC, I hope to find out I'm wrong and Apple kicks out an affordable Quad Woodcrest machine. However, being a realist... I doubt it.

MacSA
Jul 12, 2006, 04:02 AM
At the bottom of the article they seem to imply that Apple will stick with Core Solo chips for the entry level mini.... YUCK :eek:

macidiot
Jul 12, 2006, 04:03 AM
I hate to say it but since I got my macbook black I have been using winxp and not osx. XP runs faster, is compatible with all apps like photoshop and office natively and runs perfectly. I have been very impressed. So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing. (core 2 duo chip on order from buy.com)

Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.

If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.

For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.

After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.

Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.

I guess I am a half reverse switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!

Considering I mostly watch hdtv from satellite, neither platform is of any use. And who cares, I have a hdtivo that works like a champ. Let me know when mce can record Deadwood in HD. And let me know how I can hook up an xbox 360 to my hdtv via dvi/hdmi.

And whuteva about building your own comp for a penny. You get a gold star. Apple is going to cost more. So is HP, Dell, Sony, and any other tier 1 manufacturer. Then again, a computer from Apple isn't going to come in a $20 plastic chrome-plated case that looks like a transformer.

Everything is just cheaper? Tell me, in what what intel macs can you toss those x1600xt cards into? Or is pc ram somehow cheaper? Oh wait, must be those pc-only hard drives right? And I'm wondering what core duo laptops you can buy that are 4x faster than a macbook pro and only cost $900. Cause I'll sign up right now and buy one. Hell, I'll buy 2. One for me and one for you. It only has to cost 1/3 the price of a macbook pro and offer 4x the speed, and otherwise be similar (weight, display, main features).

And your running xp on your mac? Is it xp or mce? And your using a pirated copy? Cause if you actually purchased a copy, it sort of explains why you think your comp is expensive... since you spent an extra 100-150 on it...

And finally... you have a black macbook pro? I'm impressed. :P So did you use Krylon?

I believe I just fed the troll... I'm guessing that since you don't seem to know what kind of laptop you have. And considering that most of what you said is not based in fact. It's something a 12yo pc fanboy would say.

Evangelion
Jul 12, 2006, 04:11 AM
there's no way apple's going to use woodcrest in the upcoming powermac rev because there are no motherboards for socket 771 (woodcrest) that support anything above pci express 8x.

I beg to differ (http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/index.htm)

Evangelion
Jul 12, 2006, 04:13 AM
Considering I mostly watch hdtv from satellite, neither platform is of any use. And who cares, I have a hdtivo that works like a champ. Let me know when mce can record Deadwood in HD. And let me know how I can hook up an xbox 360 to my hdtv via dvi/hdmi.

And whuteva about building your own comp for a penny. You get a gold star. Apple is going to cost more. So is HP, Dell, Sony, and any other tier 1 manufacturer. Then again, a computer from Apple isn't going to come in a $20 plastic chrome-plated case that looks like a transformer.

Everything is just cheaper? Tell me, in what what intel macs can you toss those x1600xt cards into? Or is pc ram somehow cheaper? Oh wait, must be those pc-only hard drives right? And I'm wondering what core duo laptops you can buy that are 4x faster than a macbook pro and only cost $900. Cause I'll sign up right now and buy one. Hell, I'll buy 2. One for me and one for you. It only has to cost 1/3 the price of a macbook pro and offer 4x the speed, and otherwise be similar (weight, display, main features).

And your running xp on your mac? Is it xp or mce? And your using a pirated copy? Cause if you actually purchased a copy, it sort of explains why you think your comp is expensive... since you spent an extra 100-150 on it...

And finally... you have a black macbook pro? I'm impressed. :P So did you use Krylon?

I believe I just fed the troll... I'm guessing that since you don't seem to know what kind of laptop you have. And considering that most of what you said is not based in fact. It's something a 12yo pc fanboy would say.

Dude, take a chill-pill. Why does it matter so much to you if he uses XP?

Eric5h5
Jul 12, 2006, 04:16 AM
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs.

Er...have you seen the MacBook Pro pricing? The MacBook pricing? The iMac pricing? The Mini pricing? (Which went UP by a fair amount). If you're thinking that x86 processors are cheaper than PPC, you're sadly mistaken. Cheap computers being cheap has just about nothing whatsoever to do with the CPU....

--Eric

Mord
Jul 12, 2006, 04:19 AM
exctly what i have been saying this last year.

we all know thinksecrets record lately.

Evangelion
Jul 12, 2006, 05:05 AM
Er...have you seen the MacBook Pro pricing? The MacBook pricing? The iMac pricing? The Mini pricing? (Which went UP by a fair amount). If you're thinking that x86 processors are cheaper than PPC, you're sadly mistaken. Cheap computers being cheap has just about nothing whatsoever to do with the CPU....

--Eric

Well, the Mini got more expensive, but it's capabilities went WAY up. Optical audio in and out, twice the USB-ports (fixing the two biggest complaints about the old Mini), built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU (hell, the new low-end is propably over 50% faster than the old hi-end!) and Core Image compliant video.

Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.

JFreak
Jul 12, 2006, 05:08 AM
I think we have all been waiting for hte final piece in the puzzle: pro laptops - covered, consumer laptops - covered, consumer desktop - covered, pro desktops - waiting...

...not to mention: non-apple pro apps - waiting.

JFreak
Jul 12, 2006, 05:14 AM
the only way i see this happening is if apple ships the powermac in 2007 when the socket 771 boards start using 16x pci express.

You don't see it possible that Apple would be the first company to release one?

JFreak
Jul 12, 2006, 05:24 AM
I bet the the Quad G5 will retain their value for awhile.

Yes, it will. Given that many pro apps are still not Universal, and that many times first ported version is somewhat buggy, the PPC hardware running native PPC software will become very valuable during the next 12ish months.

Why does it seem that about 105% of Mac-users are Photoshop-users as well (I bet that PhotoShop-users are in fact in the minority)?

Because 105% of Mac-users have bought Photoshop Elements bundled with a digital camera. 95% of those never bother to upgrade to full version and 82% of those never use the software anyway. Oh, and 67% of statistics are made on spot ;)

Mord
Jul 12, 2006, 05:27 AM
http://www.thg.ru/cpu/20051018/images/greencreek.gif

your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.

JFreak
Jul 12, 2006, 05:39 AM
Well, the Mini got more expensive, but it's capabilities went WAY up. Optical audio in and out, twice the USB-ports (fixing the two biggest complaints about the old Mini)

Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!

... built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU and Core Image compliant video.

You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much. The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.

Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.

You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?

your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.

At what point servers began to demand less than workstations or regular desktops? Server-grade hardware (SCSI cards for example) are 8x pcie, so I expect nothing less from Apple server hardware. Anything less would be a joke.

Evangelion
Jul 12, 2006, 05:43 AM
...not to mention: non-apple pro apps - waiting.

There are already such apps (Modo from Luxology for example). Just because Photoshop is not universal does not mean that nothing is.

Mord
Jul 12, 2006, 05:55 AM
At what point servers began to demand less than workstations or regular desktops? Server-grade hardware (SCSI cards for example) are 8x pcie, so I expect nothing less from Apple server hardware. Anything less would be a joke.

i meant for graphics.

oh and stop with the quadruple posting, you can reply and open the thread in another tab and copy quotes across to multi quote, or just learn the quoting syntax and use one window

as for why mac users use photoshop it's because the competitors suck, gimp is ok but nothing more, corel products make me want to pull my hair out and don't talk to me about fireworks is a completely different product.

MacQuest
Jul 12, 2006, 05:55 AM
Haven't read through all the posts, but I've always believed and said [since Intel's unveiling of it's Core line-up roadmap a few months ago, even before re-naming it Core 2] that Woodcrest would be used in Mac Pros.

CONROE WILL BE USED IN A NEW LINE OF CONSUMER TARGETED [gamers and people who like the option of being able to upgrade, even if they probably won't] MAC TOWERS. Go ahead, let the "this is just another headless iMac rumor again" flame-fest start :rolleyes:. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A SCREEN BUILT IN TO AN ALL IN ONE DESIGN, IT'S NOT AN IMAC DAMNIT!!! :mad:

"Mac [whatever]", or maybe just "Mac", will probably have 1-2 models in the $1000 - $1500 range. If there's 3 models, which I doubt because they'll probably want to keep a $500 price difference between this and the lowest Mac Pro model @ $2000 [assuming Apple keeps the current pricing of the PowerMac line-up], it'll be a $1000 - $1700 range. These might sport the same aluminim alloy enclosure as the Mac Pro, but I'm betting that they'll use a different material, and possibly form-factor all-together to further distinguish this consumer tower line from the Mac Pro line.

I would really like to see a consumer priced, Conroe powered Mac tower [maybe it'll be a mini tower] with the same black finish as the current black MacBook.

That would be cool because then we would have 3 consumer Macs [not including the MacBooks]; 2 in white, the Mac mini [yes, I'm aware that it has a silver trim :rolleyes:] and the iMac, and 1 in black [this new Mac consumer tower]. Maybe they'll offer it in white too... as long as the white doesn't turn yellow as reported with the white MacBooks [which has already been resolved], that would be cool too, but I doubt this option... but maybe. :p

Oh the possibilities!!! :D

EDIT:
Just read the AppleInsider article and saw this:
"The new systems, which will succeed the Power Mac G5 at the forefront of the company's product matrix, will also be available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost..."

The key part of that statement is "available in a single processor configuration for a substantially reduced cost". I'll bet that THAT will be the consumer priced, Conroe powered tower that I'm talking about, will NOT be Woodcrest powered, and won't be called Mac Pro [possibly Mac Pro mini, but I don't quite think so], as they won't be "Pro" class workstations powered by Intel's server class chips.

Just my 2 cents... ;)

steve_hill4
Jul 12, 2006, 06:04 AM
they'll be priced about in line with comparable systems. but that ain't cheap. I priced a dell precision workstation with dual xeon 5160 (3ghz woodcrest), 4GB 533 mhz DDR2 FB-DIMM RAM (apple may just use 667, only $50 more for the 4 gigs) , 2x500GB SATA 3gbps HD, 512mb Quadro FX 4500, no monitor, speakers etc. and it came out to just shy of $7800.

I then went on the apple store site, built a PM G5 quad with 4GB ECC 533mhz DDR2 SDRAM (4x1gb) which is not as expensive as FBDIMM memory, 2x500GB Sata HDDs (but i think sata 1.5gbps not 3.0), quadro FX 4500, and so on and it came out to a tad over $7000, just shy of $7300 when you add applecare in, since the dell workstation has an included 3 year plan.
See a huge price difference between your systems here and what stock Mac Pros will include. Almost certainly they will contain a single gig of ram, 256MB graphics and maybe a 300GB HDD. All you described will still be BTO.

As for Woodcrest, I was speaking to our Apple rep yesterday and he seemed in agreeance that they would have at least one quad, meaning Woodcrest, (he doesn't have access to official information, but seemed to agree he would be surprised if anything else was in the top end). Apple have also recently placed orders with Intel in preperation for WWDC, (which he seemed to confirm Apple will release the Mac Pro then, as if we were ever in doubt).

My predictions will be as follows:

MacBook - sticks with Yonah until probably MWSF, speed bumps in time for Christmas.

MacBook Pro - Merom as soon as possible, possibly WWDC.

Mac Mini - Yonah for now, Merom once iMac has been updated with new processors. Try to maintain sales as long as possible on cheaper chips.

iMac - Conroe. I know people will say heat, noise etc, but if Apple can do it for a similar price and similar style to the G5, they must do.

Mac xPress - Just put that name for fun, but not sure what it would be called. Conroe anyway and system is cheaper, smaller, lower spec Mac. Pretty much a headless iMac, maybe slightly higher spec for slightly lower price, (no display remember), maybe even a model starting just above the Mini in price. True cube replacement. Look out for it possibly at MWSF.

Mac Pro - Woodcrest in both single and double processors. Conroe would offer similar performance for the singles, but not sure if Apple would mix like that. Possibly dual socket motherboard in all, but single processor allowing later upgrade. WWDC announces G5 PowerMac available until 2nd half 2007 in limited supplies, (for those using apps not yet universal/still a mixture os OSX and classic).

xServe - Woodcrest. Nothing more to be said.

steve_hill4
Jul 12, 2006, 06:08 AM
just wondering, have you not seen my posts on the dell workstation? that has dual woodcrests, and, be still my heart 16X PCI EXPRESS! :) That's how it has the quadro FX 4500 video card. And you can even get a version that has a riser for a 2nd PCI-Express 16X slot so you can have 2x the Quadro 4500!

Also, According to the articles on the appleinsider site, apple has had INTEL doing the logic board.
Exactly, the logic board will not be available off the shelf, so we don't know what will be on it yet.

Oh and if I'm not mistaken, isn't this a motherboard for Woodcrest that supports PCI express 16x?

http://www.iwill.net/product_2.asp?p_id=109

steve_hill4
Jul 12, 2006, 06:13 AM
Because 105% of Mac-users have bought Photoshop Elements bundled with a digital camera. 95% of those never bother to upgrade to full version and 82% of those never use the software anyway. Oh, and 67% of statistics are made on spot ;)
I thought it was 88.2%?

;)

Actually from a Guinness ad, which also stated men think of sex every 6 seconds, before cutting to a revolving pint glass, with a half second flash of a woman in lingerie about half way through.

Glen Quagmire
Jul 12, 2006, 06:22 AM
Where's the "Mac OS Rumors" option? (http://macosrumors.com/20060710B1.php)

They are still labouring under the illusion that Woodcrest will be quad core. A cursory glance at Intel's literature or on the web will reveal that Woody is a dual-core beast, nothing more.

(Disclaimer: I read MOR for entertainment, not for real news.)

Anyway, I'll take a 2.67Ghz (or more) dual-dual Mac Pro, please. In black.

aswitcher
Jul 12, 2006, 06:33 AM
I really hope they are right about a the low cost single chip version so we can make good home multimedia center.

Evangelion
Jul 12, 2006, 06:41 AM
Because 105% of Mac-users have bought Photoshop Elements bundled with a digital camera.

I have a digital camera, yet it didn't come with Photoshop Elements. Strange huh?

Mord
Jul 12, 2006, 06:42 AM
my scanner came with photoshop 5.

tristan
Jul 12, 2006, 06:46 AM
Spooky - I predicted this. Me and everyone else except a couple naysayers. I only buy laptops though, so I'm not really the target market. But I think this will be on every graphic designers desk by Xmas. Go Apple and Intel!

Evangelion
Jul 12, 2006, 06:47 AM
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!

So what?

You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much.

So you are saying that dual-core Core Due CPU costs Apple about as much as the G4 did? back when Mini had G4, the CPU was bottom of the barrel, with prices to match. The Core Duo (or solo for that matter) are actually very good CPU's and they do cost more than the G4 did. SO-DIMM is also more expenside than regural DDR-SDRAM is.

The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.

Why not? The customer receives more, why shouldn't he pay more for it? "because it doesn't cost that much more to the company!" Well boo-hoo! I bet that a car with 2-liter engine doesn't REALLY cost that much more to make than similar car with 1.6-liter engine, yet we have to pay more for the bigger engine. By your logic they should cost the same?

And how about the remote?

You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?

OK, compare the prices then. You will see that you could buy a Mac Mini for $599 back then. And guess what? You can buy a Mac Mini for $599 even today! True, you can't get one for $499, but at this point I feel compelled to ask: So what? Since when did Macs become the rock-bottom computers with prices to match?

Hell, I have been watching some old Stevenotes recently. And I remember him introducing PowerMacs with prices starting at $1499. Why aren't we whining because PowerMacs are more expensive today?

