Nehalem EP (Xeon) Processors 'Ridiculously fast'

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/20/nehalem-ep-xeon-processors-ridiculously-fast/)

TechRadar.com reports (http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/processors/world-exclusive-intel-s-dual-socket-nehalem-ep-platform-benchmarked-487131) on some preliminary benchmarks on Intel's upcoming Nehalem EP chips which they say will be sold as the Xeon X5560 CPUs in the 1st quarter of 2009. Apple has traditionally used the Xeon processors for the Mac Pro line.

Based on their early benchmarks of dual-processor configurations, TechRadar found that the new Nehalem Xeon scored favorably in SPECfp benchmark with a score of 160 as compared to a score of 90 for Intel's current Penryn-based Xeons running at 3.4GHz.And remember, Nehalem EP's 160 point score is for a pre-production system running at 2.8GHz. Models humming a 3.2GHz tune will be available when the chip launches early next yearThe current Mac Pro uses the Xeon ("Harpertown") 5400 series processors in dual-processor configurations. It has been speculated that Apple will be migrating the Mac Pro to these Nehalem Xeon processors which are due in the first quarter of 2009.


Article Link: Nehalem EP (Xeon) Processors 'Ridiculously fast' (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/20/nehalem-ep-xeon-processors-ridiculously-fast/)

[kabunaru]

Desktop CPUs for the Mac Pro not Workstation CPUs please and a lower price too.

[Tallest Skil]

Desktop CPUs for the Mac Pro not Workstation CPUs please.

Good luck with that one. Workstation seems to be here to stay.

[Pugpuppydude]

what is the difference between workstation and other.. cpu!?

[poundsmack]

what is the difference between workstation and other.. cpu!?

usualy a larger L3 cache, better load balancing, other stuff like vPro, etc...

[rpaloalto]

I hope they don't go for the desktop line.

With the amount of stress. And the hours I log. And plan to log on my mac pro. It is very comforting to know. That I do have a server class chip in my mac. That I don't have to worry about stressing her.

[theheadguy]

Hmm... when deciding what to spend my money on... I think I'll go for 'ridiculously fast'... yes, I like the sound of that. (:

[illegallydead]

haha this sounds wonderfully blazing fast.

Now, if only I could afford one of the beauties... I can dream, though :rolleyes:

[DoFoT9]

those specifications are incredible.... i sure hope that these CPU's hold up in real world tests, not just the one they have done here.

[dopeytree]

Sweet I can't wait!

[twoodcc]

i am glad that they use Xeon processors in the mac pro, and i can't wait to see these new ones in the mac pro!

[gregharmon]

I hope they don't go for the desktop line.

With the amount of stress. And the hours I log. And plan to log on my mac pro. It is very comforting to know. That I do have a server class chip in my mac. That I don't have to worry about stressing her.

Unless you're running a server, you don't really need a server class chip. You don't need to worry about stressing it out or wearing it out either. A server class CPU isn't going to last any longer than a normal CPU, they're not made "tougher" or anything of the sort.

[Kwill]

That's outstanding! Just think how fast we'll be able to watch our stocks depreciate! ;)

[G4DP]

Given the clear bias in the article. I would give odds of 2 to 1 that the author is taking it up the chuff from Intel.

All the reports so far including from someone I know works at intel with these chips is a 30% - 40% increase, not an amazing 60% which this article is claiming.

They are clearly faster then penryn but not as fast as claimed in this article. As you guys will note if any of you crunch at Seti. The penryn chips are still faster when it comes to the short tasks that Who?'s 8 Core Nehalem machine.

[nick9191]

Desktop CPUs for the Mac Pro not Workstation CPUs please.

You can't put dual Core 2's into a system, Intel wont let you.

[fleshman03]

Once we get something similar to this in a MBP, then I will get excited.

Hopefully 2/3Q 09. I can wish, can't I?

[duncyboy]

Desktop CPUs for the Mac Pro not Workstation CPUs please.

May I ask why? :)

[Axemantitan]

Desktop CPUs for the Mac Pro not Workstation CPUs please.

Apple better get them out soon. Alienware is already offering (http://www.alienware.com/products/alx-x58-desktop.aspx?SysCode=PC-ALX-X58&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT) Core i7 in its towers.

[Tallest Skil]

Apple better get them out soon. Alienware is already offering (http://www.alienware.com/products/alx-x58-desktop.aspx?SysCode=PC-ALX-X58&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT) Core i7 in its towers.

Again... DESKTOP PROCESSORS. NOT WORKSTATION PROCESSORS.

Alienware's aren't Xeons.

[Axemantitan]

usualy a larger L3 cache, better load balancing, other stuff like vPro, etc...

This vPro? (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39455/128/) No thanks, I'll do without.

[seashellz]

if its that speedy-maybe you could rent out some of the surplus you dont need

[Digital Skunk]

Again... DESKTOP PROCESSORS. NOT WORKSTATION PROCESSORS.

Alienware's aren't Xeons.

Agreed, it just won't happen anytime soon if at all.

As for the speed increase, this is what an upgrade in processor speed should be. I will have no problem waiting for these chips to be in a Mac Pro so I can step down my trusty, extremely reliable dual 2 Ghz G5. This will truly be an upgrade.

p.s. I'd love desktop chips, but Apple won't do it. So instead of whining about it like I have done for years now, I will just suck it up and pay an extra $1000. This is the Apple world we live in.

[tenks]

Xeon's architecture are identical to the Core (desktop parts). The differences are very minor. Last generation, Core2, the difference being the socket because they used FB-DIMM. Sure special versions, typically lower power or MP versions will have larger or smaller cache, depending on what the chip is made for, but again these chips are identical. Intel release's desktop chips for UNI processor systems, then rebrands/rebins those same chips, and calls them Xeons. There are a few cases where you can run 2 desktop chips on a special board (more so last generation than this) but thats the main distinction. Desktop = single socket
Xeon = Dual+

The main architectural difference this generation is that the Xeons have pins/die space for TWO QPI connects which allows it to be placed in system with 2 or more. The Desktop chips only have one active QPI link (the other is disabled) which only allows to be used by itself.

Sooooo in conclusion. YOU CANT HAVE THE "DESKTOP" chips that are out now in your precious Mac towers. And the chips that will be coming out for your mac towers in less then two months WILL BE IDENTICAL performance wise.

Smile everyone :)

[milo]

It's about time, I've been ready to buy a new machine for a while but they haven't updated in ages.

Desktop CPUs for the Mac Pro not Workstation CPUs please.

Why? That doesn't seem to make any sense.

What apple should do is use the workstation CPUs in the big tower but ALSO have a "budget" model with desktop cpus.

[Wie Gehts]

And Jobs can design a thin little black box to stick it in. Drop firewire, usb, A/V, superdrive, keyboard and display altogether. Screw you Apple.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Desktop CPUs for the Mac Pro not Workstation CPUs please.

Oh god not this again. It'd be nice to offer desktop chips for a cheaper pro, but Pros don't need cheaper, some need server chips and it's nice to have the choice.

[tenks]

It's about time, I've been ready to buy a new machine for a while but they haven't updated in ages.

Well you're going to have to wait longer. Intel just pushed back everything a full quarter, this includes the 2socket tylersburg systems which effects Mac Pros unless Apple is getting some special deal which is possible. (i.e. 2socket X58s, so theoretically apple could use desktop parts on the pros now with this board :O )

Intel to push out Everything in 2009 (http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/11/20/intel-push-everyting-2009)


Basically they're pushing everything out because the economy is so bad and slow and cant afford the upgrade/need the upgrade, not cause they aren't ready or bugged.




Edit: Just realized this...This is going to be fun to watch. Apple actually has a choice this time. They have a choice between Beckton or Gainstown..The difference being Beckton's use FBDIMMs like the last MacPros but Intel this is intels last FBDIMM product (they're trying to get it away from it bick time!!) And Gainstown is the exact same chip but just uses reg DDR3...(EDIT GAINSTOWN HAS 8 MB L3 CACHE BECk has 24mb, WOW that might make a difference?) Interested to see what Apple ultimately chooses to put in the pros. If they choose gainstown they wont have any performance loss, and it will be a lot cheaper because the chips themselves will be, and regular ddr3 is A LOT cheaper then fb dimms...

[shawnce]

Apple has positioned the Mac Pro as a workstation. It will likely remain that way and IMHO it should. Since it is workstation class it will use a chipset, processor, and memory designed for a workstation. It is highly unlikely Apple will do otherwise (of course they could bring out a lower end tower with desktop parts).

[t0mat0]

Configured with a pair of 2.8GHz Nehalem EP chips... and 24GB of DDR3 memory (not the fastest either presumably, at 1,066MHz).

It would be a bit of a stir if a finalised 3.2GHZ model could be within shouting distance on the SPECfp of an AMD 4S Shanghai rig.

Think having core optimisation on top.... "nice".

[Eidorian]

Xeon's architecture are identical to the Core (desktop parts). The differences are very minor. Last generation, Core2, the difference being the socket because they used FB-DIMM. Sure special versions, typically lower power or MP versions will have larger or smaller cache, depending on what the chip is made for, but again these chips are identical. Intel release's desktop chips for UNI processor systems, then rebrands/rebins those same chips, and calls them Xeons. There are a few cases where you can run 2 desktop chips on a special board (more so last generation than this) but thats the main distinction. Desktop = single socket
Xeon = Dual+

The main architectural difference this generation is that the Xeons have pins/die space for TWO QPI connects which allows it to be placed in system with 2 or more. The Desktop chips only have one active QPI link (the other is disabled) which only allows to be used by itself.

Sooooo in conclusion. YOU CANT HAVE THE "DESKTOP" chips that are out now in your precious Mac towers. And the chips that will be coming out for your mac towers in less then two months WILL BE IDENTICAL performance wise.

Smile everyone :)Thanks for doing this for me. :D

[tenks]

Thanks for doing this for me. :D

Np :)

[fleshman03]

Thanks for doing this for me. :D

This might come in handy. I had to look it up too.

MP is clearly a workstation. It is sometimes used as a Desktop, but the cost alone make it fit into the workstation segment.

Video explanation.
(http://news.zdnet.com/2422-13569_22-154533.html)

[Umbongo]

Edit: Just realized this...This is going to be fun to watch. Apple actually has a choice this time. They have a choice between Beckton or Gainstown..

Beckton is for servers not workstations. A 2.4GHz Beckton processor will probably start at around $3,000. Apple can do a 2.66GHz 8 core Mac Pro for that.

[ChrisA]

All the reports so far including from someone I know works at intel with these chips is a 30% - 40% increase, not an amazing 60% which this article is claiming.

The only numbers they gave were for SPECfp. I'm not surprised at all that the new CPUs can crunch floating point numbers much faster. The article said nothing about general purpose performance on "normal" tasks.

For most users these processors will be like fitting a 400 horse power engine into your car. It will not get you home from work any faster. Most of the time if you watch the Activity Meter you see the CPUs are not running at 100% On most Macs the computers spends most of it's time waiting for the user to click the mouse

[MrCrowbar]

For most users these processors will be like fitting a 400 horse power engine into your car. It will not get you home from work any faster. Most of the time if you watch the Activity Meter you see the CPUs are not running at 100% On most Macs the computers spends most of it's time waiting for the user to click the mouse

Great analogy. The weak link really is the user, followed by the hard drive. All I know it thise CPUs will be fast, and coupled with GPU-power for the floating point stuff and Snow Leopard, this is gonna be nuts! :eek:

[DopeyFish]

You can't put dual Core 2's into a system, Intel wont let you.

Intel does let you - via their Skulltrail platform (wintel) - however no system exists for Mac yet.

Who knows - you might get lucky as Intel will be revisiting skulltrail early next year for Core i7

[kabunaru]

Why? That doesn't seem to make any sense.


Desktop CPUs match Workstation CPUs now in power and are cheaper.

[Eidorian]

Intel does let you - via their Skulltrail platform (wintel) - however no system exists for Mac yet.

Who knows - you might get lucky as Intel will be revisiting skulltrail early next year for Core i7You know that Skulltrail is currently a Xeon LGA771 platform, right?

[DopeyFish]

You know that Skulltrail is currently a Xeon platform, right?

it's based off of the XEON platform but it's designed for desktop CPUs

like a merger of the 2 platforms

[t0mat0]

For most users these processors will be like fitting a 400 horse power engine into your car. It will not get you home from work any faster. Most of the time if you watch the Activity Meter you see the CPUs are not running at 100% On most Macs the computers spends most of it's time waiting for the user to click the mouse

Is it not potentially possible that by having that power, you get emergent properties - more is not the same, but different as Shirky might say?

If you knew you had that power, you might be tempted to go drag racing, maybe take it out on a tour with some friends, take it to the Nuremberg ring, to stretch the analogy.

For one, if this was game compatible, you could use some of that power, if Intel opened up their cloaking for example.

I agree with you in the main, but I think having the capability, even from consumers getting the desktop Core i7 benefits as opposed to server class would be used. Today's consumer desktop CPUs are equivalent to yesteryears server class (the 920 or above in comparison to a Skulltrail rig would be one example i'd imagine).

