Kentsfield (Quad-core Intel) by end of 2006?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

TG Daily news (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/09/09/preview_kentsfield_processor/) reports that Tom's Hardware will be posting preliminary benchmarks for Intel's upcoming Kenstfield processor on Monday.

Kentsfield is Intel's next revision of their "Core" processors which was originally scheduled to be released in the 1st Quarter of 2007. According to the article, it is now planned for late 2006 availability.

Kentsfield is a Quad-core chip and essentially combines two Conroe chips. It is expected to be a Conroe "drop-in" and should work with the same motherboards as Conroe. More details about the chip are expected at the fall Intel Developer Forum (http://www.intel.com/idf/) which takes place between September 26-28 in San Francisco.

Apple originally used the Core Duo (Yonah) processor in first Intel Macs released in January of 2006. In the past month, Intel introduced the Core 2 Duo Mobile (Merom) and Desktop (Conroe) processors as a successor to the Core Duo (Yonah). Last week, Apple incorporated the Core 2 Duo Mobile (Merom) into the new iMacs (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060906091309.shtml). Apple has not yet utilized the Core 2 Duo Desktop (Conroe) processors for any Macs. Meanwhile, the Mac Pro, introduced in August (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060807144713.shtml), uses the higher-end Xeon (Woodcrest) processor.

Apple's current line up is as follows:

Mac mini - Core Duo (Yonah)
iMac - Core 2 Duo (Merom)
MacBook - Core Duo (Yonah)*
MacBook Pro - Core Duo (Yonah)*
Mac Pro - Xeon (Woodcrest)
Xserve - Xeon (Woodcrest)

* Unlike the other models, the MacBook and MacBook Pro have not seen updates (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/) for 4-5 months. As a result, many are speculating that they will see updates soon.

[Atlasland]

So where would this go? Into the fabled Pro minitower? There's nowhere else.

[Josias]

I guess Apple should'a put Conroe in the iMacs. Is there a chance this will mean Conroe will be in MacPro's?

[arn]

I guess Apple should'a put Conroe in the iMacs. Is there a chance this will mean Conroe will be in MacPro's?

It seems Apple could just wait for Clovertown...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/11/intel_clovertown/

which appears to be 2 Woodcrests on one processor. Could we see 8-Core Mac Pros' in 2007?

arn

[FFTT]

Interesting, but not sure how good the design is with 2 dual core processors
back to back.

I agree if Apple decides to use this at all it may be in a new smaller tower, or
Intel will sell this in a more affordale prosumer market for P/C's only.

Apple has gone server class Xeon in their Pro Towers, so it would be going backward
using Conroes.

I think you're right arn,

Just because Apple has agreed to use Intel chips, does not mean that every Intel chip
will be good enough to put in an Apple product.

[Manic Mouse]

There's going to be a problem when PC manufacturers get a hold of this if Apple doesn't realease a mid-tower to compete. Conroes are faster than the Meroms in the iMac as it is, but with quad cores they'll wipe the floor with them at multi-tasking.

Surely Conroe needs to go somewhere in Apple's lineup? Great value, fast and soon to be quad-core.

[arn]

Surely Conroe needs to go somewhere in Apple's lineup? Great value, fast and soon to be quad-core.

ya, there really appears to be no space for the Conroe chip in Apple's lineup... at least with the decisions they've made so far in updating the iMac to Merom.

arn

[snack]

Kentsfield is Intel's next revision of their "Core" processors which was originally scheduled to be released in the 1st Quarter of 2007. According to the article, it is now planned for late 2006 availability.

Uh, you guys reported this part (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060720090504.shtml) some time ago.

[FFTT]

If my memory serves me correctly Conroe will not be pin compatible with Merom, is that right? I just can't remember what's what anymore. Old age.

[DrFrankTM]

If my memory serves me correctly Conroe will not be pin compatible with Merom, is that right? I just can't remember what's what anymore. Old age.

As far as I know, the first generation Merom is pin-compatible with Yonah, the Core Duo mobile processor that is in the MacBook, MacBook Pro and Mac Mini at the moment. And if I'm not mistaken, Kentsfield will be pin-compatible with Conroe, which is not used in any Mac at the moment.

EDIT: But no, Conroe and Merom are not pin-compatible.

[generik]

1. Apple will upgrade the Mac Pros to Octos as soon as possible
2. iMacs will take the Kentsfields
3. Mac Pro buyers will feel the pinch

It happens every time, you Appleheads should have gotten used to it be now :P

[Manic Mouse]

ya, there really appears to be no space for the Conroe chip in Apple's lineup... at least with the decisions they've made so far in updating the iMac to Merom.

arn

A mid-tower between the Mini and Pro seems to be the only possible home for Conroe. And, even though I would love to buy one, I'm not sure if Apple really want to release such a machine.

You never know though, we could be in for a nice surprise sometime soon.

[FFTT]

What ever Apple decides to do, the result will have to be better than any Vista
Powered AMD set-up.

The thing is that Apple has not only set a standard for performance, but also
for QUIET that no other workstation in it's class has ever achieved.

They won't be able to maintain that ground if they cut too many corners.

Some of these quad core designs will be a success and some with probably fail
to meet Apple's standards.

[Manic Mouse]

1. Apple will upgrade the Mac Pros to Octos as soon as possible
2. iMacs will take the Kentsfields
3. Mac Pro buyers will feel the pinch

It happens every time, you Appleheads should have gotten used to it be now :P

The iMacs will NEVER see Kentsfields. Apple would have to have put Conroe in the new iMacs for that even to be a remote possibility. Even if they had I would still say it would never get Kentsfields.

I mean people are saying that Conroe is too hot for the iMac as it is (I don't think they are) but Kentsfield is two Conroe dies on one package. Meaning almost double the power consumption and heat generation.

[generik]

The iMacs will NEVER see Kentsfields. Apple would have to have put Conroe in the new iMacs for that even to be a remote possibility. Even if they had I would still say it would never get Kentsfields.

I mean people are saying that Conroe is too hot for the iMac as it is (I don't think they are) but Kentsfield is two Conroe dies on one package. Meaning almost double the power consumption and heat generation.

The iMac is huge (relatively speaking), are you telling me such a huge enclosure won't be able to dissipitate an extra 30W or so? It is only around 30W more!

Like it or not Apple will have to somehow fit the Kentsfield into their lineup, cos their advertising campaigns are going to look very lame when Dell simply cops their "switch" campaign style and come out with a "PC" with 4 heads and a "Mac" with only 2.

When Kentfield replaces Conroes and every $999 Dell ships with quad core, it is quite hard to justify buying a dual (in Apple's case, a $2000+ quad)

[baxterbrittle]

It is likely that Apple will drop conroes into the iMac when kentsfield is released. It makes sense to put merom into the iMac now as an intermediate update as they do not have to redesign the whole logic board. Maybe around MWSF we will see a new iMac based around conroe with pin compatible kentsfield in the high end models (24"). I still think it is unlikely that Apple will bring out a mid level tower any time soon, but i've been wrong before. Still would be nice to be able to pick up a quad core 24" iMac in 6 mounths time.

[Erasmus]

OK, Now Apple HAVE to release our precious Mini Mac Pro and put one of these in it!

Yep, Apple need a smaller Mac Pro with one processor very soon. I think maybe at Macworld, if not sooner?

Merom is going to stay at about this speed for many years. There are no quad core mobile processors on the Intel Roadmap.
So when we have 2 core Merom iMacs, which will no doubt last us until Santa Rosa half way through next year, and 8 core Mac Pros with dual Clovertowns, do people not see the slight gap???
Perfect for a Mini Mac Pro. Or a beefier iMac. But I would prefer the Mini Mac Pro. Then at least the lineup would be 2-4-8 core, instead of pretty much a quadrupling of power in well threaded applications between highest consumer and lowest pro. Now that's just insane.

So... Merom MBP's on Tuesday or Wednesday. Merom Macbooks in a month. Clovertown Mac Pros and Xserves, PLUS Kentsfield Mini Mac Pro (conroe on all but highest model) all at Macworld 2007. Not too much of a stretch at all, in my opinion, especially when all we are likely to see on the Mac Pros and Xserves is new CPUs dropped in.

It seems I got my iMac Ultra (in some form) so I'm starting lobbying now on Mini Mac Pro. One Conroe CPU socket, 4 RAM slots, 2 PCI Extreme slots, 2 HDD bays. 600W PSU, and enough cooling to allow us to continue to upgrade parts as long as the socket stays the same, which should be a few years yet.

[Willis]

Well at least people who have brought MacPros can breathe easy now for a while. Basically because these Kentsfield's arent pin compatable with Woodcrest.

However, trying to find a product that can take conroe is sort of pointless. There's no proof or rumours that Apple are working on a Midrange tower. AND even if Apple did release one with just a Conroe chip in it, it would eat iMac sales.

It'd be nice to see one, but not likely

[Manic Mouse]

The iMac is huge (relatively speaking), are you telling me such a huge enclosure won't be able to dissipitate an extra 30W or so? It is only around 30W more!

Like it or not Apple will have to somehow fit the Kentsfield into their lineup, cos their advertising campaigns are going to look very lame when Dell simply cops their "switch" campaign style and come out with a "PC" with 4 heads and a "Mac" with only 2.

When Kentfield replaces Conroes and every $999 Dell ships with quad core, it is quite hard to justify buying a dual (in Apple's case, a $2000+ quad)

I completely agree with you: Apple need to get Kentsfield/Conroe into their lineup somewhere. They are the best bang/buck chips Intel are making so it seems insane that they aren't already using Conroe.

As for thermal constraints... Well, I was a big proponent of the iMac getting Conroe and am still quite shocked they went with Merom. There was a lot of discussion before the new iMacs were released as to whether the case could handle Conroe. I think it could, and I still do. But with Kentsfield you are literally sticking TWO Conroes in there when there is some doubt as to whether it can handle one. The 24" iMac could maybe handle it, but I'm doubtful the smaller sizes could. They currently use 32W Meroms, with Kentsfield we would be talking 100W+. Maybe even as high as 130W since Conroe is 65W and Kentsfield is two Conroe dies in one package.

I personally think that a mid-tower is the only option for Apple to incorperate Conroe/Kentsfield into their lineup. Kentsfield is certainly too hot and takes too much power to go into any of their existing consumer models. It wouldn't go in the Pro since they use the Xeon chipset and will be using Clovertown.

As you say, once PC manufacturers get their hands on Kentfield the consumer Macs are going to look very anaemic.

[Senbei]

Clovertown (~November 2006) might be a build to order high end option for Mac Pro as opposed to taking the entire line to 8 cores since there are limitations with that approach including higher power consumption and higher heat output.

Tigerton (Q3 2007 ~summer 2007) is slated to be a true multi-core (quad cores in a single multi-chip module) followup to Woodcrest/Clovertown. It will also use a new platform (Caneland platform comprised of Tigerton/Dunnington and the Clarksboro chipset) which includes a higher performance dedicated high-speed interconnect that gives each processor a direct pathway to the chipset and is supposed to be much faster than the current front-side bus technology. The timing (WWDC 2007) sounds more likely for a major Mac Pro refresh where it does 8 core across the line (and Leopard will probably have a lot more optimization for that many cores).

[FFTT]

I get goosebumps thinking about the capabilties of Logic 8 Pro working seamlessly
with 8 processors!

If you can get enough raw processing power to avoid the use of Digi HD Accel cards
that's going to be some set-up.

[Josias]

It seems Apple could just wait for Clovertown...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/11/intel_clovertown/

which appears to be 2 Woodcrests on one processor. Could we see 8-Core Mac Pros' in 2007?

arn

Oh, Kentsfield will as Conroe maybe not support duel processors, thereby disabling the opportunity of 8 cores? I c...;)

[Dr.Gargoyle]

The Woodcrest MacPro will suddenly feel very old if Apple manage to put Clovertown in MacPro early next year.

[Lollypop]

Powerbook G5 tomorrow!!! LOL ok, ok.. before someone shoots me .....

I would really like a mid range mac, and kentsfield would be ideal! Everyone is worried about such a machine taking away sales from either the Mac Pro or the imac, but I still say apple should just be smart enough and feature it so that people either have to to imac, mac extreme or mac pro. 2 pci express slots, single optical drive, smaller amount of total memory, instead of having people have to go for the mac pro why cant apple make the mac pro the real high end workstation and have something smaller be a the mainstream workstation?

[spicyapple]

The Woodcrest MacPro will suddenly feel very old if Apple manage to put Cloverton in MacPro early next year.
It appears I will be living in a cardboard box under a bridge sooner than I expected. :) All these juicy new Apples will put me in the poor house!

[Dr.Gargoyle]

It appears I will be living in a cardboard box under a bridge sooner than I expected. :) All these juicy new Apples will put me in the poor house!
I was planing to get a MacPro rev. B, but now I might wait for Clovertown. Eight cores is....a LOT.:eek:

[Manic Mouse]

Powerbook G5 tomorrow!!! LOL ok, ok.. before someone shoots me .....

I would really like a mid range mac, and kentsfield would be ideal! Everyone is worried about such a machine taking away sales from either the Mac Pro or the imac, but I still say apple should just be smart enough and feature it so that people either have to to imac, mac extreme or mac pro. 2 pci express slots, single optical drive, smaller amount of total memory, instead of having people have to go for the mac pro why cant apple make the mac pro the real high end workstation and have something smaller be a the mainstream workstation?