TangoCharlie
Jul 12, 2006, 06:52 AM
Xeon! Conroe (Core 2 Duo)is going in the iMac

No, I believe Apple will pop the Core 2 Duo Merom into the iMac. It's supposedly a drop-in replacement for the current Core Duo processor the iMac currently uses.

Additionally, the Edu-iMac won't be upgraded for a while yet, so that when the new Merom iMac _is_ released (WWDC), there will be a bigger difference between the Edu-iMac and the full iMac.

I'm _sure_ that Apple has a surpise for us wrt the Conroe /Conroe XE CPU.... a nice smallish desktop Mac (we can hope, can't we?) :cool:

aswitcher
Jul 12, 2006, 07:10 AM
I'm _sure_ that Apple has a surpise for us wrt the Conroe /Conroe XE CPU.... a nice smallish desktop Mac (we can hope, can't we?) :cool:

And if they back it up fully with software features in Leopard and iLife07, Macs should leap ahead as multimedia machines...dedicated processor for video to avoid any missed frames recordings or playing.

mi5moav
Jul 12, 2006, 07:29 AM
Hmmm, I hope they change the moniker XEON just brings up old conotations. Though I hope the Xserve waits for Kentsfield or at least for SOSSA MAN.

Manic Mouse
Jul 12, 2006, 07:58 AM
No, I believe Apple will pop the Core 2 Duo Merom into the iMac. It's supposedly a drop-in replacement for the current Core Duo processor the iMac currently uses.

This will not be an option for Apple. They no longer live in the PPC world, now people can directly compare the specs on any Mac to the specs DELL or other PC vendors are offering.

The iMac is Apple's desktop computer, and currently the only one they offer. As such they will have to spec it as a desktop computer as much as humanly possible, and having a slower CORE 2 Duo than their competitors (when iMacs cost more) will not do them any favours.

Also bear in mind that Conroes are cheaper for apple to buy than Meroms, as well as offering faster clock speeds and more performance. So it wouldn't cost Apple much more, per machine, to put a 2.4Ghz conroe in rather than a 2.0Ghz merom.

The heat issue is also a non-starter. I have a laptop with a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 in it, which runs a hell of a lot hotter than the Conroes will. Sure it isn't the smallest laptop ever, but it's comparable in size to an iMac, if anything it's slightly thinner. Many laptop venders have said they're putting conroes in their top laptops because of the extra performance, and if they can there's no reason Apple can't fit one into the iMac.

Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop. If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.

Personally I'm also hoping for the option of a BTO X1800 graphics card. At the least I expect the VRAM on the X1600 to be bumped to 256Mb on all iMacs and for the screens to get a resolution bump. The 17" will get the same screen as the 17' Macbook Pro (1650x1050) and the 20" will get a resolution bump to something closer to True HD (like the cinema displays) which is what professionals will want to work with.

First post, woo!

EDIT: My dream iMac config would be:

17" 1650x1050
2.4Ghz conroe
2Gb RAM (BTO)
750Gb HDD (BTO)
x1800 512Mb (BTO)

And I would be willing to pay quite a bit for it. Fingers crossed apple offers it...

MrCrowbar
Jul 12, 2006, 08:11 AM
I wish I could say "I'm getting a woodie", but I can't right now... There are people watching :p
Serously I think we'll see woodcrest in the MacPro for sure. Apple wants to stick with the "fastest desktop computer" I think.

heisetax
Jul 12, 2006, 08:32 AM
Yeah, I hope apple lower their price point for the pro models. It is way too much. I love mac computer, but come on; the prices vs the PC suckass.

I know Macs are way better then PC, but PCs are good tool too.


Unless Apple bucks their own trend of charging more for the Intel Mac replacements over the G4/G5 units, we may be in for a rather large increase at the higher end on up. Intel processors cost more than G4/G5 processors. The high end of any processor costs a lot more than the slower ones of the same type. Does all of this add up to price decreases or price increases? As much as I would like to see a price decrease, to me that just does not add up.

Bill the TaxMan

adamfilip
Jul 12, 2006, 08:44 AM
i think all the new mac pro will be quad core xeons (2 chips) just range in frequency.

SPUY767
Jul 12, 2006, 08:58 AM
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)

Name another consumer workstation with a XEON Processor in it. For XEON based machines, the Apple's will be a deal, much like the XServes were the cheapest 1u you could get with the power.

amac4me
Jul 12, 2006, 08:58 AM
Oh yeah, these babies will fly. Looking to replace my 2004 PowerMac G5 Dual 2.5

Bring it on :D

MacQuest
Jul 12, 2006, 09:00 AM
I think AppleInsider is slightly wrong on this.

http://images.appleinsider.com/charts-potential-pairings-0.gif


Mac mini:
- Apple will probably keep 32-bit Yonah chips in the Mac mini at least until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07, AND drop the prices back down to $499 and $699 once Merom comes out in the next couple of months. This will spur Mac mini sales for the holiday season. At MacWorld [or maybe slightly before MW, during the holiday season if Merom chips get a price drop by then], the Mac mini will get Merom to take full advantage of 10.5 and slaughter the windows media center market and reign supreme in the media hub capacity [come on Apple, at least give it TV viewing capabilities even if you're not gonna give it PVR functionality because that may screw up the iMovie Video store that you're gonna announce with the vPod by Apple Expo Paris in September ;)]. Everybody's "gonna NEED 64-bit" by then... :rolleyes:... even though they really won't and don't even know why they would need it, other than because of the fact that it exists.

MacBook
- Like the Mac mini, the MacBook will keep Yonah only until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07.

I think MacWorld will be SJ's chance to say "6 months ago we completed our transition to Intel chips, a full 6 months ahead of the schedule that we had announced at WWDC in '05. During this past holiday season we shipped Mac OS X 10.5. Today we are proud to announce that ALL Macs have 64-bit Intel chips/processors and will be able to take FULL advantage of Mac OS X 10.5's features. One more thing..." /MacPhone [smartphone Blackberry/Treo killer with Apple's own MVNO service, and more. ;)]

iMac
- [i]May use Merom, but Conroe is likely after the Mac mini gets Merom late this year or at MW '07. Both the 17" & 20" will probably get stock x1800 256VRam [x1900 BTO], and the 17" will get speed bumped to at least 2.0Ghz [duh...] and the 20" will get 2.16, maybe 2.33Ghz [in which case the 17" will probably get 2.16] but I don't know if Apple will debut the 2.33 in a consumer Mac before a Pro Mac. I'll expect to see all of this right after WWDC [although the iMacs right at the 6 month mark NOW, so maybe before WWDC. Right now I think Apple's building up anticipation for it's desktops

[b]"Mac [Whatever]" or just "Mac" - light-upgrader/gamer targeted, new tower [probably mini-tower, compared to Mac Pro], possibly non-aluminum enclosure to differentiate it from the Mac Pro and maybe match the consumer MacBook's enclosures .
- This will be Apple's flagship Conroe powered Mac. This is why the iMac [i]may stay with Merom, because this may be used as a distinguishing factor from the iMac. Although I believe that this towers' upgradeability option will be enough! :D There will probably be a an entry level with a 2.4Ghz [2.6, 2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo and x1800 256VRam model around the $1000 [probably $1100, but $999 would KILL ALL of the windows desktop pc's sales] price point. An upgraded 2.6Ghz [2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo model, with an x1900 256VRam GPU, larger hard drive, etc. will be at the $1500 price point [$1499].

$999 & $1399/$1499 would RULE, because we would finally have an "under $1000 tower Mac" that could compete with those sub-$1000 windows towers. We'll probably get $1099 and $1499 though, which is still GREAT, but I just wish Apple would hit that $999 mark for buyers' "psychological" reasons though.

Apple has NO need to go into the junky "$800 or less" tower trenches with it's tower Macs, and won't.

MacBook Pro
I agree with AI.

Mac Pro
I agree with AI.

Xserve
WILL NOT USE WOODCREST!!!
CORE 2 DUAL QUAD OCTA CORE MAC's starting with DUAL TIGERTON'S, later replaced with CORE 2 SINGLE OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN [obviously will be paired up to bring us a 16 CORE CORE 2 DUAL OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN, that will obviously later be replaced with 32 CORE... YES, 32 CORE!!!, DUNINGTON's...

j/k... I agree with AI. Woodcrest in Mac Pro... :p

FUTURE OUTLOOK
Single Core 2 quad core "Kentsfield" [dual "Conroe" Core Duo's] in January. Don't know if we'll see those in the new consumer "Mac" tower though. Probably not.

However, dual Core 2 Core Quad/Quattro[?] "Tigerton's" [dual "Woodcrest" Core Quadro's/Quattros?] should bring us the first... drumroll please...

Core 2 OCTA Core Mac Pro's & Xserves in '07 though :D

:confused: ... just shoot me... ;)

Mord
Jul 12, 2006, 09:01 AM
Name another consumer workstation with a XEON Processor in it. For XEON based machines, the Apple's will be a deal, much like the XServes were the cheapest 1u you could get with the power.

the powermac/mac pro is not a consumer mac they are workstations and are priced and specced accordingly.

manic
Jul 12, 2006, 09:05 AM
Okay, people are hyped about the 4 core xeon. But arent we overlooking something here? Arent server processors designed to do substantially different work than desktops? Whats the point in fitting a >1000 dollar processor into a machine that runs photoshop and see it slug away? Im not saying thats the case, but I think its a relevant point and would like to know if anyone knows the answer. If its slower at desktop tasks, than we will be seeing conroes in mac pros. If its faster, then theres a pretty good chance it will fit the highest end one.

now, unless the other chap who said "anything other than woodcrest would be absolutely insulting" knows wc is insanely faster at desktop tasks, I think hes just building some negative hype. Conroes are supposed to outperform by a wide margin everything weve seen so far. Its by no means insulting

Evangelion
Jul 12, 2006, 09:05 AM
Also bear in mind that Conroes are cheaper for apple to buy than Meroms, as well as offering faster clock speeds and more performance. So it wouldn't cost Apple much more, per machine, to put a 2.4Ghz conroe in rather than a 2.0Ghz merom.

Take a look at the iMac. Now, it's quite small, isn't it? Nice and thin, and silet as well. How are you planning to cool that 2.4GHz Conroe in a machine like that? And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.

I don't buy your argument that Apple needs to spec iMac similarly to consumer desktop-Dells and the like. I mean, Apple hasn't done so so far (with the current Core Duo-version), why should they do so in the future?

What I still believe is that we will have a third desktop that gets placed between MacPro and iMac. And that minitower-machine WILL use Conroe.

Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop.

If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?

If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.

Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock... What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.

Demoman
Jul 12, 2006, 09:11 AM
My DualCore 2.0 PM G5 is just fine and will be REALLY fine until CS 3 is released next spring/summer. Until then, I wouldn't be able to fully utilize the new Mac Pro. I installed my CS 2 on my MacBook and what a dog compared to my G5 at home and my G5 at work. Granted my buddy who is stuck on a 867 QuickSilver at work says that it runs about the same, but that doesn't cut it when I've been using a G5 for 2 years at work and 6 months at home.

I hope that the "little apps" out there hurry up and get converted over quicker than has been happening. Flash Player has bugged me. They keep using "Betas" and "trials". Flip4Mac hasn't released their update yet for Universal so viewing WMV's is near impossible on the MacIntels. Little things like that make a world of difference.

My DualCore 2.0 PM G5 is just fine too. I have a quad right beside it, but I only fire that up for rendering/compressing or when I want to work the video and sound/animation concurrently. I will buy another PM as I am doing more motion graphics and would like to throw another 4 processors at it. If the new high-end Intel looks good, I will get one. But, I might also look to pick-up a super deal on a PPC Quad. Love those machines!

Mord
Jul 12, 2006, 09:12 AM
Okay, people are hyped about the 4 core xeon. But arent we overlooking something here? Arent server processors designed to do substantially different work than desktops? Whats the point in fitting a >1000 dollar processor into a machine that runs photoshop and see it slug away? Im not saying thats the case, but I think its a relevant point and would like to know if anyone knows the answer. If its slower at desktop tasks, than we will be seeing conroes in mac pros. If its faster, then theres a pretty good chance it will fit the highest end one.

now, unless the other chap who said "anything other than woodcrest would be absolutely insulting" knows wc is insanely faster at desktop tasks, I think hes just building some negative hype. Conroes are supposed to outperform by a wide margin everything weve seen so far. Its by no means insulting

it's not slower at desktop tasks, at all.

it uses the same or faster fsb (1066/1333) and the memory is faster but has a slightly higher latency but with an fsb the latency does not have that big of an impact.

xeon 51xx > conroe.

manic
Jul 12, 2006, 09:23 AM
I disagree with the line of thought that Macbooks will remain with yonah processors. heres why:

intel has announced merom will ship at the same price point as yonah. they are pin compatible. Apple can, therefore, simply fit the chips without increasing the macbooks price point/ incurring in high engeneering costs.

One might say: oh, but theyll do it to differentiate the mb from the mbp.

Seems to me that if they were concerned with pushing a high performance gap they wouldnt have specced the mb so similarly to the mbp in the first place.

seccondly, it makes no business sense. Apple knows people are holding out for merom. this will increase after its been released. if they choose to keep yonah just to justify the price gap between the mb and the mbp, theyll be alienating buyers y crippling its product without sound reason. Mac users are tech savvy. theyd be put off by being forced to by a yonah notebook with merom widely available. It will happen and its Intels merit.

lastly, lets not forget the "dell factor". If apples consumer laptops are ony available with yonah, and dells consumer laptops are fitted with merom at the same price point, I think we would see a lot of would be switchers not switching.

Conclusion: all apple would benefit from keeping yonahs in the macbooks would be to make mbp users feel happier about their machines. on the other hand, it would lose sales of macbook from customers (i) not switching or (ii) further delaying their purchase. Doesnt make business sense to me

MacQuest
Jul 12, 2006, 09:29 AM
Spooky - I predicted this. Me and everyone else except a couple naysayers. I only buy laptops though, so I'm not really the target market. But I think this will be on every graphic designers desk by Xmas. Go Apple and Intel!

Yup, I agree. companies need to expire their annual budget by Q4, so they're just lookin' for things to buy at that time. I saw it all the time at Xerox. The account rep's would scrape and scrounge for sales for the first 9 months, start getting easier sales in October and November [since it's Q4], and then they ould just sit back and wait for sales to come to them from customers that [i]had[/b] to buy things before the end of the year and spend their remaining allocated budget, otherwise their budget would get cut for the following year.


Maybe for Easter we'll get Adobe CS3 in a colorful egg or frilly basket. :rolleyes:

Adobe blows.:mad:

;)

Dr.Gargoyle
Jul 12, 2006, 09:45 AM
Er...have you seen the MacBook Pro pricing? The MacBook pricing? The iMac pricing? The Mini pricing? (Which went UP by a fair amount). If you're thinking that x86 processors are cheaper than PPC, you're sadly mistaken. Cheap computers being cheap has just about nothing whatsoever to do with the CPU....

--Eric
What I wrote was that after the PPC->x86 transition, it is easier to compare Apples prices with other manufactures selling PCs with the same hardware configuration as Apple. This has nothing to do with the price of the processor. The transition has made it possible to compare apples to apples. For example, if you compare the price of a MBP with a PCs with same hardware configuration, you will see that the prices are about the same. I suspect that MacPro will be priced in the same ball park as high-end PC workstations.

QCassidy352
Jul 12, 2006, 09:45 AM
I'd just like to direct all of your attention to this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=211175&highlight=conroe+merom+imac) and ask those of you who said merom was going to be in the imac: what were you thinking? :confused: ;)

I realize it's a little early to be gloating, but c'mon, it's definitely going to be conroe. Which, btw, I find even more exciting than the mac pro news because while I'll never have a mac pro, an imac is always possible. :cool: (though I'm thrilled about woodcrest in the mac pro anyway because it allows the imac to get conroe, and because it's great news for those of you who want a mac pro. :))

mmmcheese
Jul 12, 2006, 09:54 AM
I expect they will be Xeon based....but here's a crazy thought. Maybe, since Intel is supposed to be designing the motherboard, they will be putting 2 dual core Conroe in each machcine. I know what you're saying...impossible. Yeah, Intel said that about the early Celeron too...no SMP, but it was possible, and popular with enthusiasts because it was affordable. If anyone would know the tricks and backdoors to unlocking the processors, it would be Intel.