Anyone seen what Clarkson has been doing with a V8 recently? All sorts of practical uses for that 400bhp CPU engine... As MrCrowbar points out - think of what a decent bunch of Apple engineers could get up to with this sort of con/prosumer CPU power!

[Scottsdale]

Desktop CPUs for the Mac Pro not Workstation CPUs please.

Why in the world would you want to pay SERVER/WORKSTATION pricing and only get a desktop processor?

Makes NO SENSE to me...

Not like they would lower the price... ha ha.

[kabunaru]

Why in the world would you want to pay SERVER/WORKSTATION pricing and only get a desktop processor?


And lower the price too.

No reason to yell or scream at me.

[Catfish_Man]

It's not at all clear to me that SPECfp is a representative benchmark for most things people will be using a Mac Pro for. Nice numbers though.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

No reason to yell or scream at me.

He did neither. He used capitol letters...

However, Kabunaru I don't know why you keep pushing for the removal of server parts in favor of desktop parts, what's your reason? If it's just so you can have a cheaper Mac Pro that's ridiculous, then it would be less Pro. That's akin to me asking for an iMac, but with the computer bits taken out so I can afford it, just so I can say I have an iMac.

[excalibur313]

Unless you're running a server, you don't really need a server class chip. You don't need to worry about stressing it out or wearing it out either. A server class CPU isn't going to last any longer than a normal CPU, they're not made "tougher" or anything of the sort.

I think there are more reasons to have a server class chip than just running a server. If you are doing any sort of computational work, having a server class chip severely reduces the errors that are created during computation that wouldn't matter in the same way as errors created in a program surfing the internet would. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that many jobs that are run on a server could be just as easily run on a desktop and in those cases you would benefit from a server processor.

[iMacmatician]

Given the clear bias in the article. I would give odds of 2 to 1 that the author is taking it up the chuff from Intel.

All the reports so far including from someone I know works at intel with these chips is a 30% - 40% increase, not an amazing 60% which this article is claiming.

They are clearly faster then penryn but not as fast as claimed in this article. As you guys will note if any of you crunch at Seti. The penryn chips are still faster when it comes to the short tasks that Who?'s 8 Core Nehalem machine.Core-for-core, I've heard it's a 15%~20% increase. Uncore parts make up the extra % increase. Also, the 60% is for floating-point performance, which I've heard Nehalem improves significantly on. Other benchmarks and "real-world" tests will likely show a smaller performance increase.

[LaDirection]

Desktop CPUs for the Mac Pro not Workstation CPUs please and a lower price too.

The Mac Pro IS a workstation, hello???

[AidenShaw]

The Mac Pro IS a workstation, hello???

That's why Apple needs to *ADD* a mini-tower that uses desktop parts to the product line.

The Mac Pro is humonguous, and expensive.

The Mac Mini isn't much more than a toy.

The Imac's an all-in-one - 'nuff said.

Time to *ADD* a mini-tower to the lineup....

[AidenShaw]

Also, the 60% is for floating-point performance, which I've heard Nehalem improves significantly on. Other benchmarks and "real-world" tests will likely show a smaller performance increase.

SPECfp is as much a memory test as a floating point test - it takes a lot of memory bandwidth to do well on SPECfp. You need to stream the FP data in and out of the CPUs.

[alanlindsay]

Could Apple limit server class components to the xserve only and downgrade the MP?

[AidenShaw]

Could Apple limit server class components to the xserve only and downgrade the MP?

No.

The Mac Pro isn't really "server class" - it simply uses the version of the Core processor that's designed for dual-socket motherboards.

Dual socket systems are usually found in low end servers and workstations. Desktops are single socket. With the quad-CPU chips that we now have, that means that downgrading the Mac Pro to desktop parts would limit it to 4 CPUs.

Of course, CPUs and motherboards for dual-socket systems are quite a bit more expensive than single-socket ("desktop") parts.

Which is why there's a big hole in the Apple lineup for a single socket mini-tower that uses desktop parts!

[kabunaru]

The Mac Pro IS a workstation, hello???

Desktop CPUs = Workstation power now.

[commander.data]

Desktop CPUs match Workstation CPUs now in power and are cheaper.
Apple has little reason to switch to desktop processors. Why downgrade? Intel's desktop lineup doesn't allow dual processor configurations so any move to desktop processors will be a downgrade in light of Grand Central coming to Snow Leopard to take advantage of parallelism. The only exception to the dual processor desktop rule is Skulltrail, but that is a one-off Extreme Edition. You can't base a product line on only a single CPU option, which just happens to also be the most expensive consumer desktop CPU that Intel sells.

Similarly, moving to desktop processors and cutting the Mac Pros prices holds little logic. If you want to create a value proposition in the Mac Pro, it already exists. I don't believe there is any company, Dell, HP, etc., that offers a dual processor workstation configuration at the Mac Pro's price. I'm pretty sure that anything that comes close uses lower-model 1333MHz FSB Xeons with DDR2 667 FB-DIMMs instead of the 1600MHz FSB Xeons with DDR2 800 that Apple uses in the Mac Pro. Granted Apple seriously skimps of the Mac Pro's GPUs, but I doubt anything beats it for raw CPU power at it's price, at least before Nehalem came out. And even with Nehalem, there is no rush to switch to Core i7. Mac Pros already offer similar CPU power and they might as well wait 2 months and go dual Nehalem Xeons. Otherwise I'm sure people will complain about the Mac Pro being stuck on single processor Core i7 and not dual Nehalem Xeons.

And while it is true that while Xeons, consumer desktop processors, and mobile processor may all emerge from the same silicon wafer, their optimization is quite different. Mobile chips are obviously tuned and binned for lowest power consumption at a given clock speed while desktop parts are choose for clock speed scalability. Dual Processor Xeons undergo a much more rigorous burn-in and testing phase to ensure that it's stable and produces error free data. Similarly, the entire Xeon platform from chipset, to memory, and BIOS/EFI is tuned and warrantied for stability. FB-DIMMs may be slow, but they are able to detect 2-bit errors and correct 1-bit errors while desktop RAM couldn't care less and would just save the errors to the HDD. Most of the time it won't matter, but sometimes it does. Admittedly, most Mac Pro users may not need such reliability, but Apple has chosen to make the Mac Pro a premium product and advertise OS X and Macs based on stability, and Xeon processors reflect that.

[Digital Skunk]

Desktop CPUs = Workstation power now and at an afffordable price without the overkill of a server chip for the general population that does want an expandable tower.

Put in some clarity for you :D but otherwise totally agree.

p.s. To those that don't quite get it, we aren't asking for a cheaper Xeon based Mac Pro, we are asking that Apple use ordinary desktop CPUs and motherboards to shave $1000 off the Mac Pro price in either another desktop version, or a BTO bottom barrel Mac Pro.

Right now, there are three laptop models, and one and a half desktop models. With a super Apple TV that Apple has NO IDEA what to do with. Apple needs more desktops models... PERIOD.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Desktop CPUs = Workstation power now.

What? and Server CPU's are still better. Why are you so against better processors, especially when there's room, enough air circulation and enough heat sinks?

[AidenShaw]

What? and Server CPU's are still better. Why are you so against better processors...?

Please quantify "better". A Q9650 and an E5450 seem to be the same (12 MiB L2, 3.0 GHz, 1333 MHz bus) as far as I can tell.

In my experience and reading, it seems that there's very little difference between a Xeon and a desktop CPU other than the Name, the Price, and the fact that some Xeons will work in dual-socket motherboards.

In fact, check out the 3000-series uni-socket Xeons - and try to find anything at all that differentiates these from the desktop chips (other than the price and name).

Oh, and by extension do all the rest of the Apples suck, since they're not even using desktop quality parts - they have laptop chips inside? :eek: :eek:

[kabunaru]

To those that don't quite get it, we aren't asking for a cheaper Xeon based Mac Pro, we are asking that Apple use ordinary desktop CPUs and motherboards to shave $1000 off the Mac Pro price in either another desktop version, or a BTO bottom barrel Mac Pro.

Then they need to make the iMac cheaper and discontinue the Mac Mini.
Who knows what will Apple do? Maybe at MacWorld 2009 we will see our dream "Mac Pro". ;)

[Eidorian]

I think there are more reasons to have a server class chip than just running a server. If you are doing any sort of computational work, having a server class chip severely reduces the errors that are created during computation that wouldn't matter in the same way as errors created in a program surfing the internet would. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that many jobs that are run on a server could be just as easily run on a desktop and in those cases you would benefit from a server processor.That's more of a side effect then the processor itself. You're talking about error-correcting code RAM of course.

Please quantify "better". A Q9650 and an E5450 seem to be the same (12 MiB L2, 3.0 GHz, 1333 MHz bus) as far as I can tell.

In my experience and reading, it seems that there's very little difference between a Xeon and a desktop CPU other than the Name, the Price, and the fact that some Xeons will work in dual-socket motherboards.

In fact, check out the 3000-series uni-socket Xeons - and try to find anything at all that differentiates these from the desktop chips (other than the price and name).

Oh, and by extension do all the rest of the Apples suck, since they're not even using desktop quality parts - they have laptop chips inside? :eek: :eek:It's a good thing that Intel call sell the quality of Xeon processors over Core 2. ;)

[tenks]

That's more of a side effect then the processor itself. You're talking about error-correcting code RAM of course.

It's a good thing that Intel call sell the quality of Xeon processors over Core 2. ;)


I think you're the only one of the few who grasp all of this. To everyone else, forget what you have been marketed to, desktop should be this, server should be that.... The bottom line in this generation, the Nehalem 45nm generation, THEY ARE ALL THE SAME CHIP! I've already said this. The only exception is the Beckton chip, which will have a different socket because it will be a 4/8 core chip with a QUAD channel FB-DIMM memory controller. And like someone pointed out, this will be a REALLY expensive chip and the Mac Pro is by no means a server, and will not need the power that Beckton brings. Beckton benefits in 4s+ designs. Do you really see apple putting out a 4 socket, 16-32 core MacPro? Thats a joke..

And going back to it being all the same chip this gives apple a choice. Unlike the past, there is no need for a memory controller so their isnt a huge need to have multiple chipsets. The chips themselves with be different internally here and there (I.e. beckton) but they still plug into the X58 chipset because they all talk to the x58 the same way, through QPI. So this generation you can have a "desktop" class board (because it uses X58) that is made with 2 sockets and pop in two whatever Intel decides to call Gainestowns. Intel pr department is simply telling you what to think and believe by its branding process. This time around, a Mac Pro is a Mac Pro using Intel chips and thats all you should care about... it doesnt matter what the box or sticker says on the chip because literally they are the same chip. I cant say that enough.

On another note, skulltraill 2 wont be as much as an extreme/one off as it was the first time around. Unless Intel makes it that way. It will still use the standard "desktop" x58 and it wont have a different socket either. With that being said it should be cheap or cheaper I should say....its just if Intel decides to price Gainestown as an overexpensive Xeon or similar to the IDENTICAL TWIN BROTHER desktop bloomie...

Which draws me to this ultimate conclusion which Ive hinted at. Intel's PR department will ultimately decide whats going in your Mac Pro as far as it being a desktop chip or a server/workstation chip. Intel could easily brand Gainestown as high end desktop chip, and then you'd finally have your desktop Mac tower. But then on the flip side, Intel could brand it as a Xeon and then you all think you have this crazy server class workstation. This is really funny to me. Hahaha

[Eidorian]

I think you're the only one of the few who grasp all of this. To everyone else, forget what you were have been marketed to, desktop should be this, server should be that. The bottom line in this generation, the Nehalem 45nm generation, THEY ARE ALL THE SAME CHIP! I've already said this. The only exception is the Beckton chip, which will have a different socket because it will be a 4/8 core chip with a QUAD channel FB-DIMM memory controller.

And going back to it being all the same chip this gives apple a choice. Unlike the past, there is no need for a memory controller so their isnt a huge need to have multiple chipsets. The chips themselves with be different internally here and there (I.e. beckton) but they still plug into the X58 chipset. So this generation you can have a "desktop" class board (because it uses X58) that is made with 2 sockets and pop in two whatever Intel decides to call Gainstowns. Intel pr department is simply telling you what to think and believe by its branding process. This time around, a Mac Pro is a Mac Pro using Intel chips, it doesnt matter what the box or sticker says on the chip because literally they are the same chip. I cant say that enough.

On another note, skulltraill 2 wont be as much as an extreme/one off as it was the first time around. Unless Intel makes it that way. It will still use the standard "desktop" x58 and it wont have a different socket either, its just if Intel decides to price gainestown as an overexpensive Xeon or similar to the IDENTICAL TWIN BROTHER desktop bloomie...Nehalem Skulltrail is a mess right now since it is using the X58 for dual processors. That means two QPI of course.

Take a look here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6636088&postcount=121) as well.

[AidenShaw]

It's a good thing that Intel call sell the quality of Xeon processors over Core 2. ;)

I think that we're simply used to hardware and software cost structures that add a big "tax" on server/professional tools, even though there often isn't much difference between the two.

Server operating systems (Windows/OSX/Linux...) are mostly identical to the client versions, but cost far more.

Workstation/Server CPUs are virtually the same, yet you pay a big tax to have the option of a dual-socket system.