The margins on a mid-mac should be better than the iMac since it's using standard (and therefore cheap) desktop components. So any mid-mac sales in preference to the iMac would probably make Apple more money anyway.

[DrFrankTM]

The margins on a mid-mac should be better than the iMac since it's using standard (and therefore cheap) desktop components. So any mid-mac sales in preference to the iMac would probably make Apple more money anyway.

The competition is fierce in that market segment though. The iMac or Mini form factors don't have quite as much competition, so price comparisons always leave a lot out of the picture. With a mid-range tower, the comparisons would be much more direct. Apple seems to be shaking its "expensive toy" image, but I wonder if they could "pull a Mac Pro" in the mid-range as well.

[jesteraver]

It seems Apple could just wait for Clovertown...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/11/intel_clovertown/

which appears to be 2 Woodcrests on one processor. Could we see 8-Core Mac Pros' in 2007?

arn

More than likely. It will come with a price probably.

[Multimedia]

It seems Apple could just wait for Clovertown...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/11/intel_clovertown/

which appears to be 2 Woodcrests on one processor. Could we see 8-Core Mac Pros' in 2007?

arnThis is my expectation. I am one customer who needs 8 cores for sure. I also expect to need 16 when they become available. Clovertown is not expected to be any longer than Kentsfield.

I think Apple has got to be redesigning the iMac to accomidate Kentsfield then Tigerton into the iMac. Only other place for it is inside a new kind of Mac mini or a new class of Macs yet to be revealed - a sort of Mac Pro Jr.I was planing to get a MacPro rev. B, but now I might wait for Cloverton. Eight cores is....a LOT.:eek:For certain types of work, 8 cores is not a lot and in fact still not enough - believe it or not.

[RichP]

Clovertown +Adobe CS3 + Leopard = My credit card go boom!

Coming spring 2007...


Seriously, I am suprised these chips are pin-compatible with the Conroe, which is pin compatible with some P4s. Seems like the next REAL boost in intel performance will be the summer of 2007, when the next-gen chipsets and such are released. (as previously posted)

[bryanc]

It seems clear from the fact that Apple put the first of (what are likely limited supplies of) the merom CPUs into the iMac, rather than the much-anticipated MBPs, that the iMac enclosure simply can't dissipate heat quickly enough to run the higher TDP CPUs like Conroe without unacceptable compromises (i.e. loud fans).

So I predict these new, mid-to-high performance CPUs will either not be used by Apple (bad move, IMO) or they will appear in a new product. The long awaited xMac. The problem that Apple needs to chart a course around with this product is that it can't be so powerful that it eats up sales of the MacPro (that's easy, make it cheap), and it can't be a direct competitor with either the iMac or the mini (shouldn't be too hard, drop the price on the mini another $100, making it a cheap, 'Value-priced' system with very limited upgrade potential, and continue to produce the iMac as a beautifully designed AIO system for the office, lab, etc.). I do think the xMac will cannibalize iMac sales to some degree, but it should be manageable.

The problem with the xMac as a product for Apple is two fold. Firstly, it has to be agressively priced, because, of all the Macs, it's the one that will be facing the most head-to-head competition from other vendors, and it will have the fewest Apple-only features to justify significant price differences. Secondly, it will have to be easily expandable to be competitive, and consequently, it will suffer from 3rd-party hardware and software quality issues.

To deal with these issues, I think Apple needs to pull a rabbit out of it's hat WRT the industrial design of the xMac, making it an elegant, easy-to-work with, highly prized piece of technology that people won't mind paying a little extra for. And they need to be very explicit about using only 'Apple-certified' components or the warranty is void. This won't prevent people from using every standard PC widget under the sun, but it will give Apple an out when some of these systems fail.

Cheers

[SPUY767]

The iMac is huge (relatively speaking), are you telling me such a huge enclosure won't be able to dissipitate an extra 30W or so? It is only around 30W more!

Like it or not Apple will have to somehow fit the Kentsfield into their lineup, cos their advertising campaigns are going to look very lame when Dell simply cops their "switch" campaign style and come out with a "PC" with 4 heads and a "Mac" with only 2.

When Kentfield replaces Conroes and every $999 Dell ships with quad core, it is quite hard to justify buying a dual (in Apple's case, a $2000+ quad)

The current 900$ dells don't even come with a Core based processor, so I doubt that a "Core-Quadro" is in the future for any 900$ dell. Bottom line will always be, most of the time, you get exactly what you pay for.

[zwida]

It appears I will be living in a cardboard box under a bridge sooner than I expected. :) All these juicy new Apples will put me in the poor house!

I fear there will be quite a few of us in the same boat.:)

Hard for me to justify (to my wife) a new machine every six months, no matter how much more productive it will make me. I'll have to start working on my reasons...

[Multimedia]

The iMacs will NEVER see Kentsfields. Apple would have to have put Conroe in the new iMacs for that even to be a remote possibility. Even if they had I would still say it would never get Kentsfields.

I mean people are saying that Conroe is too hot for the iMac as it is (I don't think they are) but Kentsfield is two Conroe dies on one package. Meaning almost double the power consumption and heat generation.You appear to have no imagination. Kentsfield Will Go Into A New iMac Redesign. Have you not seen this mock-up yet? There are options in design that can make the iMac much cooler even with more heat producing elements inside.The iMac is huge (relatively speaking), are you telling me such a huge enclosure won't be able to dissipitate an extra 30W or so? It is only around 30W more!

Like it or not Apple will have to somehow fit the Kentsfield into their lineup, cos their advertising campaigns are going to look very lame when Dell simply cops their "switch" campaign style and come out with a "PC" with 4 heads and a "Mac" with only 2.

When Kentfield replaces Conroes and every $999 Dell ships with quad core, it is quite hard to justify buying a dual (in Apple's case, a $2000+ quad)Exactly generik. Bravo.

I don't buy the notion that the iMac will continue to look like it has for these past two years. The G4 iMac design lasted 2.66 years. We are at the 2 year point of the current design. Why does everyone think the iMac is going to look like it does now in a year? I will be shocked if it does and not surprised at all when it's design changes radically to accomidate more heat from the likes of Kentsfield and Tigerton.

[nospleen]

It seems the people who were mad about the intel switch are getting quieter and quieter... ;)

[Dr.Gargoyle]

For certain types of work, 8 cores is not a lot and in fact still not enough - believe it or not.
My point as just that if intel doubles the number of cores every 6th month, I believe that lifespan of a Mac is going to be substantially shorter. I doubt that the people who just bought a new MacPro realized that their computer would be as fast as an "entry level" computer within a year. Old Macs, like my own MDD, will be deemed to live in a time-bubble with now means of interacting with newer computers.
Things have certainly changed after the PPC ->x86 transition.

[nospleen]

My point as just that if intel doubles the number of cores every 6th month, I believe that lifespan of a Mac is going to be substantially shorter. I doubt that the people who just bought a new MacPro realized that their computer would be as fast as an "entry level" computer within a year. Old Macs, like my own MDD, will be deemed to live in a time-bubble with now means of interacting with newer computers.
Things have certainly changed after the PPC ->x86 transition.

I am not quite following you. It is not as if your mac will slow down because the new one has more cores? Or, are you saying the requirements to run the software will increase at a faster rate because the hardware is improving so rapidly, thus dating your mac prematurely?

[spicyapple]

Things have certainly changed after the PPC ->x86 transition.
Mac resale value will go down the drain, but that's great if you're the buyer not the seller. It's still much more exciting to be getting these furious CPU upgrades.

[splintah]

quad core macbook pro anyone ?

[aegisdesign]

I mean people are saying that Conroe is too hot for the iMac as it is (I don't think they are) but Kentsfield is two Conroe dies on one package. Meaning almost double the power consumption and heat generation.


The thermal requirements for Yonah and Merom are 35W. Conroe is 65W. The old G5 at 2Ghz was 39W so roughly the same as Yonah/Merom although the power management wasn't as good with it not being a laptop chip.

The Core 2 Extreme version of Conroe has a 75W rating. Kentsfield is being introduced as a Core 2 Extreme chip first so I'd guess it also has a 75W rating.

Chances of seeing a Conroe Quad in an iMac - non-existent.

[aegisdesign]

My point as just that if intel doubles the number of cores every 6th month, I believe that lifespan of a Mac is going to be substantially shorter. I doubt that the people who just bought a new MacPro realized that their computer would be as fast as an "entry level" computer within a year. Old Macs, like my own MDD, will be deemed to live in a time-bubble with now means of interacting with newer computers.
Things have certainly changed after the PPC ->x86 transition.

Software will also have to keep up and unless your software becomes massively multithreaded and what you're doing can actually be multi threaded there's no real advantage to multi-core CPUs.

This is already a problem with Quicktime in that it doesn't scale past 2 cores. You'll find half of your computer under utilised for instance when transcoding video in Quicktime.

[Multimedia]

quad core macbook pro anyone ?Probably not for two more years. :( It's not even mentioned in any of the published Intel roadmaps yet.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I am not quite following you. It is not as if your mac will slow down because the new one has more cores? Or, are you saying the requirements to run the software will increase at a faster rate because the hardware is improving so rapidly, thus dating your mac prematurely?
My computers will of course not be slower. But the apps, on the other hand, will become more and more demanding. For example, I cant run Aperture on my MDD (2*1.25/2GB RAM/128MB VRAM). Hell, I cant even run Civ IV on it...lol
I think this fact will be more and more emphasized as the "core-war" replaces the "GHz war".

[Multimedia]

Software will also have to keep up and unless your software becomes massively multithreaded and what you're doing can actually be multi threaded there's no real advantage to multi-core CPUs.

This is already a problem with Quicktime in that it doesn't scale past 2 cores. You'll find half of your computer under utilised for instance when transcoding video in Quicktime.Not if you transcode multiple files simultaneously - which is what I do with multiple instances of Toast 7 and Handbrake..

Plus that will probably be fixed in QuickTime 8 which is likely to come with Leopard.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Software will also have to keep up and unless your software becomes massively multithreaded and what you're doing can actually be multi threaded there's no real advantage to multi-core CPUs
I am quite sure that the software writers will take full advantage of the current hardware.
Isnt it normally so, that apps push the evolution of the hardware?

[nospleen]

My computers will of course not be slower. But the apps, on the other hand, will become more and more demanding. For example, I cant run Aperture on my MDD (2*1.25/2GB RAM/128MB VRAM). Hell, I cant even run Civ IV on it...lol
I think this fact will be more and more emphasized as the "core-war" replaces the "GHz war".

Gotcha! That would get old quick, at least the old apps would work. It is kind of cool now that a G3 can still run Tiger. Oh well, can't have everything! :)

[shawmanus]

Couple of things

Kentsfield is not replacing conroe. Its only replacing conroe xe. Intel does not see mainstream quad core for atleast 2 years when s/w gets multithreaded. So Kentsfield should atleast cost $999 and would be seen in gaming platforms and workstations.

Tigerton is new xeon mp solution to replace netburst based tulsa. It is definately not pin compatible with kentsfield. Apple currently does not have any MP ( >= 4P solutions) in their portfolio. Maybe they would create one in their xserve portfolio. Tigerton would be extremely expensive as well.

iMac currently have laptop processors having around ~30w TDP. Kentsfield will have 110w tdp and I dont see Apple redesigning iMac to accomodate it. Maybe once intel has a native quad core on 45nm with around 60w TDP we will see a quad core in iMac.

Apple should release a "headless tower" with conroe/kentsfield. That should be significantly cheaper than Macpro.

[aegisdesign]

I am quite sure that the software writers will take full advantage of the current hardware.
Isnt it normally so, that apps push the evolution of the hardware?

Some applications just can't be multithreaded and writing reliable multi threaded applications is damned hard still.

Back in the early 90s I was using ICL DAPs which had a grid of 1024 CPUs. You could fly through a Mandlebrot set in realtime or analyse weather patterns quicker than anything else at the time short of a couple of Crays. A Mac SE/30 however was quicker at handling files and we used to use that to handle the normal stuff.

[fblack]

There's going to be a problem when PC manufacturers get a hold of this if Apple doesn't realease a mid-tower to compete. Conroes are faster than the Meroms in the iMac as it is, but with quad cores they'll wipe the floor with them at multi-tasking.

Surely Conroe needs to go somewhere in Apple's lineup? Great value, fast and soon to be quad-core.

I would love to see a mid-tower with these in it and there seems to be some demand for a mini-macpro ;) among forum contributers (based on what I've seen). However, with the release of the 24" imac it makes me wonder if we would ever see a mid range tower. The 24" imac provides the increased power and improved GPU. Also if the GPU does turn out to be replaceable, it makes for a harder argument for mid-tower no? The price range does seem to fit well between the regular imacs and pros...

[jemmX]

Predictions ...

MBP 20" inch (1920 x 1200)
Quad-core
4gb ram
Dual HD = 250gb 7200rpm Raid 0
Superdrive HD w/lightscribe
iSight HD
Audio Digital & analog in/out
Vram 512MB GDDR 4 (PCI Xpress, HDMI + DVI + TV)
3 - USB 2 / 2 - FW 400 / 2 - FW 800 / 1 - Sata
Dual Ethernet
PCMCIA
Leopard

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[jakemikey]

It is expected to be a Conroe "drop-in" and should work with the same motherboards as Conroe.

