Apple to Use Newly Released Quad-Core Desktop Processors?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/20/apple-to-use-newly-released-quad-core-deskop-processors/)

On Monday, Intel dropped prices (http://www.pcworld.com/article/157948/intel_cuts_quadcore_chip_prices_by_40_percent.html) on existing desktop Quad-Core processors and introduced three new power-efficient Quad-Core desktop processors: Intel also introduced three power-efficient quad-core chips with the "s" moniker. The Core 2 Quad Q9550s processor includes 12MB of L2 cache, runs at 2.83GHz and draws 65 watts of power. The chips are priced at $369. The chip is power-efficient version of the Core 2 Quad Q9550 chip, which draws 95 watts of power.

Intel also introduced the Core 2 Quad Q9400s processor, which runs at 2.66GHz, and the Core 2 Quad Q8200s, which runs at 2.33GHz. This chips are priced at $320 and $245 respectively.According to a report (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/19/apple-waiting-on-quad-core-desktop-cpus-for-january/) from November, Apple was said to be specifically waiting for these Quad-Core processors to launch new machines.

While the overdue iMac still seems the most likely target, such a move would break Apple's tradition of using mobile processors in their iMac line. Despite their "power efficient" designation, the new processors still use significantly more power then their mobile counterparts currently found in the iMac.

While there has been some speculation that Apple may have reworked the cooling module in the new iMac, there have been no evidence that this is actually true.



Article Link: Apple to Use Newly Released Quad-Core Deskop Processors? (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/20/apple-to-use-newly-released-quad-core-deskop-processors/)

[natebookpro]

Not sure I see it happening. Would be pretty cool if it did though!

[MattInOz]

Well the current iMac's do run quiet but hot. So if they can ramp up the cooling system as big enough to these puppies in that would be one fine machine.

[mangis]

Weren'we supposed ot have a 3.0 Mhz machine by like june of 2004?

[SimonTheSoundMa]

The old iMac G5's were power hungry desktop CPUs. New aluminium iMacs have far better cooling, so it should be fine for desktop processors.

[SimonTheSoundMa]

Weren'we supposed ot have a 3.0 Mhz machine by like june of 2004?

That came in the late 1980's / early 1990's.

I know you mean GHz. At the moment the aim is to reduce power consumption and heat through design, if they carried on ramping up the clock speed with te old Pentium 4, within 5 years time the processor would be as hot as the surface of the sun.

[talkingfuture]

I'd file this under plausible with the rumour of upgraded cooling in the new iMacs.

[SFStateStudent]

New iMacs would be pretty nice with these new quad-core processors...:cool:

[redAPPLE]

this might not be really on topic, but i just need to ask, because i am expecting to buy a new machine...

i would like to video edit with the iMac. is the last iMac good enough for Final Cut Pro?

maybe you guys could give a short answer to this. thanks.

[eXan]

Increased power requirements make iMacs with these Q cores hard to believe ... But if new cooling system won't make iMacs louder, I would seriously consider a new iMac.

[zedsdead]

this might not be really on topic, but i just need to ask, because i am expecting to buy a new machine...

i would like to video edit with the iMac. is the last iMac good enough for Final Cut Pro?

maybe you guys could give a short answer to this. thanks.

More than good enough to run Final Cut Pro. If you plan to do heavy transcoding, you are going to want either a Mac Pro, or wait and see if Apple puts a Quad-Core processor in the next release.

[arn]

I'd file this under plausible with the rumour of upgraded cooling in the new iMacs.

that's the thing. the "upgraded cooling" system rumor was plucked out of thin air. It shouldn't even be considered a rumor. someone misread the original report.

The original report (from digitimes) never said there was a new cooling system. Just that some company was making the iMac's cooling system. which may have simply been the existing one.

arn

[Theophany]

if they carried on ramping up the clock speed with te old Pentium 4, within 5 years time the processor would be as hot as the surface of the sun.

It already was by the time they discontinued those el crappo chips ;)

[madrag]

why the iMac? this is definetly a processor for the MacPro, isn't it?
is there another excuse not to launch a new MP?

[arn]

why the iMac? this is definetly a processor for the MacPro, isn't it?
is there another excuse not to launch a new MP?

well, the Mac Pros traditionally use server class processors, not desktop-class. It's possible I suppose, but I'm not sure if these processors are much better than what's currently shipping in the Mac Pros.

arn

[SirOmega]

I still think this is unlikely. It would be a lot of heat in that small chassis. Apple is far more likely to use the Q9000 - a 45W QC CPU.

[talkingfuture]

that's the thing. the "upgraded cooling" system rumor was plucked out of thin air. It shouldn't even be considered a rumor. someone misread the original report.

The original report (from digitimes) never said there was a new cooling system. Just that some company was making the iMac's cooling system. which may have simply been the existing one.

arn

I'd file this under plausible with the rumour of upgraded cooling in the new iMacs.

Ah, I didn't realize that. Probably less plausible then.

[JGeorge07]

First, the rumored cooling system would need to be valid. Then if that's valid, this rumor could plausibly come to fruition.

It just seems like speculation built on top of speculation to me.

Why is this necessary anyway? Intel already makes Quad core mobile processors, so isn't it much more likely that some version of that processor will be the one eventually finding itself into the mainstream Apple lineup?

[Michael CM1]

Weren'we supposed ot have a 3.0 Mhz machine by like june of 2004?

That 3 GHz number is just a number. It means nothing but clock speed.

A quad-core 2.3 Ghz CPU will run much faster than a 2.3 Ghz dual-core. It won't be twice as fast, especially without the right OS, but you're gaining a lot of speed without having to jack up the clock speed.

[madrag]

well, the Mac Pros traditionally use server class processors, not desktop-class. It's possible I suppose, but I'm not sure if these processors are much better than what's currently shipping in the Mac Pros.

arn
ok, sorry for my ignorance :)

even so, the heat problem led me to think of this as a possible candidate for the MP. Is this possible?