Of course I'm sure Intel would prefer to sell Xeon processors to Apple, even if they sold them at the same price as Conroe. Since Apple is Intel's new show pony, they want to have their entire processor line represented. Budget/Yonah...Mobile/Merom...Mainstream Desktop/Conroe....Workstation and Server/Xeon.

stunna
Jul 12, 2006, 09:57 AM
Maybe Apple will give you a choice.

Multimedia
Jul 12, 2006, 10:06 AM
So, what, this leaves us with:

* Mac Pro - Xeon/Woodcrest
* iMac - Core2 Duo/Conroe
* Mac Mini - Core Duo or Core2 Duo

Would the laptops get updated with the Core2 Duo?I'm still wondering why not both - Xeon Woody in pairs for the top of the line Quad and Conroe in the mid and low Core 2 Duo models. I can't see Apple spending all that extra money to support two cores from one Woody when it will cost them a lot less to use Conroe and a Conroe motherboard for the same two core performance. Can you?because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.Fair enough. Thanks for helping me understand why you think the line won't be split. I see Boncellis' point of view as well. Well we only have 26 more days to find out.

I expect MacBook Pros will get Merom ASAP up to 2.33 GHz and that mini and MacBooks will go Merom later by January at the latest only 2GHz max.

MacQuest
Jul 12, 2006, 10:08 AM
Seems to me that if they were concerned with pushing a high performance gap they wouldnt have specced the mb so similarly to the mbp in the first place.

1. Integrated graphics [MB] vs dedicated gpu [MBP].
2. Built in expansion card slot.
[everyone I see seems to either have or plans to get those internet service cards through their mobile phone service providers].

Just those 2 things make the MB and MBP sooo different, that customers walk the line ALL the time on whether or not they can "get buy" with "just" a MacBook.

If you meant that the MB and MBP are similar in processing power ONLY, then yes. Other than that, they are VERY different.

Plus, a lot of people want the larger 15" screen. Just as many as those that want the more mobile 13". Again, VERY big differences.

Mord
Jul 12, 2006, 10:08 AM
I'm still wondering why not both - Xeon Woody in pairs for the top of the line Quad and Conroe in the mid and low Core 2 Duo models. I can't see Apple spending all that extra money to support two cores from one Woody when it will cost them a lot less to use Conroe and a Conroe motherboard for the same two core performance. Can you?

I expect MacBook Pros will get Merom ASAP up to 2.33 GHz and that mini and MacBooks will go Merom later by January at the latest only 2GHz max.

because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.

boncellis
Jul 12, 2006, 10:15 AM
This is news, albeit somewhat inconsequential in the end. I would have thought the iMac would see Merom as its upgrade because of heat issues--perhaps Conroe won't pose a problem or there is a slight redesign of the iMac case in the cards.

As far as the Mac Pro, there is a difference between Woodcrest and Conroe beyond the multiprocessor functionality, however small. But, in my opinion, to have the entire Mac Pro line be Woodcrest would mean Apple missing out on a market segment that want a pro level machine at an intermediate price. If Apple includes just one Conroe configuration along with the Woodcrest screamers, and prices it accordingly, I think they would find something of a "sweet spot" in covering the majority of its users and potential switchers.

The price is what's going to make or break it. And I don't see it breaking.

Multimedia
Jul 12, 2006, 10:29 AM
I bet the the Quad G5 will retain their value for awhile.Yes, it will. Given that many pro apps are still not Universal, and that many times first ported version is somewhat buggy, the PPC hardware running native PPC software will become very valuable during the next 12ish months.I agree. It is a classic that can also run classic. And it is incredibly quiet - a feature seldom mentioned that many find valuable. In any event the G5 Quad will still be the second fastest Mac after this first round of Mac Pros ship. And I'd still rather have four G5 cores than two Core 2 Duo cores. Wouldn't you?

But I also think that for certain verticle markets, like video that are already completely Universal, this new IntelQuad may perform significantly faster than the G5 Quad - enough so for many video pros to take the leap. Looking forward to the benchmarks on this front. But realy waiting for 8 cores with Leopard next Spring. :)

QCassidy352
Jul 12, 2006, 10:41 AM
seccondly, it makes no business sense. Apple knows people are holding out for merom.

not really. People are buying macbooks in droves. Only a very few people (the numbers seem inflated on a board like this) are holding out.

I can build my own PC for way less than the cost of a mac so I'm switching to XP, blah blah blah

really?? You don't say! Well stop the presses; apparently it costs less to custom build a PC than to buy a premade computer! My goodness, this is news. I think Apple, Dell, HP, Sony, and all the rest should shut down their factories now because it's clear that they can no longer do business in light of this development.

But you know, now I'm thinking that maybe some people don't have the time, know-how, or patience to build their own PCs. And I'm thinking that they like having warranties for when something goes wrong and they don't know how to fix it. And I'm thinking that for the majority of users the friendliness of the OS is going to be about 1000x more significant than having the latest omg-wtf-bbq-roxxor!!11!1! graphics card. So good for you that you're happy with a high-end home-built XP box, but please don't act like people are stupid for going with a professionally built and supported machine that does everything they need and runs a better OS.
-------
Moving on... the issue of a headless-upgradable-imac (which really isn't an imac at all because imacs are pretty much defined as being all-in-ones and non-upgradable, so I'll call it a low-end tower) has come up a lot recently. Everyone in this thread seems very sure that apple will release such a product, but I'm quite skeptical. I don't see who it appeals to. Demanding gamers, as macenforcer points out, are much better off building their own machine. Pros will want a true pro tower, not a stripped down version. Students would do better with a space saving, all-in-one design like an imac. "Average home users" like my mom will never upgrade anything (except *maybe* the RAM) so should get imacs or mac minis. The target market for this low-end tower seems to be knowledgable consumers who like upgrading. There are many such people on this board, but they're a comparatively rare breed in the real world.

Also, apple is not going to have very high margins on such a machine, I'd wager. After all, it's a budget tower, right? But the people who buy them are going to keep them and upgrade them (with 3rd party hardware) for a very long time. So apple has one initial sale at low margins and then doesn't see that consumer again for years. If I were apple I'd either want to make a really big sale up front (like with a mac pro), or sell a not-very upgradable machine that will have you coming back in 2 or 3 years rather than 5 or 6.

So IMO, while this low-end tower would fill a gap in apple's line up and be ideal for many on this board, I'm not sure it's a gap that many consumers fit in to, or that apple particularly cares about filling.

boncellis
Jul 12, 2006, 10:50 AM
...So IMO, while this low-end tower would fill a gap in apple's line up and be ideal for many on this board, I'm not sure it's a gap that many consumers fit in to, or that apple particularly cares about filling.

As much as I hate to say it, you're probably right. Apple seems to be doing rather well with their current lineup after all.

What gets me is why Apple wouldn't put Merom in the Mini? A redesigned Mini offering different processors might help close the gap for those who want a more robust solution than the current Mini but can't (or won't) shell out the money for the Mac Pro.

shawnce
Jul 12, 2006, 10:53 AM
The most intelligent post on this thread.

...but Intel has workstation chipsets that support the Xeon 51xx series and they have 16x PCIe (among several other nice things)...

For example...
Intel® 5000X Chipset (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/index.htm) (Product Brief PDF (http://intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/product_brief.pdf))

Also review page 7 of this PDF (http://download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/dc51kprodbrief.pdf).

fewture
Jul 12, 2006, 11:15 AM
have to agree with Manik and generik,

Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible. Apple has to compete with the other companies now, and if it doesn't fill Macbook with Merom, it doesnt have a small laptop with latest specs - while its competitors will.

Unless they introduce a smaller Macbook Pro which no one is suggesting. Makes business sense to throw the same price Merom into the Macbook.

Could someone please explain, other than this 'we must make some distinction' between MB and MBP (which already exists) why apple wouldn't put in Meroms into the Macbook asap?

Multimedia
Jul 12, 2006, 11:33 AM
have to agree with Manik and generik,

Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible. Apple has to compete with the other companies now, and if it doesn't fill Macbook with Merom, it doesnt have a small laptop with latest specs - while its competitors will.

Unless they introduce a smaller Macbook Pro which no one is suggesting. Makes business sense to throw the same price Merom into the Macbook.

Could someone please explain, other than this 'we must make some distinction' between MB and MBP (which already exists) why apple wouldn't put in Meroms into the Macbook asap?I wholeheartedly agree. It's just a question of how soon Apple will pull the trigger on the switch to Merom in mini and MacBook not if they will. I'm not sure Apple thinks they are competing with PC specs yet. But what's the upside to sticking with Yonah in anything until next year? I don't get it. Aren't we better off in the long run retiring Yonah ASAP?

Is it:

1. Low Supply of Meroms until next year?
2. Lower Cost of Yonahs until next year?

Am I out of line for not believing either of the above? I can't understand Apple not wanting to lose Yonah as soon as they can. I don't see anyone buying a different model because one is Yonah and another is Merom. MacBooks are way too different from MacBook Pros in many other ways than their processor's speed and 32/64 bitness. :confused:

I'm confused for now. Maybe we're being too pessimistic about Apple's willingness to drop Yonah ASAP. :confused:

greenstork
Jul 12, 2006, 11:33 AM
What astounds me about this thread is that most people are treating Conroe like it's some second rate, compromise chip, like it pales in comparison to the Woodcrest, which is absolutely ridiculous. The conroe is a revolutionary chip, with virtually identical architecture to the Woodcrest. It's only downside is that you can't run dual conroe's and the bus speed is slightly different.

If the entire Mac Pro line came out with Conroes, which are dual core, we would have excellent and fast machines (for the record though, I think we'll see Woodcrests). My guess is that we may see at least one lower-end Mac Pro or headless media unit with a Conroe but in all likelihood, most of the Mac Pro line will use one chip because of the engineering costs associated with different socket and motherboard designs.

As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance. Merom is a laptop chip and I'm not sure it will ever end up in a desktop system, even if it is the same socket as the Yonah.

shawnce
Jul 12, 2006, 11:44 AM
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.

Pentium D has horrid heat output. :)

Merom is a laptop chip and I'm not sure it will ever end up in a desktop system, even if it is the same socket as the Yonah.

Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)

Anyway...

The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).

So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.

Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.

Apple could go either way on this...

thogs_cave
Jul 12, 2006, 11:53 AM
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.

Actually, I was just reading a bit on PCI-E, and apparently even the beefy dual-card (SLI) GFX don't saturate a pair of 8x slots. Quad SLI might need 16x, but for one or even two cards the boost from 8x to 16x is pretty much a wash.

(And this was from a PeeCee magazine!)

sbarton
Jul 12, 2006, 12:07 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM

I want it at or less than $1199.00

Now gimmie

Oh, and P.S. - Don't make me put a Dell 24" LCD on it - Drop the 23" cinema display to $999 and the 20" to $699 - that still leaves you with a nice premium.

cmcconkey
Jul 12, 2006, 12:15 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM

I want it at or less than $1199.00

Now gimmie


Also would have to have a standard Firewire port. Wireless and Bluetooth standard would be just awesome, considering it is quite cheap now. At that price point would be VERY nice. But don't see it happening. :(

Christopher

ChrisA
Jul 12, 2006, 12:19 PM
Just as a data point for you all: I'm typing this on a dual processor Xeon runing at 3.6 Ghz.
Each procesor has 1M cache. The system has 4GB RAM and some 10K RPM Ultra-SCSI disks. It runs Linux. This system runs circles around any current Intel Mac. I'm not putting Mac down. Not at all. I just wanted to let you all know to expect a huge performane jump when these new dual and quad core woodcrest machines come out.

You want my guess about what's comming. Apple will offer a high-end dual Woodcrest, quad core "mac pro" and it will be expensive. But they will also offer a lower-end dual processor (Conroe) tower. in a mini-tower configuration. Call it a "Mac Pro Lite" for arounr $2K

EagerDragon
Jul 12, 2006, 12:20 PM
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Why not Woodcrest for entire PRO line?

EagerDragon
Jul 12, 2006, 12:23 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.

Very, remeber that they may also have multiple GPU(s).
:D

jasonbrennan
Jul 12, 2006, 12:34 PM
What about BLU RAY?

Am I the only one who hopes/thinks that we might see a bluray drive in the new mac pros? I mean, Apple is, afterall, a member of the br camp. And they always seem to want to be the "first" to have a new standard (wifi, dvd burning, firewire)...yes, I know they didn't invent any of these, and they may not have been the absolute first, but you know what I mean

Last year was supposed to be the "Year of HD", but we really didn't see a whole lot of it other than h.264. I think It would be really impressive if we saw at least a BDROM drive, if not a BDR would be hella cool

theBB
Jul 12, 2006, 12:38 PM
Unless Apple bucks their own trend of charging more for the Intel Mac replacements over the G4/G5 units, we may be in for a rather large increase at the higher end on up. Intel processors cost more than G4/G5 processors. The high end of any processor costs a lot more than the slower ones of the same type. Does all of this add up to price decreases or price increases? As much as I would like to see a price decrease, to me that just does not add up.
The only G5 machine replaced by an Intel version has been iMac and its price stayed the same.

manic
Jul 12, 2006, 12:42 PM
1. Integrated graphics [MB] vs dedicated gpu [MBP].
2. Built in expansion card slot.
[everyone I see seems to either have or plans to get those internet service cards through their mobile phone service providers].

Just those 2 things make the MB and MBP sooo different, that customers walk the line ALL the time on whether or not they can "get buy" with "just" a MacBook.

If you meant that the MB and MBP are similar in processing power ONLY, then yes. Other than that, they are VERY different.

Plus, a lot of people want the larger 15" screen. Just as many as those that want the more mobile 13". Again, VERY big differences.

I totally agree, dude. I think theyre entirely different beasts. I was just trying to make a point that keeping yonahs in macbooks just to make the mbp look like a sounder deal doesnt make business sense to apple and that well likely see meroms in MB still this year.

jiggie2g
Jul 12, 2006, 12:51 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM

I want it at or less than $1199.00

Now gimmie

Oh, and P.S. - Don't make me put a Dell 24" LCD on it - Drop the 23" cinema display to $999 and the 20" to $599 - that still leaves you with a nice premium.

Sure u can buy a Tower with those specs(save 4 FW800) I'd rather have eSATA 2(faster). at less $1199.00 except that PC will have a Gateway/HP/Dell logo on it , instead of that cute little Apple. Would u like that Order Supersized... keep dreaming.

I am now convinced that many people who post in these forums are stupid(not refering to u sbarton) , If half these dumb comments went up on Xtremesystems/THG/Anandtech Forums people would get laughed at right out of the forums. Please if you do not have any sort of technical knowledge please do not post ignorant comments about how conroe deserves to go into an iMac and MacPro is too good for it.

I find it very disturbing that while many of the forums I just mentioned are salivating for conroe chips to hit retail , the mac snobs in this forum act like it's some bastardized step child to woodcrest. Lets me tell you noob's something after seeing Coolaler hit 4ghz on a Kentsfield nothing impresses me anymore. lets see your MacPro score 2000 in Cinebench and render in 11secs.

I can't wait till august so when i get my Conore i can break all your hearts. when u see my Conroe clock up at 3.6ghz and blow that overpriced MacPro trash out of the water. Then please tell me that Core 2 belongs in an iMac.
I swear you people deserve to be stuck with IBM/Freescale for another 5yrs.



because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.