This won't be the case:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=16078

just because it's LGA 775 doesn't mean it's a Conroe 'drop-in'. It'll need at least a 975x or p965 chipset and modified motherboard circuitry to handle it. And please, people, stop with the 'pin compatible' crap. Just because a proc is 'pin compatible' with another proc doesn't mean you can mix and match as you like. You have to think about the chipset, and about voltage regulators, and the motherboard circuitry in general. I have a board with a Pentium D in it right now - both the socket and the chipset support Conroe, but the board itself doesn't simply because of the voltage regulator. By the 'pin compatible' theory, I should be able to shove a Kentsfield into just about any late-model P4 board and have it work just fine -- won't happen!

[EagerDragon]

This is the chip to use in a (stop gap) gamer machine, but it needs to be fully 64 bit for 4+ gig of RAM, 4 slots of non-buffered ram, support SLI, be user upgradable, multiple video cards inside, 2 disk drives (stripping mode), lots of USB and Firewire ports in a new enclosure.

Just my opinion.
:D

[EagerDragon]

I guess Apple should'a put Conroe in the iMacs. Is there a chance this will mean Conroe will be in MacPro's?
I bet this go in the "Mac Gamer" regardless of form factor. Either the mini-tower or a revised Mac Pro enclosure.

[Marx55]

What about Clovertown - Quad-core - Xeon-class - 8 CORES ON 2 PROCESSORS (4th quarter 2006)?

[Play Ultimate]

Apple's current line up is as follows:

Mac mini - Core Duo (Yonah)
iMac - Core 2 Duo (Merom)
MacBook - Core Duo (Yonah)*
MacBook Pro - Core Duo (Yonah)*
Mac Pro - Xeon (Woodcrest)
Xserve - Xeon (Woodcrest)

* Unlike the other models, the MacBook and MacBook Pro have not seen updates (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/) for 4-5 months. As a result, many are speculating that they will see updates soon.

Sure is a different world for Apple when 4-5 months without a product update is a long time. ;)

[mdntcallr]

I'd like to see merom in MBP

I'd really like to see the conroe, and conroe replacement in a mid sized tower/media center.

something bigger and better than the mac mini, more powerful than the imac. no integrated display. good upgradability and of course.... priced between the imac and tower. accounting for NO display included, ie about same price as imac. or even a little less.

[holycat]

Erhm..so the new realeased merom iMac will last for how long:confused: :confused:

worth it to buy now???

thinkiNG of getting one...cant bear with my 3 yrs old of centrinO noteBook...:mad:

[Lollypop]

Not if you transcode multiple files simultaneously - which is what I do with multiple instances of Toast 7 and Handbrake..

Plus that will probably be fixed in QuickTime 8 which is likely to come with Leopard.

Its nice to say multiple instances of everything, but thats not really ideal... do I really want to run 3 copies of final cut and 2 copies of handbrake and and and and to efficiently use my machine? doesnt running multiple copies of something also come with a bit of a memory overhead? The core wars will also run into problems, just like the Mhz war did, Mhz doesnt always mean performance, nor does core count.

Apple now has a entire lineup with dual cores, they will have to think ahead, and make their software run effectively on 4 or 8 cpu's.

The problem with the xMac as a product for Apple is two fold. Firstly, it has to be agressively priced, because, of all the Macs, it's the one that will be facing the most head-to-head competition from other vendors, and it will have the fewest Apple-only features to justify significant price differences. Secondly, it will have to be easily expandable to be competitive, and consequently, it will suffer from 3rd-party hardware and software quality issues.

I dont see how cheap hardware wil be a problem for a xMac, it isnt really a problem for the mac pro??? With 2 pci express slots people wont have to much choices (but at least they will have a choice), and its very very rare to have PC hardware that will even work on a mac, rom issues are normally to blame. But I agree apple needs to compete, and will have to be very very inovative if they go xMac classed machine.

[zwida]

Erhm..so the new realeased merom iMac will last for how long:confused: :confused:

worth it to buy now???

thinkiNG of getting one...cant bear with my 3 yrs old of centrinO noteBook...:mad:

I think it's worth buying now. There will always be something better out there. If you're suffering with a 3-year-old Centrino, make your computing life better now with a new iMac.

[Marx55]

Apple, please,

BRING BACK THE MAC CUBE concept!

A small yet powerful Mac. But this this at a REASONABLE price, to be a best-seller.

Thanks.

[Lollypop]

I would love to see a mid-tower with these in it and there seems to be some demand for a mini-macpro ;) among forum contributers (based on what I've seen). However, with the release of the 24" imac it makes me wonder if we would ever see a mid range tower. The 24" imac provides the increased power and improved GPU. Also if the GPU does turn out to be replaceable, it makes for a harder argument for mid-tower no? The price range does seem to fit well between the regular imacs and pros...

I agree that the expandability of the 24inch imac is impressive, but until I see ease of upgradability as well Im all for a mid range. Its also about the CPU, the C2D's are nice, but their not really a match for their desktop counterparts, there are some of us that want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range...

[~Shard~]

Great news that Kentsfield is coming early, however I am curious to see what Apple does with it (if anything). Since it is based on the Conroe chipset, and Apple has elected not to incorporate Conroe into any of the Mac line-up (yet), I wonder what Kentsfield's role will be (if any) in the Mac world.

Once again, all signs point towards that Conroe Mini-tower... :eek: ;) :D

[AidenShaw]

Once again, all signs point towards that Conroe Mini-tower... :eek: ;) :D
What mini-tower? ;)

[aegisdesign]

Sure is a different world for Apple when 4-5 months without a product update is a long time. ;)

No, that was about normal even in the PowerPC days.

Once again, all signs point towards that Conroe Mini-tower... :eek: ;) :D

Yes. In the same way the PowerPC 4xx series pointed to a sub notebook.

[aegisdesign]

I agree that the expandability of the 24inch imac is impressive, but until I see ease of upgradability as well Im all for a mid range. Its also about the CPU, the C2D's are nice, but their not really a match for their desktop counterparts, there are some of us that want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range...

The Merom and Conroe are almost identical clock for clock. Really, if there's 1 or 2% difference in real world tests I'd be surprised and it's usually down to other factors like RAM or disk.

[timmillwood]

can they fit one of these into a MBP?

[Josias]

Predictions ...

MBP 20" inch (1920 x 1200)
Quad-core
4gb ram
Dual HD = 250gb 7200rpm Raid 0
Superdrive HD w/lightscribe
iSight HD
Audio Digital & analog in/out
Vram 512MB GDDR 4 (PCI Xpress, HDMI + DVI + TV)
3 - USB 2 / 2 - FW 400 / 2 - FW 800 / 1 - Sata
Dual Ethernet
PCMCIA
Leopard

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

4" thick.
$6000.
12 minutes of batterylife.

NO! Why would anyone need such a laptop? Go buy a MacPro instead.

Amd just tell me, why Lightscribe?:p

[MacinDoc]

Great news that Kentsfield is coming early, however I am curious to see what Apple does with it (if anything). Since it is based on the Conroe chipset, and Apple has elected not to incorporate Conroe into any of the Mac line-up (yet), I wonder what Kentsfield's role will be (if any) in the Mac world.

Once again, all signs point towards that Conroe Mini-tower... :eek: ;) :D
Agreed.

[EagerDragon]

Erhm..so the new realeased merom iMac will last for how long:confused: :confused:

worth it to buy now???

thinkiNG of getting one...cant bear with my 3 yrs old of centrinO noteBook...:mad:
If you need it get it now. If you can wait 6 months then wait. What is out is better than what you have, just be ready than in 6 months there will be something better. This is always the case even if you stay in the Win Camp.

[puuukeey]

BRING BACK THE MAC CUBE concept!

or half of one....
http://i.askask.com/2005/01/mini.jpg

[Eidorian]

I've gone over the 30" mock up with Multimedia. I like the idea and it's possible. Still, has anyone else looked at the road map for mobile chips? There's nothing beyond dual core! We just get die shrinking and more cache.

[bradc]

Not naming names, but I find it funny how everyone suddenly becomes an engineer.:rolleyes:

[cecildk9999]

Apple, please,

BRING BACK THE MAC CUBE concept!

A small yet powerful Mac. But this this at a REASONABLE price, to be a best-seller.

Thanks.

You might just get your wish; I saw this article/link while surfing over the MacNN website a couple of days ago (I'm still waiting for new MBPs myself, though! :( ):


http://www.electronista.com/articles/06/09/08/new.apple.cube.patent/

Hope this isn't old news for everyone; this is my first post, although I've been following the forums ever since I started thinking about replacing my old Powerbook (should finally have the money by next month!).

[Mundy]

Clovertown will not be a workstation-class CPU, and I'm surprised that so many people are expecting to see it in the Mac Pro. Adopting Clovertown would be a big step backward for Apple, since Woodcrest uses dual, independent front-side busses, while Clovertown will use a single, shared FSB. Clovertown will be okay (and probably even excellent) for server applications, but most analysts aren't expecting it to be better than Woodcrest for the types of things most creative professionals do on the desktop.

Tigerton will be a bigger performance leap over Woodcrest than Clovertown. In truth, I don't expect Intel to release anything that will make a Mac Pro look remotely obsolete until their CPU line goes to a 45 nanometer process in the last half of 2007.

Quite simply, the way Intel is going about quad-core at this point in the game is both cautious and underwhelming. Once true quad core becomes a reality (and not simply two dual-core chips on a single peice of silicon, like Clovertown and Kentsfield), and the FSB is replaced by direct interconnects, then I'll upgrade from my Mac Pro. Otherwise, I expect the machine to remain capable and viable for the next three years or so.

[~Shard~]

Not naming names, but I find it funny how everyone suddenly becomes an engineer.:rolleyes:

What kind of Engineer? A Train Engineer? :p :D

For the record, I'm an Electronics Systems Engineer - not sure if I see what you're getting at... How is "everyone suddenly an Engineer" in this thread? :confused:

[wildmac]

If you need it get it now. If you can wait 6 months then wait. What is out is better than what you have, just be ready than in 6 months there will be something better. This is always the case even if you stay in the Win Camp.

Yep, if you want an iMac, then buy it NOW. The laptops will soon see upgrades, but the rest of the product line is up-to-date.

And... unless you are doing hard-core gaming or intensive graphics or scientific work, a CPU upgrade is not likely to be noticed in your real-world computing.

[wildmac]

Quite simply, the way Intel is going about quad-core at this point in the game is both cautious and underwhelming. Once true quad core becomes a reality (and not simply two dual-core chips on a single peice of silicon, like Clovertown and Kentsfield), and the FSB is replaced by direct interconnects, then I'll upgrade from my Mac Pro. Otherwise, I expect the machine to remain capable and viable for the next three years or so.

But that underwhelming feeling can be a good feeling. You know you are working on the latest hardware.

I expect to see a speed-bump in the next 5-6 months for the MacPro, but nothing else.

[FFTT]

The new Mac Pro has finally achieved acoustic running levels to make it perfect
for audio recording solutions.
It will be interesting to see how quiet the new Merom iMacs run.

We've read countless complaint threads over the years about noise issues.

This is why I think Apple will pass on some of these processors to maintain
the new standards they have achieved.

It will be interesting to see how the 65nm back to back mirrored quad chips perform compared to the 45 nm chipsets.

For now, I think the priority is still to get heat down in the notebooks and to improve battery life.

[fblack]

I agree that the expandability of the 24inch imac is impressive, but until I see ease of upgradability as well Im all for a mid range. Its also about the CPU, the C2D's are nice, but their not really a match for their desktop counterparts, there are some of us that want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range...

I'm right with you when you say "that some of us want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range." Also I dont like all in one solutions. However, the 24" might be apple's way of saying that's close enough. Plus looking at what Macworld had to say about the 2.16 C2D and the potential for the 24" 2.33 it sure does narrow the performance some what and this might be what apple is thinking.

More significant, the 2.16GHz system narrowed the performance gap between iMac and Mac Pro product lines. With twice the number of processor cores, all running faster than the iMac, the Mac Pro had a definite advantage in this match up. But because not all applications and tasks take full advantage of the Mac multiprocessing capabilities, most results showed the Mac Pro between 20 and 30 percent faster than the 2.16GHz iMac. I expect that test results of the new 24-inch model—with its faster graphics and the optional 2.33GHz processor upgrade—could close this performance gap even further.

http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/imacbench/index.php


I cant wait to see the benchmarks on the 24". :)

But dont get me wrong I would still prefer a headless tower. :cool:

[brianus]

You appear to have no imagination. Kentsfield Will Go Into A New iMac Redesign. Have you not seen this mock-up yet? There are options in design that can make the iMac much cooler even with more heat producing elements inside.

Sorry, but that mockup is just stupid. Whoever made it obviously has no concept of Apple's product line. CONSUMER = WHITE OR BLACK. PRO = ALUMINUM. NEITHER = MIX OF IMAC WHITE + ALUMINUM. Every single frickin' product follows these guidelines. Get a clue.