[gazonk]

Apple used these processor for a "Mac midi". Where I work, we've started to exchange Windows PCs for macs, but most users don't want the glossy screens, besides, we have lots of good, large screens that we could reuse if Apple only had a sensible screen-less model. The current mac mini is an underspecified joke of a computer, and the Mac Pro is total overkill for the intended office use.

[Tallest Skil]

ok, sorry for my ignorance :)

even so, the heat problem led me to think of this as a possible candidate for the MP. Is this possible?

NO!

Read this: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=635530

To know why these worthless things won't be in the Mac Pro.

[billystlyes]

but most users don't want the glossy screens
I hate them in the worst way, especially in an office environment. Apple really needs to do something with the Mac mini or come out with an affordable tower…otherwise they are dead to me. To be honest, Windows 7 is looking pretty sweet anyways. Plus...you have tons of hardware options going that route.

[alexbates]

why the iMac? this is definetly a processor for the MacPro, isn't it?
is there another excuse not to launch a new MP?

I think this new quad-core processor will only be in the next update of the Mac Pro. Apple needs to stick with the Core 2 Duo for the iMac.

[Tallest Skil]

I think this new quad-core processor will only be in the next update of the Mac Pro. Apple needs to stick with the Core 2 Duo for the iMac.

It won't, sorry.

(be in the Mac Pro)

[nick9191]

This processor will not be in the iMac without making it dramatically thicker for cooling, which Apple won't do.

Nor will it be in the Mac Pro since they use Xeons.

End of.

[rylin]

To know why these worthless things won't be in the Mac Pro.

Take a chill pill.
They're not worthless just because you've put in a bunch of hours into the Gainestown thread.

They are, in fact, quite decent chips.
In other words; enough with the zealotry.

[michaelsviews]

Take a chill pill.
They're not worthless just because you've put in a bunch of hours into the Gainestown thread.

They are, in fact, quite decent chips.
In other words; enough with the zealotry.

They ARE ? How so ? Explain yourself ?

[Santa Rosa]

Having more cores ties in nicely to Grand Central coming this year.

How the iMac would cope with the heat I have no clue, maybe they can do it, maybe they can't!!

Holding out for a Core i7 iMac, so going to be a while yet!!!

[igazza]

how much more power would these really have... 20% ?

[Aegelward]

It's possible the iMac could put on a little weight to support these chips, the performance and cost benefits could pay off for it.

The Mac Midi is almost possible though... Apple might just be dumping both the Mini & ATV and replacing them with a single media center system, if these Atom/Ion rumors are to be believed. it could pave the way for a new consumer desktop in their range.

The whole economic situation might push apple to be a little more aggressive with their range.

[Marx55]

The Mac miniTOWER is near:

- Silent. Bedroom quiet.
- Intel Quad core inside.
- At least two Firewire 3200 ports.
- 2TB 7200rpm disk inside.
- Gigabit ethernet.
- Blu-ray drive.
- No PCI slots

Great!

[diamond.g]

Having more cores ties in nicely to Grand Central coming this year.

How the iMac would cope with the heat I have no clue, maybe they can do it, maybe they can't!!

Holding out for a Core i7 iMac, so going to be a while yet!!!

A Core i7 iMac would be nice. Don't see that till the end of the year assuming usage of mobile chips. The C2Q's proposed draw too much power to be used in an iMac with it's existing cooling system.

[diamond.g]

The Mac miniTOWER is near:

- Silent. Bedroom quiet.
- Intel Quad core inside.
- At least two Firewire 3200 ports.
- 2TB 7200rpm disk inside.
- Gigabit ethernet.
- Blu-ray drive.
- No PCI slots

Great!

It would have to have at least 1 PCI slot. Otherwise what GPU would it use?

[Santa Rosa]

The Mac miniTOWER is near:

- Silent. Bedroom quiet.
- Intel Quad core inside.
- At least two Firewire 3200 ports.
- 2TB 7200rpm disk inside.
- Gigabit ethernet.
- Blu-ray drive.
- No PCI slots

Great!

Yea it will be bedroom quiet. Thats because Apple aren't going to make anything like that. You can dream I suppose, in your bedroom!! :)

[Imhotep397]

I think "New Product" means "New Product." I suspect Apple is going to release an upgradeable mid tower so many people have been clamoring for. The iMac is good for a lot of people but not for people that want to have the ability to upgrade their video card or people that want more then two memory slots. The Mac mini pretty much has the same issue, hasn't been selling well and has the same form factor as Apple TV (another product that's not doing that well.) The Best thing for Apple would be to release a Mid Tower and then put an optical drive in AppleTV and have the Apple TV and OS X GUIs (installable option) available as two different users. Traditionally you would think that a mid tower would cannibalize iMac and/or MacPro sales, but with so many people moving to portables it would help to galvanize Apple's position on the desktop for a lot of people that have major complaints about Apple's desktop strategies and go about building Hackintoshes to attempt to resolve those problems. It also wouldn't hurt Apple to look at the success of games on the iPhone and decide to take the idea of getting game developers on board seriously.

[macintel4me]

I could see a high-end 24" iMac with quad-cores coming. I don't see all iMacs going quad-core right now. The price points don't make sense.

[Eric S.]

The Mac miniTOWER is near:

- Silent. Bedroom quiet.
- Intel Quad core inside.
- At least two Firewire 3200 ports.
- 2TB 7200rpm disk inside.
- Gigabit ethernet.
- Blu-ray drive.
- No PCI slots

Great!

I agree it would be great, but it won't happen.

[MacAddict1978]

The Mac miniTOWER is near:

Great!

I've never understood Apple's desktop strategy. Offering a consumer level tower wouldn't require them to have to sit on too much excess inventory (usually a reason a company reduces their offerings.)