A gigabit NIC for a desktop is $24 (Intel Pro/1000 GT), for a server it's $87.

The onboard NIC on my ProLiant G5's have an iSCSI offload engine - but it's disabled. It costs about $100 per port to enable it. (The hardware is in the system, the license to turn it on is $100.)

[tenks]

Nehalem Skulltrail is a mess right now since it is using the X58 for dual processors. That means two QPI of course.

Take a look here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6636088&postcount=121) as well.

Yea..That info in that thread kinda negates most of what I said bout the question of gainestown branding. It looks as if its a Xeon for sure? But still, If Intel is marketing skulltrail as the ultimate desktop platform, I can easily see them rebranding a gainestown die as i7 EE or something similiar. Just like they did with Gallatin Xeon core for the original P4EE.

Why is it a mess? Just because of the x58 for all situation?

[zoran]

so TechRadar.com found that the new Nehalem Xeons at 2.8GHz scored favorably in SPECfp benchmark with a score of 160 as compared to a score of 90 for Intel's current Penryn-based Xeons running at 3.4GHz.
Ridiculously fast they say, but what exactly are those SPECfp benchmarks and do they have anything to do with a Graphic Designers or a VJ work?

[tivoli2]

That's why Apple needs to *ADD* a mini-tower that uses desktop parts to the product line.

The Mac Pro is humonguous, and expensive.

The Mac Mini isn't much more than a toy.

The Imac's an all-in-one - 'nuff said.

Time to *ADD* a mini-tower to the lineup....

Has Apple ever had anything that fit the mini-tower description, or have their towers always been workstations? (If so, what was the last one?)

On the new processors; isn't software still lagging behind the potential of the current Pros? I mean, After Effects is still 32 bit and it only utilizes a small part of the available RAM (although between the processing horsepower and RAM I'm able to continue working on other things while AE churns away - couldn't do that with my old G4 Quicksilver...) so I don't see any reason to be hurrying up to ditch my Early '08 anytime soon, unless I'm missing something?

[Eidorian]

Yea..That info in that thread kinda negates most of what I said bout the question of gainestown branding. It looks as if its a Xeon for sure? But still, If Intel is marketing skulltrail as the ultimate desktop platform, I can easily see them rebranding a gainestown die as i7 EE or something similiar. Just like they did with Gallatin Xeon core for the original P4EE.

Why is it a mess? Just because of the x58 for all situation?Well the Core 2 Extreme QX9775 processors for the Skulltrail platform were actually Xeons all along. I'm still a little surprised that the X58 will be along for the ride. I suspect rebranded Xeons to show up on a Nehalem Skulltrail only basis again.

Has Apple ever had anything that fit the mini-tower description, or have their towers always been workstations? (If so, what was the last one?)Single/dual processor Power Mac G4 and G5 for about $1,299 - 1,999 fit the bill.

[niklot]

as far as i know it would maybe be 'rediculously fast' if the software was optimized 4 it... especially 4 games it wont make a big difference if at all... so there will pass some time, lets say at least 1.5 year, till the core i7 really can show his potential...

[Eidorian]

as far as i know it would maybe be 'rediculously fast' if the software was optimized 4 it... especially 4 games it wont make a big difference if at all... so there will pass some time, lets say at least 1.5 year, till the core i7 really can show his potential...Run multiple instances of the same software.

I know that Multimedia has done dual Handbrake instances on his octo.

[tivoli2]

Single/dual processor Power Mac G4 and G5 for about $1,299 - 1,999 fit the bill.

OK - I did a little quick searching as well and I think I see the big differences now. Many thanks.

And Eidorian, are you saying I could run two sessions of AE simultaneously? This is the first I've ever heard of such a thing. That's running things in the shell, I'd imagine? (behind the GUI... in the console, is what I'm trying to say...)

[Eidorian]

OK - I did a little quick searching as well and I think I see the big differences now. Many thanks.

And Eidorian, are you saying I could run two sessions of AE simultaneously? This is the first I've ever heard of such a thing. That's running things in the shell, I'd imagine? (behind the GUI... in the console, is what I'm trying to say...)The easiest way is just to make a copy of an application. In most cases it won't complain about multiple instances.

What's "AE"?

[tivoli2]

The easiest way is just to make a copy of an application. In most cases it won't complain about multiple instances.

What's "AE"?

Sorry... After Effects.

I may have to give this a whirl. I guess I don't mess around with my computers like I used to. ;)

[Evangelion]

what is the difference between workstation and other.. cpu!?

Among other things, Xeons support multi-CPU cofigurations, wheread desktop-like (ajka i7) only supports one CPU.

If Mac Pro moved to i7, it would mean that it could only have one CPU, as opposed to having two CPU's like it does today.

[Evangelion]

I think that we're simply used to hardware and software cost structures that add a big "tax" on server/professional tools, even though there often isn't much difference between the two.

Server operating systems (Windows/OSX/Linux...) are mostly identical to the client versions, but cost far more.

Server-Linux and desktop-Linux cost the same ;).

[Digital Skunk]

Then they need to make the iMac cheaper and discontinue the Mac Mini.
Who knows what will Apple do? Maybe at MacWorld 2009 we will see our dream "Mac Pro". ;)

Maybe they will. But I wasn't talking directly to you Kabunaru, you've been around long enough to understand the issue.

As most have said, there's no difference in performance, only price. My current G5 tower cost me 1700 bucks and the G4s before it started out at 1400 bucks for a single chip, fully upgradeable machine.

The iMac could be priced the same thing it is now, and Apple could introduce a new model desktop with the case of a Mac Pro but the insides of an average desktop and motherboard of a desktop and start it at $1499 and wouldn't loose any sales from the iMac.

It is a bit of a shame that you have to throw down $2200 for a tower configuration for the Mac which will last you a good 5 or more years if you aren't just a gear head, but could have cost you less if they used different chips.

p.s. You won't be able to run two instances of certain software without doing some OS trickery. AE is one app that I know won't be able to run twice on the same machine. The network detection that it has, as well as the applications use of the GPU may hinder anything from fully launching.

Handbrake is a different story. Depending on how the app was coded it may not recognize older versions of itself as being the same app. Epson software is notorious for doing this... I had three copies of Epson Printer Utility on my Mac for the R200, R800 and R1900 until I passed my printers on to others and settled on one. They were all the same app, just version 3.4.1, 3.4.8 , etc. you get the idea, that would run at the same time when launched.

[tenks]

Well the Core 2 Extreme QX9775 processors for the Skulltrail platform were actually Xeons all along. I'm still a little surprised that the X58 will be along for the ride. I suspect rebranded Xeons to show up on a Nehalem Skulltrail only basis again.



Yea but unfortunately for us, the rebranded Xeons meant a different socket with no upgrade path for the future (then). This time, thankfully, its just that, a rebranded cpu, same socket. Potentially easiar and cheaper to implement. Why are you surprised? this is one of the advantages of having QPI. One chipset, for the most part..this is a good thing!

[AidenShaw]

Server-Linux and desktop-Linux cost the same ;).

Oh really?

Fedora Core (desktop): Free
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (server): ~$1000 for dual socket, ~$1800 for multi-socket



Originally Posted by tivoli2
Has Apple ever had anything that fit the mini-tower description, or have their towers always been workstations? (If so, what was the last one?)

Single/dual processor Power Mac G4 and G5 for about $1,299 - 1,999 fit the bill.

No system using the humonguous aluminum case could be called a "mini-tower". The Yosemite plastic cases (the "Smurf Hotel" PowerMac G3 (B&W) and PowerMac G4) were mid-towers - better, but still large systems.

Apple used to have small pizza box systems like the PowerMac 6300

http://www.apple-history.com/images/models/6300.gif


Look at what Dell has in the OptiPlex line of desktops. Why can't Apple do something similar, instead of the horrible gap between a toy mini and a huge tower? (Not suggesting that either the Mini or the Mac Pro be eliminated, just fill the gap.)

http://i.dell.com/resize.aspx/desktop-optiplex-960-295/295

There are three systems shown here - a mini-tower, a small desktop, and an SFF. Specs in the thumbnail. Note that all support quad-core, upto 8 GiB RAM, and have both X4500 integrated graphics *and* an x16 PCIe slot.

I also added a comparison of the size of the SFF to the Mac Pro. ;)

I guess I'll just wait now for the "But they're fugly" tangential replies to start.

[iGary]

Oh really?

Fedora Core (desktop): Free
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (server): ~$1000 for dual socket, ~$1800 for multi-socket





No system using the humonguous aluminum case could be called a "mini-tower". The Yosemite plastic cases (the "Smurf Hotel" PowerMac G3 (B&W) and PowerMac G4) were mid-towers - better, but still large systems.

Apple used to have small pizza box systems like the PowerMac 6300

http://www.apple-history.com/images/models/6300.gif


Look at what Dell has in the OptiPlex line of desktops. Why can't Apple do something similar, instead of the horrible choice of a toy mini and a huge tower?

http://i.dell.com/resize.aspx/desktop-optiplex-960-295/295

(There are three systems - a mini-tower, a small desktop, and an SFF. Specs in the thumbnail.)

I guess I'll just wait now for the "But they're fugly" tangential replies to start.

Is this thread about Nehalem chips or the jackalope/mini tower myth?

[AidenShaw]

Is this thread about Nehalem chips or the jackalope/mini tower myth?

Maybe The Steve will notice that any thread about the Mini or the Mac Pro turns into a mini-tower thread. :D

[Digitalclips]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/20/nehalem-ep-xeon-processors-ridiculously-fast/)

TechRadar.com reports (http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/processors/world-exclusive-intel-s-dual-socket-nehalem-ep-platform-benchmarked-487131) on some preliminary benchmarks on Intel's upcoming Nehalem EP chips which they say will be sold as the Xeon X5560 CPUs in the 1st quarter of 2009. Apple has traditionally used the Xeon processors for the Mac Pro line.

Based on their early benchmarks of dual-processor configurations, TechRadar found that the new Nehalem Xeon scored favorably in SPECfp benchmark with a score of 160 as compared to a score of 90 for Intel's current Penryn-based Xeons running at 3.4GHz.The current Mac Pro uses the Xeon ("Harpertown") 5400 series processors in dual-processor configurations. It has been speculated that Apple will be migrating the Mac Pro to these Nehalem Xeon processors which are due in the first quarter of 2009.


Article Link: Nehalem EP (Xeon) Processors 'Ridiculously fast' (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/20/nehalem-ep-xeon-processors-ridiculously-fast/)

Having forked out over $6,000 for my current 8 Core Mac Pro 2008, soon to be ridiculously slow, model I can only say I wish the Intel CPUs could be swapped out ... :(

[Umbongo]

Is this thread about Nehalem chips or the jackalope/mini tower myth?

All threads about processors in relation to mac desktops turn in to the same thing.

[Cromulent]

Desktop CPUs for the Mac Pro not Workstation CPUs please and a lower price too.

That is the last thing most people want.

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by kabunaru
Desktop CPUs for the Mac Pro not Workstation CPUs please and a lower price too.

That is the last thing most people want.

(I assume that you're not referring to a "lower price" as being the last thing that people want ;) )

Perhaps not "most" people - for most people the Mac Pro is priced so far out of reach that they see no use for it.

However, there's plenty of room in the lineup for a mini-tower and/or SFF using desktop parts for the people who don't want a Mini or an all-in-one - but can't afford the price or space for the maxi-tower.

Keep the maxi-tower for those who need dual-socket performance, of course, but add the mini-tower.

[Clive At Five]

<insert generic joke about Safari being snappier here>

[themoonisdown09]

Desktop CPUs for the Mac Pro not Workstation CPUs please and a lower price too.

While we're at it, let's just go ahead and put notebook CPUs in the Mac Pro so it's in the same category as the iMac.

[sangosimo]

nehalem only uses one socket. desktop cpus and workstation cpus will be the same.

[Umbongo]

nehalem only uses one socket. desktop cpus and workstation cpus will be the same.

While the high end desktop, single socket server, dual socket server and dual socket workstations will all be using derivatives of the same chipset and sharing a socket type you will need different processors if you want to run two.

[gnasher729]

And Eidorian, are you saying I could run two sessions of AE simultaneously? This is the first I've ever heard of such a thing. That's running things in the shell, I'd imagine? (behind the GUI... in the console, is what I'm trying to say...)

The operating system lets you do it (just make a copy of the program, start the original and the copy). The problem is whether the application can handle it. Let's say AE needs a temporary file, so it creates a file named "AE.tmp" in the /tmp directory and writes things to it and reads them back later. And the second copy of AE needs a temporary file, so it also tries to create a file named "AE.tmp" in the /tmp directory and writes to it. You can see how this is asking for trouble, since one copy of the program overwrites things that the other copy has written to the file. Not saying After Effects is doing things that way, just giving an example where things can go wrong.

It's not difficult for a programmer to do these things right, but if they didn't care about running multiple instances, then it won't work.

[cawesjmu]

Has Apple ever had anything that fit the mini-tower description, or have their towers always been workstations? (If so, what was the last one?)

What about the Cube? Granted it wasn't perfect when they first tired it, mainly due to price, but if they put that out again at a 1,700 price point with some specs between the iMac and the MacPro with a little more flexibility/expandability than the iMac, they'd fly off the shelves.