And by the way, the iMac G3 design lasted, with modifications, for 4 years. The G5 design is a winning, modern, attractive design and one gets the sense there's really nowhere else to go with it at the moment as far as being a flat-panel monitor with a computer mounted behind it. There Will Be No New iMac Redesign Anytime Soon[TM].

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Gotcha! That would get old quick, at least the old apps would work. It is kind of cool now that a G3 can still run Tiger. Oh well, can't have everything! :)
I doubt that 10.6 will run on G4. CS4 will probably run very sluggish on a Quad G5.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Some applications just can't be multithreaded and writing reliable multi threaded applications is damned hard still.

Back in the early 90s I was using ICL DAPs which had a grid of 1024 CPUs. You could fly through a Mandlebrot set in realtime or analyse weather patterns quicker than anything else at the time short of a couple of Crays. A Mac SE/30 however was quicker at handling files and we used to use that to handle the normal stuff.
1024 CPUs??? WOW... and I thought I had nasty simulations. :o
Still, dont you think that it is a terrible waste of computing power if the app doesnt take advantage of multiple processors, eventhough it might be very hard to write such an app? This is really not my field and I know far too little to have an opinion, so take it for what it is worth.

[Lollypop]

1024 CPUs??? WOW... and I thought I had nasty simulations. :o
Still, dont you think that it is a terrible waste of computing power if the app doesnt take advantage of multiple processors, eventhough it might be very hard to write such an app? This is really not my field and I know far too little to have an opinion, so take it for what it is worth.

It is a terrible waste to have unused CPU power, especially when the application is CPU intense, there are entire fields of research dedicated to optimizing certain types of calculations.... Ive said it before, the core wars will also stop eventually...

Whats wrong with having two dual core processors on one chip? I can understand that the FSB might become a bottleneck but thats not only a issue related to the number of cores/processors is it?

[crees!]

A mid-tower between the Mini and Pro seems to be the only possible home for Conroe. And, even though I would love to buy one, I'm not sure if Apple really want to release such a machine.

You never know though, we could be in for a nice surprise sometime soon.
What about the patent designs that were just shown of the Cube 2?
http://www.unwiredview.com/2006/09/07/apple-cube-ii-computer/

[arn]

What about the patent designs that were just shown of the Cube 2?
http://www.unwiredview.com/2006/09/07/apple-cube-ii-computer/

It's the same patent as the original cube.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=231892

specifically, read:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2812045&postcount=6

nothing new.

arn

[~Shard~]

I'm right with you when you say "that some of us want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range." Also I dont like all in one solutions. However, the 24" might be apple's way of saying that's close enough.

I agree with you (and I realize I'm preaching to the choir here) but I would argue that in some ways, a 24" AIO is even worse than a 17"/20" AIO, due to the sizable (no pun intended) investment in the display. If your 17" iMac bites the big one, but the display is still fine, well, okay, you have to throw away a perfectly good 17" display. But they're fairly cheap these days, so whatever. However, what if something goes a year or so from now on your 24" iMac? For me at least, throwing away a perfectly good, high quality 24" display would really suck. :cool:

[fblack]

I agree with you (and I realize I'm preaching to the choir here) but I would argue that in some ways, a 24" AIO is even worse than a 17"/20" AIO, due to the sizable (no pun intended) investment in the display. If your 17" iMac bites the big one, but the display is still fine, well, okay, you have to throw away a perfectly good 17" display. But they're fairly cheap these days, so whatever. However, what if something goes a year or so from now on your 24" iMac? For me at least, throwing away a perfectly good, high quality 24" display would really suck. :cool:

And that's one of the reasons I don't like all in ones, I dont like throwing away display no matter what the size. My last CRT lasted me about 6 years and I had an old apple 14" monitor that was still working after 10 years! Now that's getting value out of your components! :D

However, in regards to the longevity of a 24" apple might say hey buy apple care and be covered for those 3 years and "protect your investment". But maybe this is another issue that apple should address and that's their extended warranties. Perhaps you or others might feel more confident in a AIO solution if apple offered 4-5 year extended warranties?

Who knows they may surprise us yet with a headless imac/pro. But I think they have it set up like buying a car. You want those extra features? Then you have to pay for a higher priced model that has the features you want and dont want...;)

[sord]

Dare I dream? How about a quad processor quad core system! 16 cores in all!!!

I hope they at least keep dual processors in the pro machines if they start using these so we get 8 cores. Then toss one of these suckers in a mini.

[~Shard~]

Dare I dream? How about a quad processor quad core system! 16 cores in all!!!

That's nothing. Just wait for Dunnington or Harpertown. :cool:

[Object-X]

A mid-tower between the Mini and Pro seems to be the only possible home for Conroe. And, even though I would love to buy one, I'm not sure if Apple really want to release such a machine.

You never know though, we could be in for a nice surprise sometime soon.

I for one need just this kind of setup. I use a mini, but it's integrated graphics is a bit pokey and cost difference between that and a Mac Pro leaves me with no choice but to endure the mini for a bit longer. The iMac is perfect, in terms of performance, but I don't want an all-in-one white computer at work. This is the downside to Apple taking a minimilist approach to their product offering. I think they could add a mid-tower without compicating things.

[holycat]

Yep, if you want an iMac, then buy it NOW. The laptops will soon see upgrades, but the rest of the product line is up-to-date.

And... unless you are doing hard-core gaming or intensive graphics or scientific work, a CPU upgrade is not likely to be noticed in your real-world computing.

ThaNKS!!i

have ordered my new 24' iMAC :D :D :D

I m doing some 2D graphics...and some biOinformatics stuff..but i guess...it still can cope it...and last at least for 2-3 years for me...

[sfwalter]

...I would like to be able to purchase a machine without an integrated display (aka iMac). This machine would have a graphics card in a standard slot so that it can upgraded. It would be great also to be able to remove and upgrade the hard disk, space for a second hard disk is would be a nice to have.

Currently I'm stuck in the middle between an iMac (I want a separate display, and some upgrade paths) and Mac Pro (too upgradeable for my needs, and way too expensive).

Apple really needs a pro-sumer box.

[Demoman]

I remember back in the 2nd half of the 90's, HP came out with the dual Pentium II processor configuration, which only ran on NT. At the time I was administering a new Sparc network and we had a Sun 690MP with 4 ultra-Sparc processors. I thought is was cool that MS PC's had moved to multiple processors.

However, I was disappointed to learn that the 2nd processor could be only be used for little more than a coprocessor. So, I did some reading about the relationship of the Bus design, processor architecture and the OS. It made me appreciate Sparc a lot more.

Fast forward 10 years and it seems like I need to do some more reading. I would like to get current with what is being used today, and what may be in the pipeline for the next couple years.

I can search the web. But, I know some of you are very knowledgeable about this and may have a good source to recommend. Thanks.

[xUKHCx]

I have the oringal iMac G5 bought on the very day they were announced. (well i dont have it as it is in for another replacement midplane - total worth of applecare to me so far is about the £1400 mark). It is feeling rather old and very slow for my tasks. I am now wishing i had that display so i could connect it to the mini or a mid range tower. I long for upgradable graphics as a not so proud owner of the geforce 5200 or whatever it is in my mac so such a pitiful perfonace it is not listed as Aperture capable. It really is a shocking video card. I have upgraded the harddrive that was a snap in the iMac, i have even replaced the logic board 30 mins no fuss. THings i liked about the original iMac ease of replacement parts. Things i didnt like: the non upgradable parts - processor and graphics.

I truely long for the Mid range tower.

double height Pci graphics slot ala Mac Pro with the X1900.
Space for two harddrives for Time Machine mostly.
Pretty beefy processor, preferably with some sort of upgrade path
Option to purchase a bundle display 17" really cheap option.
1 gb ram - 8 gb provided by 4 ram slots

Cost: £700
Cost: £850 with the 17 inch mointor
Cost: £1000 with the 20 inch mointor

[aegisdesign]

1024 CPUs??? WOW... and I thought I had nasty simulations. :o
Still, dont you think that it is a terrible waste of computing power if the app doesnt take advantage of multiple processors, eventhough it might be very hard to write such an app? This is really not my field and I know far too little to have an opinion, so take it for what it is worth.

You had to explicitly write your applications in a special parallel computing version of Fortran or OCCAM. It was exceptionally quick at matrices and vector equations so working out the weather was one of the things it was good at. They did a later DAP with 4096 processors. :-)

The point is, multiple cores are only of use if you've a task that can be split up into separate threads. Many general purpose computing tasks simply can't be multi threaded easily or at all.

On the Mac though, the main advantage of at least two cores is that the OS can run the WindowServer task, that handles all your windows on screen and generally consumes a lot of CPU when you've got 16 apps running on your screen on one CPU and your application on another and it's still nippy so you don't get the beachball so often switching apps. The second core can also be doing something like running backups, indexing a hard drive for Spotlight, hotclustering files, updating thumbnails in iPhoto.... Past two cores and you're in diminishing returns except for specific applications that can be multithreaded.

The one advantage Macs have had for a few years of course is that there is a long history of dual CPU machines. Windows on the other hand rarely has multi threaded applications. Both OS's are a pain in the arse to write multi threaded apps for though. The wisdom of BeOS's designers would work wonders with today's CPUs.

[dernhelm]

Apple, please,

BRING BACK THE MAC CUBE concept!

A small yet powerful Mac. But this this at a REASONABLE price, to be a best-seller.

Thanks.

Put a Conroe processor in a midrange headless system, and you'll have what the cube was supposed to be. The problem is that Apple just finished rationalizing a minimized line. To add something else into their lineup makes for all kinds of headaches.

Low-end (headless) - mac mini
Mid-range (all-in-one) - iMac
High-end (headless) - mac pro
Server room (headless) - xserve

In order to rationalize another product line in the mid-range (pro-sumer?) market, I think they'll need to focus it on some other feature that people need. Dropping the cube back out there just cannibalizes sales of existing product, if you are not careful with it.

Apple does not seem to believe that there is some large contingent of people who want a mid-range system that would prefer it not to have a monitor. I, however, think they are wrong, and they are missing a large segment of people who are willing to pay top dollar for a high-end well-designed machine. That market is the one for the high-end gamer.

Apple absolutely could produce a great machine aimed at high-end gamers. Produce a super-cool design aimed at that segment. Make it BTO with multiple upgradable graphics cards, fast bus speeds, fast ram, RAID 0, etc. They could leave off FW800, Bluetooth (most wireless gamer mice don't use it), and some of the other connectivity options that high-end gamers could care less about (modems, etc). Put the Conroe processors in there and crank them up as high as you can. The high end system could be liquid cooled, we already know apple can do that when needed. Most games are still not threaded all that well - but an MT OpenGL also couldn't hurt...

They could also Pre-install boot-camp as a BTO option. We all know any serious gamer is going to want windows installed - so just prep them for it. It wouldn't surprise me to see many more people buying macs to run windows on in the near future anyway.

There isn't any reason why such a machine couldn't look like the "cube" I suppose, but I'd probably prefer to see something different. The cube had a different design goal and has too much baggage associated with it anyway.

[Mundy]

Whats wrong with having two dual core processors on one chip? I can understand that the FSB might become a bottleneck but thats not only a issue related to the number of cores/processors is it?

The problem is that a double-dual-core solution (like Intel's Kentsfield and Clovertown) still requires that two cores communicate with the other two cores over the FSB. A single, shared FSB is one of the reasons that Intel's first generation of dual-core CPUs could not compete with AMD's 64-bit X2 line.

Intel has its reasons for the way it's doing its first generation of quad-core CPUs, but performance is not one of them. Right now, the primary concern is silicon yields, and the double-dual-core method allows Intel to throw away a bad core without tossing the entire quad-core silicon wafer. A true quad-core CPU would not allow this—i.e. Intel couldn't "cut out" the bad silicon—and therefore the potential for monetary loss is greater.

The truth is that Kentsfield and Clovertown are trial runs. They are stopgap measures in the same way that Yonah was a stopgap on the way to Merom. Once Intel goes to true quad-core CPUs and a 45 nm process, it might be time to worry about the Mac Pro being obsolete. Until then, anything Intel releases will be incremental.

Just my 2 cents.

[aegisdesign]

I remember back in the 2nd half of the 90's, HP came out with the dual Pentium II processor configuration, which only ran on NT. At the time I was administering a new Sparc network and we had a Sun 690MP with 4 ultra-Sparc processors. I thought is was cool that MS PC's had moved to multiple processors.

However, I was disappointed to learn that the 2nd processor could be only be used for little more than a coprocessor. So, I did some reading about the relationship of the Bus design, processor architecture and the OS. It made me appreciate Sparc a lot more.

That's bollocks.

Both processors on Windows NT going back as far as NT3.1 at least will run at full speed, share tasks between them if threaded or just run one task on each.

There was even a hack to have the Explorer (the equivalent of Finder) run multithreaded that sped things up on multi-cpu machines. I've almost always tried to have multi-CPU desktop machines even if that meant a little slower for each CPU. Back in 97-98 my favourite machine was a dual Celeron 366 overclocked to 550Mhz each. Each CPU was about $80. It creamed boxes costing much more but was also really smooth to use since there was also a spare CPU quite often to keep things ticking along whilst CPU1 was tied up.