I think its plausible to see a new product that marries the Apple TV and Mac Mini, but seeing Apple's long time strategy on desktops, I think we'll all be disappointed with the outcome. I doubt it would be anything along the lines of the old G4 tower.

However, being shamed by HP's Best Of Show (a pc at macworld! ha ha ha!)maybe steve-o's ego will be hurt enough to push a mac version of such a device.

[nickane]

If I could plot a graph of xMac likelihood, I reckon it would be peaking right about now, albeit at around 25%. Between intel's roadmap, the recession, and the conflicting rumours about the mac mini getting bigger/smaller with less/more features and power, the promised land cannot be far away.

The fact is that something drastic has to happen to apple's desktops now anyways, purely because of the way nehalem is being rolled out. Whether it be desktop-class chips in the iMac (surely a tall order now that they're half the thickness of the g5 days...?), Mac Pro (which seems like a big step down), a bigger mini or (gasp) a new product altogether (that looks suspiciously like the cube), there is no way apple can twiddle their thumbs waiting for mobile variants whilst dell gets a 6-month lead on this generation of processors.

Come fervent product-line-gap-denying zealots, fanbois, protesters of cannibalism and even the few rational observers of apple's nichey marketing strategy (by which I mean you, Tallest Skil): heap your venom upon us. For my own part, i'm used to it. I may relent and buy an MBP with external display but I will never give up hope. Why, just 2 years ago most of this forum was adamant that there would never be a multitouch fullscreen video ipod, because it would cannibablise iPhone sales, even tho the iPhone hadn't even come out yet and the iPod had an 85% marketshare to protect.

[wonderbread57]

Put'em in the MBP. They must be sitting on their hands with quad core integration until snow leopard is ready.

[nickane]

Put'em in the MBP. They must be sitting on their hands with quad core integration until snow leopard is ready.

Desktop chips in the iMac seems like a tall order. Desktop chips in the MBP is nothing short of impossible. The battery would last 15 mins., and you'd be frying eggs off the new unibody enclosure.

[Grasbak]

When you listen to what Steve says, Apple are more interested in performance per watt rather than outright power.

I don't see desktop chips in the iMac. Yes I know the G5 was a desktop chip, but I don't see it happening again!

I guess that is why they are developing snow leopard - making the most out of lower powered chips.

[thoshino]

That 3 GHz number is just a number. It means nothing but clock speed.

You're right of course, instruction set, cache size, memory bandwidth, OS and program code etc etc the list goes on, all play a big part. Not to mention that while processor clock frequencies increased x120 bus speeds have only increased about x10 (mid-late 386 to C2D).

Still, isn't it amusing somehow how the number 3Ghz stands as an invisible wall? While some have peeked over, it's stood there for surely 6 years now.

At any rate I'm crossing my fingers for a Desktop-based iMac, and Mini (in a slightly bigger case and with a discrete GPU).

[numbersyx]

I hate them in the worst way, especially in an office environment. Apple really needs to do something with the Mac mini or come out with an affordable tower…otherwise they are dead to me. To be honest, Windows 7 is looking pretty sweet anyways. Plus...you have tons of hardware options going that route.

iMac is a home machine though and I suspect home users do prefer glossy as it makes the colours pop more than a matte. I'm with you as I do a lot of photography and a glossy screen makes colour accuracy more difficult.

[numbersyx]

Take a chill pill.
They're not worthless just because you've put in a bunch of hours into the Gainestown thread.

They are, in fact, quite decent chips.
In other words; enough with the zealotry.

LOL

.... but I do have to agree with Skil - MPs will have the Gainestown 8 core

[akbc]

The day iMac comes equipped with NVIDIA 9800 and Quad-Core is when I buy the iMac..

til then.. I'm happy with my home gaming PC...

[kiranmk2]

Still, isn't it amusing somehow how the number 3Ghz stands as an invisible wall? While some have peeked over, it's stood there for surely 6 years now.



Are you sure you don't mean 4 Ghz? My girlfriend's ancient (c. 2004) laptop has a cpu of 3.06 Ghz (as does the top end imac). In fact, Prescott processors reached 3.8 Ghz before intel regressed to the Pentium III design to launch the core range.

[JoshJosh117]

Today's Tuesday- who thinks the new iMac will ship today?

[gazonk]

Are you sure you don't mean 4 Ghz? My girlfriend's ancient (c. 2004) laptop has a cpu of 3.06 Ghz (as does the top end imac). In fact, Prescott processors reached 3.8 Ghz before intel regressed to the Pentium III design to launch the core range.

So what? They were still incredibly slow.

[Theophany]

The potential of desktop chips in an iMac fits nicely with the rumoured possibility of the iMacs getting bigger (30"?) screens. The extra 6 diagonal inches equates to a hell of a lot more space inside. That's space for cooling and bigger components, n'est ce pas?

[diamond.g]

So what? They were still incredibly slow.

It is pretty well known that Intel's Core chips have been able to run near 4 Ghz on air for a while. With liquid cooling over 4 Ghz and with phase change cooling at or around 5 Ghz.

Intel doesn't have any competition forcing them to up the clock rate. Now it is all about how many cores one can stuff on a die. Intel so far can do 6.

[definitive]

So are there any "rumors" as to when the new iMacs will be sold? And will they be simply an upgrade to the current one, or a completely new design?

I want to switch from a Windows XP system to a Mac + get Windows 7 in dual boot when that comes out, but have been holding off due to the rumors of the new iMacs being right around the corner.

[LeviG]

I personally can't see a desktop core 2 cpu fitting into the imac, although the mobile quads are still under the core 2 moniker, the latest desktops have gone from core 2 to i7 (nehalem) now. I'd say if anything the rumors got the versions muddled up and if there is a quad its the mobile c2q not the desktop.