[AidenShaw]

nehalem only uses one socket. desktop cpus and workstation cpus will be the same.

Intel can easily modify the CPU sockets/packages to disable dual socket capability - even if the silicon is exactly the same.

Look up "dual processor Celeron" on the web for an example - the Pentium II-based Celerons had DP disabled, but it was easily hacked to make a dual-socket Celeron for far less money that the Pentium II chips that had all of the pins connected.


...if they put [the Cube] out again at a 1,700 price point with some specs between the iMac and the MacPro with a little more flexibility/expandability than the iMac, they'd fly off the shelves.

In other words, if they made a mini-tower that was the same dimension for height, width and depth? ;)

But, the $1700 price tag would kill it - base dual-core, 2 GiB GMA4500 system should be under $800.

[BenRoethig]

Desktop CPUs for the Mac Pro not Workstation CPUs please and a lower price too.

First, the Xeon 5500-series and the Core i7 900/ Xeon 3500 series are the same core. The Xeon version and the dual CPU version of the tylersburg chipset have a second quickpath link.

Second, you can have both. It happened for many, manny years on the PowerPC side.

what is the difference between workstation and other.. cpu!?

In this case, just the second quick path link for multi-processing. Other than that, they're identical, right down the 1366 pin socket.

Intel does let you - via their Skulltrail platform (wintel) - however no system exists for Mac yet.

Who knows - you might get lucky as Intel will be revisiting skulltrail early next year for Core i7

The distinction between Core and Xeon is little more than marketing. That Core 2 extreme on skulltrail is a rebadge of a socket 771 xeon just as the 3000-series xeon for single socket servers is a rebadge of the desktop Core 2 Duo. It gets even closer now with the core i7/ xeon 3500 and Xeon 5500 sharing a common chipset and socket.

[Umbongo]

The distinction between Core and Xeon is little more than marketing. That Core 2 extreme on skulltrail is a rebadge of a socket 771 xeon just as the 3000-series xeon for single socket servers is a rebadge of the desktop Core 2 Duo. It gets even closer now with the core i7/ xeon 3500 and Xeon 5500 sharing a common chipset and socket.

Apparently the Skulltrail processors use different prefetch instructions (not sure if that is the right way to refer to it) so that they were more optimized to gaming rather than typical server tasks. If this is the case I would assume this is something that differentiates 3000 series Xeons from the Core 2 Quads/Duos. You might need to be running hundreds or thousands of systems to notice differences though.

[AidenShaw]

Apparently the Skulltrail processors use different prefetch instructions...

Some parameters like the amount of pre-fetch can be set in the BIOS, so that may or may not be due to differences in the hardware.

[Eidorian]

Among other things, Xeons support multi-CPU cofigurations, wheread desktop-like (ajka i7) only supports one CPU.

If Mac Pro moved to i7, it would mean that it could only have one CPU, as opposed to having two CPU's like it does today.You didn't read what I said about Nehalem Skulltrail and the X58.

[cawesjmu]

In other words, if they made a mini-tower that was the same dimension for height, width and depth? ;)

But, the $1700 price tag would kill it - base dual-core, 2 GiB GMA4500 system should be under $800.

Dimensions aside, I was thinking the mini tower would be, performance wise, a bridge between the iMac and the MacPro. Are we more talking about a bridge between the mac mini and the iMac? I personally wasn't thinking (hoping) the mini tower would be a base- anything, with dedicated graphics and an extra hard drive bay.

[AidenShaw]

Dimensions aside, I was thinking the mini tower would be, performance wise, a bridge between the iMac and the MacPro. Are we more talking about a bridge between the mac mini and the iMac? I personally wasn't thinking (hoping) the mini tower would be a base- anything, with dedicated graphics and an extra hard drive bay.

Lots of people dislike all-in-ones, so yes the mini-tower/SFF is for that gap between the mini and the Mac Pro. (I wonder how much of the popularity of the all-in-one for Apple is simply because there's no real choice.)

Apple could price the mini-tower so that the tower plus an Apple display costs significantly more than an Imac of similar power.

Here's a cube-shaped system:

http://www.centralcomputers.com/corp/images/AMD_1_cube_home.gif (http://www.centralcomputers.com/commerce/ccp19004-e-cube-sys71778.htm)

[cawesjmu]

Lots of people dislike all-in-ones, so yes the mini-tower/SFF is for that gap between the mini and the Mac Pro. (I wonder how much of the popularity of the all-in-one for Apple is simply because there's no real choice.)

Apple could price the mini-tower so that the tower plus an Apple display costs significantly more than an Imac of similar power.

Here's a cube-shaped system:

http://www.centralcomputers.com/corp/images/AMD_1_cube_home.gif (http://www.centralcomputers.com/commerce/ccp19004-e-cube-sys71778.htm)

And a lot of people like the all-in-ones for it's clean, clutter free, 1 cable simplicity. If Apple made a computer like the one you linked to, there would be no point in the mac mini. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'd love to see a feature-full mac mini instead of what they offer now, and that'd solve the headless imac issue. I guess it's just semantics, but I see Apple changing the mac mini instead of adding a 3rd display-less computer. They've always touted the simplicity of their line-up as a good thing.

[Eidorian]

And a lot of people like the all-in-ones for it's clean, clutter free, 1 cable simplicity. If Apple made a computer like the one you linked to, there would be no point in the mac mini. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'd love to see a feature-full mac mini instead of what they offer now, and that'd solve the headless imac issue. I guess it's just semantics, but I see Apple changing the mac mini instead of adding a 3rd display-less computer. They've always touted the simplicity of their line-up as a good thing.Sadly as much as some posters want this thread isn't an iMac nor a Mac mini one. You're looking at least at a tower of some sort.

[sangosimo]

I really want to see more realworld thermal and oc performance tests because my next rig will probably be a shuttle.

[Eidorian]

I really want to see more realworld thermal and oc performance tests because my next rig will probably be a shuttle.I don't think you'll see an X58 in a Shuttle. More then likely some lower end P5x series.

[PeterQVenkman]

It's about time, I've been ready to buy a new machine for a while but they haven't updated in ages.



Why? That doesn't seem to make any sense.

What apple should do is use the workstation CPUs in the big tower but ALSO have a "budget" model with desktop cpus.

I wish they had an affordable tower. $2500 is a lot to ask, but the prices for what you get in a MacPro are pretty darn good, IMO.

[Digital Skunk]

And a lot of people like the all-in-ones for it's clean, clutter free, 1 cable simplicity. If Apple made a computer like the one you linked to, there would be no point in the mac mini. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'd love to see a feature-full mac mini instead of what they offer now, and that'd solve the headless imac issue. I guess it's just semantics, but I see Apple changing the mac mini instead of adding a 3rd display-less computer. They've always touted the simplicity of their line-up as a good thing.

Apple's lineup in the laptop area is very confusing for those that see the similarities in all of the machines. I don't see why I'd go for an Air if I can get a slightly heavier full featured machine. Before, there was a huge difference in design and weight, now, not so much. Same thing for the Macbook to MacBook Pro if GPU power isn't a big concern.

Keep the Mac Mini as a super media center Apple TV on steriods, and make the headless Mac with full sized desktop chips possible and the people that want a clean all in one can go for the iMac, while those that want a tower will go for the tower.

I wish they had an affordable tower. $2500 is a lot to ask, but the prices for what you get in a MacPro are pretty darn good, IMO.

You are correct, the $2500 isn't a lot to ask for what you get, but what you get may be more than you need. Most users don't need the 4-8 cores of a Mac Pro with Xeon chips and 32GB of possible RAM.

Many just need the 4 cores of a regular desktop chip, and expandable HDD, PCI and GPUs.

[Eidorian]

You are correct, the $2500 isn't a lot to ask for what you get, but what you get may be more than you need. Most users don't need the 4-8 cores of a Mac Pro with Xeon chips and 32GB of possible RAM.

Many just need the 4 cores of a regular desktop chip, and expandable HDD, PCI and GPUs.4 cores isn't as expensive as most people believe. Even if they're going to be idle I'm going to pick a slower quad core over a faster dual core for general computing. $150-180 gets your foot in the door for a quad core processor.

[tonyl]

How about real world performance?

[kabunaru]

While we're at it, let's just go ahead and put notebook CPUs in the Mac Pro so it's in the same category as the iMac.

Where did I ever mention a notebook CPU?

[Bregalad]

For most Mac Pro buyers waiting until March/April for the new model isn't going to be a big problem given that Nehalem will be bringing a lot of muscle and it'll let Apple actually hold a press event for a professional product, something they almost never do.

I've given up on ever seeing a mid-priced desktop/tower from Apple ever again because it would force Apple to negotiate deals on a wider variety of components and, mostly, because Steve Jobs believes computers should be sealed boxes like household appliances. When was the last time you upgraded the heat pump or insulation in your refrigerator? When it's not good enough anymore you're supposed to buy a whole new one. Upgradeable towers run counter to his profit focused world view.

I believe the perfect lineup has 4 notebooks and 4 desktops. I'd replace the Mini with a Nano that uses the same parts as the MacBook to reduce cost and inventory issues. They could charge more because it'd be a legitimate performer and it might actually cost less to produce than the Mini.

I'd also cut down on the standard configurations. I see no point in having three different MacBooks, two 20" iMacs or two MacBook Airs. Just make one model and let people CTO a different processor, HD, RAM, etc.

NetBook
MacNano (same as MacBook minus the display, battery, kb, trackpad)
MacBook
iMac 20"
MacBlade (mythical small desktop/tower)
MacBook Air
iMac 24"
MacBook Pro 15"
MacBook Pro 17"
Mac Pro

[Tallest Skil]

NetBook
MacNano (same as MacBook minus the display, battery, kb, trackpad)
MacBook
iMac 20"
MacBlade (mythical small desktop/tower)
MacBook Air
iMac 24"
MacBook Pro 15"
MacBook Pro 17"
Mac Pro

Yeah... and you were talking about slimming the lines?

MacTablet (13" slab; no swiveling screen, no ODD)

MacBook
MacBook Air
MacBook Pro

Whatever becomes of the Apple TV/Mac Mini
iMac
Mac Pro

Steve will never do an xMac. Wait until he dies.

[kabunaru]

Yeah... and you were talking about slimming the lines?

MacTablet (13" slab; no swiveling screen, no ODD)

MacBook
MacBook Air
MacBook Pro

Whatever becomes of the Apple TV/Mac Mini
iMac
Mac Pro

Steve will never do an xMac. Wait until he dies.
A Tablet has a better chance of coming out than a mid-range tower? :confused:

[Slimdude22]

If I have the current mac pro...would it be possible to put in these newer processors that are coming out, into this computer? And if not, why not?

that is probably a really dumb question so sorry in advance :p

[Tallest Skil]

A Tablet has a better chance of coming out than a mid-range tower? :confused:

Steve hates them both. I give it a 3% better chance.

If I have the current mac pro...would it be possible to put in these newer processors that are coming out, into this computer? And if not, why not?

that is probably a really dumb question so sorry in advance :p

Different socket, different bus speed, different RAM speed.

[m1stake]

I don't think you'll see an X58 in a Shuttle. More then likely some lower end P5x series.

I think you "misunderestimate" human stupidity; I've had people try return 8800GTX's with the last 3/4 of the card sawed off because it wouldn't fit in the case.

[Digital Skunk]

If I have the current mac pro...would it be possible to put in these newer processors that are coming out, into this computer? And if not, why not?

that is probably a really dumb question so sorry in advance :p

Not a dumb question at all, but why would you need to drop in the next gen chip if you have a current machine? It's not like the current Mac Pro is going to be any slower.

And here I am sticking 4GBs of RAM in my dual core G5. Might just take it all the way to 16GB just for the hell of it, and because the 2GB chips only cost $27.

[ochrejelly]

I love the 'ridiculously fast' part.

[kabunaru]

Apple should make the Mac Pro "greener".

[AidenShaw]

Apple should make the Mac Pro "greener".

Best way to do that would be to make a mini-tower using lower power desktop parts - and then sell fewer Mac Pros. ;)


- Mac Pro, the SUV of desktop computers -

(Dell, 5.9 kg, 235 watt power supply. Mac Pro, 19.2 kg, ~1000 watt power supply)

[kabunaru]

Best way to do that would be to make a mini-tower using lower power desktop parts - and then sell fewer Mac Pros. ;)


- Mac Pro, the SUV of desktop computers -

Mac Pro the Hummer of desktop computers.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Mac Pro the Hummer of desktop computers.

Mac Pro, a work station, and not ridiculous like a Hummer or SUV as some would suggest

[drsmithy]

I think you're the only one of the few who grasp all of this. To everyone else, forget what you have been marketed to, desktop should be this, server should be that.... The bottom line in this generation, the Nehalem 45nm generation, THEY ARE ALL THE SAME CHIP!

This has basically been true for every "server" CPU that Intel has ever made (EDIT: except the first - the Pentium Pro).

[Trip.Tucker]

Thanks for doing this for me. :D

Wrong. There are vast differences between the chips and supporting chipsets. Read more. *sigh*

[Eidorian]

Wrong. There are vast differences between the chips and supporting chipsets. Read more. *sigh*Enlighten me then. I doubt you can but please do so.