[Multimedia]

You might just get your wish; I saw this article/link while surfing over the MacNN website a couple of days ago (I'm still waiting for new MBPs myself, though! :( ):

Ultra compact computer arrangement Apple Patent Filing - Looks Like Cube II (http://www.electronista.com/articles/06/09/08/new.apple.cube.patent/)

Hope this isn't old news for everyone; this is my first post, although I've been following the forums ever since I started thinking about replacing my old Powerbook (should finally have the money by next month!).Excellent find and an award worthy first post. Thank you very much and welcome to the forums.What about the patent designs that were just shown of the Cube 2?

From Unwired View - Apple Cube reborn (http://www.unwiredview.com/2006/09/07/apple-cube-ii-computer/)This is very encouraging. Perhaps this is what Steve has to talk about on Tuesday. I am a Cube lover - still own two.

[aegisdesign]

And that's one of the reasons I don't like all in ones, I dont like throwing away display no matter what the size. My last CRT lasted me about 6 years and I had an old apple 14" monitor that was still working after 10 years! Now that's getting value out of your components! :D

Do you really want to use a monitor from 10 years ago in everyday use? Not likely. I've a 15" CRT from about a decade ago too but it's sitting on a shelf as a spare in case my newer monitor dies.

Most times I've bought a new computer, I've also bought a new monitor. A widescreen 17" monitor back when I bought my iMac was extortionately expensive. I generally figure on spending about £15-1800 every three years on a computer and about 5-6 years of useful life. It's been going up from a G3 iBook to a 17" G5 Mac to a fully kitted out 24" iMac for that money. I can't imagine what it will be in 3 - 6 years time but I guess it'll make a 24" iMac feel just as obsolete as the 500Mhz G3 iBook with a 1024x768 screen feels.

I have to conclude that people who want to use their 10 year old CRT are just incredibly cheap and don't value their screens as much as being able to claim how fast their CPU is. I've been programming for 20+ years professionally and your screen isn't something to skimp on. It's THE most important thing if you value your eyes.

[manu chao]

This is my expectation. I am one customer who needs 8 cores for sure. I also expect to need 16 when they become available. Clovertown is not expected to be any longer than Kentsfield.

If you need 16 cores, shouldn't you get a rack with four Xserves (once the new Xserves with Intel-processors become available)?

Sure, getting the same in one (quiet) box for the price of one box would be preferable but this is not available yet.

Or, do you mean you want 16 cores but right now you are not willing to spent what it takes to get it.

(Sorry for the tone, I would like to have 16 cores for my work as well.)

[manu chao]

I have to conclude that people who want to use their 10 year old CRT are just incredibly cheap and don't value their screens as much as being able to claim how fast their CPU is.

Maybe, with the current pace at which CPUs are improving, I would want to upgrade my CPU every 18 months but my screen only every 36 months?

[Multimedia]

If you need 16 cores, shouldn't you get a rack with four Xserves (once the new Xserves with Intel-processors become available)?

Sure, getting the same in one (quiet) box for the price of one box would be preferable but this is not available yet.

Or, do you mean you want 16 cores but right now you are not willing to spent what it takes to get it.

(Sorry for the tone, I would like to have 16 cores for my work as well.)What tone? Yeah I don't want to spend that much. I'm thinking $4k max for an 8 Core-In-One Mac Pro. I'm sure I'll be pretty happy with 8 until I find out I still have to wait a lot for video compressions to happen. Then I'll be right back here complaining about how 8 cores isn't enough either.I'm with you there. Although I don't do video compression but Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign work, I'm sure Adobe will manage to deliver a version of CS3 that still feels sluggish under 8 cores.Glad I won't be alone. :) We are an unusual small group finding a reason to need a lot of cores. I think those who don't don't understand us.I still wonder if all this video editing is personal or for profit. :rolleyes:Personal. I'm just trying to archive Television recordings - simple. But currently it takes longer than the shows run IE about 3x time spent watching, then crushing each show. That's a very time consuming thing to get hung up on. And I'm sure it makes no sense to 90% of those here.

[Eidorian]

What tone? Yeah I don't want to spend that much. I'm thinking $4k max for an 8 Core-In-One Mac Pro. I'm sure I'll be pretty happy with 8 until I find out I still have to wait a lot for video compressions to happen. Then I'll be right back here complaining about how 8 cores isn't enough either.I still wonder if all this video editing is personal or for profit. :rolleyes:

[zwida]

Then I'll be right back here complaining about how 8 cores isn't enough either.

I'm with you there. Although I don't do video compression but Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign work, I'm sure Adobe will manage to deliver a version of CS3 that still feels sluggish under 8 cores.

[chatin]

What tone? Yeah I don't want to spend that much. I'm thinking $4k max for an 8 Core-In-One Mac Pro. I'm sure I'll be pretty happy with 8 until I find out I still have to wait a lot for video compressions to happen. Then I'll be right back here complaining about how 8 cores isn't enough either.

My Xeon utilization is only 50% per proc while compressing in Quicktime Pro. Even during an HD export (http://www.macpro.ws/P3.jpg) the fans don't get use.

[fblack]

Do you really want to use a monitor from 10 years ago in everyday use? Not likely. I've a 15" CRT from about a decade ago too but it's sitting on a shelf as a spare in case my newer monitor dies.

Most times I've bought a new computer, I've also bought a new monitor. A widescreen 17" monitor back when I bought my iMac was extortionately expensive. I generally figure on spending about £15-1800 every three years on a computer and about 5-6 years of useful life. It's been going up from a G3 iBook to a 17" G5 Mac to a fully kitted out 24" iMac for that money. I can't imagine what it will be in 3 - 6 years time but I guess it'll make a 24" iMac feel just as obsolete as the 500Mhz G3 iBook with a 1024x768 screen feels.

I have to conclude that people who want to use their 10 year old CRT are just incredibly cheap and don't value their screens as much as being able to claim how fast their CPU is. I've been programming for 20+ years professionally and your screen isn't something to skimp on. It's THE most important thing if you value your eyes.

I think you mistook the slant of my post. Notice the big grin face at the end of my sentence in the previous post? I meant it half in jest. It does not mean that as I type I am staring at a 14" screen. As far as my 6 yr old CRT that died it was a 19inch not a tiny screen and certainly hefty at about 60lbs. My 10yr old CRT that has been permanently retired now was in fact used as a backup monitor for my old beige G3. I've had more than one monitor go before and having a backup even if it has small screen real estate can save your bacon if you've got work to do. :p

I would love to have the budget to replace all of my equipment every 3 years like you can but I dont have that luxury. If I can have a piece of equipment last a little longer you may call it cheap from your fancy perch, but I call it frugal. Good budgeting should never be sneered at...:D

[Multimedia]

My Xeon utilization is only 50% per proc while compressing in Quicktime Pro. Even during an HD export (http://www.macpro.ws/P3.jpg) the fans don't get use.I am compressing EyeTV Broadcast HD recordings with Toast then Handbrake. On the G5 Quad they each use more than two cores occasionally and almost two cores all the time - well over 80% each all the time.

I can crush two files simultaneously to gain even more performance - like 150% faster that way.

[EagerDragon]

Put a Conroe processor in a midrange headless system, and you'll have what the cube was supposed to be. The problem is that Apple just finished rationalizing a minimized line. To add something else into their lineup makes for all kinds of headaches.

Low-end (headless) - mac mini
Mid-range (all-in-one) - iMac
High-end (headless) - mac pro
Server room (headless) - xserve

In order to rationalize another product line in the mid-range (pro-sumer?) market, I think they'll need to focus it on some other feature that people need. Dropping the cube back out there just cannibalizes sales of existing product, if you are not careful with it.

Apple does not seem to believe that there is some large contingent of people who want a mid-range system that would prefer it not to have a monitor. I, however, think they are wrong, and they are missing a large segment of people who are willing to pay top dollar for a high-end well-designed machine. That market is the one for the high-end gamer.

Apple absolutely could produce a great machine aimed at high-end gamers. Produce a super-cool design aimed at that segment. Make it BTO with multiple upgradable graphics cards, fast bus speeds, fast ram, RAID 0, etc. They could leave off FW800, Bluetooth (most wireless gamer mice don't use it), and some of the other connectivity options that high-end gamers could care less about (modems, etc). Put the Conroe processors in there and crank them up as high as you can. The high end system could be liquid cooled, we already know apple can do that when needed. Most games are still not threaded all that well - but an MT OpenGL also couldn't hurt...

They could also Pre-install boot-camp as a BTO option. We all know any serious gamer is going to want windows installed - so just prep them for it. It wouldn't surprise me to see many more people buying macs to run windows on in the near future anyway.

There isn't any reason why such a machine couldn't look like the "cube" I suppose, but I'd probably prefer to see something different. The cube had a different design goal and has too much baggage associated with it anyway.

It is coming, I bet. But you forgot the need for SLI. Apple is a hardware company and does not mind selling to Windows users that want the best hardware for their games. It is coming.

[Multimedia]

It is coming, I bet. But you forgot the need for SLI. Apple is a hardware company and does not mind selling to Windows users that want the best hardware for their games. It is coming.Anyone got numbers on percentage of computer users who play games? I never play games. Am I in a minority?

[EagerDragon]

Anyone got numbers on percentage of computer users who play games? I never play games. Am I in a minority?
The target is Windows users, Most windows users between 10 and 25 play some game or another. I have no clue about OS X users on the Macs but probably 20 % do.

Apple is interested in selling hardware and putting a hurt on PC companies like Dell and others. They can sell a heck of a lot of machines to the PC market and double or quatruple their market share in just one year alone. That is what BootCamp is there for.

[sisyphus]

Face it the Conroe Mac is coming.

iMac 24" - $1999

Mac Pro (downgraded to 2.0 Ghz) + 23" - 3198

That is a $1k price gap.

A high quality midtower would fit perfectly. They have another chip to differentiate the product matrix. It is coming!

Mac Mini - Core Duo (yonah) - base entry machine. 2 RAM slots
iMac - Core 2 Duo (Merom) - All in one basic to prosumer models, quiet operation and powerful. 2 RAM Slots
"Mac" - Core 2 Duo (Conroe) - mini tower 1 optical, 2 drives, 2 PCIe, 4 RAM Slots - prosumer to low end workstation.
Mac Pro - Xeon (Woodcrest) - Full tower 2 processors, 8 RAM slots, 4 PCIe, 2 optical, 4 drive bays. - Mid to high end workstation.

Face it Apple left the biggest gap between the iMac and the Pro machine ever! There was no crippled tower to span the distance between the two. Apple wants to expand market share. They have a power processor that will not step on the toes of the machine above or below. Why wouldn't they use it. Before all the desktops ran the G5. It was difficult to provide product differentiation without gobbling sales up internally. Here the highest end Conroe cannot match the lowest end dual Woodcrest at highly threaded apps. This is a win-win situation. It will either come out on Tuesday or another special event in early october.

[EagerDragon]

Face it the Conroe Mac is coming.

iMac 24" - $1999

Mac Pro (downgraded to 2.0 Ghz) + 23" - 3198

That is a $1k price gap.

A high quality midtower would fit perfectly. They have another chip to differentiate the product matrix. It is coming!

Mac Mini - Core Duo (yonah) - base entry machine. 2 RAM slots
iMac - Core 2 Duo (Merom) - All in one basic to prosumer models, quiet operation and powerful. 2 RAM Slots
"Mac" - Core 2 Duo (Conroe) - mini tower 1 optical, 2 drives, 2 PCIe, 4 RAM Slots - prosumer to low end workstation.
Mac Pro - Xeon (Woodcrest) - Full tower 2 processors, 8 RAM slots, 4 PCIe, 2 optical, 4 drive bays. - Mid to high end workstation.

Face it Apple left the biggest gap between the iMac and the Pro machine ever! There was no crippled tower to span the distance between the two. Apple wants to expand market share. They have a power processor that will not step on the toes of the machine above or below. Why wouldn't they use it. Before all the desktops ran the G5. It was difficult to provide product differentiation without gobbling sales up internally. Here the highest end Conroe cannot match the lowest end dual Woodcrest at highly threaded apps. This is a win-win situation. It will either come out on Tuesday or another special event in early october.

It will be headless and upgradable to attract the Windows gamers. They already have monitors, keyboards and mice. A little BootCamp goes a long way.

[rtdunham]

Sorry, but that mockup is just stupid. Whoever made it obviously has no concept of Apple's product line. CONSUMER = WHITE OR BLACK. PRO = ALUMINUM. NEITHER = MIX OF IMAC WHITE + ALUMINUM. Every single frickin' product follows these guidelines. Get a clue.

You're doing what Marshall McLuhan described: looking in a rearview mirror to anticipate the future. You might even be being a little arrogant about it. Y'think? I mean, what about those aluminum iPod minis? that same format's suggested for new nanos. Apple's smart to delineate its lines, and you're smart to note that. But neither Apple nor you would be smart to think that delineation has to be sustained...what, forever? Like wide and narrow ties (hair styles, skirt lengths) moving in and out of fashion, Apple, IMHO, will establish distinctions and evolve them over time. It won't always happen: we'll never see a black Apple laptop again, like the early models, but... Oh, wait!!!

bellbottoms forever
peace out

[Multimedia]

Face it the Conroe Mac is coming.

iMac 24" - $1999

Mac Pro (downgraded to 2.0 Ghz) + 23" - 3198

That is a $1k price gap.