I am very disappointed in you Hector , you of all people should know better then to post something like this. Do u not realise that the Intel deal ment apple dosen't have to do it's own R&D anymore when it came to chip sets.

APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.

Evangelion
Jul 12, 2006, 12:53 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM

I want it at or less than $1199.00

Pony. You forgot the pony.

I would say that the CPU would be 2.33GHz to 2.66Ghz Conroe an prices would start at $1499.

Gurutech
Jul 12, 2006, 01:12 PM
Pentium D has horrid heat output. :)



Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)

Anyway...

The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).

So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.

Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.

Apple could go either way on this...

Sure can.
I believe the max TDP of G5 processor is something like 80 W.
more like +- 60 W

If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.

Mord
Jul 12, 2006, 01:19 PM
the g5 numbers are typical, conroe nomubers are max.

Multimedia
Jul 12, 2006, 01:23 PM
What about BLU RAY?

Am I the only one who hopes/thinks that we might see a bluray drive in the new mac pros? I mean, Apple is, afterall, a member of the br camp. And they always seem to want to be the "first" to have a new standard (wifi, dvd burning, firewire)...yes, I know they didn't invent any of these, and they may not have been the absolute first, but you know what I mean

Last year was supposed to be the "Year of HD", but we really didn't see a whole lot of it other than h.264. I think It would be really impressive if we saw at least a BDROM drive, if not a BDR would be hella coolI hope for it. But only think it might be a long shot BTO option because Blu-Ray recorders are close to $1,000 so far. Even the players are almost $1,000. So this seems like an option for next year.

I also hope for a dual 5.25" external bay design.

gnasher729
Jul 12, 2006, 01:31 PM
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Why not Woodcrest for entire PRO line?

Please please please read through a few of the Merom / Conroe / Woodcrest thread. Using a single Woodcrest in _any_ machine is pure idiocy; chipsets are a few hundred dollars more expensive, hotter and not one bit faster than Conroe at the same clockspeed.

And using Conroe in a portable computer would be a highly questionable move. It uses twice the power of Merom at the same clockspeed and performance. It is a bit cheaper, but Apple would spend much more money for having to use much bigger batteries and a much more powerful cooling system. Macbook and Macbook Pro are really quiet if you use not more than about half their performance; at full performance the fans are quite noisy. With a Conroe chip, you would have the full noise at medium speed; Conroe running at full speed would make one hell of a noise and empty your batteries within minutes.

fewture
Jul 12, 2006, 01:34 PM
Jiggy2g - yes its all very 'disturbing'... whatever! calm down dude, the geekness is just too much (whoa man did you see that conroe at 4ghz!!)...

(the tone of your post just cracked me up) - we are all very 'disappointed' in you.

andiwm2003
Jul 12, 2006, 01:40 PM
.....................................I am now convinced that many people who post in these forums are stupid(not refering to u sbarton) , If half these dumb comments went up on Xtremesystems/THG/Anandtech Forums people would get laughed at right out of the forums. Please if you do not have any sort of technical knowledge please do not post ignorant comments about how conroe deserves to go into an iMac and MacPro is too good for it.

I find it very disturbing that while many of the forums I just mentioned are salivating for conroe chips to hit retail , the mac snobs in this forum act like it's some bastardized step child to woodcrest. Lets me tell you noob's something after seeing Coolaler hit 4ghz on a Kentsfield nothing impresses me anymore. lets see your MacPro score 2000 in Cinebench and render in 11secs.

I can't wait till august so when i get my Conore i can break all your hearts. when u see my Conroe clock up at 3.6ghz and blow that overpriced MacPro trash out of the water. Then please tell me that Core 2 belongs in an iMac.
I swear you people deserve to be stuck with IBM/Freescale for another 5yrs.

.......................................................................APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS[/B] incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.


uhm, where does that come from?:confused:

so, why should your conroe based machine blow a mac out of the water? we don't know the specs yet. and as you state yourself they are going to use standard intel stuff. so speedwise they should be equal to any other PC. only twice as expensive.:p

aside of that most people here were rather positive towards the intel switch. and most want a conroe based midrange mac. so why this post?:confused:

jiggie2g
Jul 12, 2006, 01:48 PM
Jiggy2g - yes its all very 'disturbing'... whatever! calm down dude, the geekness is just too much (whoa man did you see that conroe at 4ghz!!)...

(the tone of your post just cracked me up) - we are all very 'disappointed' in you.


Point Proven..Noobs like this are the reason why sites like \http://mac-sucks.com/ exist.


uhm, where does that come from?:confused:
so, why should your conroe based machine blow a mac out of the water? we don't know the specs yet. and as you state yourself they are going to use standard intel stuff. so speedwise they should be equal to any other PC. only twice as expensive.:p

Because unlike Apple , getting your own custom motherboard from ASUS / MSI / Gigabyte / DFI. means you have real choices , you can choose different chipsets from Intel , ATI , Nvidia , VIA. NOT JUST STOCK PARTS. I can get that 10 USB , 8 SATA , WiFi , eSATA , Dual PCIe 16x that supports Crossfire or SLI anyway i want it, Apple will never do this , even Dull gives u that much.

Also


aside of that most people here were rather positive towards the intel switch. and most want a conroe based midrange mac. so why this post?:confused:
Apple will never release a Midtower for the simple fact that this market is the most saturated PC market and Apple is not willing to get into a price war where the margins are already paper thin. same reason u will never see a lowend $599 Macbook. That stipped down iMac is a joke

Mord
Jul 12, 2006, 01:54 PM
I am very disappointed in you Hector , you of all people should know better then to post something like this. Do u not realise that the Intel deal ment apple dosen't have to do it's own R&D anymore when it came to chip sets.

APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.

any and ever motherboard has been designed with the chips lay out and logic requested by the vendor, in this case apple, the fact that they don't develop their own electronics changes nothing, freescale/IBM made the chipsets before the switch nothing has changed, apple outsourced the design of the board to intel sure but they are paying intel to do so somehow, anyway, the cost of support and manufacture rockets up too.


more i'm disappointed in you, i haven't seen you post in a year or so and your still the same childish n00b who completely misses the point.

the mac pro will be a pro machine, apple has never done a consumer tower and likely never will.

woodcrest is just conroe with SMP, overclocking is exactly the same, as in non existent due to EFI. professionals do not overclock their macs.

go play with your toys.

legacyb4
Jul 12, 2006, 01:55 PM
The MacBooks sound so underpowered (even though that's really not the case) with the new announcement...

sigamy
Jul 12, 2006, 01:58 PM
man, my head is spinning...Yonah, Mermon, Woodcrest, Core Duo 2 (isn't that redundant?)

Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)

brianus
Jul 12, 2006, 02:09 PM
If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.

I'm glad somebody pointed this out. Why does everyone who says it "can't be done" or is a bad idea, putting such a chip in a little iMac case, forget that that very same case was designed for, and originally housed, a G5?

APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.

So we might then see Conroe on the low end and Woodcrest on the high end, but they'd still all be marketed as Mac Pro (no clumsy "Mac Pro Widdle" monicker*)? Sounds about right to me and might explain the discrepancies between the AppleInsider and ThinkSecret reports. Not that I trust TS much these days, mind you.. but as others have pointed out, putting single Woodcrests on the low end simply makes no sense. Paying extra for an advantage these lower-end pro desktops would not have (namely, the possibility of multiple sockets) is not something the business I work for would be willing to consider. We don't need quad power or a ridiculous price tag, but neither will we be satisfied with a cheap "consumer" tower.


<anal>*Which reminds me, people have got to stop calling it "MacPro" all as one word and then adding suffixies to it. It's Mac = line, Pro = modifier, just like MacBook = line, Pro = modifier or Mac = line, mini = modifier. "Mac" now means "headless desktop computer", "iMac" means all-in-one and "MacBook" means laptop. There are then modifiers separating out the different ends of those particular product lines. There is no "MacPro" line.</anal>

Eidorian
Jul 12, 2006, 02:11 PM
If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.Someone posted the BURNING G5's (970FX) wattage. Does anyone remember it?

Edit: I'm getting 970FX wattages ranging from 25-47 watts.

kevin.rivers
Jul 12, 2006, 02:14 PM
man, my head is spinning...Yonah, Mermon, Woodcrest, Core Duo 2 (isn't that redundant?)

Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)

Yonah is Core Duo
Merom and Conroe are Core 2 Duo
Woodcrest is considered a Xeon

jiggie2g
Jul 12, 2006, 02:18 PM
any and ever motherboard has been designed with the chips lay out and logic requested by the vendor, in this case apple, the fact that they don't develop their own electronics changes nothing, freescale/IBM made the chipsets before the switch nothing has changed, apple outsourced the design of the board to intel sure but they are paying intel to do so somehow, anyway, the cost of support and manufacture rockets up too.


more i'm disappointed in you, i haven't seen you post in a year or so and your still the same childish n00b who completely misses the point.

the mac pro will be a pro machine, apple has never done a consumer tower and likely never will.

woodcrest is just conroe with SMP, overclocking is exactly the same, as in non existent due to EFI. professionals do not overclock their macs.

go play with your toys.


This coming from a guy who overclocks his AMD chips...... talk about being a hippocrate. I very much doubt apple will deviate much from intel reference design. I expect something similar to the Intel 975x Bad Axe Motherboard for the MacPro.

Mord
Jul 12, 2006, 02:21 PM
thats on my gameing rig, i don't use my pc for work.

Evangelion
Jul 12, 2006, 02:51 PM
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.

Yes it would. Ever heard of economies of scale? If Apple told Intel "we want to buy 600.000 Woodcrests from you", they would get a nice discount. Spread that purchase over several different CPU's, and the discount is not that nice anymore. Furtermore, having two different CPU's, two different chipsets and two different types of RAM in single line of computers, is going to make inventory-management and maintentance quite a bit more expensive than having single lineup with one type of compoennts.

QCassidy352
Jul 12, 2006, 02:52 PM
I can't wait till august so when i get my Conore i can break all your hearts. when u see my Conroe clock up at 3.6ghz and blow that overpriced MacPro trash out of the water. Then please tell me that Core 2 belongs in an iMac. I swear you people deserve to be stuck with IBM/Freescale for another 5yrs.

How is it an insult to conroe to say that a desktop chip should go in a moderately priced desktop? And perhaps more to the point, why exactly are you so worked up about someone insulting conroe... is it your personal creation or something? You do realize that both PCs and Macs will be using both conroes and woodcrests in various configurations, right? It's not like woodcrest is an apple product. So what exactly are you so worked up about?

Do you really think anyone here will care if you overclock your conroe-based PC? Let alone "break our hearts?" Have fun.

Even if you had a point worth making, your attitude is so repulsive that I don't know why anyone would want to listen to you.

shawnce
Jul 12, 2006, 03:16 PM
I believe the max TDP of G5 processor is something like 80 W.

The below lists power consumed by the part, they are not TDP numbers (only part of the power consumed by a chip leaves the chip as heat, heat is what you have to dissipate and is what TDP attempts define).

PPC 970fx power optimized part (@ 2GHz)
40W average, 45-50 W max, 23 W throttle back (half frequency)

PPC 970fx standard part (@ 2GHz)
48W average, 55-60 W max, 29 W throttle back (half frequency)

To me this puts the PPC 970fx below the TDP of a Conroe... I would say the TDP for the PPC 970fx (@2Ghz) is around 40 W (if not lower).

playaj82
Jul 12, 2006, 03:20 PM
I hope for it. But only think it might be a long shot BTO option because Blu-Ray recorders are close to $1,000 so far. Even the players are almost $1,000. So this seems like an option for next year.

I also hope for a dual 5.25" external bay design.

I agree that Apple will wait on the Blu-Ray drives. Apple did jump on the BR bandwagon to support the format, but without a standard, I doubt they will call off all other bets.

Apple has a history of picking standardized I/O. Apple invented firewire (or at least licenses out the technology) and included it once it was approved by the IEEE. The same thing with their Airport technology. Once the 802.11 were decided upon, Apple released that product.

This high-def disk stuff is still too limited in its everyday usefulness. Of course there are always early adopters and people that have to have it right away, but Apple's entire pro line jeopardized by the price constraints of including a $1000 BR drive, or even having to support it, doubtful.

jiggie2g
Jul 12, 2006, 03:23 PM
Yes it would. Ever heard of economies of scale? If Apple told Intel "we want to buy 600.000 Woodcrests from you", they would get a nice discount. Spread that purchase over several different CPU's, and the discount is not that nice anymore. Furtermore, having two different CPU's, two different chipsets and two different types of RAM in single line of computers, is going to make inventory-management and maintentance quite a bit more expensive than having single lineup with one type of compoennts.


This may be the case for say HP or Gateway , however Apple is Intel's new Darling and gets the best deal in the industry , so good infact that it prompted Dell to no longer feature Intel as it's exclusive chip vendor and as a resuld Dell will be introducing AMD based Desktops in August just to spite Intel for doing this.

No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.

greenstork
Jul 12, 2006, 03:27 PM
How is it an insult to conroe to say that a desktop chip should go in a moderately priced desktop? And perhaps more to the point, why exactly are you so worked up about someone insulting conroe... is it your personal creation or something? You do realize that both PCs and Macs will be using both conroes and woodcrests in various configurations, right? It's not like woodcrest is an apple product. So what exactly are you so worked up about?

Do you really think anyone here will care if you overclock your conroe-based PC? Let alone "break our hearts?" Have fun.

Even if you had a point worth making, your attitude is so repulsive that I don't know why anyone would want to listen to you.

I think his point was that most tech geeks are freaking out about the revolutionary core 2 architecture, be it in the conroe, woodcrest or merom. For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.

Mikael
Jul 12, 2006, 03:42 PM
I think his point was that most tech geeks are freaking out about the revolutionary core 2 architecture, be it in the conroe, woodcrest or merom. For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.
Exactly. Numerous people have tried to explain that Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest basically are the same CPU, yet few people seem to have understood it yet. The differences between the parts are almost exclusively external (or atleast not related to the execution core), like socket and FSB frequency. The core architecture has even been said by Intel reps to be the same. The only reason for a Woodcrest CPU to perform better than a Conroe (the non-Extreme edition) would be because of the slightly faster FSB. This advantage could soon be negated by the use of FB-DIMMs.

So, why get so worked up over this?

shawnce
Jul 12, 2006, 03:45 PM
For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.

...but they are a lesser chip in some ways (more so if you also consider the chipset)...

(not forgetting AMD in the following... just trying to keep it simple... also note when I say Conroe or Woodcrest I am also implying different class of chipsets)

The simple fact is workstation class systems from most vendors (in recent history) are usually based on Xeon (now Woodcrest) CPUs with 2 sockets (if not more) while desktop class systems from most vendors are are based on Pentium 4/D (soon Conroe) CPUs with 1 socket.

So the question is will Apple replace the PowerMac G5 with a true workstation class system, or will they split the PowerMac into a desktop tower and workstation with the former using Conroe and the later using Woodcrest, or will they use Conroe only (and for the moment not have a quad core system), etc.

Historically I have stated that Apple will use Conroe in a PowerMac replacement and wait for Kentsfield to bring back the quad (doing that would give them great performance and price point)... but looking at the timing of things now (and Intel price drops) I am starting to believe either Apple will go all Woodcrest for the PowerMac (truly make it a workstation class system) or go all Woodcrest for a workstation Mac and bring out a lower end tower that uses Conroe.

aswitcher
Jul 12, 2006, 03:46 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM

I want it at or less than $1199.00



4 ram slots so I can get 2 gig cheap or 4 gig if I want it.

2 x FW 400s well.

BT/AX standard of course.

Frontrow IR port.

Optical audio in/out.