The other option is (as brought up in an older topic) is maybe a variation on the mac pro that uses just 1 cpu.
Theres a dual socket motherboard (skulltrail iirc) that used 2 'desktop' processors (it was basically a rebadged xeon system focused more on gaming etc) and there are 'consumer' xeon chips (same socket as c2d/c2q). So its entireley possible that Apple may diversify the mac pro a little and cater for the imac isn't what I want but the mac pro is too much crowd with a single chip mac pro tower - just a different board or just 1 cpu fitted (most dual sockets can run with just one cpu)

I'd say the mobile quad in the imac and/or a single cpu mac pro is the most likely outcome.

[deadjoe2002]

could this be a sign suggesting a Mac Midi tower to sit in between the mini and the pro, latest rumors of a mac mini with an Atom/Ion config would leave a wide open space for this machine :)

[manu chao]

Are you sure you don't mean 4 Ghz? My girlfriend's ancient (c. 2004) laptop has a cpu of 3.06 Ghz (as does the top end imac). In fact, Prescott processors reached 3.8 Ghz before intel regressed to the Pentium III design to launch the core range.
The limit seems around 3 GHz in that most systems peek at somewhat above 3 GHz (3.06, 3.2, 3.4 GHz depending on which processor line you look at).
Or, to be accurate: 3.x GHz seems to be maximum with 4 GHz the unreachable number (outside of the world of overclocking).

[RichardI]

I think we will see quad cores in iMacs, and very soon too. I'm not sure I understand why there is a perceived cooling issue. I think the idea is to have a processor that has slower clock speeds but better use of multiple cores through Grand Central? Would that not equal cooler? My iMac has a 2.8 Ghz. Core2 Duo, but, if I had Grand Central and a 2.66 or 2.4 Ghz quad core, would that not equate to more "power"?
Anyway, I think we will see quad cores in the iMac.

Rich :cool:

[mjteix]

I could see a high-end 24" iMac with quad-cores coming. I don't see all iMacs going quad-core right now. The price points don't make sense.

Just to have all the facts, here, I'd like to point out that the current iMacs are using cpus with a TDP of 55W and that those low-power quad cpus have a TDP of 65W.
1- I believe that with a slightly better cooling system, at least the 24" iMac could receive those cpus.
2- nvidia also has desktop versions of its single-chip 9400 chipset, in two flavors 9300/9400
3- IMO, the price points of the current mobile quad-core cpus don't make sense in the iMac line-up. While the quad 2.00GHz is "just" $348 (but more expensive than a mobile dual-core 2.66GHz), the 2.26GHz model is $851 (same as the current dual-core 3.06GHz) and the quad 2.53GHz is $1,038. Apple will not replace the top-of-the-line dual-core 3.06GHz iMac, with a quad at 2.26 (or even 2.53GHz).

If Apple can use the 65W quads in the iMac, the cost savings on the cpus would allow other refinements without changing the current price structure:
- LED-BL displays
- more RAM
- better dedicated GPUs
- more storage
I even think that it could lead to price cuts in the high-end, using the 65W 2.66/2.83GHz quads at $320/369 vs the mobile 2.93/3.06GHz duals at $530/851.

I wouldn't mind (if possible) this kind of iMac line-up:
$1199/1299 LED-BL 20" iMac quad 2.33GHz, 2GB RAM, 9600/256 or better...
$1499 LED-BL 20" iMac quad 2.66GHz, 2GB RAM, 9600/512 or better...
$1699/1799 LED-BL 24" iMac quad 2.66GHz, 2GB RAM, 9600/512 or better...
$1899/1999 LED-BL 24" iMac quad 2.83GHz, 2GB RAM, 9800/512 or better...

in bold the current iMac prices.

It would probably make also more sense to offer:
- dual-core mac mini (updated)
- quad-core iMac
- dual quads Mac Pro (probably by the end of the quarter)
as a simple desktop line-up.

I guess that is why they are developing snow leopard - making the most out of lower powered chips.

Not exactly, they are developing snow leopard to make the most of multiple cores (on any kind of chips: cpus or gpus). Also, I don't expect SL to be released before the WWDC (june-july 2009).

[twoodcc]

i kinda doubt that this will happen, but would like to see it

[Wolfpup]

It continues to blow my mind how much power you get for so cheap. Either of the cheaper 2 Core i7s, or any of these Core 2 quads are just such a bargain.

[-hh]

I think "New Product" means "New Product." I suspect Apple is going to release an upgradeable mid tower so many people have been clamoring for.

Yup, all twelve of them :D

The iMac is good for a lot of people but not for people that want to have the ability to upgrade their video card or people that want more then two memory slots.

If that's the case, then the solution is a Mac Pro. If you can't afford a new one, then simply do the same thing that people who want a Porsche for 1/2 the MSRP: buy used.

The Mac mini pretty much has the same issue, hasn't been selling well and has the same form factor as Apple TV (another product that's not doing that well.) The Best thing for Apple would be to release a Mid Tower and then put an optical drive in AppleTV and have the Apple TV and OS X GUIs (installable option) available as two different users.

But if the problem is canabalization, then not reducing the total number of 'close contenders' will solve the problem ... how?

Traditionally you would think that a mid tower would cannibalize iMac and/or MacPro sales, but with so many people moving to portables it would help to galvanize Apple's position on the desktop for a lot of people that have major complaints about Apple's desktop strategies and go about building Hackintoshes to attempt to resolve those problems.

But you've just walked right past why Apple's desktop position can't really tolerate even more fragmentation: with 50-70% of consumers buying laptops, the remaining piece of the pie is already divided into 3 major slices (mini, iMac, MP) and to add the proverbial xMac to the lineup would invariably have to canabalized *something*.

Similarly, while we keep in hearing about huge demand for people who want the ability to upgrade video or more RAM slots, the reality is that over half the market is voting with their wallet for laptops, which offer neither of these upgradability features.