A high quality midtower would fit perfectly. They have another chip to differentiate the product matrix. It is coming!

Mac Mini - Core Duo (yonah) - base entry machine. 2 RAM slots
iMac - Core 2 Duo (Merom) - All in one basic to prosumer models, quiet operation and powerful. 2 RAM Slots
"Mac" - Core 2 Duo (Conroe) - mini tower 1 optical, 2 drives, 2 PCIe, 4 RAM Slots - prosumer to low end workstation.
Mac Pro - Xeon (Woodcrest) - Full tower 2 processors, 8 RAM slots, 4 PCIe, 2 optical, 4 drive bays. - Mid to high end workstation.

Face it Apple left the biggest gap between the iMac and the Pro machine ever! There was no crippled tower to span the distance between the two. Apple wants to expand market share. They have a power processor that will not step on the toes of the machine above or below. Why wouldn't they use it. Before all the desktops ran the G5. It was difficult to provide product differentiation without gobbling sales up internally. Here the highest end Conroe cannot match the lowest end dual Woodcrest at highly threaded apps. This is a win-win situation. It will either come out on Tuesday or another special event in early october.I sure hope you are right. I totally agree with your analysis.It will be headless and upgradable to attract the Windows gamers. They already have monitors, keyboards and mice. A little BootCamp goes a long way.I want this to be where Kentsfield and Tigerton wind up for less than $2k. The existing base of over 25 Million Mac owners also already have this stuff. But they will come with a keyboard and mouse. :)

[Macmaniac]

Please stop these chip rumors, it will only spawn new "MacBooks this Tuesday" threads:(

[EagerDragon]

Please stop these chip rumors, it will only spawn new "MacBooks this Tuesday" threads:(

No, PowerBook G7 on Monday's keynote

[FFTT]

I understand the need for a mid level consumer tower, but right now
50%+/- of the market is looking at notebooks.

The cluttered, wire infested desktop is also none too popular with many people.
That's why the AOI iMac is so popular.

The MacBook is already more powerful than the majority of desktops MOST
average users have in their home.
The mini does a respectable job filling the affordable hassle free niche.

Heck, if you don't count the extra RAM cost, the Xeon powered Mac Pro 2.66 Quad is priced neck and neck with the mid level MacBook Pro.
That's amazing when you really think about it.

Even so, I do see a place for a Max mini of some sort starting
with at least the power of half a Mac Pro Tower for $999.00

[sord]

No, PowerBook G7 on Monday's keynote
I don't know about a G7, but PowerBook G5s for sure!!!

[ezekielrage_99]

I wondering how many people are now going to put off buying a Mac Pro and wait for a faster Kentsfield :confused:

The Mac Pros a fast as it is now, Kentsfield would smash the previous benchmarks but a fair margin.

[adamfilip]

I wondering how many people are now going to put off buying a Mac Pro and wait for a faster Kentsfield :confused:

The Mac Pros a fast as it is now, Kentsfield would smash the previous benchmarks but a fair margin.

Ive heard about cloverton coming all along. and have put off buying a Mac pro

id much rather have 8 cores then 4 for the work i do

[ezekielrage_99]

Face it the Conroe Mac is coming.

iMac 24" - $1999

Mac Pro (downgraded to 2.0 Ghz) + 23" - 3198

That is a $1k price gap.

A high quality midtower would fit perfectly. They have another chip to differentiate the product matrix. It is coming!

Mac Mini - Core Duo (yonah) - base entry machine. 2 RAM slots
iMac - Core 2 Duo (Merom) - All in one basic to prosumer models, quiet operation and powerful. 2 RAM Slots
"Mac" - Core 2 Duo (Conroe) - mini tower 1 optical, 2 drives, 2 PCIe, 4 RAM Slots - prosumer to low end workstation.
Mac Pro - Xeon (Woodcrest) - Full tower 2 processors, 8 RAM slots, 4 PCIe, 2 optical, 4 drive bays. - Mid to high end workstation.


Sounds kind of feasible for a single CPU "Mac" Conroe system and it would fit nicely into the Apple product line up. I think a Conroe system would appeal nicely to prosumers and gamers.

[EagerDragon]

I understand the need for a mid level consumer tower, but right now
50%+/- of the market is looking at notebooks.

The cluttered, wire infested desktop is also none too popular with many people.
That's why the AOI iMac is so popular.

The MacBook is already more powerful than the majority of desktops MOST
average users have in their home.
The mini does a respectable job filling the affordable hassle free niche.

Heck, if you don't count the extra RAM cost, the Xeon powered Mac Pro 2.66 Quad is priced neck and neck with the mid level MacBook Pro.
That's amazing when you really think about it.

Even so, I do see a place for a Max mini of some sort starting
with at least the power of half a Mac Pro Tower for $999.00

If the iMac would come with a top of the line graphic card or as a BTO, it would be even more popular.

But the top gamers want more than one card with SLI and that means a different form factor.

I agree something is coming, but it does not have to be a mini. It could be a modified Mac Pro enclosure with liquid cooling for the graphic cards, CPU(s) and chip set. Mini or Maxi not sure. The system will also need to support overclocking of the CPU and Graphic cards. We will find out soon (prob October) for the holidays.;)

[ezekielrage_99]

Ive heard about cloverton coming all along. and have put off buying a Mac pro

id much rather have 8 cores then 4 for the work i do

With people putting off for the "next big thing" I wonder how many people will end up buying nothing ;)

[Multimedia]

I've heard about clovertown coming all along and have put off buying a Mac Pro. I'd much rather have 8 cores then 4 for the work I do.Of course almost everyone here knows I'm with you. I was surprised that the Mac Pro would require such expensive RAM which really puts me off. So I'm hoping that the popularity of Mac Pro RAM will drive down RAM cost to us by the time the Clovertown Mac Pro ships.

BTW it's NOT Cloverton. It's ClovertownIf you are looking for that, the most likely timeframe will be during the release of Leopard as it will release those 4 or 8 cores to do their thing. :DExactly my thinking as well.

[EagerDragon]

Ive heard about cloverton coming all along. and have put off buying a Mac pro

id much rather have 8 cores then 4 for the work i do

If you are looking for that, the most likely timeframe will be during the release of Leopard as it will release those 4 or 8 cores to do their thing.
:D

[sisyphus]

With people putting off for the "next big thing" I wonder how many people will end up buying nothing ;)


Well here at work I could replace 4 PC draughting workstations with a Conroe based system. We already have 23" monitors so we are not going to purchase iMacs, and while Mac Pro's are nice they are too expensive for us... A $1500 headless system would do wonders! (and yes the mini is too little).

If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs... :(

[sord]

Well here at work I could replace 4 PC draughting workstations with a Conroe based system. We already have 23" monitors so we are not going to purchase iMacs, and while Mac Pro's are nice they are too expensive for us... A $1500 headless system would do wonders! (and yes the mini is too little).

If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs... :(
Depending on the applications you are going to use, you could cluster some minis.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

Flame me if you must, but what is the sense in having multiple cores if the software running on it doesn't take advantage of it? Same thing with advertising the new chips as being 64 bit. That's great, but I don't have anything (not in beta) that can use it.

Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?

[massiv]

I think we all are getting caught up in the "core" crazy a little too much. I understand at a professional level the more cores the better. But Apple has delivered this target market its machine, the Mac Pro. I think the Mac Pro will see even more options in its configurations as time goes on, but I don't see them putting the next biggest and best chip in every product. After all, 90% of home computer users are using thier computers for basic functions and not heavy video or audio work, which means they don't need 4 cores. Apple is focusing on the digital lifestyle and this means they want to sell a customer hardware that will take care of this emerging market, like live streaming video rentals to their large screened LCD TV. I think the Mac Pro is the ever-expanding machine but look for huge price differences in its configs. An $800 difference in 2.66 to 3.0 GHz Xeon? All we do know is that Apple wants to rule the digital livingroom and probably is not concerned with bragging rights. But the obvious is true, there are some big steps ahead in processing power.

[Multimedia]

Well here at work I could replace 4 PC draughting workstations with a Conroe based system. We already have 23" monitors so we are not going to purchase iMacs, and while Mac Pro's are nice they are too expensive for us... A $1500 headless system would do wonders! (and yes the mini is too little).

If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs... :(You are the market Apple has got to be planning on winning. I have been using two monitors since 1986 when the Mac II made that possible. I might consider a mini - just for fooling around - if it had two moniotr ports.

This I see as the primary problem with the iMac as well. Although it does now allow spanning, the screens are going to outlast contemporary power levels over time thus making the idea of all-in-one very unattractive to those of us who want state-of-the-art power every 12-18 months or so and don't like the idea of a computer behind our screens. I like my computers on the floor.

What I want is the ability to have significant power along with the ability to hook up to 4 screens to that power not one or two - especially not the computer married to any displays.

I guess there are three types of people in the world:

1. Someone who only wants one screen hooked to a separate small computer that can only hook to one screen.
2. Someone who wants a screen married to the computer with the option of adding only one more.
3. Someone who wants one or more screens hooked to a computer on the floor with room for two dual display video cards.

I can see the mobile MacBook Pros as justifiably containing a computer married to a screen - but only with a Dual Link DVI port - unlike the mini and iMacs. Price of the MacBook explains the missing Dual Link DVI.

[sisyphus]

Flame me if you must, but what is the sense in having multiple cores if the software running on it doesn't take advantage of it? Same thing with advertising the new chips as being 64 bit. That's great, but I don't have anything (not in beta) that can use it.

Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?

According to the Page 2 Rumors there are some significant speed ups to OpenGL in the next update to 10.4 due to multithreading. Apple has had 4 processor systems for over a year now. I would think they have some ideas about how to make use of it.

Things like the next version of iChat... 1 core to run some application, another for the computer to compress that image into a nice stream to be broadcast over the net, and another to do the actual operation of iChat and the OS and whatever else you have in the background at the time.

There are all sorts of stupid (and not so stupid) ways to eat up processor cycles if you have them. :rolleyes:

[Multimedia]

Flame me if you must, but what is the sense in having multiple cores if the software running on it doesn't take advantage of it? Same thing with advertising the new chips as being 64 bit. That's great, but I don't have anything (not in beta) that can use it.

Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?How many times do I need to remind some of you that it doesn't matter if applications can only use one or two cores? You can run a bunch of things at once with all these cores at your disposal. That to me is what's important, as I think so should you think - not that one application can't use more than one or two cores. If anything, it's a good thing some only use one or two cores.

You can run a bunch of things at once - Simultaneously - with all these cores at your disposal. That's what's important - not that one application can't use more than one or two cores. On the contrary. If I had 8 cores I wouldn't have to quit Mail all the time.

Do you realize that Mail uses 100% of a core ALL THE TIME? If I leave it open I only have 3 cores to work with. I mean it's rediculous. I have to QUIT Mail to do my work. Absurd.

We Need More Cores And We Need Them NOW!According to the Page 2 Rumors there are some significant speed ups to OpenGL in the next update to 10.4 due to multithreading. Apple has had 4 processor systems for over a year now. I would think they have some ideas about how to make use of it.

Things like the next version of iChat... 1 core to run some application, another for the computer to compress that image into a nice stream to be broadcast over the net, and another to do the actual operation of iChat and the OS and whatever else you have in the background at the time.

There are all sorts of stupid (and not so stupid) ways to eat up processor cycles if you have them. :rolleyes:You took the words right out of my fingers. Bravo sisyphus.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

How many times do I need to remind some of you that it doesn't matter if applications can only use one or two cores?

Hundreds, apparently.

You can run a bunch of things at once - Simultaneously - with all these cores at your disposal. That to me is what's important - not that one application can't use more than one or two cores.

Hence me saying "in tandem".

We Need More Cores And We Need Them NOW!

Yikes.

[StudioGuy]

An $800 difference in 2.66 to 3.0 GHz Xeon?

Actually, look at the Dell Precision 490 Workstation - going from dual 3.0 (Intel 5160) down to a dual 2.66 (Intel 5150) is $410/processor, or an $820 difference in price. Not Apple pushing that one.

I'm guessing any 8-core machine will initially be a top-entry (ala "fastest") if it is introduced too soon, and not affect the whole lineup. Otherwise I will have more trouble convincing myself to buy the dual 3.0 now :). That Mac + iPod promo ends this week!

[MacinDoc]

According to the Page 2 Rumors there are some significant speed ups to OpenGL in the next update to 10.4 due to multithreading. Apple has had 4 processor systems for over a year now. I would think they have some ideas about how to make use of it.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it appears that the improvement was significantly overstated. Macrumors has now updated that thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=232126).

[sisyphus]

That Mac + iPod promo ends this week!

Everybody does realize that this promo only applies to already existing hardware. It does not apply to the new Core 2 Duo iMacs, nor will it apply to any new hardware released on Tuesday. Just making sure everyone is in the know...

[sisyphus]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it appears that the improvement was significantly overstated. Macrumors has now updated that thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=232126).


Doh! Oh well I still think there are many present and future uses for more cores. Especially if Apple releases a video airport express sorta thingy on Tuesday. If you could use your Mac as a video server that will do all the leg work then send it over the air to the "express" or multiple "expresses" in the house while still working on it, you've just developed yet another way to use up processor cycles on the machine. If SJ wants the Mac to be the hub of your digital lifestyle it is going to be asked to do more at once. Which is of course good!