[Trip.Tucker]

Maybe The Steve will notice that any thread about the Mini or the Mac Pro turns into a mini-tower thread. :D

Only for those delusional enough to think that Apple should have a different line up to the existing.

[Trip.Tucker]

Enlighten me then. I doubt you can but please do so.


...because you know me so well.

[t0mat0]

Anyone have a compilation of benchmark url links thus far?
Was wondering how the benchmarks have been fairing over time

[Tallest Skil]

...because you know me so well.

Stop pretending that you know more on the subject than Eidorian (because, come on... it's Eidorian!) and either prove him wrong or accept that you were.

[robinp]

Popped into the Regents Street Apple Store the other night and there were only 3 mac pros on display. This probably doesn't seem that surprising unless you are familiar with the store which normally has about 10. I think the updates must come very soon, and wouldn't be at all surprised if Intel are being deliberately vague to keep Apple happy. New Mac Pro's at Macworld I think. (perhaps I should say 'hope'!)

[Tallest Skil]

New Mac Pro's at Macworld I think. (perhaps I should say 'hope'!)

Being a consumer expo, I don't think so. If the update is that soon, they'll do it the Tuesday before MacWorld like they did this year.

And if not, it'll be at WWDC. Yes, they would keep the same hardware that long. They did it last time.

[robinp]

Being a consumer expo, I don't think so. If the update is that soon, they'll do it the Tuesday before MacWorld like they did this year.

And if not, it'll be at WWDC. Yes, they would keep the same hardware that long. They did it last time.

If you look at the buyers guide then it clearly shows we are approaching the longest time between updates in the history of the mac pro/powermac. I know the update before the current generation was just a drop in CPU replacement and was therefore very little effort for Apple, but I don't think we should use that lack of complexity on their part as an example of what to expect in the future. The actual performance increase from that simple upgrade was very large indeed, in fact it was probably one of the single biggest performance increases to the top end of their Pro lineup. I really think Apple wont wait until WWDC to update, but agree it may not actually at Macworld. However, I think apple's reluctance to release previous Mac Pro updates at Macworld has more to do with the updates not being very glamourous. This might be different, particularly if there is a change to the case on top of the new architecture.

[Tallest Skil]

If you look at the buyers guide then it clearly shows we are approaching the longest time between updates in the history of the mac pro/powermac. I know the update before the current generation was just a drop in CPU replacement and was therefore very little effort for Apple, but I don't think we should use that lack of complexity on their part as an example of what to expect in the future. The actual performance increase from that simple upgrade was very large indeed, in fact it was probably one of the single biggest performance increases to the top end of their Pro lineup. I really think Apple wont wait until WWDC to update, but agree it may not actually at Macworld. However, I think apple's reluctance to release previous Mac Pro updates at Macworld has more to do with the updates not being very glamourous. This might be different, particularly if there is a change to the case on top of the new architecture.

Yes... but they did NOTHING for the rest of the line, and therefore NOTHING for anyone just wanting a larger hard drive, more RAM, or cheaper computers. They added an expensive CPU option in a 518 day time frame. I realize that the 8-core option was obscenely fast, but that didn't help the rest of the target market who couldn't have afforded that anyway.

Oh, and I'm all for a case redesign, I've just yet to see anything that could possibly be more useful or look better than the cheese grater.

[robinp]

Yes... but they did NOTHING for the rest of the line, and therefore NOTHING for anyone just wanting a larger hard drive, more RAM, or cheaper computers. They added an expensive CPU option in a 518 day time frame. I realize that the 8-core option was obscenely fast, but that didn't help the rest of the target market who couldn't have afforded that anyway.

Oh, and I'm all for a case redesign, I've just yet to see anything that could possibly be more useful or look better than the cheese grater.

Yes I quite agree, and it made my current quad core 2.66 seem like very good value indeed given that it wasn't superseded in a 1.5 years. People rarely upgrade every cycle though, more likely every 2 or 3 and I'm sure Apple is aware of this. That they kept the top end kept moving upwards was almost as good from their perspective because it provided those with a quad G5 a decent proposition for an upgrade (ie something that was drastically faster than what they already had). I am convinced we wont see a wait of much more than a year from when the current generation were released. Apart from anything, I can't see the Mac Pro not having a 23/24" display that works with it for long (made by Apple). I am sure this size is currently the most popular among Mac Pro owners and Apple will be well aware they are missing out on a lot of sales right now.

As for the new case, I also agree. This current tower is the best around by far, but I also believe that Apple have the ability to improve on it. The design has been pretty static for several years now so it would make sense that if they are going to update all the internals (needed for Nehalem) then they may as well take the opportunity to tweak/change the case.

[BenRoethig]

Only for those delusional enough to think that Apple should have a different line up to the existing.

Excuse me? We're delusional because we think Apple isn't perfect?

[Umbongo]

I really think Apple wont wait until WWDC to update, but agree it may not actually at Macworld.

I can't see Apple waiting until June either and they don't need to release things at events. A Mac Pro release will get as much interest from a press release as it would from a WWDC keynote.

The best information we have is that intel will start producing Gainestown in January and Mac Pros have come out 6-8 weeks after Intel's release date on processors. This to me rules out Macworld as there are no indications Apple will stray from what they have done so far in regards to the Mac Pro.

[Eidorian]

Stop pretending that you know more on the subject than Eidorian (because, come on... it's Eidorian!) and either prove him wrong or accept that you were.I appreciate the help but I just want to see what tenks (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6639719&postcount=23) posted proved wrong since that's what I was agreeing with in the first place.

I know that I've said the exact same thing and so have many other users in this thread as well.

[iMacmatician]

And if not, it'll be at WWDC. Yes, they would keep the same hardware that long. They did it last time.Apple may keep doing 1.5-year cycles (with or wihout an interim update). I fear that Westmere will be a drop in upgrade like the original 8-core model, and we will have to wait until Sandy Bridge in early 2011 for the next big update. And Sandy Bridge is speculated to go for 3 years...

The best information we have is that intel will start producing Gainestown in January and Mac Pros have come out 6-8 weeks after Intel's release date on processors. This to me rules out Macworld as there are no indications Apple will stray from what they have done so far in regards to the Mac Pro.A January production start means what release date, do you think? 6~8 weeks from March is surprisingly close to WWDC.

[Umbongo]

Apple may keep doing 1.5-year cycles (with or wihout an interim update). I fear that Westmere will be a drop in upgrade like the original 8-core model, and we will have to wait until Sandy Bridge in early 2011 for the next big update. And Sandy Bridge is speculated to go for 3 years...

A January production start means what release date, do you think? 6~8 weeks from March is surprisingly close to WWDC.

I'd expect to see them before mid April. WWDC is usually mid June.

[AidenShaw]

I'd expect to see them before mid April. WWDC is usually mid June.

Apple has been very slow in updating the maxi-tower before (quad core Xeons were out from other companies for many months before they were added to the Apple maxi-tower).

[tenks]

I appreciate the help but I just want to see what tenks (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6639719&postcount=23) posted proved wrong since that's what I was agreeing with in the first place.

I know that I've said the exact same thing and so have many other users in this thread as well.

You really cant prove what I said and you agreed with wrong, because it's fact. Some can raise the point that the l3 cache sizes will differ from xeon to i7 but I covered that in the original post...my point was the CORES in i7 and Xeon will be identical. What intel is now calling the UN-CORE (qpi, l3 cache, memory controller) will differ from socket to socket and platform to platform; "desktop" "server" "mobile" etc. but other then those minor differences, they are all the same chip.

[Umbongo]

Apple has been very slow in updating the maxi-tower before (quad core Xeons were out from other companies for many months before they were added to the Apple maxi-tower).

That was a different issue and I would think was down to Apple not wanting an 8 core system that was slower (in many cases) than the 4 core 3GHz they were offering so they waited until Intel could provide enough 3GHz quad parts.

Woodcrest was released on the 26th of June 2006 and Mac Pros using it were shipping on the 7th of August. Harpertown had a release date of the 12th of November 2007 and Mac Pros came out on the 8th of January. Those are the dates that are important.

[robinp]

That was a different issue and I would think was down to Apple not wanting an 8 core system that was slower (in many cases) than the 4 core 3GHz they were offering so they waited until Intel could provide enough 3GHz quad parts.

Woodcrest was released on the 26th of June 2006 and Mac Pros using it were shipping on the 7th of August. Harpertown had a release date of the 12th of November 2007 and Mac Pros came out on the 8th of January. Those are the dates that are important.

Yes, both sets of dates are quite relevant, however I think this time Intel may be quite keen to use the extra publicity of launching with Apple and so might well keep quiet until they are properly available. One important thing to remember when considering this option is that in previous launches intel released the Xeon parts before the desktop or mobile parts. I think this is key because the launch of a new architecture is big news, whereas launching a new chip that uses an existing architecture (what we are waiting for with the mac pro) is not nearly as news worthy or such a big event. This makes me think that Intel being flexible to accommodate Apple's release schedule might be realistic. Either way, I will probably wait until March/April before absolutely having to upgrade, but the sooner the better really.

[ktlx]

Yes, both sets of dates are quite relevant, however I think this time Intel may be quite keen to use the extra publicity of launching with Apple and so might well keep quiet until they are properly available.
If Apple continues to use the workstation/server class processors, Intel won't keep quiet. Server sales are more important to Intel and server customers demand information for planning purposes. Intel will also need to freeze out Shanghai sales and the only way to do that is by pre-announcing.

[Umbongo]

Yes, both sets of dates are quite relevant, however I think this time Intel may be quite keen to use the extra publicity of launching with Apple and so might well keep quiet until they are properly available. One important thing to remember when considering this option is that in previous launches intel released the Xeon parts before the desktop or mobile parts. I think this is key because the launch of a new architecture is big news, whereas launching a new chip that uses an existing architecture (what we are waiting for with the mac pro) is not nearly as news worthy or such a big event. This makes me think that Intel being flexible to accommodate Apple's release schedule might be realistic. Either way, I will probably wait until March/April before absolutely having to upgrade, but the sooner the better really.

Maybe Intel and Apple have that sort of relationship on some things but I can't see it on something like Xeon processors. Intel pushed it back because there is no competition and they are making money on Penryn Xeons. The people buying Xeons aren't typically interested in Apple workstations and Apple probably buy a tiny portion of Xeons sold (educated guess of 0.02%) so I can't see Apple being that relevent to a release date. They are relevant to the dual socket Workstation market though, which Intel does care about, but that doesn't impact the overall Xeon schedule.

[sangosimo]

intel is way bigger than nvidia and has alot of customers. I don't think they will wait on anybody.

[robinp]

Maybe Intel and Apple have that sort of relationship on some things but I can't see it on something like Xeon processors. Intel pushed it back because there is no competition and they are making money on Penryn Xeons. The people buying Xeons aren't typically interested in Apple workstations and Apple probably buy a tiny portion of Xeons sold (educated guess of 0.02%) so I can't see Apple being that relevent to a release date. They are relevant to the dual socket Workstation market though, which Intel does care about, but that doesn't impact the overall Xeon schedule.

intel is way bigger than nvidia and has alot of customers. I don't think they will wait on anybody.

While I agree loosely with what Umbongo is saying, I still don't think Intel would pass up the opportunity to ride on the wave of apple's amazing publicity machine.

Sangosimo - I completely disagree. Intel has changed its plans specifically for apple before.

I am not saying Intel would actually have changed their actual release date, just the announcement of it. I think the typical time between announcement and availability could be shorter than is typical

[AidenShaw]

While I agree loosely with what Umbongo is saying, I still don't think Intel would pass up the opportunity to ride on the wave of apple's amazing publicity machine.

Sangosimo - I completely disagree. Intel has changed its plans specifically for apple before.

I am not saying Intel would actually have changed their actual release date, just the announcement of it. I think the typical time between announcement and availability could be shorter than is typical


But the honeymoon with Intel could be over - Apple just publicly stiffed Intel by going with Nvidia chips instead.

Intel may no longer be interested in any special favors for Apple....

[Tallest Skil]

But the honeymoon with Intel could be over - Apple just publicly stiffed Intel by going with Nvidia chips instead.

Intel may no longer be interested in any special favors for Apple....

GPUs... not CPUs... where Intel's real money is made.

[robinp]

But the honeymoon with Intel could be over - Apple just publicly stiffed Intel by going with Nvidia chips instead.

Intel may no longer be interested in any special favors for Apple....

I suppose that's where my thinking differs: I don't think Intel would do it to please Apple, and never would have in my opinion (including the past couple of times Apple appears to have had preferential treatment). Its about Intel gaining the kind of publicity that endless millions of dollars spent on publicity would get, but for free courtesy of shifting a launch date a month or so.

[sangosimo]

I think the only timeline that intel operates buy is moore's law. I agree with AidenShaw.

[Sehnsucht]

I guess I'll just wait now for the "But they're fugly" tangential replies to start.

But they're fugly!!! :D :D :D

[cisco0623]

I doubt 95% of mac pro users would see any real difference when using their mac if it were a Xeon or desktop i7, with that in mind, and this economy, maybe apple should offer those cpu's instead.