I've never understood Apple's desktop strategy...

The general issue is that desktops are the " yesterday's horse & buggy" that has been overtaken by laptops. From there, its merely a question of how to handle a transition without too much vulnerability...just look at Film vs Digital to see how things can move a lot faster than the marketplace suppliers could have expected.


If I could plot a graph of xMac likelihood, I reckon it would be peaking right about now, albeit at around 25%. Between intel's roadmap, the recession, and the conflicting rumours about the mac mini getting bigger/smaller with less/more features and power, the promised land cannot be far away.

By some reports, up to 70% of all sales are already laptops. To then add the xMac as a "slice-of-a-slice-of-a-slice" of the desktop simply can't result in numbers as high as 25%. To split the share up equally four ways (mini/TV, iMac, xMac, MP) would result in a ~7% share.

And when you realize that http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/01/31/HNindianotebooksales_1.html stated (2 years ago) the following:

"Business buyers accounted for 77 percent of desktop sales during the period, with home users accounting for the remaining 23 percent."

...it wouldn't then be unreasonable to assume that since Apple has very low market penetration in the Enterprise that the percentages of consumers choosing notebooks is even higher, which means that you have even a smaller pool of potential desktop buyers to offer an xMac to. As per the combination of the above, it seems reasonable to project that the total consumer desktop market is 23% of ~30%, which is 7% of the total, which is currently split up amongst the mini/TV, the iMac, and the MacPro ... which if we then split it down further by adding the xMac means that each gets around 2%.

Thus, the business case question is if you're going to design, build & support a new product that's going to only be worth 2% of your business, or if you're going to ignore the 'opportunity lost' so as to better focus on the bigger items in your portfolio?


The fact is that something drastic has to happen to apple's desktops now anyways, purely because of the way nehalem is being rolled out...there is no way apple can twiddle their thumbs waiting for mobile variants whilst dell gets a 6-month lead on this generation of processors.

Sure, but the current Mac Pro is now a year 'stale' and Dell still hasn't really beaten it on price/performance.

Come fervent product-line-gap-denying zealots, fanbois, protesters of cannibalism and even the few rational observers of apple's nichey marketing strategy (by which I mean you, Tallest Skil): heap your venom upon us. For my own part, i'm used to it.

FWIW, I'm not denying that there isn't a gap, but merely that the market forces are such that I don't see the viable business case to try to bother to plug it.

In addition to the desktop --> laptop trend, we need to keep in mind that the common underlying reason for the xMac fan club is because its customer demographic is one of frugality through extension of the useful lifespan of their hardware by pulling DIY upgrades.

Since this customer gives less money to Apple in the long run (because the upgrades won't be bought from Apple, nor will they be buying an entirely new Apple system as frequently), the business case you're trying to argue that Apple should pursue is to take action to cut their own revenues.

Of course, "never say never". Sure, I'd love to have one too, but I simply don't expect it to realistically happen, unless there's some reason, such as a profound legal surprise in the Pystar litigation and Apple needs a rear-guard action to counter a potential explosion of Dell-distributed Hackintoshes.

-hh

[Umbongo]

Just to have all the facts, here, I'd like to point out that the current iMacs are using cpus with a TDP of 55W and that those low-power quad cpus have a TDP of 65W.
1- I believe that with a slightly better cooling system, at least the 24" iMac could receive those cpus.
2- nvidia also has desktop versions of its single-chip 9400 chipset, in two flavors 9300/9400
3- IMO, the price points of the current mobile quad-core cpus don't make sense in the iMac line-up. While the quad 2.00GHz is "just" $348 (but more expensive than a mobile dual-core 2.66GHz), the 2.26GHz model is $851 (same as the current dual-core 3.06GHz) and the quad 2.53GHz is $1,038. Apple will not replace the top-of-the-line dual-core 3.06GHz iMac, with a quad at 2.26 (or even 2.53GHz).

and lots of other stuff that is logical and seems plausible...


What you've written is pretty much my own thoughts on the whole situation.

One thing I don't see happening (and you seem to agree, but others don't) is Apple offering dual core and quad core options in a single range (the iMac). At least I can't see them offering the choice of 3.06GHz dual core or 2.83GHz quad core.

The all-in-one market is growing; Digitimes were spot on with their information on the processors so there is no reason to doubt that these are specifically intended for all-in-ones and that as the biggest manufacturer of that type of system Apple won't be using themin the iMacs.

[afrowq]

Is Apple waiting for this chip for the Mac Pro too? Because it's way more overdue for an update than the Imac.

[Umbongo]

Is Apple waiting for this chip for the Mac Pro too? Because it's way more overdue for an update than the Imac.

No that is waiting for the Xeon 5500 series to be released which may not happen until the end of March,so we may not see new Mac Pros until early June.

[Santabean2000]

The potential of desktop chips in an iMac fits nicely with the rumoured possibility of the iMacs getting bigger (30"?) screens. The extra 6 diagonal inches equates to a hell of a lot more space inside. That's space for cooling and bigger components, n'est ce pas?

Oooohh. I like your thinking!;)

[Umbongo]

Another thing to consider on the heat issue is that we don't actually know the thermal envelope of the iMacs.

[GenNovE]

iN OTHER NEWS APPLE TO USE THE NEW MAC OS OPERATING SYSTEM ON NEW COMPUTERS.

:rolleyes:

[rylin]

By some reports, up to 70% of all sales are already laptops. To then add the xMac as a "slice-of-a-slice-of-a-slice" of the desktop simply can't result in numbers as high as 25%. To split the share up equally four ways (mini/TV, iMac, xMac, MP) would result in a ~7% share.

What he said was that because of general interest, roadmaps and rumors, he pegs the likelihood of a release at 25% -- not that it would account for 25% of sales.