[Multimedia]

Actually, look at the Dell Precision 490 Workstation - going from dual 3.0 (Intel 5160) down to a dual 2.66 (Intel 5150) is $410/processor, or an $820 difference in price. Not Apple pushing that one.

I'm guessing any 8-core machine will initially be a top-entry (ala "fastest") if it is introduced too soon, and not affect the whole lineup. Otherwise I will have more trouble convincing myself to buy the dual 3.0 now :). That Mac + iPod promo ends this week!I agree. It will probably cost about $4k. And I think it's conservative to guess it won't be here before Leopard since Leopard will probably be able to deal with all those cores a lot better than Tiger ever will. So unless you are prepared for another 6-8 month wait, you should go ahead and pull the trigger now. I need you to help drive up the demand for that expensive RAM now please. ;)

[Gurutech]

I'm expecting to see multimedia oriented (that looks like dvd players) that uses conroe and upgradable gpu.

waiting for the Showtime!!

:p

[roland.g]

I guess there are three types of people in the world:

1. Someone who only wants one screen hooked to a separate small computer that can only hook to one screen.
2. Someone who wants a screen married to the computer with the option of adding only one more.
3. Someone who wants one or more screens hooked to a computer on the floor with room for two dual display video cards.

I have chatted with you, and after originally considering a Mini or iMac, I have ruled out the Mini, and now would either get an iMac or a Mac Pro, however while there is only a $100 difference between (see this thread) what I would get in those 2 machines (and that is before spending more $$ down the road for a 23" ACD), I still feel that the Mac Pro is overkill for me and yet I don't like the iMac AIO, though I would change my mind if it looked like a 23" ACD. The white turns me off. I really only want 1 screen, while I have used 2 I don't really need it. Likewise I like the 30" but have no need for something that big. A 23-24" is perfect for me. I might even wall mount it. And I liked the idea of the Mini, just not the performance. So I find myself saying I will make up my mind soon, but hoping the Mac Pro Jr. shows up before I do. Because I too want to add a second HDD. And I would gladly spend $2,700 - 3,300 for a 2.33 or so Mac Pro Jr, with 2GB RAM 2 250GB HDDs, 256MB VRAM, BT & Airport, BT keyboard & MM, 23" ACD & Applecare after EDU discount.

[WildPalms]

The iMacs will NEVER see Kentsfields. Apple would have to have put Conroe in the new iMacs for that even to be a remote possibility. Even if they had I would still say it would never get Kentsfields.

I mean people are saying that Conroe is too hot for the iMac as it is (I don't think they are) but Kentsfield is two Conroe dies on one package. Meaning almost double the power consumption and heat generation.

Close, Manic Mouse. I dont understand people's belief that every Intel chip made has to go into an Apple machine. I doubt the Conroe will be used in any Mac nor the Kentsfield. The range is covered, and I'm sick of these silly rumors of Mac mid towers.

There wont be a mid tower, not now, not "Next Tuesday".

[sisyphus]

Close, Manic Mouse. I dont understand people's belief that every Intel chip made has to go into an Apple machine. I doubt the Conroe will be used in any Mac nor the Kentsfield. The range is covered, and I'm sick of these silly rumors of Mac mid towers.

There wont be a mid tower, not now, not "Next Tuesday".

The thing is that it is very easy to layout a reasoning as to why Apple should/will use a Conroe chip in its line up. It is very difficult with the current product lineup to show why they wont.

As noted in a previous post, there is a $1000US price gap in their lineup that has been left in the lineup. There is currently a chip that would fill in that gap. This machine would steal slightly from both the lower and higher priced machines, yet open another market segment.

Apple has seen massive growth in the laptop market with the iBook. The MacBook perfectly filled a need with a certain market segment. The desktop Macs cover all of the segments except 1. This big gaping hole in their lineup has the perfect processor to meet its needs. Apple has designed a new case style for the Mac Pro. A smaller version would be simple to build re-using many of the components allowing for some economies of scale. This makes both the Mac Pro and the smaller sibling more cost effective in terms of components and assembly line manufacture.

The argument against goes. Well apple hasn't had a mid range headless machine since the G3 era. Which is of course true. However there was no way to differentiate products because there wasn't enough variability to the chips.

We now have:

Duo<Duo 2 (Merom) <Duo 2 (Conroe) <Xeon (Woodcrest)
(Mini < iMac < Mac < Mac Pro)

So just because Apple has had a big hole in its product matrix for the last few years means that it will continue to have a big hole in its product matrix until the end of time? Apple left that hole because it wasn't possible to create enough distiction between the product lines if they closed it. Now with the processors available from Intel, it is possible.

Apple is out to make $$$. It is a big corporation, and one that we all (usually) like because of the innovative easy to use products it delivers. It is making a MASSIVE consumer push right now. If a midrange machine will make them the most dough that is what they will deliver.

SJ likes clean product lines and that is what is going on.

Shuffle < Nano < iPod (< vPod)
MacBook < MacBook Pro
Mini < iMac (<Mac) < Mac Pro
X-Serve

They are all very clean product lines. The reason they destroyed all the product lines was that they had:

PM 5XXX
PM 6XXX
PM 7XXX
PM 8XXX
PM 9XXX

And there were overlapping prices and specs and God knows what. Unless you were a regular koolaid drinker it was extremely tough to keep track of what did what in the product matrix.

This will be a very clean and easy to understand matrix.

[AidenShaw]

However, I was disappointed to learn that the 2nd processor could be only be used for little more than a coprocessor. So, I did some reading about the relationship of the Bus design, processor architecture and the OS. It made me appreciate Sparc a lot more.
Were you reading propaganda from Sun, or something from an unbiased source?

The P6 systems that you're talking about in the mid '90s were very similar in architecture to today's Intel systems.

The P6 systems had a shared FSB, so memory bandwidth was shared by the two processors. The SPARC systems usually had a crossbar switch, so that in theory each CPU had a private memory path. (The Woodcrest systems have an FSB per socket, to a shared memory controller.)

While the crossbar really shined when you had 32, 64 or more processors with many, many GiB of RAM - for a dual CPU system it really wasn't worth the cost.

Woodcrest, the PPC G5, and AMD aren't using crossbar memory controllers today....

[Some_Big_Spoon]

I'm still taken aback by Sun doing what Intel's doing now, but doing it 8-10 years ago. What the heck happened to SUN?

Were you reading propaganda from Sun, or something from an unbiased source?

The P6 systems that you're talking about in the mid '90s were very similar in architecture to today's Intel systems.

The P6 systems had a shared FSB, so memory bandwidth was shared by the two processors. The SPARC systems usually had a crossbar switch, so that in theory each CPU had a private memory path. (The Woodcrest systems have an FSB per socket, to a shared memory controller.)

While the crossbar really shined when you had 32, 64 or more processors with many, many GiB of RAM - for a dual CPU system it really wasn't worth the cost.

Woodcrest, the PPC G5, and AMD aren't using crossbar memory controllers today....

[AidenShaw]

I'm still taken aback by Sun doing what Intel's doing now, but doing it 8-10 years ago. What the heck happened to SUN?
Macnealy's ego got in the way....

[ezekielrage_99]

Well here at work I could replace 4 PC draughting workstations with a Conroe based system. We already have 23" monitors so we are not going to purchase iMacs, and while Mac Pro's are nice they are too expensive for us... A $1500 headless system would do wonders! (and yes the mini is too little).

If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs... :(

What I was getting at that I hear people aren't getting a Mac Pro (which is very quick) and a waiting for the Kentsfield or Clovertown Mac Pros which haven't even been considered to b released yet.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

I hear that again and again, but I just can't believe it.. was it just him? How could someone so far ahead drop the ball like that? I know, Palm and BeOS...

Macnealy's ego got in the way....

[Erasmus]

I would love to see a mid-tower with these in it and there seems to be some demand for a mini-macpro ;) among forum contributers (based on what I've seen). However, with the release of the 24" imac it makes me wonder if we would ever see a mid range tower. The 24" imac provides the increased power and improved GPU. Also if the GPU does turn out to be replaceable, it makes for a harder argument for mid-tower no? The price range does seem to fit well between the regular imacs and pros...

OK, Who knows where to buy a MXM GPU?
If it's not PCI Extreme, then it's not upgradeable.

[epitaphic]

http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/09/11/four_cores_on_the_rampage_uk/index.html

For me, working with one of the first quad core systems was amazing. No matter how many applications you run at the same time, the system reacts to user commands quickly. Some applications require half the time to finish tasks. To me, it's like being catapulted a year into the future and is unlike the past few years when computing power increased only marginally. Intel pumped out 30% more performance with Core 2 Duo and will double that again with Core 2 Quadro soon.

Seems like things bode well for Clovertown. Fingers crossed the hideously inefficient FB-DIMMS dont screw it up.

[Erasmus]

Not naming names, but I find it funny how everyone suddenly becomes an engineer.:rolleyes:

Who said anything about suddenly?

I, with all of my first year Aeronautical Engineering Uni experience say a Mini Mac Pro is possible. :D :cool:

I think it would be really cool if it had support for a kentsfield or conroe if it's possible, as well as future support as well. It should also have four RAM slots. Two Hard Drive bays, and two PCI Extreme slots. All for under 2 grand Australian currency, so I can buy a 23" screen and a Macbook for about AU$5G, and I'll be one very happy, and very poor individual.

Four cores would be fantastic for working with Matlab for Uni.

[Erasmus]

It's the same patent as the original cube.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=231892

specifically, read:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2812045&postcount=6

nothing new.

arn

Ah, but note Fig 3, especially item labelled 38.
I can tell you right now that today's cube does not have any type of fan.
Multitasking right now, and my Cube is COMPLETELY inaudiable. No fan.
If the patent includes a fan, as this one clearly does, it could well be new.

[dernhelm]

It is coming, I bet. But you forgot the need for SLI. Apple is a hardware company and does not mind selling to Windows users that want the best hardware for their games. It is coming.

You're right about SLI. I'm not as convinced about whether or not it's coming.

[aegisdesign]

But the top gamers want more than one card with SLI and that means a different form factor.

That's a very, very small market.

Half-Life on the PC sold 8 million out of a market of 250 million PCs bought that year. ie. 3% of PC owners bought it. I'd guess the number of those running SLI is in the order of that kind of percentage again, maybe 10% of that 3%.

And that's a top game. Most decent games sell in the order of 1 million.

The Sims sold 16 million and doesn't need SLI at all which IMHO goes to show that developers should concentrate on original games instead of yet another FPS.

[aegisdesign]

Do you realize that Mail uses 100% of a core ALL THE TIME? If I leave it open I only have 3 cores to work with. I mean it's rediculous. I have to QUIT Mail to do my work. Absurd.


What? There's something screwed with your Mail.app.

Think about it. If Mail.app used 100% of a core ALL THE TIME, people with single CPU machines wouldn't be able to do anything.

Mail on my G5 iMac is sat there at 0.0% CPU utilisation when it's not doing anything.

[fblack]

OK, Who knows where to buy a MXM GPU?
If it's not PCI Extreme, then it's not upgradeable.

Yes, but I can dream cant I ? :D

[Manic Mouse]

Having read the initial impressions of C2Q it sounds mightily impressive...

[adamfilip]

BTW it's NOT Cloverton. It's ClovertownExactly my thinking as well.

Thanks for the typo correction. but large type sizes are not necessary

[adamfilip]

With people putting off for the "next big thing" I wonder how many people will end up buying nothing ;)

im sure lots of people will keep on waiting and waiting
but i like to get a good jump when i upgrade.. it helps justify the price

[AidenShaw]

...and two PCI Extreme slots...
http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/pciexpress/logo.gif

PCI Express, not Extreme.

Note that there's a multiplier as well - a PCIe x16 slot is twice as fast as a PCIe x8 slot, and 16 times faster than a PCIe x1 slot.

http://www.pcisig.com/home

[Multimedia]

Ah, but note Fig 3, especially item labelled 38.
I can tell you right now that today's cube does not have any type of fan.
Multitasking right now, and my Cube is COMPLETELY inaudiable. No fan.
If the patent includes a fan, as this one clearly does, it could well be new.While our Cubes have no fans, they do have a fan mounting location on the inside of the bottom of the system. Apple originally planned on installing a fan there but figured out how they didn't have to. Cube upgraders to dual G4 processors put a fan there. I know this because I was planning on doing a dual G4 processor upgrade to one - own two. In fact, I bought the second one specifically for that purpose. But which model to upgrade with I never made up my mind. Here's the Barefeats page on the subject (http://www.barefeats.com/cubeup.html).

But then I made the leap to the D 2 G5 and never looked back.

[Multimedia]

What? There's something screwed with your Mail.app.

Think about it. If Mail.app used 100% of a core ALL THE TIME, people with single CPU machines wouldn't be able to do anything.

Mail on my G5 iMac is sat there at 0.0% CPU utilisation when it's not doing anything.I have a large library of mail and smart mailboxes that refresh every time it checks for new mail. If I have it set to every 5 minutes, it takes 3 or 4 minutes to refresh all my smart mailboxes. :)

[seashellz]

Macbook (with Leopard) in late Spring for me!
(thats when APPLE usually refresh their models)

[law guy]

The benchmarks on Tom's Hardware are up. http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/ An up to 100% performance increase over the Core 2 Duo. Goodness me.