[ktlx]

I doubt 95% of mac pro users would see any real difference when using their mac if it were a Xeon or desktop i7, with that in mind, and this economy, maybe apple should offer those cpu's instead.
That would imply only 5% of Mac Pro users are working on audio, video and 3D rendering or are developers. I find that very hard to believe.

[AidenShaw]

That would imply only 5% of Mac Pro users are working on audio, video and 3D rendering or are developers. I find that very hard to believe.

And the other 95% bought the maxi-tower because it was the only expandable desktop option. ;)

You may argue whether it's 50%/75%/80%/90% or whatever - but I'm confident that a majority of Mac Pros don't spend much time with more than 4 cores busy.

Some users obviously do stress the system (we call these people "Pros"), but many maxi-towers go to amateurs who could easily get by with an 8 logical processor, 4 core, single socket Core i7.

[iMacmatician]

You may argue whether it's 50%/75%/80%/90% or whatever - but I'm confident that a majority of Mac Pros don't spend much time with more than 4 cores busy.

Some users obviously do stress the system (we call these people "Pros"), but many maxi-towers go to amateurs who could easily get by with an 8 logical processor, 4 core, single socket Core i7.Even more reason to offer single-CPU and dual-CPU models. And when Westmere comes, it's reason to offer 1x 6-core, 2x 4-core, and 2x 6-core models.

I suppose a 2-socket board with just one CPU may work (like now), but a "true" single-CPU model would be better. Apple could really push the threads and so push the fact that thread count stays the same from 2x Harpertown to 1x Gainestown (and also push the dual-CPU model with 2x the threads).

[AidenShaw]

I suppose a 2-socket board with just one CPU may work (like now), but a "true" single-CPU model would be better. Apple could really push the threads and so push the fact that thread count stays the same from 2x Harpertown to 1x Gainestown (and also push the dual-CPU model with 2x the threads).

No, no, no - shrink that humonguous maxi-tower.

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=145393&d=1227377552
(system images to scale)

Reduce the price, footprint, power consumption and other issues by building a small form factor or small mini-tower and using higher volume desktop parts.

As to threads, don't be surprised when the benchmarks come in and they show that 8 cores are far, far better than 8 threads.

[BenRoethig]

I don't mind the current tower. Its very practical, though I wouldn't mind them putting the ports on the back panel a little closer together so there can be a second row of three USB2.0 ports for a total of six. And when it comes to shrinking, don't give Apple any ideas, they have a tendency to go overboard and shirk things to the point where they're of little use to the intended audience. See the Mini and Cube.

[Digital Skunk]

I don't mind the current tower. Its very practical, though I wouldn't mind them putting the ports on the back panel a little closer together so there can be a second row of three USB2.0 ports for a total of six. And when it comes to shrinking, don't give Apple any ideas, they have a tendency to go overboard and shirk things to the point where they're of little use to the intended audience. See the Mini and Cube.

I agree with you on the USB ports. I'd rather just have two more of each, including FW800.

I'd also like to see TWO double wide PCI slots and a FIFTH HDD bay that is full supported, as opposed to using the second optical drive slot.

[ktlx]

And the other 95% bought the maxi-tower because it was the only expandable desktop option. ;)

You may argue whether it's 50%/75%/80%/90% or whatever - but I'm confident that a majority of Mac Pros don't spend much time with more than 4 cores busy.

Some users obviously do stress the system (we call these people "Pros"), but many maxi-towers go to amateurs who could easily get by with an 8 logical processor, 4 core, single socket Core i7.
This is an argument for a single socket desktop and is completely irrelevant to the original post that nearly all Mac Pro users would see no difference if the Mac Pro used a desktop part.

Even the arguments in favor of a single socket, expandable desktop are largely pointless until Steve has a "come to Jesus" moment or is replaced.

[cisco0623]

That would imply only 5% of Mac Pro users are working on audio, video and 3D rendering or are developers. I find that very hard to believe.

What difference does a xeon processor make for rendering video or audio over a i7? A xeon might destroy a benchmark, but its not practical.

Basically the difference is marginal as far as using final cut or Logic Pro would be concerned. Hell I run logic pro7.2 on my G4 dual 1ghz mac pro and its fine for 95% of what most people would need. The larger bottleneck is the speed of the hard drives and ram/system board more than the CPU.

The point is I am not saying that there are not professionals who don't need the crazy hardware and the small difference they give - there are! But for an entry mac tower to be $2800 is absolutely scary. Make a $1500 version.

The problem with them pricing one this way is what I am talking about. The $1500 one will perform seriously close to the $2800 one. Hell, PC scene people are buying 920 core i7 at 2.66ghz and over clocking them to 4.4ghz on the new X58 boards. Why the hell even buy the $1000 extreme chip?

I love Apple software, but they manipulate it by forcing us to buy seriously overpriced hardware.

[Tallest Skil]

Let's drop the xMac crap now, shall we?

Steve Jobs is alive. Therefore, we're not going to see a headless iMac with user expansion capabilities.

[AidenShaw]

And when it comes to shrinking, don't give Apple any ideas, they have a tendency to go overboard and shirk things to the point where they're of little use to the intended audience. See the Mini and Cube.


Apple could, like Dell, actually give a choice of models.

Unlikely, but possible.

[drsmithy]

That would imply only 5% of Mac Pro users are working on audio, video and 3D rendering or are developers. I find that very hard to believe.

Actually it would imply that only 5% of Mac Pro users find themselves constrained by the CPU performance of an 8-core desktop.

Which, personally, I would consider a fairly high estimate. I'd be surprised if even 1% of users are CPU bottlenecked on a Mac Pro.

I little doubt the vast majority of Mac Pro users would be just as happy with a machine with half the resources - a single quad-core CPU, 4 DIMM slots, one free PCIe x16, one (or two) free PCIe x4 slots (wired for x1 if necessary), two drive slots - and half the pricetag. I'm also pretty sure Apple agrees with me.

[ktlx]

What difference does a xeon processor make for rendering video or audio over a i7? A xeon might destroy a benchmark, but its not practical.

Basically the difference is marginal as far as using final cut or Logic Pro would be concerned. Hell I run logic pro7.2 on my G4 dual 1ghz mac pro and its fine for 95% of what most people would need. The larger bottleneck is the speed of the hard drives and ram/system board more than the CPU.

The point is I am not saying that there are not professionals who don't need the crazy hardware and the small difference they give - there are! But for an entry mac tower to be $2800 is absolutely scary. Make a $1500 version.
Then you should say what you mean. You said Apple should use desktop processors instead, as I quote:
I doubt 95% of mac pro users would see any real difference when using their mac if it were a Xeon or desktop i7, with that in mind, and this economy, maybe apple should offer those cpu's instead.
If you've ever used an eight core machine for audio, video or 3D rendering, you'll see the difference immediately. The same will be even more true once Nehalem arrives in the Mac Pro as the memory bottleneck opens up. To say 95% of the users probably won't see any real difference means they cannot be doing any work in those areas I mentioned. I find that incredibly hard to believe.

95% of people aren't Mac Pro owners. Hell, 95% of people aren't Apple owners. Even of those who own Apple computers, only a small number are those who own Mac Pros, according to Apple's own sales figures.

[ktlx]

I need some new acquaintances. I don't know anyone who has thousands of dollars to fritter away on computers that largely sit idle. I wish I knew this 98% of Mac Pro owners who are rich enough to buy machines for no reason. Everyone I know with a Mac Pro is using it to do at least some video, rendering or photography work. I am jealous of the guys who've got eight cores for rendering. Anyone who denies you won't notice the extra horsepower clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

[AidenShaw]

Anyone who denies you won't notice the extra horsepower clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

I think that the argument is that most people aren't rendering (or using 8-core aware applications).

These people won't notice any difference from the 4 idle cores, except for the larger hole in their bank account.

[cisco0623]

Then you should say what you mean. You said Apple should use desktop processors instead, as I quote:

If you've ever used an eight core machine for audio, video or 3D rendering, you'll see the difference immediately. The same will be even more true once Nehalem arrives in the Mac Pro as the memory bottleneck opens up. To say 95% of the users probably won't see any real difference means they cannot be doing any work in those areas I mentioned. I find that incredibly hard to believe.


Does this difference make the audio or video any less worthy in the end? If it takes an extra 4 seconds to mix down a track or 35 seconds to render a video? Does this difference warrant the price? Also does it warrant the lack of product selection a potential mac customer does not have? I bet mac users - pro or not - would enjoy having the choice of a cheaper model that still gets the job done.

My point is that its stupid that Apple doesn't offer a cheaper desktop and an easy way to do that is to use a desktop version of a cpu rather than the Xeon. I am not saying ignore pro's, but like their macbook (which is just as powerful as the pro) why not have a mac desktop at a lower price point? Would you be against it? Or better yet, would you consider purchasing it over the pro?

[drsmithy]

I need some new acquaintances. I don't know anyone who has thousands of dollars to fritter away on computers that largely sit idle. I wish I knew this 98% of Mac Pro owners who are rich enough to buy machines for no reason. Everyone I know with a Mac Pro is using it to do at least some video, rendering or photography work. I am jealous of the guys who've got eight cores for rendering. Anyone who denies you won't notice the extra horsepower clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

There are plenty of reasons to buy a Mac Pro that don't involve running 8 CPUs at 100% most of the time (if ever).

This is because the gaping hole in Apple's lineup - the vast gulf of capabilities between a Mac Mini or iMac, and a Mac Pro - means you have to buy a Mac Pro if:

you want a machine that can run a couple of 30" screens (or just more than two)
be connected to high-speed disk
have some sort of expansion card installed
have more than 2 CPU cores
more than 4G RAM


The suggestion that there is is not a large proportion of users who want one or more of the above features, but don't need a pair of server-class quad-core Xeon CPUs, is laughable, and at odds with the experience of pretty much every other computer maker.

[diamond.g]

I think that the argument is that most people aren't rendering (or using 8-core aware applications).

These people won't notice any difference from the 4 idle cores, except for the larger hole in their bank account.
Apple should offer another means of attaining at least 4 cores. Yeah you could get a Mac Pro Quad, but for some people the rest of the system (I'm looking at you FB-DIMMs) can still be seen as overkill.

[chromatronic]

Does this difference make the audio or video any less worthy in the end? If it takes an extra 4 seconds to mix down a track or 35 seconds to render a video? Does this difference warrant the price?

But making music is not ONly making Offline Bounce...
You need REALTIME power to process soft synth, effects etc etc....
Then the 8 core are really useful...

[AidenShaw]

But making music is not ONly making Offline Bounce...
You need REALTIME power to process soft synth, effects etc etc....
Then the 8 core are really useful...

...and 95% of Mac Pro users need this?

Nobody is saying that there aren't times when you need the power, especially for real pros. (And "pro" is not defined as "someone who owns an Apple computer with 'Pro' in its model name.)

...And maybe Imovie or whatever can peg 8 CPUs while rendering a video...

But, if Joe the Plumber is making a DVD of the baby movies for Grandma, and you tell him:

Computer "A" can make the video in 45 minutes, and costs $3000
Computer "B" can make the video in 90 minutes, and costs $1000
Most of the time for most other things, computer "A" and "B" are about the same speed.


Which computer will Joe ask for?

'nuff said. Where's the single socket quad core mini-tower?

[BenRoethig]

Let's drop the xMac crap now, shall we?

Steve Jobs is alive. Therefore, we're not going to see a headless iMac with user expansion capabilities.

And I pray he retires every day. He has gone completely power mad. I don't want to see him build this company and platform only to bring crashing right down for a second time. Also, if you don't like Mac users who aren't well served by Apple talking about their needs, don't come into these kinds of threads. There are plenty of others where everyone walks the company line.

[diamond.g]

...and 95% of Mac Pro users need this?

Nobody is saying that there aren't times when you need the power, especially for real pros. (And "pro" is not defined as "someone who owns an Apple computer with 'Pro' in its model name.)

...And maybe Imovie or whatever can peg 8 CPUs while rendering a video...

But, if Joe the Plumber is making a DVD of the baby movies for Grandma, and you tell him:

Computer "A" can make the video in 45 minutes, and costs $3000
Computer "B" can make the video in 90 minutes, and costs $1000
Most of the time for most other things, computer "A" and "B" are about the same speed.


Which computer will Joe ask for?

'nuff said. Where's the single socket quad core mini-tower?
I dunno Aiden, I may ask for computer a... ;)

(my name isn't joe, and I am not a plumber...)

The best thing about these arguments (just like the ones before the new notebooks came out), is a lot of people will poopoo the idea then when Apple actually come out with it they will say it is the best thing ever and that Apple revolutionized the personal electronics industry. It is like that one Mac article I saw a while ago (can't remember the link).

The only two things I would like to see from Apple is a newer Mini (so I can actually replace my Win2k3 box, and dual boot Win2k8) and a cablecard system for Mac (so I can get rid of my Comcast DVR-- It's Sucktastic!™).

[Tallest Skil]

And I pray he retires every day. He has gone completely power mad. I don't want to see him build this company and platform only to bring crashing right down for a second time. Also, if you don't like Mac users who aren't well served by Apple talking about their needs, don't come into these kinds of threads. There are plenty of others where everyone walks the company line.