Read it again: If I could plot a graph of xMac likelihood, I reckon it would be peaking right about now, albeit at around 25%. Between intel's roadmap, the recession, and the conflicting rumours about the mac mini getting bigger/smaller with less/more features and power, the promised land cannot be far away.

[SactoGuy18]

I think Apple is preparing the iMac to use the Core i7 CPU and the Mac Pro to use the Gainestown Xeon CPU, since both machines don't have to consider space issues. Expect them to be announced in late March 2009 for April 2009 delivery, where the new machines will include a major discount coupon for upgrade to MacOS 10.6 ("Snow Leopard").

[diamond.g]

Another thing to consider on the heat issue is that we don't actually know the thermal envelope of the iMacs.

Although it would probably be safe to say under 100W total. With the most of the budget going towards cooling the CPU (which is only really needed when under heavy load).

Would it be safe to say the PSU rating would also be the largest amount of draw the system could pull (and thus) the most heat the system could generate?

Another thing to remember is although the CPU says 65W it is possible that it doesn't put out that much heat at all. That rating is the max for that line of CPU's. The fastest CPU availible with the same TDP is more likely to get near it than the slower CPU.

[Tallest Skil]

Why, just 2 years ago most of this forum was adamant that there would never be a multitouch fullscreen video ipod, because it would cannibablise iPhone sales, even tho the iPhone hadn't even come out yet and the iPod had an 85% marketshare to protect.

Were there really people who said that? Morons. :p

I couldn't care less about the cannibalism idea, personally, so I don't know where you're coming from singling me out.

This is why there won't be an xMac anytime soon:

Remember the Macintosh 128k? Heard of the iMac line? Do you know why they were all-in-one computers?

This is from the mouth of a (really) old Apple engineer, "Because Steve Jobs didn't want the end-user messing around with his (Jobs') hardware."

A computer with user-expandability goes against Jobs' business model.

...where the new machines will include a major discount coupon for upgrade to MacOS 10.6 ("Snow Leopard").

That's REALLY funny. I mean, SERIOUSLY funny.

[Malakas07]

Holding out for a Core i7 iMac, so going to be a while yet!!!

Yeah really. I know it's early but I would've thought that aapl would move on to the X58 chipset by now on their 24" iMac's. At least a i7 920.

I'm going to hold out.

[Umbongo]

Would it be safe to say the PSU rating would also be the largest amount of draw the system could pull (and thus) the most heat the system could generate?

I believe the power draw usually peaks at about 80-90% of the TDP, but yes no more than 100%.

[michaelsviews]

I think Apple is preparing the iMac to use the Core i7 CPU and the Mac Pro to use the Gainestown Xeon CPU, since both machines don't have to consider space issues. Expect them to be announced in late March 2009 for April 2009 delivery, where the new machines will include a major discount coupon for upgrade to MacOS 10.6 ("Snow Leopard").

Hmmm, lets see, according to the email from Stevey , ummm NO, no discounts :apple:

[Umbongo]

Yeah really. I know it's early but I would've thought that aapl would move on to the X58 chipset by now on their 24" iMac's. At least a i7 920.

I'm going to hold out.

Those processors just run too hot for an all-in-one. Probably won't see a Nehalem iMac (and it won't be i7, maybe i5 or i6) until 2010.

[Sun Baked]

Even if they only go quad desktop of the top of the line iMac, the switch to desktop CPUs and RAM should make things a bunch easier come upgrade time.

Likely still see underclocked GPUs on the iMac especially if they switch to desktop units, but likely may stay mobile.

Would be nice to see 4 DIMM slots show at the same time along with a MacBookish HD/RAM bay. Long shot on those.

[BenRoethig]

This processor will not be in the iMac without making it dramatically thicker for cooling, which Apple won't do.

Nor will it be in the Mac Pro since they use Xeons.

End of.

Just might be the end of...Mac desktops if they continue with mobile platforms when small form factor platforms are available. By this summer the vast majority of desktop machines will be quad core including all of the competing all in ones. If Apple keeps these out for purely aesthetics reasons, they better hope that Mac OS X is as big a selling point to the general public and consumers are ill-informed as they think they are or Apple is going to being facing a very tough time selling iMacs. The traditional PowerMac users who is already not exactly pleased with being shoe horned into buying an all in one is going to be completely alienated if the iMacs fall as far behind desktop CPUs as the mobile products show.

[JGowan]

Weren'we supposed ot have a 3.0 Mhz machine by like june of 2004?We have that now -- BTO options of Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon's (Add $800) or Two 3.25GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon's (Add $1,600) -- pricey, but we've got 'em and Steve has made on on his word…

… in fact …

Even the iMacs now have an BTO with 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processors, which I bought for the wife back in March of '08. It's quite zippy.

[Chuck Fadanoid]

A midi tower does make some sense to me, speaking subjectively.

Q: Why do people buy Apple? A: It's Mac OS X, not the hardware anymore.

As a G5 owner, when the leaky coolant of Damocles falls and burns my PSU (I'm resigned to fact that it's inevitable), I'd really love to buy another Mac (because I've only ever owned Macs) but there's a gap in the hardware lineup where I fit. The Mac Pro is much more "pro" than the G5 which basically has consumer parts in it, and too expensive. And the iMac ... what to do with all my expansions, not least the eSATA stuff? I'm sure I'm not alone, and I think a fair few people in the PC world would like to switch but also don't fit in.

After the G5 coolant issues, I'm not such a blind Mac fan any more that I'd buy Apple hardware that doesn't fit me.

[mdntcallr]

I've never understood Apple's desktop strategy. Offering a consumer level tower wouldn't require them to have to sit on too much excess inventory (usually a reason a company reduces their offerings.)

I think its plausible to see a new product that marries the Apple TV and Mac Mini, but seeing Apple's long time strategy on desktops, I think we'll all be disappointed with the outcome. I doubt it would be anything along the lines of the old G4 tower.

no way i see apple tv and mac mini lines merging, no way to keep the price point for apple tv low if that happens.