I was surprised to see that it's the same form factor chunkywise (same pin setup as Core 2 Duo and compatible with those MBs) - I thought it would be thicker.

http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/08/31/four_cores_on_the_rampage/intro_quadcore.jpg

[milo]

I get goosebumps thinking about the capabilties of Logic 8 Pro working seamlessly
with 8 processors!

Good luck with that, Apple can't even get it working right with 4 cores.

[milo]

Close, Manic Mouse. I dont understand people's belief that every Intel chip made has to go into an Apple machine. I doubt the Conroe will be used in any Mac nor the Kentsfield. The range is covered, and I'm sick of these silly rumors of Mac mid towers.

There wont be a mid tower, not now, not "Next Tuesday".

Conroe is intels best bang for the buck. It would be stupid for apple not to use it, and go with chips that are slower and more expensive instead. But apple still does some things that are stupid.

I still think we'll see a mid tower, or at least some mac with conroe. Tommorow? Probably not, but who knows?

[Multimedia]

The benchmarks on Tom's Hardware are up.

Intel's Core 2 Quadro Kentsfield: Four Cores on a Rampage (http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/)

An up to 100% performance increase over the Core 2 Duo. Goodness me.

I was surprised to see that it's the same form factor chunkywise (same pin setup as Core 2 Duo and compatible with those MBs) - I thought it would be thicker.Great catch Law Guy. Congratulations and thanks!

This is huge news. Where is everybody?!? :confused:

It appears that Conroe motherboards or logic boards, as some like to call them, are Core 2 Quadro ready. Oops! No wonder Apple hasn't released an early Conroe Mac. They's obviously waiting for these Core 2 Quadros to ship - dropping a bomb on everyone who bought a Mac Pro. :eek:

Am I the only one here who thinks this is gigantic news? I can hear a pin drop. The stunned silence is deafening. :eek: ;)

Maybe an early Christmas Present Is In The Works For November Shipping from Apple. :)

So Kentsfield is dubbed Core 2 Quadro or C2Q for short. And it looks like this - last pic is pin view with Core 2 Duo on left Core 2 Quadro on right:

[vitaboy]

It's news like this that makes you realize, thank God Apple switched to Intel when it did!

I mean, imagine where we'd be if Steve Jobs didn't have the forsight to develop an Intel version of OS X from the very beginning, 6 years ago?

We'd be stuck with IBM still trying to put out a 3 GHz G5, and notebooks would still be mired in G4 land.

It makes you shudder when you think about what might have been....

But the reality is, Macs are going to be incredibly kick butt scream machines by the time Macworld 2007 rolls around. 2007 looks like it's definitely going to be the year of the Mac!

[law guy]

This is huge news. Where is everybody?!? :confused:


Am I the only one here who thinks this is gigantic news? I can hear a pin drop. The stunned silence is deafening. :eek: ;)



I agree - this is really something. As has been noted, it's just huge the increase in a short amount of time - the original Core release was only a short while back, then Core 2 Duo - which just made it into the iMacs - and now the Core 2 Quad release date of Mid-October! The pace is just astounding.

Not only that, but as Arn and others note, the Quad Xeons are on the way as well. So, there is the path for 8 core Mac Pros in the very near future.

Quad core iMacs, 8 core PMs (opps, I mean Mac Pros) - oh my.

This amazing chip release rate - and significant increases each - will really put Apple to the test in terms of updating products quickly to stay competitive in terms of hardware release. In the past, Apple had to deal with chip upgrades so infrequently. It's a great problem to have, I suppose.

I also echo the comments above re: isn't this the kind of thing that makes you glad Apple switched to Intel? Absolutely.

[Multimedia]

I agree - this is really something. As has been noted, it's just huge the increase in a short amount of time - the original Core release was only a short while back, then Core 2 Duo - which just made it into the iMacs - and now the Core 2 Quad release date of Mid-October! The pace is just astounding.

Not only that, but as Arn and others note, the Quad Xeons are on the way as well. So, there is the path for 8 core Mac Pros in the very near future.

Quad core iMacs, 8 core PMs (opps, I mean Mac Pros) - oh my.

This amazing chip release rate - and significant increases each - will really put Apple to the test in terms of updating products quickly to stay competitive in terms of hardware release. In the past, Apple had to deal with chip upgrades so infrequently. It's a great problem to have, I suppose.

I also echo the comments above re: isn't this the kind of thing that makes you glad Apple switched to Intel? Absolutely.Thank you. Over on page 13 of the September 12th Event Predictions (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2821628&postcount=302) string they are insulting me as insane and that this is no biggie. :eek:

I think they've all gone Movie Store iPod Nano crazy. If I had just pulled the trigger on an iMac or a Mac Pro I think I would be a little sick to hear this news. I guess we can speculate Apple could be late to the C2Q systems party. But I agree with you they really need to be on time given we all know the C2Q processor is out there.

I think what we're seeing is a flood of new generation processors hitting the streets in rapid fire succession that won't always be quite as often in future.

[AidenShaw]

I mean, imagine where we'd be if Steve Jobs didn't have the forsight to develop an Intel version of OS X from the very beginning, 6 years ago?
Or, that Jobs had the foresight not to kill the x86 build of NextStep when he renamed it OSX.

They didn't create an x86 port, they simply maintained the x86 support when they added PPC support and the rest of OSX

Just like Microsoft for years maintained the PowerPC support in NT - which made it very easy to put a PPC chip in the Xbox 360.

2007 looks like it's definitely going to be the year of the Mac!
Yes, the year when it can be proven that Macs are the same as the Dells and eMachines and Gateways and all the other systems from people who also glue Intel chips to a motherboard. :D

[twoodcc]

Yes, the year when it can be proven that Macs are the same as the Dells and eMachines and Gateways and all the other systems from people who also glue Intel chips to a motherboard. :D

come on, you know that's going a little too far with that one. just b/c it's got an intel processor in it doesn't mean it's the same as everybody else

[whatever]

The margins on a mid-mac should be better than the iMac since it's using standard (and therefore cheap) desktop components. So any mid-mac sales in preference to the iMac would probably make Apple more money anyway.
I want Apple to release a stupid "mid-mac" just to shut you and everyone else up.

Professionals buy Mac Pros or laptops. Consumers buy iMacs or laptops. That's a sound and successful strategy for Apple. And if you need a cheap Mac, you can buy a mini.

Just because Intel releases a chip, does not mean Apple is going to use it. If that was the case then Intel should re-release the 486, so that Apple can put them in the "mid-mac"!

[Voltes V]

i didn't know they glueintel chips to the motherboard. super glue? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[DrFrankTM]

Multimedia, in the Sept.12th thread, you said:

"I now predict a 50% chance the C2Q Mac will be unveiled tomorrow. And if not tomorrow no later than early November."

I guess that's what people disagreed with (although I haven't finished reading the whole thread yet). I agree with you that it is indeed really big news and I still can't quite wrap my mind around the idea, but I'd be extremely surprised if Apple announces anything Kentsfield later today. (It's already the 12th here in South Korea.)

[Multimedia]

Multimedia, in the Sept.12th thread, you said:

"I now predict a 50% chance the C2Q Mac will be unveiled tomorrow. And if not tomorrow no later than early November."

I guess that's what people disagreed with (although I haven't finished reading the whole thread yet). I agree with you that it is indeed really big news and I still can't quite wrap my mind around the idea, but I'd be extremely surprised if Apple announces anything Kentsfield later today. (It's already the 12th here in South Korea.)I agree. I let my enthusasm for the surprise Core 2 Quadro would be ready for retail shelves mid October swept my logic away. I've changed that post since coming to my senses.

[Manic Mouse]

I want Apple to release a stupid "mid-mac" just to shut you and everyone else up.

Professionals buy Mac Pros or laptops. Consumers buy iMacs or laptops. That's a sound and successful strategy for Apple. And if you need a cheap Mac, you can buy a mini.

Yes, lets just ignore the huge performance, upgradability and price gap in Apples product lineup, shall we. It can be the elephant in the room when we all swoon over our "laptop on a stick" desktop while PC users get to play with the REAL hardware.

Sounds good to me. After all, it's not like Apple wants to actually sell more computers. That's crazy talk!

Does anyone think a slightly bigger version of this would be a fantastic desktop?

http://guides.macrumors.com/images/c/ce/Ihome-0007.jpg

[DrFrankTM]

Does anyone think a slightly bigger version of this would be a fantastic desktop?


I, for one, would be happy to spread the Word to the ignorant masses if Apple came out with a cute little white tower to match everyone's cute little white iPod. :P The Mini's nice, and the new iMac is nice too, but I think this thing could help Apple a lot in the desktop segment. I'd say something like that's bound to come out at some point, but when is the big question.

Also, it's probably been mentioned earlier in the thread, but does anyone know how long after Kentsfield Clovertown is supposed to come out? I heard "early 2007" a while ago, but with Kentsfield coming out so early, I would think Clovertown won't take that long.

P.S. Is it my connection, or is the Mac web starting to slow down as it struggles to handle all the traffic generated by the upcoming Apple event?

[Multimedia]

I, for one, would be happy to spread the Word to the ignorant masses if Apple came out with a cute little white tower to match everyone's cute little white iPod. :P The Mini's nice, and the new iMac is nice too, but I think this thing could help Apple a lot in the desktop segment. I'd say something like that's bound to come out at some point, but when is the big question.

Also, it's probably been mentioned earlier in the thread, but does anyone know how long after Kentsfield Clovertown is supposed to come out? I heard "early 2007" a while ago, but with Kentsfield coming out so early, I would think Clovertown won't take that long.In two weeks at the Intel Developer's Conference in San Francisco, I think Intel will tell us exactly. But from what I've read recently, looks like Clovertown will be shipping no later than November. So looks like worst case scenario will force Steve to have to introduce 8 core Mac Pros in four months at the MacWorld Expo San Francisco SteveNote January 9, 2007. I don't see how he could wait any longer than that.

Sure they will cost more than any previous Mac ever has, $4k is my guess, but to imagine there isn't a market for such a goliath is myopic in the extreme.

[Erasmus]

http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/pciexpress/logo.gif

PCI Express, not Extreme.

Note that there's a multiplier as well - a PCIe x16 slot is twice as fast as a PCIe x8 slot, and 16 times faster than a PCIe x1 slot.

http://www.pcisig.com/home

Hmmm... OK, My bad.
Two 16- lane PCI Express slots.

Basically take Mac Pro and cut it in half, metaphorically of course.

So, Multimedia, my Cube really has a spot for a fan?
Who would have thought it? Not me, that's for sure.
Seems to me most of the groundwork's already done. All Apple have to do is take the old cube, and integrate the ease of expandability of the existing Mac Pro, add the missing fan, and some other fans inside, and we suddenly have a computer that is able to cool some seriously hot hardware, and will cause a small thermonuclear explosion if you ever put a book over its top vent.

I have decided that I think it is highly unlikely that a kentsfield will find its way into an iMac, however I hope I am mistaken. Very much hoping the Mini Mac Pro is created.

BTW, What is with all the Anti Mini Mac Pro hostility??? "I'm sorry, you can't have a Quad 2.67 Ghz CPU and a top of the line graphics card. I'm sure a Mac Mini will more than fulfil your needs, with its Dual 1.86 Ghz Yonah processor and Integrated Graphics. As long as you de-emphasize on productivity, you should find a Mac Mini is plenty fast enough. After all, Apple is perfect, and anything they don't offer should be wanted by you."

[DrFrankTM]

@Multimedia: Ok, but if Clovertown is available as early as November, I can't imagine Steve making Santa angry and not updating the Mac Pro until January. It's not a great time to buy a computer... yet. Things are moving too fast right now. In sixty days, we'll be looking at quads and octos... I still can't believe that it's coming that fast.

[Manic Mouse]

BTW, What is with all the Anti Mini Mac Pro hostility??? "I'm sorry, you can't have a Quad 2.67 Ghz CPU and a top of the line graphics card. I'm sure a Mac Mini will more than fulfil your needs, with its Dual 1.86 Ghz Yonah processor and Integrated Graphics. As long as you de-emphasize on productivity, you should find a Mac Mini is plenty fast enough. After all, Apple is perfect, and anything they don't offer should be wanted by you."

Indeed. It's as if there's something wrong with asking for something you want. How dare we suggest the Apple lineup isn't perfect!

[whatever]

Yes, lets just ignore the huge performance, upgradability and price gap in Apples product lineup, shall we. It can be the elephant in the room when we all swoon over our "laptop on a stick" desktop while PC users get to play with the REAL hardware.

Sounds good to me. After all, it's not like Apple wants to actually sell more computers. That's crazy talk!

Does anyone think a slightly bigger version of this would be a fantastic desktop?
Apple doesn't want people spending a few hundred dollars every year on 3rd party computer upgrades. They want you to buy a new computer every 2 years for $1,500. As an Apple shareholder I want you too!

People do not want to hook something that looks like a computer their Home Entertainment Centers. Something streamlined, smaller than a cable box, that looks kind of like a game system, yes.

Like the iPod, Apple will be targeting the consumer market with such a beast. There are other cool media products on the market (TiVo), which are really cool, but just never caught on, because they appear to complicated.