User replacable Ram, HDD, Graphics card(?).

gugy
Jul 12, 2006, 03:46 PM
A follow-up question: why the obsession with Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator? There are other apps out there as well. Why does it seem that about 105% of Mac-users are Photoshop-users as well (I bet that PhotoShop-users are in fact in the minority)? Everything related to Apple, OS X and Macs seem to boil down to "but what about PhotoShop?". Well, what about it?

You are worried about the fact that Adobe's apps are not yet Universal? Fine, then don't buy a MacIntel. Problem solved.


wow, you just don't get it.

I am a freelance motion graphics designer. I work on many companies in L.A. and NY. After Effects, Photoshop and Illustrator are their core applications. Plus many print designers relly on Photoshop and Illustrator. Those people will not jump on the Pro Mac as long as the Adobe apps are not universal.
Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above. So my answer to that is none.

If you are mainly a video editor, maybe it would be OK to upgrade because FCP will be universal, but I am talking about a major segment on the industry that solely relly on Adobe. This people will not jump on the bandwagon right away. This people wil not change and learn a new app just because the latest Mac is not suited for their needs. They will wait few more months.

So if you think Adobe apps can be substitute with something else on the professiopnal level, then you definately have no clue of what are you talking about.

jiggie2g
Jul 12, 2006, 03:51 PM
I think his point was that most tech geeks are freaking out about the revolutionary core 2 architecture, be it in the conroe, woodcrest or merom. For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.


Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated. This is why i say they deserved to be suck with PowerPC maybe another 5yrs with IBM/Freescale will make them more greatful to Intel for bailing them out.

Freakin Core 2 is 80% redesigned from Core 1 and this was done is very short time, Inessence they were able to Beat AMD clock 4 clock while maintaining the insane clock scalibility of Netbust and at a lower wattage output , talk about having your cake and eating it too. It truly is a great technical achievement. Those guy at Intel Israel are geniuses.

shawnce
Jul 12, 2006, 03:54 PM
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intellighent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are in elated.

go go Mr. Stereotype

killr_b
Jul 12, 2006, 03:56 PM
And finally... you have a black macbook pro? I'm impressed. :P So did you use Krylon?


Dude, check it out... http://www.colorwarepc.com/products/select_MacBookPro.aspx
A black Macbook Pro looks cool, right. :cool:

manic
Jul 12, 2006, 04:01 PM
The upcomming WWDC has everything to be the coolest, most agressive WWDC ever. If Apple is up to it, we are set to see the strongest Apple line up ever. And thats saying a bit, since the current lineup is already mighty all by itself

alexdrinan
Jul 12, 2006, 04:04 PM
Exactly. Numerous people have tried to explain that Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest basically are the same CPU, yet few people seem to have understood it yet. The differences between the parts are almost exclusively external (or atleast not related to the execution core), like socket and FSB frequency. The core architecture has even been said by Intel reps to be the same. The only reason for a Woodcrest CPU to perform better than a Conroe (the non-Extreme edition) would be because of the slightly faster FSB. This advantage could soon be negated by the use of FB-DIMMs.

So, why get so worked up over this?

Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe. While Conroe might be very good, it's not the best, which is what pro customer's expect from Apple's highest-end workstation offering.

Silentwave
Jul 12, 2006, 04:08 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM

I want it at or less than $1199.00

Now gimmie


Fine. tell me where we can get everything but the processor for $200 and we have a deal. Conroe doesn't have anything above 2.66 that isn't an extreme edition. So your next stop is the X6800 2.93GHz Extreme Edition- $999 per chip.

Mord
Jul 12, 2006, 04:12 PM
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.

jiggie2g
Jul 12, 2006, 04:18 PM
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.


My point exactly...Mac Snobbery at it's finest.

Multimedia
Jul 12, 2006, 04:24 PM
man, my head is spinning...Yonah, Mermon, Woodcrest, Core Duo 2 (isn't that redundant?)

Don't you just long for the good old days when we'd get one G4 processor for 18 months? ;)In A Word NO. There is nothing complicated about understanding Intel's Processor line. Only lazy consumers unwilling to read anything.

All the details have been spoon fed to us for months by generous meembers here. I see no excuse for not know the differences by now and why what belongs where.

jiggie2g
Jul 12, 2006, 04:34 PM
In A Word NO. There is nothing complicated about understanding Intel's Processor line. Only lazy consumers unwilling to read anything.


Yes Mulitmedia these are the same morons with too much money and too little sense , These are the same people who are saying ..ohhh why can't Conroe go into an iMac , but i want a Woodcrest , hey I don't care if Merom is Pin compatible can't they go with Conroe for it's better perfromance ..lol

What a bunch of whiny daddy's boys , no sense at all they just obey the all mighty Stevie Jobs when he lies about how the new MacPro is THE FASTEST PEECEE IN THE WORRRRLD:p

shawnce
Jul 12, 2006, 04:41 PM
The upcomming WWDC has everything to be the coolest, most agressive WWDC ever.

Glad I get to make it this year! :)

(missed 2005)

Mikael
Jul 12, 2006, 04:42 PM
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe. While Conroe might be very good, it's not the best, which is what pro customer's expect from Apple's highest-end workstation offering.
I thought it was pretty obvious that I was talking about a potential single CPU Mac Pro. Woodcrest would obviously have to be used in a dual CPU machine. Also, I'd expect that lower speed grades would be offered too, which would make a 2.66GHz Conroe a nice pick. Or is only the absolutely highest clocked version of the CPU good enough to satisfy the demanding professional Mac users? :rolleyes:

Sorry, just tired of the so called professionals that can't stop whining about how anything other than the best is an insult... It's annoying and it gets old fast.

bradc
Jul 12, 2006, 04:47 PM
Maybe Apple will give you a choice.


That's what I was going to say. Maybe Apple will turn more like Dell's website with a 'plethora' of options. So there might be a bunch of possible configurations?

jiggie2g
Jul 12, 2006, 04:50 PM
I thought it was pretty obvious that I was talking about a potential single CPU Mac Pro. Woodcrest would obviously have to be used in a dual CPU machine. Also, I'd expect that lower speed grades would be offered too, which would make a 2.66GHz Conroe a nice pick. Or is only the absolutely highest clocked version of the CPU good enough to satisfy the demanding professional Mac users? :rolleyes:

Sorry, just tired of the so called professionals that can't stop whining about how anything other than the best is an insult... It's annoying and it gets old fast.


Another Brave Soul excapes the Mac Matrix created by Steve "The Architect" Jobs. Enough with this Snobbery nonsense , The PowerPC Warz are over move on. you guy are now in the same boat was the windows folk. No more Think Different, Think Alike.

THX1139
Jul 12, 2006, 04:50 PM
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.


This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.

So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.

Multimedia
Jul 12, 2006, 04:51 PM
Yes Mulitmedia these are the same morons with too much money and too little sense , These are the same people who are saying ..ohhh why can't Conroe go into an iMac , but i want a Woodcrest , hey I don't care if Merom is Pin compatible can't they go with Conroe for it's better perfromance ..lol

What a bunch of whiny daddy's boys , no sense at all they just obey the all mighty Stevie Jobs when he lies about how the new MacPro is THE FASTEST PEECEE IN THE WORRRRLD:pCareful. You can get banned for calling anyone here a naughty name. They will go whining to the moderators and a moderator who might not like you in the first place will lock you out of the process. So I don't disrespect anyone in writing here any more. Everyone here is beautiful and fun to be with. :)

killr_b
Jul 12, 2006, 04:55 PM
My point exactly...Mac Snobbery at it's finest.


Yeah mister 6" PeeCee, you must've missed where Steve Jobs said something along the lines of, "BMW and Mercedes have about a 14% market share. What's wrong with being a BMW or a Mercedes?"

This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.

Multimedia
Jul 12, 2006, 04:55 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.

So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.Yes they are. I agree with you. But when I wrote that earlier in this thread, someone wrote that economies of scale dictated that Woody goes in everything Pro rather than only in the Quad. Makes no sense to me either. I think all non-quads should be Conroe.

killr_b
Jul 12, 2006, 04:57 PM
Yes Mulitmedia these are the same morons with too much money and too little sense , These are the same people who are saying ..ohhh why can't Conroe go into an iMac , but i want a Woodcrest , hey I don't care if Merom is Pin compatible can't they go with Conroe for it's better perfromance ..lol

What a bunch of whiny daddy's boys , no sense at all they just obey the all mighty Stevie Jobs when he lies about how the new MacPro is THE FASTEST PEECEE IN THE WORRRRLD:p


And why are you here?????

Mord
Jul 12, 2006, 05:00 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.

So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.

if you don't need all the power you can get the mac pro is not for you, apple does not do a consumer tower and most likely never will, they simply must have a quad settup and if they have two configs of them (a 3GHz and a 2.66) they may as well keep the low end option on the same platform, this has been said again and again and again, conroe is not bad it just does not make sense for apple to use it in the mac pro, conroe goes in the imac.

shawnce
Jul 12, 2006, 05:07 PM
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.

All of the Core / Core 2 based processors support SMP (they have two cores after all) but only the Xeon class chips and related chipset supports the ability to have more then a single CPU socket.


Option for 1333 MT/s FSB
Support for two socket systems
Available now while Conroe is a little farther out (not much)
Server class chipset available (lots of RAM expansion, PCIe/X expansion, lots of SATA attachments, high-end internal RAID, error detection and correction, etc.)


In many ways it comes down to Apple wanting to maintain a quad core option in the short term or not.. and how they plan to maintain that option if they provide one in the short term...

will they standardize (fewer chipsets/packages the more efficient their costs) on Woodcrest and related chipset giving them a quad core on the high-end with low end having a single Woodcrest ...

will they standardize on Conroe and related chipset giving them only dual core capability across the range ...

will they use Woodcrest for a quad core and Conroe for dual core systems...

will they split the product space in two... using Woodcrest in workstation class system (lots of expansion capabilities) and Conroe in desktop class system (minimal expansion capabilties)...

will they start shipping Opteron based systems... =P

jiggie2g
Jul 12, 2006, 05:15 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.

So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.


They are , you will not see any performance differences between Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest at equal clock speeds, unless u go SMP. They will all encode , render , transcode at the same pace. The FSB means nothis as it has yet to be saturated even a 667mhz. Tons of test and benchmarks at Xtremesystems done over the past few months have proven this.

Making the MAcPro line all Dual will be a Big Mistake and will backfire on Apple and force many pople to go right back to PC. I can Promise you , if u want a Woody in a MacPro be prepared to pay an entry fee of $2499 to join this exclusive club of idiots.

I remeber when my iMac G4 was starting to show it'sa age and when the time came to replace it , the minimum price for a real desktop Mac was (and still is) $1999 for a dual 2.0ghz G5. So what did i do , I said goodbye Apple and built a better machine for 1/2 the money. Till this day I have no regrets and would never go back unless i was in the market for a notebook then i'd get a macbook.

I still can't believe Apple still has the balls to charge $2000 for an outdated Desktop that gets Outperformed by an $800 PC. While still having a smaller hard drive , less ram , less usb ports , no card reader. Jobs believes you mac loyalist are stupid.

Careful. You can get banned for calling anyone here a naughty name. They will go whining to the moderators and a moderator who might not like you in the first place will lock you out of the process. So I don't disrespect anyone in writing here any more. Everyone here is beautiful and fun to be with. :)

Believe me Bro i've already been there.:D

Mord
Jul 12, 2006, 05:19 PM
jiggy:

your thinking is exactly why most pc's suck, dell ect choose components that are "good enough" or choose some unsuitable cpu because it sounds fast, woodcest makes the most sense to go into the mac pro, conroe into the imac merom into the mbp simple as.

just because something is not for you does not mean how you want it is how it should be, your a kid who likes playing with pc hardware and likes components with "big numbers" and overclockability, and while a quad would be wasted on you it'd be great for people who actually buy mac pro's/powermacs.

you give pc users a bad name it's not the other way around.

storage
Jul 12, 2006, 05:22 PM
23" Matteblack Conroe iMac
Matteblack Bluetooth Might Mouse
Matteblack Bluetooth Keyboard

PLEASE :mad:

novagamer
Jul 12, 2006, 05:22 PM
Point Proven..Noobs like this are the reason why sites like \http://mac-sucks.com/ exist.

This is pretty immature.


Because unlike Apple , getting your own custom motherboard from ASUS / MSI / Gigabyte / DFI. means you have real choices , you can choose different chipsets from Intel , ATI , Nvidia , VIA. NOT JUST STOCK PARTS. I can get that 10 USB , 8 SATA , WiFi , eSATA , Dual PCIe 16x that supports Crossfire or SLI anyway i want it, Apple will never do this , even Dull gives u that much.

I've had a DFI board kill 2 CPUs, a few Abit boards that were extremely flaky, one of which won't run 4 sticks of RAM anymore, another that crashed randomly and had to be RMAd, and don't not forget about the bad caps that a lot of older Abit boards (hello KT7 series) are having right about now.

I've also had an Asus board die spontaneously when I put a (supported) higher wattage processor in it, and come on you quoted VIA. Since when has VIA been a GOOD thing. I remember swapping 4-in-1 drivers every week in order to find a stability that really wasn't ever truly there. With the earliest Via Athlon chipsets it was literally possible to install drivers in the wrong order, so that the OS would continually reboot- even in safe mode! Boy, that sure was fun.

Remember the Socket A processors and their accompanying core-crushing heatsinks? When you get heatsinks that literally have the nickname of 'corecrusher' which I believe a (Thermaltake?) Volcano did, then you've got a bit of a problem. You're using the same argument that enthusiasts use against dell, except you forget that none of those computers can legally run OSX and the accompanying programs.

I've also had a Xeon system, with an iWill workstation motherboard that actually ran without FANS for a little while and survived completely fine, and is still used by the person I sold it to right now. Stability is of utmost importance with workstation/server class hardware, and that's why you won't find a lot of problems with them. Even the original G5 dual CPU system sold in 2003 has pretty much no known issues, whereas you'll find a lot of other (cheaper) Mac hardware does. R&D on solid hardware is very expensive.

Clearly you're a hardware enthusiast from an overclocker's board, and on that note do not quote an overclocked anything if you're going on a Mac forum where people use their machines to make a living: nobody overclocks their work machine unless they're a kid making $50 to do a website for their cousin or something like that, some people's day to day lifestyle rides on the machines they use and the support that is behind it (which Apple has been pretty great, in my experience, with).

If you're comparing stock configurations, the 3GHz Woodcrest Xeon is actually faster than even the ($150 more expensive) Core 2 Duo Extreme Edition (Core 2 Duo X6800) which is going to be only 2.93GHz. Also note that Woodcrest's FSB is 1333MHz while Conroe's tops out at 1066. The slightly lower performance of the Xeons, brought by the use of FB-DIMM memory, will be handily offset by the faster FSB, and it will of course allow for an incredible amount of memory, which servers and workstations need, to be used.

The fact is there are a lot of people in these forums who have used a Mac for their entire lives, and have never dealt with anything on the enthusiast side of the hardware spectrum, so they buy anything people tell them, which can make it tedious to read some of the nonsense that appears infrequently, as well as the hilarious zealot like posting of the few people who DO know something that try to come across as knowing EVERYTHING. You don't really fall into that category, but I think that you're probably at the wrong message board.

Go check out xtremesystems and have a blast, if you're comfortable running windows then it is quite fun being an enthusiast and getting the most bang for your buck, but you really can't advise or look down on people here that literally depend on their Macs to make a living. Have a great week though and try to relax a bit.

kingcrowing
Jul 12, 2006, 05:23 PM
well they will all have the same mobo, so conroe on the low end and woodcrest on the high ends isnt an option, its one or the other. But Im assuming its going to be woodcrest and the low end one will have only 1 dual core processor, but it'll have an open ZIF slot so you can drop in a 2nd processor aftermarket (but this would never be supported by apple because unlike RAM, you need to also install a heatsink and thermal paste) due to that face the low end might just have 4 much slower processors like 4x2.32ghz on the low and then liuke 4x3.4ghz on the high end. I personally would rather have 4 slower processors than 2 slightly faster processors because Ido more multi tasking than super intensive programs.