[Peace]

well, the Mac Pros traditionally use server class processors, not desktop-class. It's possible I suppose, but I'm not sure if these processors are much better than what's currently shipping in the Mac Pros.

arn

Didn't read through the whole thread but t's possible the iMac will have the single Quad-core while the Mac Pro will use the 8-core and 16-core configuration.

Video cards will be bumped a lot also.

[AidenShaw]

Sure, but the current Mac Pro is now a year 'stale' and Dell still hasn't really beaten it on price/performance.



Dell Studio XPS Apple Mac Pro
------------------------- -------------------------
Price $949 $2299
CPU Core i7-920 (2.66 GHz quad) 2.8 GHz Quad Xeon
RAM 3 GiB 1066 MHz DDR3 2 GiB 800 MHz FB-DIMM
(8 GiB add $250) (8 GiB add $1500)
Disk 500 GB 7200 RPM SATA 320 GB 7200 RPM SATA
Optical 16X Superdrive 16X Superdrive
Blu-ray $120 option not available
Graphics ATI Radeon HD 3450 256MB Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB

(For $2289 in the Dell, you get Core i7-940 (2.93GHz),
12 GiB, Blu-ray, 750 GB, ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB)


The Dell would blast the Mac Pro away, not even close.

[LagunaSol]

Windows 7 is looking pretty sweet anyways.

In what way? Simply because it doesn't suck as much as Vista? Because they incorporated an OS X-style dock? Because the media say so?

I've been playing with the beta in Fusion and I'm not seeing anything I would define as "pretty sweet." It still lags far behind OS X IMO.

[Umbongo]

Dell Studio XPS Apple Mac Pro
------------------------- -------------------------
Price $949 $2299
CPU Core i7-920 (2.66 GHz quad) 2.8 GHz Quad Xeon
RAM 3 GiB 1066 MHz DDR3 2 GiB 800 MHz FB-DIMM
(8 GiB add $250) (8 GiB add $1500)
Disk 500 GB 7200 RPM SATA 320 GB 7200 RPM SATA
Optical 16X Superdrive 16X Superdrive
Blu-ray $120 option not available
Graphics ATI Radeon HD 3450 256MB Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB

(For $2289 in the Dell, you get Core i7-940 (2.93GHz),
12 GiB, Blu-ray, 750 GB, ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB)


The Dell would blast the Mac Pro away, not even close.

Dell T7400 Apple Mac Pro
------------------------- -------------------------
Price $6023 $5198
CPU Dual 3.2GHz Xeon Dual 3.2GHz Xeon
RAM 4 GiB 800 MHz FB-DIMM 4 GiB 800 MHz FB-DIMM
Disk 500 GB 7200 RPM SATA 500 GB 7200 RPM SATA
Optical 16X Superdrive 16X Superdrive
Blu-ray $470 option not available
Graphics Nvidia NVS 290 256MB Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB
Warranty 3 Years next day 3 Years Applecare

I'd have a blast with $800!

Your go again.

[Tallest Skil]

Dell T7400 Apple Mac Pro
------------------------- -------------------------
Price $6023 $5198
CPU Dual 3.2GHz Xeon Dual 3.2GHz Xeon
RAM 4 GiB 800 MHz FB-DIMM 4 GiB 800 MHz FB-DIMM
Disk 500 GB 7200 RPM SATA 500 GB 7200 RPM SATA
Optical 16X Superdrive 16X Superdrive
Blu-ray $470 option not available
Graphics Nvidia NVS 290 256MB Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB
Warranty 3 Years next day 3 Years Applecare

I'd have a blast with $800!

Your go again.

Epic, man. :cool: Also, don't the Core i7 chips still suck eggs compared to the current line of Xeons?

[lanceh5]

I have my money ready for a quad core iMac with OS 10.6. I need to replace the old G5 iMac 1.8Ghz.

The temperatures in the Macs running now are:

17" G5 iMac 1.8Ghz, CPU 153ºF, CPU Fan 2000 rpm.

13" MacBook 2.1 Ghz, CPUA 158ºF, Exhaust Fan 6192 rpm.

20" iMac 2.4 Ghz, CPUA 151ºF, GPU Diode 169ºF, GPU Heat Sink 158ºF
Exhaust Fan 1372 rpm

[PeterQC]

Dell Studio XPS Apple Mac Pro
------------------------- -------------------------
Price $949 $2299
CPU Core i7-920 (2.66 GHz quad) 2.8 GHz Quad Xeon
RAM 3 GiB 1066 MHz DDR3 2 GiB 800 MHz FB-DIMM
(8 GiB add $250) (8 GiB add $1500)
Disk 500 GB 7200 RPM SATA 320 GB 7200 RPM SATA
Optical 16X Superdrive 16X Superdrive
Blu-ray $120 option not available
Graphics ATI Radeon HD 3450 256MB Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB

(For $2289 in the Dell, you get Core i7-940 (2.93GHz),
12 GiB, Blu-ray, 750 GB, ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB)


The Dell would blast the Mac Pro away, not even close.

You're comparing a Nehalem desktop class processors, which are now out, to the one year old Mac Pro with server class processors that already has the strongest procs available of it's class.

If you want a fair comparison, find a desktop with server processors. The Mac Pro is still one of the best offering for the price for this kind of hardware.

[Marx55]

It would have to have at least 1 PCI slot. Otherwise what GPU would it use?

nVidia Ion Platform!

[Umbongo]

Epic, man. :cool: Also, don't the Core i7 chips still suck eggs compared to the current line of Xeons?

No, Aiden is right in that the XPS will outperform the Mac Pro he listed, but it isn't comparable if you can use 8 cores or needs lots of memory. 3.2GHz Penryn is about equal to 2.66GHz Nehalem.