I only meant to cut the crap because it's not the purpose of the thread. All Mac Pro threads immediately get hijacked as xMac threads.

I'd love an xMac. Heck, that's why I made a crappy Hackintosh. The computer was secondhand from my grandfather when I got him to switch, so I put OS X on it. It's more of a proof-of-concept than anything; I'm the only one in my city with one, so that's cool.

[Umbongo]

I dunno Aiden, I may ask for computer a... ;)

(my name isn't joe, and I am not a plumber...)

The best thing about these arguments (just like the ones before the new notebooks came out), is a lot of people will poopoo the idea then when Apple actually come out with it they will say it is the best thing ever and that Apple revolutionized the personal electronics industry. It is like that one Mac article I saw a while ago (can't remember the link).

The only two things I would like to see from Apple is a newer Mini (so I can actually replace my Win2k3 box, and dual boot Win2k8) and a cablecard system for Mac (so I can get rid of my Comcast DVR-- It's Sucktastic!™).

I don't think people are against the idea, more just pointing out that Apple aren't likely to do it.

[Joe The Dragon]

I dunno Aiden, I may ask for computer a... ;)

The only two things I would like to see from Apple is a newer Mini (so I can actually replace my Win2k3 box, and dual boot Win2k8) and a cablecard system for Mac (so I can get rid of my Comcast DVR-- It's Sucktastic!™).

You will have to wait for tru2way and even then apple maybe forced to let cable co software run on there box.

also the mini may need to be a little bigger to fit fast and big hd's need for a DVR.

Direct tv boxes have 320gb to 500gb in there HD DVR's

[Digital Skunk]

.....

I for one haven't heard too many people saying the new MBs were amazing. The build quality on them is greatly improved, but as we know with Apple, they give and they take away.

I am still not too happy about the lack of matte and FW400 on the MBPs and the lack of EVERYTHING sans USB on the MBs.

But that kind of mantra was spread all over the internet when the iPhone came out. That's another story about Apple fantastic marketing that got brainless consumers to dump more affordable contracts and sign their life over to a slower, less stable network.

[chromatronic]

Which computer will Joe ask for?

'nuff said. Where's the single socket quad core mini-tower?

i think joe should buy an Imac :)

[AidenShaw]

i think joe should buy an Imac :)

Joe doesn't like all-in-ones - doesn't see the point in tossing the monitor when you want to upgrade the CPU.

Joe is going to Fry's this morning (see ads). He'll either get quad-core, 4 GiB, 1 TB and Blu-ray for $699, or maybe the 6 GiB system with Media Center and built-in HDTV tuner? (It has a spare optical slot, and a BD drive is $79 at Fry's.)

To the people suggesting that Apple should make an $1800 mini-tower, this should be a wake-up.

[BenRoethig]

But you know Aiden, Apple always knows best. How could people possible use things like blu-ray, a TV, tuner, full size optical drives, easy access port, multiple internal hard drives so you don't have to use your all too small and not so easily upgradable main drive for bootcamp, etc. Anyone who needs them is obviously helping to make the next hollywood blockbuster and needs a workstation.

[MrCrowbar]

Joe doesn't like all-in-ones - doesn't see the point in tossing the monitor when you want to upgrade the CPU.

Joe is going to Fry's this morning (see ads). He'll either get quad-core, 4 GiB, 1 TB and Blu-ray for $699, or maybe the 6 GiB system with Media Center and built-in HDTV tuner? (It has a spare optical slot, and a BD drive is $79 at Fry's.)

To the people suggesting that Apple should make an $1800 mini-tower, this should be a wake-up.

Lots of these look great on paper (specs, features), but they're not though out well. For instance the mainboard can be a serious bottleneck if not matched well, cooling might be an issue (case design) and power consumption (if you care about it). You can get away cheaper if you hand-select your components and build it yourself. This way, you only pay for the features (and software) you want.

If you're a gamer, get a medium dual core chip (games hardly benefit of quad cores right now) and overclock the cr4p out of that thing. The Core 2 are awesome for overclocking, it's easy to do and you don't need water cooling like in the 90's. You don't need too much RAM, games aren't that huge. 4GB is plenty. Spend your research and cash on the mainboard and pick a graphics card just below the super high end (outdated within 2 months anyway and overpriced).
If you got a Windows XP license, go ahead and download an optimized version, which is more lightweight (less RAM usage, faster boot, more responsive) and saves space on your hard drive.

Dell workstations are pretty good actually, the price is pretty much on par with Mac Pros if you go for comparable configurations.

[AidenShaw]

Lots of these look great on paper (specs, features), but they're not though out well. For instance the mainboard can be a serious bottleneck if not matched well, cooling might be an issue (case design) and power consumption (if you care about it).

That's funny, considering that I have 10 eMachines that I bought 4 years ago running 24x7 server tasks without any problems.

Yes, cooling can be an issue if you put a 100 watt graphics card and overclock the crap out of everything.

Joe the Plumber, however, thinks that "overclock" is when you get paid more because you work more than 40 hours per week.

He's not going to see these issues from any mainstream vendor's system.

[Joe The Dragon]

Joe doesn't like all-in-ones - doesn't see the point in tossing the monitor when you want to upgrade the CPU.

Joe is going to Fry's this morning (see ads). He'll either get quad-core, 4 GiB, 1 TB and Blu-ray for $699, or maybe the 6 GiB system with Media Center and built-in HDTV tuner? (It has a spare optical slot, and a BD drive is $79 at Fry's.)

To the people suggesting that Apple should make an $1800 mini-tower, this should be a wake-up.

And you can build a tower system with the e8400, 4gb of high speed ddr2 ram, 500gb hd, dvdrw, good psu, p45 board or a nvidia board, mid range or better video card for about $600 $700 before rebate as well. You can add a good wifi card for about $80 the DESKTOP mini should not come with the forced cost of a wifi card in a desktop. And you can replace the $50 video card with a $100 or more better one. It's said that card that costs less then $50 rebate is better then the base card in the $2300 mac pro.

[Blue Velvet]

^ The percentage of computer users who build their own machines is tiny. You can't compare the two. Your labour is free, if you don't value your time spent tracking down parts and putting it together. You don't have to make a profit margin on it either.

[Digital Skunk]

^ The percentage of computer users who build their own machines is tiny. You can't compare the two. Your labour is free, if you don't value your time spent tracking down parts and putting it together. You don't have to make a profit margin on it either.

Very true. I am very much one of those guys that doesn't have the time to hunt down the parts and put them together. I like the idea for a gaming rig, but even then I'd probably pay for the convenience of just picking up the box and setup the parts.

[MidgetMariachi]

I think the hunt for the parts is all part of the fun. Nothing beats the time you hear the rig you just built turn on and all the fans spinning up. Feels better than any computer you can get in a box :)

Midget Mariachi

[Joe The Dragon]

^ The percentage of computer users who build their own machines is tiny. You can't compare the two. Your labour is free, if you don't value your time spent tracking down parts and putting it together. You don't have to make a profit margin on it either.

But you can still have a $800 to $1900 tower with a profit margin. The dell's and others have systems that blow the mini away for same price range. Apple needs to have a head less system under $1500 with it's own video card and a desktop HD, CPU, RAM and DVDRW.

[Blue Velvet]

But you can still have a $800 to $1900 tower with a profit margin. The dell's and others have systems that blow the mini away for same price range. Apple need have a head less system under $1500 with it's own video card and a desktop HD, CPU, RAM and DVDRW.


In many ways, I agree with you, but it would take away sales from the iMac which has always been Steve's baby. He's always wanted a computer as an appliance, as sealed as possible... he's poured scorn on user forums, wanting his flagship computer to be as self-contained as possible, much like a washing machine.

I don't care for the iMac but while it's still around, no headless Mac in that price range, in my opinion.

Edit: And Dell operate on far slimmer margins with far higher volume, especially to enterprise. There isn't really a comparison.

[Digital Skunk]

Edit: And Dell operate on far slimmer margins with far higher volume, especially to enterprise. There isn't really a comparison.

And this is very true. It's quite hard working with Apple when you need to buy things in bulk. My university had to pay full price for all of the 75 Mac Pros and matching 23" ACDs. They didn't lower the price until the new Mac Pro (the current model) was unveiled, and Apple still didn't work out a deal for us outside of a $500 price drop on all the towers.

Not that we ever worked with Dell, but when we got our quote from Avid and HP there was a significant difference, and we would have been able to walk away with 80 HP workstations and an Avid Media center server for a few thousand dollars more... not to mention the Avid Media Composer licenses.

[BenRoethig]

And this is very true. It's quite hard working with Apple when you need to buy things in bulk. My university had to pay full price for all of the 75 Mac Pros and matching 23" ACDs. They didn't lower the price until the new Mac Pro (the current model) was unveiled, and Apple still didn't work out a deal for us outside of a $500 price drop on all the towers.

Not that we ever worked with Dell, but when we got our quote from Avid and HP there was a significant difference, and we would have been able to walk away with 80 HP workstations and an Avid Media center server for a few thousand dollars more... not to mention the Avid Media Composer licenses.

Apple uses consistent margins instead of variable, at least when it comes to their end. Dell and HP sell desktop systems at next to nothing while jacking the price up on higher end systems like workstations. Apple uses higher margins on consumer machines to allow the Mac Pro to be sold at a more reasonable price compared to competing workstations (its still unreasonable to expect people to buy a workstation outside a business/institutional setting). In a way, they give you the deal upfront.

[Joe The Dragon]

Apple uses consistent margins instead of variable, at least when it comes to their end. Dell and HP sell desktop systems at next to nothing while jacking the price up on higher end systems like workstations. Apple uses higher margins on consumer machines to allow the Mac Pro to be sold at a more reasonable price compared to competing workstations (its still unreasonable to expect people to buy a workstation outside a business/institutional setting). In a way, they give you the deal upfront.

Then why can't apple lower prices or bump ram , hd size , cpu speed , video cards over time?

[Tallest Skil]

Then why can't apple lower prices or bump ram , hd size , cpu speed , video cards over time?

Because it's profitable not to do so and there will always be people who are too afraid to open their computer to install third-party components themselves.

[anthony11]

Most of the time if you watch the Activity Meter you see the CPUs are not running at 100% On most Macs the computers spends most of it's time waiting for the user to click the mouse
Clearly you don't run a web browser on yours. Safari and Mail.app together on my G5 suck over half the CPU most of the time, just sitting idle.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Clearly you don't run a web browser on yours. Safari and Mail.app together on my G5 suck over half the CPU most of the time, just sitting idle.

Sounds like there's something wrong with your computer. On my little macbook Safari never uses up more than 15% of the CPU, unless it's frozen, and mail never really uses any resources.

[anthony11]

Sounds like there's something wrong with your computer. On my little macbook Safari never uses up more than 15% of the CPU, unless it's frozen, and mail never really uses any resources.

Your MacBook isn't a 1.6GHz G5 uniprocessor.

[DoFoT9]

Clearly you don't run a web browser on yours. Safari and Mail.app together on my G5 suck over half the CPU most of the time, just sitting idle.

i hear ya my older MBP is starting to date with this aswell.

Sounds like there's something wrong with your computer. On my little macbook Safari never uses up more than 15% of the CPU, unless it's frozen, and mail never really uses any resources.

no there isnt, clearly youve never used hotmail before!! or checked the CPU usage when your on youtube/a flash based website.

[iMacmatician]

Sounds like there's something wrong with your computer. On my little macbook Safari never uses up more than 15% of the CPU, unless it's frozen, and mail never really uses any resources.That's about what Safari uses on my iBook G4. The exceptions are with flash pages, freezes, etc.

[DoFoT9]

That's about what Safari uses on my iBook G4. The exceptions are with flash pages, freezes, etc.

try it with hotmail

[SeaFox]

I hope they don't go for the desktop line.

With the amount of stress. And the hours I log. And plan to log on my mac pro. It is very comforting to know. That I do have a server class chip in my mac. That I don't have to worry about stressing her.
Do you have any idea what people are doing with the current Core i7 processors? The 920 is rated at 2.66 Ghz from Intel. People overclocking it to 3.7Ghz and it's been fine.

So I don't think you have to worry much about overstressing a desktop CPU at stock speed in your work. :rolleyes:

[BenRoethig]

Do you have any idea what people are doing with the current Core i7 processors? The 920 is rated at 2.66 Ghz from Intel. People overclocking it to 3.7Ghz and it's been fine.

So I don't think you have to worry much about overstressing a desktop CPU at stock speed in your work. :rolleyes:

Nothing unless there's a really high end big screen iMac announced. The bloomsfield core may or may not show in the form of the xeon 3500 (i7 with ECC support enabled) along with x58 SP in the lower ranks of the Mac Pro.

[polaris20]

It's about time, I've been ready to buy a new machine for a while but they haven't updated in ages.



Why? That doesn't seem to make any sense.

What apple should do is use the workstation CPUs in the big tower but ALSO have a "budget" model with desktop cpus.

Why? So Apple could offer a more reasonably priced workstation, like HP does with the XW4600 series.

The regular i7 procs are benching faster than an 8-way Xeon system right now. How is that not a good thing?