Jiggy- They are right, the reason people pay $3200+ for a quad G5 is because they use their computer for a living, doing serious video editing, music editing, anything like that- more processors are never a liability and if you spend everyday on that coputer then its worth the extra few hundred dollars (even $1k) to someone who really needs the power

macidiot
Jul 12, 2006, 05:24 PM
Dude, take a chill-pill. Why does it matter so much to you if he uses XP?

I don't really care if he uses xp. I've loaded boot camp on my mbp. If xp better suits your needs, go for it.

The point was that pretty much everything he said was bogus and flame bait. Sadly, I took the bait.

jiggie2g
Jul 12, 2006, 05:29 PM
jiggy:

your thinking is exactly why most pc's suck, dell ect choose components that are "good enough" or choose some unsuitable cpu because it sounds fast, woodcest makes the most sense to go into the mac pro, conroe into the imac merom into the mbp simple as.

just because something is not for you does not mean how you want it is how it should be, your a kid who likes playing with pc hardware and likes components with "big numbers" and overclockability, and while a quad would be wasted on you it'd be great for people who actually buy mac pro's/powermacs.

you give pc users a bad name it's not the other way around.


Oh and Apple dosen't go to Samsung and Micron for it's ram like everyone else , or Pioneer/Toshiba/Matsushita for the DVD Burner , how bout Maxtor/Seagate for the Hard drives , Apple dosen't go to Samsung/LGPhillips for it's LCD Panels just like Dell and HP. now Intel for it's CPU/NorthBridge chipsets. c'mon it called a con they all shop at the same store dude. Newegg..lol

the only thing Apple about ur mac will be the Pretty case and OSX. Other then that it's just another PEECEE.

shawnce
Jul 12, 2006, 05:30 PM
Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest at equal clock speeds

Merom will underperform a Conroe under equal high loads because of thermal constraints (in unmodified systems).

--edit--

Also forgot to point out that Merom top out with 667 MT/s FSB... so several classes of tasks will be slower on a Merom then equally clocked Conroe.

Mikael
Jul 12, 2006, 05:35 PM
I find this whole discussion slightly amusing, mostly because of the apparent need to draw a distinction between "professional" and "consumer" based on slight clock frequency differences. To me, a professional platform is defined by its configurability and flexibility. A professional platform is simply one that can be configured to fit the customers every need. Although CPU performance is important, it's hardly what I'd call the defining factor of wether a system is to be regarded as "pro" or not.

I don't see any reason why a cheaper Mac Pro with a single 2.4GHz Conroe couldn't remain a machine aimed at professionals. Or does it have to have an outrageous price tag to qualify?

The whole concept of drawing a line between pro machines and machines for mere mortals seems a little "old". There's nothing really special about a PowerMac or Mac Pro anyway. Put a mid range CPU in the machine and it fits the regular consumer just as well as a professional not demanding the absolute top end CPU performance.

Maybe I've been damaged by the PC worlds lack of "pro-obsession", but I think it's a healthier approach.

Merom will underperform a Conroe under equal high loads because of thermal constraints (in unmodified systems).
It will? Do you have any source for this info? An Intel rep has said that Merom and Conroe are identical, except for a few differences having to do with p-states. This is unlikely to hinder performance at full load, so where did you get this contradicting info?

Also, the largest part of the power savings between Merom and Conroe are likely to come from reduced core voltage. You will probably be able to come very close to Merom power levels by simply reducing the core voltage of a similarly clocked Conroe.

jiggie2g
Jul 12, 2006, 05:38 PM
Merom will underperform a Conroe under equal high loads because of thermal constraints (in unmodified systems).


prove it. links , otherwise this is FUD.

Mord
Jul 12, 2006, 05:40 PM
Oh and Apple dosen't go to Samsung and Micron for it's ram like everyone else , or Pioneer/Toshiba/Matsushita for the DVD Burner , how bout Maxtor/Seagate for the Hard drives , Apple dosen't go to Samsung/LGPhillips for it's LCD Panels just like Dell and HP. now Intel for it's CPU/NorthBridge chipsets. c'mon it called a con they all shop at the same store dude. Newegg..lol

the only thing Apple about ur mac will be the Pretty case and OSX. Other then that it's just another PEECEE.

those things make no functional difference, you completely missed the point which was totally about motherboard design, which other than the case and sometimes the cpu is always unique on macs no matter if they are ppc or intel

jiggie2g
Jul 12, 2006, 05:47 PM
those things make no functional difference, you completely missed the point which was totally about motherboard design, which other than the case and sometimes the cpu is always unique on macs no matter if they are ppc or intel


This is no longer the case Hector , same CPU , same stupid Intel Chipset , a custom design Mac Mobo is no different from an Asus / DFI / MSI board , in a sense they are all customized however all derived from the same chipset. So this make no difference other then small tweaks apple might make , just like the other vendors make thiers through bios updates. Apple is not going to get a custom Core 2 /Xenon , aside from the case / mainboard / OSX , there is nothing in a mac i can't buy on newegg.

Mord
Jul 12, 2006, 05:57 PM
This is no longer the case Hector , same CPU , same stupid Intel Chipset , a custom design Mac Mobo is no different from an Asus / DFI / MSI board , in a sense they are all customized however all derived from the same chipset. So this make no difference other then small tweaks apple might make , just like the other vendors make thiers through bios updates. Apple is not going to get a custom Core 2 /Xenon , aside from the case / mainboard / OSX , there is nothing in a mac i can't buy on newegg.

each motherboard uses it's own caps, chips, fets, IO controllers, port config, firmware ect, if you think asus ect just magically get a design from intel and print them off your patently wrong, allot of work goes into designing a motherboard all intel does is provide a north and southbridge. i'm not saying apple is all that different with their choice of parts (though they do tend to make more educated choices) it's more the fact that they have to choose parts and design the boards which will end up vasty different if they have both a conroe and woodcrest mac pro.

go take courses in electronics/computer science/cisco certs/apple certs/buissness then come back when you actually know anything rather than making stupid assumptions.

do you even think at all when you post, you spurt BS to prove a point i was not contesting.

we start out argueing weather mac users are acting snooty about conroe, now your talking about how you can buy the same parts that will go in a mac pro and to that i say "whoppty do"


anyway to get back OT, the point is that conroe makes no sense for apple to use in the mac pro, woodcrest is only slightly more expensive and even cheaper when you consider the 3GHz version compared to the extreme edition conroe, though i'd like an all quad line they will probably have a single dual core tower but it still makes sense to keep it using woodcrest due to economies of scale, that 50 bucks to so saved is more than made back up on logic board design, support, education of technicians and the costs of having separate production lines.

boncellis
Jul 12, 2006, 06:16 PM
The upcomming WWDC has everything to be the coolest, most agressive WWDC ever. If Apple is up to it, we are set to see the strongest Apple line up ever. And thats saying a bit, since the current lineup is already mighty all by itself

I hope so, maybe we'll even see a slight MBP upgrade/speed bump. If not, I anticipate Apple referring to some new features of Leopard as well and that should get this crowd excited.

Even if it turns out to just be the Mac Pro unveiled, that should tide folks over until MWSF--assuming the Paris Expo doesn't see anything new.

Multimedia
Jul 12, 2006, 06:46 PM
I hope so, maybe we'll even see a slight MBP upgrade/speed bump. If not, I anticipate Apple referring to some new features of Leopard as well and that should get this crowd excited.

Even if it turns out to just be the Mac Pro unveiled, that should tide folks over until MWSF--assuming the Paris Expo doesn't see anything new.I'm thinking Paris may be the time for the new Merom MacBook Pro intro. :)

Silentwave
Jul 12, 2006, 07:44 PM
Yes they are. I agree with you. But when I wrote that earlier in this thread, someone wrote that economies of scale dictated that Woody goes in everything Pro rather than only in the Quad. Makes no sense to me either. I think all non-quads should be Conroe.

Why?
it means:
different LB (not such a big deal, but still there- and wouldn't it be nice if they could (i dont know if its possible) use a dual socket LB even with single processor versions, and you could add a second one later for more performance? farfetched for sure but hey a guy can dream ;) )
Different CPUs
Different RAM
slower FSB

Why do that when you could buy larger amounts of the same RAM and same processors, just use different numbers? I think we all know that XServe will use Woodcrest, but the more computers that use the same processors the better.
Same goes for the RAM. FB-DIMM memory is expensive. the more Apple can get, the easier it is on us.
cheaper for apple means cheaper for us means more profit means higher stock prices means those of us with apple stock get rich ;)

milozauckerman
Jul 12, 2006, 08:21 PM
Yeah mister 6" PeeCee, you must've missed where Steve Jobs said something along the lines of, "BMW and Mercedes have about a 14% market share. What's wrong with being a BMW or a Mercedes?"

This is my philosophy as well. I don't drive a Ford. I don't want XP. I don't want an HP. So suck your PC.
There's some irony about your penis envy reference and the rest of this post.

Just sayin'.

FFTT
Jul 12, 2006, 08:48 PM
Just got Tom's Hardware Guide's publication today about Project Keifer.

Intel's projected 32 Core processor. :D

"Intel has been studying Sun's UltraSPARC T1 (Niagara) to come up with a radical processor redesign for 2010 that could perform 16 times faster than Woodcrest. This is no marketing blurb, guys; this is technical intelligence from within the Borg collective."

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/10/project_keifer_32_core/index.html

Demoman
Jul 12, 2006, 09:27 PM
They are , you will not see any performance differences between Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest at equal clock speeds, unless u go SMP. They will all encode , render , transcode at the same pace. The FSB means nothis as it has yet to be saturated even a 667mhz. Tons of test and benchmarks at Xtremesystems done over the past few months have proven this.

Making the MAcPro line all Dual will be a Big Mistake and will backfire on Apple and force many pople to go right back to PC. I can Promise you , if u want a Woody in a MacPro be prepared to pay an entry fee of $2499 to join this exclusive club of idiots.

I remeber when my iMac G4 was starting to show it'sa age and when the time came to replace it , the minimum price for a real desktop Mac was (and still is) $1999 for a dual 2.0ghz G5. So what did i do , I said goodbye Apple and built a better machine for 1/2 the money. Till this day I have no regrets and would never go back unless i was in the market for a notebook then i'd get a macbook.

I still can't believe Apple still has the balls to charge $2000 for an outdated Desktop that gets Outperformed by an $800 PC. While still having a smaller hard drive , less ram , less usb ports , no card reader. Jobs believes you mac loyalist are stupid.



Believe me Bro i've already been there.:D

Does not sound like you have been anywhere. Whether the entire line of PM's need to be SMP is a question for someone close to the sales data. I find your assuming everyone want to use a computer like you very arrogant and simple-minded. Why are you even on this website? If you hold Apple in such distain, why not go find a place where you can bond with other folk who have only achieved the same level of computer knowledge and manners as you.

Demoman
Jul 12, 2006, 09:36 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.

So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.

SW engineers usually optimize their systems with expectations of the environment they will run in. Pro-level applications often run much better in systems that use SMP, but not all. Sometimes it is better to pipeline a few processes at high speed, rather than do a lot of task swapping. Most of Apples core customer's application seem to benefit from SMP. So, that is what they are going to expect from Pro-level hardware.

AidenShaw
Jul 12, 2006, 11:22 PM
SW engineers usually optimize their systems with expectations of the environment they will run in. Pro-level applications often run much better in systems that use SMP, but not all. Sometimes it is better to pipeline a few processes at high speed, rather than do a lot of task swapping. Most of Apples core customer's application seem to benefit from SMP. So, that is what they are going to expect from Pro-level hardware.
Please don't confuse SMP with multi-socket. You must have an SMP (or even an ASMP) operating system to use any computer with more than one core.

It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.

Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.

Demoman
Jul 13, 2006, 12:59 AM
Please don't confuse SMP with multi-socket. You must have an SMP (or even an ASMP) operating system to use any computer with more than one core.

It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.

Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.

I know what Symetrical Multi-Processing is. Thanks.

JFreak
Jul 13, 2006, 02:11 AM
I agree that Apple will wait on the Blu-Ray drives. Apple did jump on the BR bandwagon to support the format, but without a standard, I doubt they will call off all other bets.

Not so long ago Apple decided to include DVD-RAM drives into the Powermacs, so it's not impossible to think that they will soon release hardware with Blu-Ray.

Apple has a history of picking standardized I/O. Apple invented firewire (or at least licenses out the technology) and included it once it was approved by the IEEE. The same thing with their Airport technology. Once the 802.11 were decided upon, Apple released that product.

Apple and history? Well, you seem to forget all the proprietary niceties Apple has invented. Proprietary display connectors, proprietary mouse and keyboard busses, just to name few. Apple has only recently used same parts as the rest of the industry.

Evangelion
Jul 13, 2006, 02:38 AM
Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.

it depends whether you are looking at it from software-perspective or hardware-perspective.

THX1139
Jul 13, 2006, 02:40 AM
if you don't need all the power you can get the mac pro is not for you, apple does not do a consumer tower and most likely never will, they simply must have a quad settup and if they have two configs of them (a 3GHz and a 2.66) they may as well keep the low end option on the same platform, this has been said again and again and again, conroe is not bad it just does not make sense for apple to use it in the mac pro, conroe goes in the imac.

I wasn't saying that I don't need power, I just don't want to pay premium for quad processing with expensive overrated chips. And just because I don't want a Quad doesn't mean should be stuck with an iMac. I would be content with a Conroe running around 3GHZ in the currently shipping configurations. By your post, I get that you think the Conroe is for prosumer/home computers and the only "professional" level chip is Woodcrest. Apple has been shipping a mid-range G5 dual2.3 for quite awhile now. What's wrong with them shipping something similar with Conroe? Oh, wait... that would be wrong, because by your account, Conroe is NOT a professional chip. I disagree.

Evangelion
Jul 13, 2006, 02:42 AM
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe.

It depends on what you are doing with it. Games would run faster on the Conroe ;)

Evangelion
Jul 13, 2006, 02:53 AM
wow, you just don't get it.

I do get it. It seems that YOU are not getting it.

am a freelance motion graphics designer.

Congratulations.

I work on many companies in L.A. and NY. After Effects, Photoshop and Illustrator are their core applications. Plus many print designers relly on Photoshop and Illustrator. Those people will not jump on the Pro Mac as long as the Adobe apps are not universal.

And those whose tools already are universal will gladly jump.

Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above. So my answer to that is none.

I don't care one bit about apps that can substityute Adobe's apps. What I did say that there's already tons of universal pro-apps out there. Not everyone lives and breathes Adobe.

If you are mainly a video editor, maybe it would be OK to upgrade because FCP will be universal, but I am talking about a major segment on the industry that solely relly on Adobe.

And I'm talking about those who do not rely on Adobe. They do exist.

This people will not jump on the bandwagon right away. This people wil not change and learn a new app just because the latest Mac is not suited for their needs. They will wait few more months.

Where exactly have I said that they should switch to some other app? Hell, where have I said that they should buy the MacPro?

So if you think Adobe apps can be substitute with something else on the professiopnal level, then you definately have no clue of what are you talking about.

Where exactly have I made that claim? The issue here is that you live and breathe Adobe. Well, good for you. There are others that do not, and they would be more than happy to switch to MacPro the moment it's released. We were talking about MacPro's when you basically asked "well, what about Adobe?". Well, what about it? Why does everything have to be about Adobe, when the fact is that macs are used for zillion other things besides running Photoshop?

Evangelion
Jul 13, 2006, 02:56 AM
This may be the case for say HP or Gateway , however Apple is Intel's new Darling and gets the best deal in the industry , so good infact that it prompted Dell to no longer feature Intel as it's exclusive chip vendor and as a resuld Dell will be introducing AMD based Desktops in August just to spite Intel for doing this.

Intel will give Apple volume-discounts. it does matter that do they order 100.000 CPU's or 800.000 CPU's

No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.

Which is why I believe that macPro's will be all dual-duals. single Woodcrest makes no sense, and splitting MacPro-lineup between Woodcrest and Conroes doesn't make much sense either. Remember: MacPro's are hi-end workstations. so dual-dual makes sense there.

Evangelion
Jul 13, 2006, 02:57 AM
The point was that pretty much everything he said was bogus and flame bait. Sadly, I took the bait.

I don't see much baiting in his post.

THX1139
Jul 13, 2006, 03:15 AM
We were talking about MacPro's when you basically asked "well, what about Adobe?". Well, what about it? Why does everything have to be about Adobe, when the fact is that macs are used for zillion other things besides running Photoshop?

After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work. Sad but true and I wish Apple would release something to go up against Photoshop. Having worked the past 10 years in graphic design, I have never come across any studio or designer that didn't rely on at least one Adobe product. Adobe is pretty entrenched in the creative industry and to think otherwise is short-sighted. Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers. I think it would be enough loss to make Apple take notice. Why do you think Steve mentioned Adobe during his MWSF keynote? Sure there are a few pros who don't need Adobe or get by on other products, but that is few and far between. So in support of what the OP said, I agree that the Intel migration is going to be hindered by Adobe when it comes time for most studios to buy new machines. Thinking otherwise is not looking at the big picture.

novagamer
Jul 13, 2006, 04:47 AM
I know what Symetrical Multi-Processing is. Thanks.

Aw you just ruined his fun.:rolleyes:

I think he has that in a text document and just copies and pastes it at will to argue semantics in threads largely unconcerned with them... heh.

Bow down to the all knowing, condescending poster with the gay porn actor's name. :eek: :p

Evangelion
Jul 13, 2006, 05:05 AM
After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work.

Yep, there propably are lots of Macsters who rely on Adobe. And there are LOADS of Macsters who don't use Adobe-software at all!

Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers.

I fail to see how Apple is "disregarding" those people who run Adobe-software. Those people could buy PPC-PowerMac if they want to. Should Apple delay the release of Intel-PowerMacs just because Adobe is dragging their feet with universalization? What's the benefit there? The fact that the Adobe-users wouldn't have to look at those new uber-PowerMacs with envy and think "damn, I wish I could buy that...."? if Apple releases the new machines in few weeks time, how does it harm anyone? At least the multitude of people who do NOT rely on Adobe will have new gear to buy. The Adobe-users can just stick to PPC-machines. It's not like Steve Jobs will march in to the Adobe-houses (no pun intended), and replace those PPC-PowerMacs with Intel-PowerMacs.

What should Adobe-users do? Instead of complaining to Apple, they should complain to Adobe. How hard is it REALLY to make Mac-Photoshop run on Intel-Mac? they already have Intel-versions of their software running on Windows, it shouldn't be THAT hard.

Mikael
Jul 13, 2006, 05:54 AM
What should Adobe-users do? Instead of complaining to Apple, they should complain to Adobe. How hard is it REALLY to make Mac-Photoshop run on Intel-Mac? they already have Intel-versions of their software running on Windows, it shouldn't be THAT hard.
I've been wondering about this too. Surely they have the source code (or most of it) written in a high level language, right? If I'm not totally mistaken, there shouldn't be that much more work involved than a re-compilation for x86. Even if some filters or other stuff are hand coded in assembler, they already have that code in x86-assembler in the Windows version.

Multimedia
Jul 13, 2006, 06:10 AM
I've been wondering about this too. Surely they have the source code (or most of it) written in a high level language, right? If I'm not totally mistaken, there shouldn't be that much more work involved than a re-compilation for x86. Even if some filters or other stuff are hand coded in assembler, they already have that code in x86-assembler in the Windows version.Adobe made a strategic decision to go Universal with the CS3 Suite next year and meanwhile not to divert work to Universalize the CS2 Suite. If you need Adobe stuff all the time, just get a G5 Quad and you will be happy as a clam. It's still going to be the second fastest Mac after Mac Pros are out. :)

Manic Mouse
Jul 13, 2006, 06:11 AM
Take a look at the iMac. Now, it's quite small, isn't it? Nice and thin, and silet as well. How are you planning to cool that 2.4GHz Conroe in a machine like that?

Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.

And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.

Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.

Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.

If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?

Why do you think Apple laptops sell so much better? The Macbook, as it stands, is competitive in the market in terms of specs/price but also has all the lovely Apple design and extras. Which is why it's selling like hotcakes. The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?

But all the things that are letting the iMac down now I fully expect to be upgraded in August, along with Conroe. Apple have demonstrated with the Macbook that they can offer Apple design at competitive prices. And it's something they'll have to do if they want to increase their market share.

Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock...

It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.

If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.

What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.

And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.

I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead. Unless of course Apple unleash the "desktop" Mac everyone's talking about.

AidenShaw
Jul 13, 2006, 07:07 AM
it depends whether you are looking at it from software-perspective or hardware-perspective.
Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.

Yonah, Conroe and Merom have full hardware SMP support on the package (or on the chip itself).

The cache coherency and inter-processor (in this case meaning inter-core) communications features are present, and must be present in order to avoid corrupting memory data and to support an SMP operating system.

The difference with Woodcrest is that Yonah/Conroe/Merom do not support SMP features *between* sockets - the cache coherency and IPC mechanisms are not brought out to the pins on the package.

Woodcrest brings those signals out to the pins, and the Woodcrest's 5000x chipset connects those signals between sockets.

Eidorian
Jul 13, 2006, 07:17 AM
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
The below lists power consumed by the part, they are not TDP numbers (only part of the power consumed by a chip leaves the chip as heat, heat is what you have to dissipate and is what TDP attempts define).

PPC 970fx power optimized part (@ 2GHz)
40W average, 45-50 W max, 23 W throttle back (half frequency)

PPC 970fx standard part (@ 2GHz)
48W average, 55-60 W max, 29 W throttle back (half frequency)

To me this puts the PPC 970fx below the TDP of a Conroe... I would say the TDP for the PPC 970fx (@2Ghz) is around 40 W (if not lower).Conroe might be possible for the iMac. But why redesign the motherboard when you can just DROP IN Merom where Yonah once was?

Manic Mouse
Jul 13, 2006, 07:33 AM
Conroe might be possible for the iMac. But why redesign the motherboard when you can just DROP IN Merom where Yonah once was?

Because Conroes are faster, better value for money and competitive with what non-Apple desktops will offer. I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it. Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.

Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.

For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.

aswitcher
Jul 13, 2006, 07:36 AM
I can see the iMac getting a makeover. The switch to intel was a rush job in my mind, and I think they are working on a modified shell to better cope with components and heat for a faster intel line for the next few years.

jiggie2g
Jul 13, 2006, 08:07 AM
Because Conroes are faster, better value for money and competitive with what non-Apple desktops will offer. I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it. Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.

Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.

For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.


I am now convinced you have no idea what u are talking about , Merom is not faster per mhz then conore regrardless of FSB crap , and i have seen this 1st hand on xtremesystems , Merom makes perfect sense. This is jjust wishuful thinking from spoild mac brats wanting to measure thier ePenises.

The reason is cost more is because it's a more efficient chip per watt then conore. If apple were to use conore then would have to build a completely diffrernt board , with an even hotter CPU plus lets now add a hotter custom GPU. It would still use a notebook mobo as a standard one would not fit in the enclosure. This was also the case with the iMac G5 , the only thing Desktop about the iMac is the standard Hard Drive and CPU. It will still use an intergrated GPU like a notebook , Slim DVD Burner , and lower FSB for heat restraints. They did this with the iMac G5 as well.

Eidorian
Jul 13, 2006, 08:07 AM
Because Conroes are faster, better value for money and competitive with what non-Apple desktops will offer. Um, it's basically the same chip. Conroe just doesn't meet the thermal requirements to be called "Merom".


I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it.Apple controls the supply and we live with it. Sure we'd like to be able to pick CPU options (ala PC manufacturers) but Apple hasn't give that to us yet.

Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.I would be happy with a Merom iMac. In fact I expect Merom to be in the iMac. They share the same socket. It's an easy update path for Apple.

Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.

For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.We'd all like Apple to be more like Dell in terms of price, model, and chip selection.

Evangelion
Jul 13, 2006, 08:08 AM
Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.

Nope, it doesn't. Besides, I already told you in another thread that Intel agrees with my intrepetation on this matter. The see dual-dual systems as 2-way systems, whereas according to you, they are 4-way systems. Are you saying that Intel does not know what they are doing?

Evangelion
Jul 13, 2006, 08:19 AM
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.

Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.

Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.

More work = higher price.

Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.

iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.

The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?

Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.

It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.

you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).

If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.

What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.

And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.

You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.

I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead

Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.

You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.

Mord
Jul 13, 2006, 08:21 AM
the imac G5 has sufficient cooling to handle conroe, the macbook just has a heatplate connected to a heatpipe connected to small radiator, the imac has a full blow large copper heatsink over it similar to those used on 1U servers which can handle 100w xeons.

Silentwave
Jul 13, 2006, 08:29 AM
I've been wondering about this too. Surely they have the source code (or most of it) written in a high level language, right? If I'm not totally mistaken, there shouldn't be that much more work involved than a re-compilation for x86. Even if some filters or other stuff are hand coded in assembler, they already have that code in x86-assembler in the Windows version.

Adobe is weird...but I think they have a lot more up their sleeve than just universal. I think they want it to run extremely well on intel macs, and perhaps continue work at the same time on making more of their features take advantage of quads.

Silentwave
Jul 13, 2006, 08:35 AM
and to the whole merom/conroe debate......ok so Merom is more power efficient. Wonderful. As said a few posts ago, the iMac has the potential for real cooling. I don't care if there is little to no noticeable difference due to the faster FSB, it is there. I don't care if its not faster-per-mhz, because here the MHz DOES come into play- Conroe will be faster because Conroe IS faster- Merom tops out at 2.33GHz and Conroe has 2.4, 2.67, and though the TDP is higher, 2.93 and by the end of the year 3.2.
So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.

Evangelion
Jul 13, 2006, 08:46 AM
So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.

What makes you think that? Do you believe that it doesn't take any time or money to re-design the internals of the iMac? Apple has two choice basically:

a) replace the Core Duo in iMac and replace it with Merom

b) re-design the internals of the iMac, and replace the Core Duo with Conroe

And heat-output might come in to play here. Conroe might not be P4-hot, but it's a lot hotter than Merom is.

sbarton
Jul 13, 2006, 08:47 AM
Originally Posted by sbarton
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM

I want it at or less than $1199.00

Now gimmie

Fine. tell me where we can get everything but the processor for $200 and we have a deal. Conroe doesn't have anything above 2.66 that isn't an extreme edition. So your next stop is the X6800 2.93GHz Extreme Edition- $999 per chip.


Fine - use the E6400 which is $224 in bulk or the E6600 which is $316 @ 2.6Ghz. The point is I would like an iMac without the LCD and all the other bells a whistles with a Graphics slot. If they can't do that for $1200 then Apple needs to pack up shop. Dell can do it for less than $1000 (Dual core 930 @ 3Ghz) so saying I'm willing to pay $200 in Apple tax is about as far as I'm willing to go.

I'm a staunch Apple fan. I've been a Mac user for 15 Years. But if they didn't wan't to have to compete against PC's from the likes of Dell, HP, and Gateway, then they shouldn't have started building PC's....

Apple needs to keep the prices and the configurations real now more than ever. I'm not saying PAR but but they can't get crazy.

milo
Jul 13, 2006, 08:51 AM
Lame poll choices.

Most likely is BOTH woodcrest and conroe in different models. Woodcrest is necessary for quad, but using it in a single chip configuration is a waste of money.

Apple needs to deliver both maximum performance and reasonably fast performance at a reasonable price.

jiggie2g
Jul 13, 2006, 08:55 AM
Originally Posted by sbarton
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM

I want it at or less than $1199.00

Now gimmie




Fine - use the E6400 which is $224 in bulk or the E6600 which is $316 @ 2.6Ghz. The point is I would like an iMac without the LCD and all the other bells a whistles with a Graphics slot. If they can't do that for $1200 then Apple needs to pack up shop. Dell can do it for less than $1000 (Dual core 930 @ 3Ghz) so saying I'm willing to pay $200 in Apple tax is about as far as I'm willing to go.

I'm a staunch Apple fan. I've been a Mac user for 15 Years. But if they didn't wan't to have to compete against PC's from the likes of Dell, HP, and Gateway, then they shouldn't have started building PC's....

Apple needs to keep the prices and the configurations real now more than ever. I'm not saying PAR but but they can't get crazy.

Actually the E6600 is 2.4ghz for $316 and the E6700 is 2.67 for $530. Apple will never sell a fully fucntional tower for under $1999 , maybe a crippled one for $1499.

Evangelion
Jul 13, 2006, 08:55 AM
Fine - use the E6400 which is $224 in bulk or the E6600 which is $316 @ 2.6Ghz. The point is I would like an iMac without the LCD and all the other bells a whistles with a Graphics slot. If they can't do that for $1200 then Apple needs to pack up shop. Dell can do it for less than $1000 (Dual core 930 @ 3Ghz) so saying I'm willing to pay $200 in Apple tax is about as far as I'm willing to go.

930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.

So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?

That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.

sbarton
Jul 13, 2006, 09:03 AM
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.

So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?

That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.


Fine what would you pay? Whats fair? Seems like Apple's product line says 'take it or leave it with the imac' or 'cough up a lung for the Pro line'. There's nothing in the middle.

Yes, I appreciate the Apple design considerations. I'm willing to pay a premium for it. The question is - How much?

AidenShaw
Jul 13, 2006, 09:06 AM
Nope, it doesn't. Besides, I already told you in another thread that Intel agrees with my intrepetation on this matter. The see dual-dual systems as 2-way systems, whereas according to you, they are 4-way systems. Are you saying that Intel does not know what they are doing?
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU. This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.

The CPU makers wouldn't sell as many multi-core chips if the systems were much more expensive (in TCO) than single-core chips. Therefore they pretend that a "processor" is what can be plugged into a socket. The software sees that there are "physical processors" (a package with pins) and "logical processors" (the CPU that we've been familiar with for decades, which requires SMP hardware capabilities to be useful with 2 or more).

They say that software licensing should consider the *physical* processor count for licensing terms. (For example, XP Home will run SMP on a dual-core, but not on a dual-socket. XP Pro will run 4-way SMP on a dual-socket quad-core, but not on a quad-socket quad-core. Microsoft licensing looks at the number of physical processors, while of course the software runs according to the number of logical processors.)

So, Intel/AMD/MS have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
___________________________________

And, if you're so hung up on the hardware distinctions, consider:

Older Xeon: One CPU/core/processor in one chip, with SMP support in the bus interface and northbridge.
Pentium D: Two independent chips in one package, communicating the SMP protocols over a stub of the FSB that's brought into the package. Logically indistinguishable from the same two chips in two packages communicating over the FSB on the mobo
Yonah: Two CPUs on one piece of silicon, each with private L2 cache, with SMP logic (cache coherency, IPC) on the silicon
Merom/Conroe: Two CPUs on one piece of silicon, with a shared L2 cache, with SMP logic (cache coherency, IPC) on the silicon
Woodcrest: Two CPUs on one piece of silicon, with a shared L2 cache, with SMP logic (cache coherency, IPC) both on the silicon and in the northbridge, so that dual-socket quad-core configs are allowed
Kentsfield: Four CPUs on two pieces of silicon, with two shared L2 caches, with SMP logic (cache coherency, IPC) both in the silicon and the package but not on the northbridge, so that -single-socket quad-core configs are allowed
Clovertown: Four CPUs on two pieces of silicon, with two shared L2 caches, with SMP logic (cache coherency, IPC) both on the silicon and the package, and also in the northbridge, so that dual-socket octo-core configs are allowed

All of these chips are engineered with full SMP support. Whether it's on-chip, in-package, or over-the-FSB - it's all SMP.
_____________________

Finally, a source that doesn't have a marketing agenda says:

The most popular entry-level SMP systems use the x86 instruction set architecture and are based on Intel’s Xeon, Pentium D and Core Duo processors or AMD’s Athlon64 X2 or Opteron 200 series processors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_multiprocessing


It's basically silly to say that "pros won't accept a Conroe because pros demand SMP". You can't run a Conroe without SMP hardware and software.