EDIT

Sorry, it appears you and I were agreeing. :)

[diamond.g]

The regular i7 procs are benching faster than an 8-way Xeon system right now. How is that not a good thing?
Honestly? Because Apple hasn't done it yet. And when they do it will be like the second comming of the Nehalem Microarch.

Yes people are mistakenly calling the Xeon variant of Nehalem i7. In the end it is the same chip with ECC and 1 more quickpath (in the 5000 line).

[polaris20]

Honestly? Because Apple hasn't done it yet. And when they do it will be like the second comming of the Nehalem Microarch.

Yes people are mistakenly calling the Xeon variant of Nehalem i7. In the end it is the same chip with ECC and 1 more quickpath (in the 5000 line).

You're saying it's "bad" because of the Apple fanboy snobbery, yes?

Because yes, the chips are nearly identical otherwise.

[diamond.g]

You're saying it's "bad" because of the Apple fanboy snobbery, yes?

Because yes, the chips are nearly identical otherwise.
More or less yes, Apple fanboy snobbery is why Nehalem (in any form) is seen as not all the special. Even more so when someone claims the Xeon chip is way more robust than the Desktop chip. Which that could be seen as true if the Xeon chip had more pins in its socket or had some other special feature (other than ECC support) that couldn't be lived without. Right now it is practically the same chip with the 2nd QPI enabled and support for ECC enabled. It doesn't run faster, nor cooler.

[RebootD]

p.s. I'd love desktop chips, but Apple won't do it. So instead of whining about it like I have done for years now, I will just suck it up and pay an extra $1000. This is the Apple world we live in.

Don't give up hope man, keep up the fight! :D Sad how you can be let down so many times that you give up and pay more for something you don't really want. What is wrong with us?

[Wie Gehts]

I remember when the G3 was 'ridiculously fast' and was going to herald 3D apps moving to apple.

fast processors + bloat = standing still

[Umbongo]

It doesn't run faster, nor cooler.

They do have a lower TDP. i7 920 is rated at 130W with the 2.66, 2.8 and 2.93GHz 5500 series Xeons rated at 95W.

[diamond.g]

They do have a lower TDP. i7 920 is rated at 130W with the 2.66, 2.8 and 2.93GHz 5500 series Xeons rated at 95W.

Makes you wonder. If the TDP is 35W lower why not up the clock?

[Umbongo]

Makes you wonder. If the TDP is 35W lower why not up the clock?

Intel use a "binning process" to sort out the best and worst parts as they are effectively all made in the same way. So the better ones end up in things like the 3.2GHz i7 965s or where better TDP is needed. The poorer ones will be going into the lower speed Xeons and such. Data centers are focused on power and heat right now which is the real market for the Xeon.

[diamond.g]

Intel use a "binning process" to sort out the best and worst parts as they are effectively all made in the same way. So the better ones end up in things like the 3.2GHz i7 965s or where better TDP is needed. The poorer ones will be going into the lower speed Xeons and such. Data centers are focused on power and heat right now which is the real market for the Xeon.

I would think data centers would skip right over the 5000 series and go for the 7000 series. :D

[Umbongo]

I would think data centers would skip right over the 5000 series and go for the 7000 series. :D

Both have their merits. Most server resellers are going to offer UP and DP systems. Google for instance use cheaper hardware.

[diamond.g]

Both have their merits. Most server resellers are going to offer UP and DP systems. Google for instance use cheaper hardware.

Right, usually the LV models are pretty popular. Which is why they are more expensive. Which is why I am confused about listing the other units as having a lower TDP and not selling them for more (as they basically do elsewhere). I guess Intel is waiting till they get in the 50W TDP range to do that.


I often wonder if Apple only uses DP systems in their backend. It would seem like a waste of power to have two DP servers when 1 MP server could do the same job. And with Blade servers.....

[Umbongo]

Right, usually the LV models are pretty popular. Which is why they are more expensive. Which is why I am confused about listing the other units as having a lower TDP and not selling them for more (as they basically do elsewhere). I guess Intel is waiting till they get in the 50W TDP range to do that.

Not sure I follow you here.

I often wonder if Apple only uses DP systems in their backend. It would seem like a waste of power to have two DP servers when 1 MP server could do the same job. And with Blade servers.....

If you mean Xserve (rather than Apple's own hardware they run their company on) that is because it isn't a replacement for many roles that such hardware fills in the enterprise. Xserves are mainly there to run an OS X network. They offer the most versatility with Apple's ideology towards limited hardware options.

[diamond.g]

Not sure I follow you here.



If you mean Xserve (rather than Apple's own hardware they run their company on) that is because it isn't a replacement for many roles that such hardware fills in the enterprise. Xserves are mainly there to run an OS X network. They offer the most versatility with Apple's ideology towards limited hardware options.

Basically Intel has a premium for low TDP server parts. Usually this lines up with how much voltage they use.

For my network we had the opportunity to use low voltage CPU's which reduce the power draw of our server, but instead opted for the normal voltage units. This came down to cost (the LV model are more expensive) and what we wanted to do (virtualize other servers). I was really just commenting on how the Xeons have a lower TDP and the corresponding i7's don't when they are pretty much the same CPU (with stuff disabled which you would think should improve the TDP).

[polaris20]

More or less yes, Apple fanboy snobbery is why Nehalem (in any form) is seen as not all the special. Even more so when someone claims the Xeon chip is way more robust than the Desktop chip. Which that could be seen as true if the Xeon chip had more pins in its socket or had some other special feature (other than ECC support) that couldn't be lived without. Right now it is practically the same chip with the 2nd QPI enabled and support for ECC enabled. It doesn't run faster, nor cooler.

The only reason Xeons are "better" is due to the fact that you can have more of them in the same box, along with the ECC.

So it appears we agree ;)

A $1800 Mac Pro with a 2.93 i7 would sell well, and be more than powerful enough for most people, while adding the ability to be expandable, while the iMac is not.

Of course a $1800 i7 system would eat on high end iMac sales.

[AidenShaw]

Of course a $1800 i7 system would eat on high end iMac sales.

... and look silly next to a Dell which is half the price for the same parts and capabilities.

By the way - don't put that i7 motherboard into the existing huge Mac Pro case. Make something smaller!

[polaris20]

... and look silly next to a Dell which is half the price for the same parts and capabilities.


Well now that comes back to the old "Apple is way more expensive for the same parts as a Dell/HP" which isn't true all the time anyway.

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06b/12454-12454-296719-307907-296721-3429268-3429270-3737184.html

$1500 for a previous gen quad core from HP. $1800 would be a $300 premium for Apple quality and OS X.

Dells aren't much cheaper, if at all.

[BenRoethig]

Well now that comes back to the old "Apple is way more expensive for the same parts as a Dell/HP" which isn't true all the time anyway.

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06b/12454-12454-296719-307907-296721-3429268-3429270-3737184.html

$1500 for a previous gen quad core from HP. $1800 would be a $300 premium for Apple quality and OS X.

Dells aren't much cheaper, if at all.

If you're talking about comparative systems, you are correct. If you don't need a workstation but have to buy one to get desktop capabilities or have to buy a Macbook Pro to get the larger screen, you're paying a great deal more than you would have if you had choices. They've gotten very adept at using the OS X monopoly to get an ever increasing sum out of the user.

[wildmannz]

If you're talking about comparative systems, you are correct. If you don't need a workstation but have to buy one to get desktop capabilities or have to buy a Macbook Pro to get the larger screen, you're paying a great deal more than you would have if you had choices. They've gotten very adept at using the OS X monopoly to get an ever increasing sum out of the user.

OSX Monopoly? hehe - Yeah, right! Not too smart. Buy what you need. Not what you think you need. That aside though - tell me your ultimate machine - and then tell me the companies that sell computers who can't supply that ultimate machine to you for your ultimate price. Have you figured it out yet?

[polaris20]

If you're talking about comparative systems, you are correct. If you don't need a workstation but have to buy one to get desktop capabilities or have to buy a Macbook Pro to get the larger screen, you're paying a great deal more than you would have if you had choices. They've gotten very adept at using the OS X monopoly to get an ever increasing sum out of the user.

I'm not comparing the MP to desktop systems. Neither should you. The MP is a workstation, not a desktop.

If you don't want to pay for workstation prices, buy an iMac. If you don't like the all-in-one, don't buy Apple.

[AidenShaw]

If you don't want to pay for workstation prices, buy an iMac. If you don't like the all-in-one, don't buy Apple.

If you ran a car company, you'd have two models - a Smart Car and a Hummer H1. :rolleyes:

[SeaFox]

I think it's interesting how people are citing TDP as though its some sort of measure of how "robust" a processor is. Just because it puts out a higher amount of heat doesn't mean it's less reliable/robust/ "worse" than the 95W Xeon. Besides, it's where the heat goes that's more important than how much it produces. As long as the heat is carried away and the processor's temprature remians low it really doesn't matter how much heat it's producing.

To use a slightly trollish car metaphor, I'll point out that historically import car engines have operated at higher tempratures than American cars. Yet which cars are known for being more reliable?

[Umbongo]

Basically Intel has a premium for low TDP server parts. Usually this lines up with how much voltage they use.

For my network we had the opportunity to use low voltage CPU's which reduce the power draw of our server, but instead opted for the normal voltage units. This came down to cost (the LV model are more expensive) and what we wanted to do (virtualize other servers). I was really just commenting on how the Xeons have a lower TDP and the corresponding i7's don't when they are pretty much the same CPU (with stuff disabled which you would think should improve the TDP).

Think of the Xeons as being the pick of the litter for their clock speed and the lower TDP being a feature just as two QPI links/DP support is. It's all factored into the price. The TDP ratings aren't absolutes anyway.

[BenRoethig]

I'm not comparing the MP to desktop systems. Neither should you. The MP is a workstation, not a desktop.

The machine the Mac Pro replaced wasn't and a lot of PowerMac users are paying the price.

If you don't want to pay for workstation prices, buy an iMac.

I did. I've regretted it every minute of it

If you don't like the all-in-one, don't buy Apple.

And buy from who exactly? Umax and Power Computing aren't exactly around anymore. Jobs won't license OSX to anyone else. Things must be simple and black and white in your world, but not so much in reality. You don't get free licenses to transfer your software to another operating system, my iWork files and iLife files will not transfer, and windows is a pain. This conform mindlessly to whatever Jobs wants to give you or leave crap has sucked the life out of this platform.

OSX Monopoly? hehe - Yeah, right! Not too smart. Buy what you need. Not what you think you need. That aside though - tell me your ultimate machine - and then tell me the companies that sell computers who can't supply that ultimate machine to you for your ultimate price. Have you figured it out yet?

I did buy the machines I needed from this great computer company out of California called Apple. They were called PowerMacs One day the founder went power mad and decided unilaterally that I needed to be buying something else. Not based on user needs, but because all in ones look prettier than towers and that design must be the only factor in designing a computer. Not innovative features that make your life easier, only pure aesthetics.

[polaris20]

Oh my God, let's get into the same " lack of choice" argument that's been going on for over 10 years, shall we? I'm saying if you don't like it, buy something else not because I agree 100% with Apple's business model, but because I'm tired of hearing about it. Seriously, you're bringing up Umax in a thread in 2009?

What's next, complaining about the discontinuation of the G4 Cube? Perhaps something more fresh, like the removal of firewire from the MacBook?

[BenRoethig]

Oh my God, let's get into the same " lack of choice" argument that's been going on for over 10 years, shall we?

10 years? It's only been four since Apple went completely off the deep end.

I'm saying if you don't like it, buy something else not because I agree 100% with Apple's business model, but because I'm tired of hearing about it.

Then stop listening. I'm tired of having my productivity stifled by the whims of Jobs and Ive.

Seriously, you're bringing up Umax in a thread in 2009?

Because for a couple years at least you had other options if Apple didn't give you want you wanted it. Now its their way or the highway. Neither are very good options.

What's next, complaining about the discontinuation of the G4 Cube?

It may have been discontinued (and for good reason, it did northing that the PM G4 couldn't do better and for less), its legacy lives on in all the current form over function designs we see today. If anything, it made Jobs and Ive realize that if the customers were going to buy their types of designs, they would have to be forced upon the user with more practical options removed.

Perhaps something more fresh, like the removal of firewire from the MacBook?

We've already lost so much functionality lately, what's a bit more? Its not like there's any musicians using firewire interfaces or Mac users who have had their hides saved by target disk mode. It looks so much better though and everybody knows all you're supposed to do with a computer is sit across the rooms and admire their elegance. The thinner the machines get, the more the things that set them apart from the common PC get erased.

[SeaFox]

If you don't want to pay for workstation prices, buy an iMac. If you don't like the all-in-one, don't buy Apple.


And buy from who exactly? Umax and Power Computing aren't exactly around anymore. Jobs won't license OSX to anyone else. Things must be simple and black and white in your world, but not so much in reality. You don't get free licenses to transfer your software to another operating system, my iWork files and iLife files will not transfer, and windows is a pain. This conform mindlessly to whatever Jobs wants to give you or leave crap has sucked the life out of this platform.
+1, Insightful

Can we have the Power Mac 7300 back, Apple? Or even the 8600? It was a tower and managed to not be a beast.