Because of this ambiguity caused by the marketing-speak of Intel/AMD and the others, we're seeing wider adoption of the term "socket" instead of "processor".

...enough said.

Evangelion
Jul 13, 2006, 09:17 AM
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU.

And quite a few software-firms agree with them. Those that do not, are retarded. But my point remains: According to Intel, single-socket, dualcore system is a 1-way system, dual-socket, dual-core system is a 2-way system.

This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.

And that's retarded. And those companies that do charge like that are not going to change their mind based on few paragraphs on intel.com.

So, Intel/AMD have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.

So, your argument is basically that even though AMD and Intel disagree with you, you are still right, because this is just a vast conspiracy?

Finally, a source that doesn't have a marketing agenda says:

Like I have said: there are more than one way of looking at this thing. That is one way. The "other" way isn't really wrong either.

...enough said.

hopefully so. You seem to have some major problems accepting the fact that not everyone shares your viewpoint? So you then proceed to cram your viewpoint down other people's throats.

milo
Jul 13, 2006, 09:24 AM
As even AI note, there's not much difference between the two chips. This is about as exciting as finding out that a faucet will have a red handle if it runs hot water, blue if cold. Whee.

There's one big difference. The woodcrest can be used in multilple chip configs, allowing quad while the conroe maxes out at two cores. That's comparable to a cosmetic difference?

I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)

But the problem is that PC's with these chipsets will be very expensive as well. And if apple goes with two cores of woodcrest on the low end, those machines will be matched at a much lower price point by conroe machines from PC makers (as well as conroe iMacs). Single chip woodcrest makes no sense financially unless intel gives apple woodcrests for the same price as conroes, and I don't see that happening.

I wonder I they put a Xeon in a Mac will it come with Intergrated graphics :confused: ;)

I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......

You know, I'd be perfectly fine with integrated graphics with the work I do. I wouldn't mind having the option of not wasting money on a video card I won't even put to good use and leaving a slot open.

So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing.

That's just stupid logic, you expect any computer company to match the price of a machine you built? That's like saying a resturant shouldn't charge more for a meal than what you paid for the ingredients at the grocery store.

Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.

Why not use different cpu models? It makes a ton of financial sense, and with intel doing most of the mobo work, there's not much reason not to.

You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper.

Technically, the minis got more expensive, but the new models are a much better value (bang for your buck). I obviously think so, I bought one.

Where's the "Mac OS Rumors" option? (http://macosrumors.com/20060710B1.php)

They are still labouring under the illusion that Woodcrest will be quad core.

AND they have the wrong idea that conroe can be run in dual chip configs. So clueless.

Unless Apple bucks their own trend of charging more for the Intel Mac replacements over the G4/G5 units....

To be fair, the imac and macbook 15 didn't have price increases...in this case it really comes down to their choice of config, if they wanted to they could easily have a base model cheaper than the current dual G5 tower.

AidenShaw
Jul 13, 2006, 09:49 AM
So, your argument is basically that even though AMD and Intel disagree with you, you are still right, because this is just a vast conspiracy?
Please show me where Intel says that a Core Duo is *not* SMP ! Note that "way" (as in "2-way") meaning "socket" isn't the same thing.

Don't search for "SMP Core.Duo" at apple.com, you'll find lines like Intel Core Duo based Apple computers, which use SMP, will have a performance jump of 15 to 30 percent. (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/games/demos_updates/quake4.html)

Please install Linux on a Core Duo and tell me if it installs the SMP kernel !

I can tell you for sure that XP installs the SMP version of the kernel on a Core Duo !

Google for "SMP Core.Duo" and notice 68K hits, and then do "not.SMP Core.Duo" and notice the 110 hits. (Many of them in Mac forums :eek: )


Yes, there's a vast conspiracy that considers multi-core to be SMP... Many of them happen to have computer science training, experience and degrees. ;)

...truly enough.

milo
Jul 13, 2006, 09:51 AM
because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.

Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.

In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).

Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.

Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?

As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.

That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.

How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?

Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.

Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.

Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.

Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.

Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.

we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.

Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.

Senbei
Jul 13, 2006, 09:54 AM
I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it.
Some of us don't live in a bubble and do understand that we pay a premium for the entire Mac experience (combination of hardware and software design as opposed to flat raw speed). That experience isn't 100% perfect but what else in life is?

As far as the clearly delineated and simplified product stratification, many are still bound by muscle memory :D ever since Jobs collapsed Apple's once dizzying hardware line into that simple 4-grid matrix of consumer and professional (with the exception of the Cube in the past, Xserve, and the "entry level" mini).

For me, I hope Apple breaks out of this annoying (and limiting) matrix once all of the Core 2 family are out on the table and offers maybe just a few more form factor choices (taking advantage of each processors TDP envelope in the design) as opposed to the current stratification based primarily around the prevention of product cannibilization via an imaginary consumer versus professional distinction. The good thing is we'll know Apple's plans real soon.

Mord
Jul 13, 2006, 10:12 AM
the price difference between a 2.33/2.4 conroe is going to be like 20 bucks in the volume apple is getting, maybe less, memory has about a 60 buck difference for a pair of 512 sticks so it runs up to about 30 bucks in bulk and the motherboard is going to cost about 50 more to apple, thats a total of 100 bucks which will probably be made back by saveings in overhead and support costs.

milo
Jul 13, 2006, 10:19 AM
well they will all have the same mobo, so conroe on the low end and woodcrest on the high ends isnt an option

Why do they all have to have the same mobo?

Which is why I believe that macPro's will be all dual-duals. single Woodcrest makes no sense, and splitting MacPro-lineup between Woodcrest and Conroes doesn't make much sense either. Remember: MacPro's are hi-end workstations. so dual-dual makes sense there.

Why doesn't splitting the lineup make sense? If they don't split the lineup, they're looking at bumping the price of the base model by hundreds of dollars with no benefit. Complete waste of money.

the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work.

Do you have anything to back that up? That totally sounds like speculation.

So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?

I wish apple would stop wasting money on the "kick ass case", especially since it's not that great a case aside from looking pretty. I'd love to see a budget model that was simple - why not make one more similar to a dell and keep the price more competitive? I buy it for the OS and apps, not because the plastic is shinier.

the price difference between a 2.33/2.4 conroe is going to be like 20 bucks in the volume apple is getting, maybe less, memory has about a 60 buck difference for a pair of 512 sticks so it runs up to about 30 bucks in bulk and the motherboard is going to cost about 50 more to apple, thats a total of 100 bucks which will probably be made back by saveings in overhead and support costs.

Are you comparing to woodcrest? I call BS. If you want to make that claim for real, do it with real numbers, not with ones you guesstimated.

Mord
Jul 13, 2006, 10:24 AM
no, i looked up real numbers and took off ~40% which is the amount apple would get off from retail prices.

+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.

Mord
Jul 13, 2006, 10:36 AM
every vendor, dell, HP, gateway ect offer workstations with single xeons, it's a very common practice because it makes business sense.

milo
Jul 13, 2006, 10:45 AM
no, i looked up real numbers and took off ~40% which is the amount apple would get off from retail prices.

+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.

If you looked up real numbers, post the real numbers. Based on the real numbers I've seen the price difference would be hundreds of dollars.

And PC companies are offering single woodcrest simply because conroe isn't shipping yet. Today, they have no other option for dual core. They might keep that config when conroe ships (for the few who may want that), but the conroe version will likely be hundreds less.

EDIT: Looking at Dell, so far they only seem to have woodcrests in server machines. They don't seem to be offering them in any config of desktop yet.

zero2dash
Jul 13, 2006, 10:47 AM
Apple needs to keep the prices and the configurations real now more than ever. I'm not saying PAR but but they can't get crazy.

Amen to that.
Look, I was looking forward to probably getting a Mac Pro later this year/early next year (more towards the time that all the "initial adopters" have reported all their bugs and CS3/Adobe goes Universal) but then I realized that I'd most likely be paying at least $2,000 for a BASE Mac Pro and that's disgusting. I'd like a Mac Pro with a decent amount of bells and whistles, not a base model...so then I'm probably paying $2,500+ (closer to $3,000) and that's ridiculous.

I love OSX as much as the next guy, but $3,000 is a large sum to pay for a computer. $3,000 could pay off about half of my remaining car loan balance...so if I have $3,000 dispensable income, sorry - I'd rather get the car paid off.

If Apple said "we realize the market prices and we're going to be competitive" then I'd be all ears. But we all know that isn't going to happen; no matter who makes Apple's innards or how non-unique it is, Apple will still charge an arm and a leg over street prices and quote it as being "the price to pay for the Apple experience". Like sbarton said, you can build a Core 2 Duo system for cheaper than $1,200 and I guarantee you that it'll come with a whole lot more than a Mac Pro costing twice the amount. If you're so hung up on running Windows and you hate it that bad, then by all means find a *nix distro that you like or attempt to run OSX86 on it. (I'm not encouraging software piracy nor am I discussing it further - I'm just saying "it's an option".)

I really want to buy an Apple again after using a G5 for the last year + at work, and I'm having a crippled experience on an outdated/slow machine running old versions of the programs I use. (G5 1.8, 1256mb RAM, OSX 10.39 Panther, Adobe CS Suite 1) It's high time though that I've come to realize that I'll never get a Mac for what I'm willing to pay for one, and I'm not accepting crippled hardware just to get OSX (ie buying a Mini or even an iMac both of which will undoubtedly be cheaper than a Mac Pro). Dell's get cheaper by the day...heck Dell's nowadays in most cases are actually cheaper than building your own (and you get a lot of freebie bonuses including monitors and the Windows License/install discs that you normally pay for). I thought about buying a refurb G5 DP (prob a 2.3) but for what I'd pay for that, it's still several hundred dollars over the same Core 2 system with better hardware, so I'm stuck no matter what I do. I'm not looking for pity or trying to incite a flame war, I'm just saying.

Meanwhile Apple apparently hasn't gotten the memo about PC price inflation being dead as of 6+ years ago. /shrug
Enjoy your new computers folks...wish I had the money to join you. Guess I'll stick with my P4 desktop and A2200+ laptop for now and maybe build a Core 2 system next year instead and take some of that extra money and put it towards the car loan. :( Guess I'll be sticking with CS2 in Windows for the time being...

AidenShaw
Jul 13, 2006, 10:53 AM
every vendor, dell, HP, gateway ect offer workstations with single xeons, it's a very common practice because it makes business sense.

But they also offer Conroe-priced single-socket workstations.

The dual-socket Xeon systems with single socket populated are much more expensive than the single-socket only systems.

Apple will offer a New Form Factor 64-bit Dual-Core Conroe Mini-Tower whether or not a single chip Woodie is in the lineup. They'll have no choice.

Mord
Jul 13, 2006, 11:00 AM
the single xeon configs i was refering to were netburst based ones.


memory:

a pair of 512 sticks for woodcrest is 200 bucks (FB-dimm 4200)

a pair of 512 sticks for conroe is about 140 bucks (ddr2 5300)

thus the 60 buck retail difference translates to about a 35-40 buck difference in bulk apple prices.

a 2.4GHz conroe costs $316

a 2.33GHz woodcrest costs $455

$139 difference, to apple allot less probably about 50 or so due to the huge discounts they will be getting from intel (and don't tell my the bulk 1000 prices are the discounts as they are nearly identical to newegg prices)

motherboard:

their are not too many of these about so their is rather a mark up

350 bucks for woodcrest

250 bucks for a 975X

again to apple the difference is allot less about 20 bucks manufacturing, their is a huge mark up mobo's are just printed out. for apple the difference will only be in the chipset and maybe extra ram slots if they made two

i was a bit off in the cpu price difference, but thats the one part which apple will get for the best price.


selling SMP rigs with one cpu is commonplace as it gives a low entry price, to make a whole SKU is just silly.


apple tried the powermac mini as it were and you did not buy it, it was called the g4 cube.

milozauckerman
Jul 13, 2006, 11:16 AM
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?

Well, well, some wicked-awesome case design is what matters most! Is it tough to say that with a straight face?

Isn't this just the wannabe design-snob version of l33t kiddos outfitting their computers with neon and other assorted garbage?

milo
Jul 13, 2006, 11:17 AM
Apple will offer a New Form Factor 64-bit Dual-Core Conroe Mini-Tower whether or not a single chip Woodie is in the lineup. They'll have no choice.

Not necessarily. They could also just put the conroe in the base model with the same form factor, although they probably wouldn't be able to get it as cheap. I don't really care if they go with the mini form factor or not as long as the price is low enough.

the single xeon configs i was refering to were netburst based ones.

(snip)

apple tried the powermac mini as it were and you did not buy it, it was called the g4 cube.

That's a $300 difference in list price. Even if apple pays half of that, it's a significant amount, not to mention that the difference goes higher the more ram you buy.

Sure, it makes sense for companies to offer a single woodcrest config IN ADDITION to conroe configs. It mostly makes sense for users who want to add the second chip themselves in the future. But all those companies also will sell conroe configs, and they will be cheaper. It just doesn't make sense to sell single woodcrest as a substitute for conroe, apple would likely be the only company doing that.

And the cube failed because it was simply outrageously overpriced (I would NOT consider it "powermac" by any stretch of the imagination, but it still cost almost as much as the full towers). They brought it back as the mini which has sold very well and demonstrated that people DO want smaller, cheaper alternatives.

Multimedia
Jul 13, 2006, 11:18 AM
What makes you think that? Do you believe that it doesn't take any time or money to re-design the internals of the iMac? Apple has two choice basically:

a) replace the Core Duo in iMac and replace it with Merom

b) re-design the internals of the iMac, and replace the Core Duo with Conroe

And heat-output might come in to play here. Conroe might not be P4-hot, but it's a lot hotter than Merom is.Exactly. And that's why many of us think they will exercise choice b. Otherwise they would have to use the much more expensive Meroms just to top out at 2.33GHz which makes no sense. iMacs are due a do-over anyway. Why not a do-over for Conroe now so they can run above 2.33GHz?

I don't mean 3GHz now. I mean sometime next year with the new design they can do now in anticipation of additional heat then when 3GHz is no longer the top most expensive speed. Even liquid cooling is not out of the question in the next iMac design. Apple has developed a lot of experience with that on the G5 Power Macs. And the Quad's liquid cooling system is dead quiet.

Bumping iMacs to 2 and 2.16GHz Meroms hardly seems like much of a performance boost to me. But perhaps you're right. Face it. We're all in the zone of wild speculation and unsubstantiated prognostication. ;)

spetznatz
Jul 13, 2006, 11:24 AM
[The majority of Mac users use Adobe products] Sad but true and I wish Apple would release something to go up against Photoshop.

Well, you could try this...

http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12

It's still a bit flaky in beta, and the interface is a Windows / Linux clone, but at least it's Universal Binary!!!:D

Oh, yeah, and it's only $32 if you buy now.

Now would I be stirring up a hornets' nest if I asked if it was too much to hope that the lower-end pro's would have a single Woodcrest and an open socket?

Right, where did I put my tin helmet?....