[AidenShaw]

No, Aiden is right in that the XPS will outperform the Mac Pro he listed, but it isn't comparable if you can use 8 cores or needs lots of memory. 3.2GHz Penryn is about equal to 2.66GHz Nehalem.

At least somebody understands.

The Mac Pro is a decent value for a maxed out 8 CPU workstation.

It's a horrible value if you need something more than a Mini or Imac, but less than a maxed out 8 CPU workstation.

Tallest Skil, you are losing credibility if you continue to call the current Core i7 "crap". They're significantly faster clock-for-clock than Core 2, with much higher memory bandwidth.

...and cheap.


You're comparing a Nehalem desktop class processors, which are now out, to the one year old Mac Pro with server class processors that already has the strongest procs available of it's class, which are a lot more expensive and powerful then the one on the XPS.

If you want a fair comparison, find a desktop with server processors.


> which are a lot more expensive

Yes.

> and [a lot more] powerful then the one on the XPS

No.

Check the Core i7 performance - core for core it blows the Xeon away.

CFP2006: i7-920: 27.7 i7-965: 31.7
Xeon 2.83 GHz: 19.3 Xeon 3GHz: 23.4

CINT2006: i7-920: 25.7 i7-965: 30.2
Xeon 2.83 GHz: 22.0 Xeon 3GHz: 24.2

And what's with the myth about "server processors"? They're virtually the same chip, with extra pins so that they'll work in dual socket configurations. And, let's not compare FB-DIMM latency and bandwidth to DDR3.

[Tallest Skil]

Tallest Skil, you are losing credibility if you continue to call the current Core i7 "crap". They're significantly faster clock-for-clock than Core 2, with much higher memory bandwidth.

You can't say that desktop and Xeon chips have the same power, though. That's why I asked whether or no they're faster; I didn't state it.

[gianpan]

I want to believe that the new iMac's will be at least core 2 quad - mobile version or not. I don't think there is any point in upgrading the line if they are to put dual core again.

i7 would rock but I am sure it won't happen, I mean come on it's Apple we know they are slow to adopt new tech let alone now that there is not even a mobile version of i7 that could maybe fit in the iMac (if they are to continue with the mobile parts).

For me it's more important that we can upgrade graphics cards than having an i7 in there though, but as someone else stated it's Steve he doesn't want us to mess his hardware!:(

[ChrisA]

this might not be really on topic, but i just need to ask, because i am expecting to buy a new machine...

i would like to video edit with the iMac. is the last iMac good enough for Final Cut Pro?

maybe you guys could give a short answer to this. thanks.

Yes. FCP works well on the iMac (even my older 2.16Ghz White iMac) if you are doing "normal" work. It really depends on the video format and how many streams of video. Then you would need not really four core but a faster disk system than you could get for the iMac.

The eight core Mac Pro would make the final rendering go quicker but you only do that once and you cut for hours

[charlituna]

this might not be really on topic, but i just need to ask, because i am expecting to buy a new machine...

i would like to video edit with the iMac. is the last iMac good enough for Final Cut Pro?

maybe you guys could give a short answer to this. thanks.

yes. although I would keep it to shorter projects. don't try to FCP a feature length project.

and that's mainly because of hard drive etc. you'll have to attach externals and they would never be as snappy as a SATA or eSATA drive even if you are using firewire 800.

but for short stuff and learning the program, the top imac, especially with the ram max, would be fine. then when you know the program you can justify stepping up to a mac pro, used or hopefully by then the entry price will be lower

why the iMac? this is definetly a processor for the MacPro, isn't it?
is there another excuse not to launch a new MP?


I could see a high-end 24" iMac with quad-cores coming. I don't see all iMacs going quad-core right now. The price points don't make sense.

both lines need an upgrade. and I agree that the 20" imacs aren't as likely to go for this kind of power. give them what the current 24" has and quad up the 24" does have a logic to it.

iMac is a home machine though and I suspect home users do prefer glossy as it makes the colours pop more than a matte. I'm with you as I do a lot of photography and a glossy screen makes colour accuracy more difficult.

more like home users don't notice the diff and aren't bothered by moving a light to correct it.

still, I don't see them making the matte option avail to everyone.

I suspect that the 17 got it cause that was where the most mattes were bought the last go around. if it sells then they will possibly move it to the 15 inch and maybe to the LED displays as the Cinema's drop off. by then the calibration meters should be adjusted to deal with glossy or matte.

I pick these items because they are the ones designed for professionals and prosumers. the mac book and imac (at least the smaller) are likely to stay glossy and green all the way.


Today's Tuesday- who thinks the new iMac will ship today?

they wouldn't do it without a big announcement. and there was none and no change to the store. so that would be a no.

besides. the media is all out covering that Obama dude and his thang. so they are too busy to attend another tea party at Steve's right now. and will probably be covering the Big O all week. Apple would be risking coming off as classless by doing anything this week.

now next week is fair game.

besides they have ilife and the 17inch laptops to get out to the stores. get that hype out of the way and then hit folks with the next fun.

I say mid February at the earliest for another announcement.


I want to switch from a Windows XP system to a Mac + get Windows 7 in dual boot when that comes out, but have been holding off due to the rumors of the new iMacs being right around the corner.

there will always be rumors. if your current machine is working I would wait until Win 7 is out and maybe by then there will be something real on a new iMac.

Yup, all twelve of them :D

If that's the case, then the solution is a Mac Pro. If you can't afford a new one, then simply do the same thing that people who want a Porsche for 1/2 the MSRP: buy used.

here's the thang. most of the whining I hear about wanting a mini tower isn't so much cause of the size of the tower but the price to get started. for what you get out of the box it is rather pricey. but component prices are dropping so we might see the same tower but with a lower starting point come out. same upgrade possibilities though. which for many is still a win.

[quote]
But if the problem is canabalization, then not reducing the total number of 'close contenders' will solve the problem ... how?

too many choices leds to consumer confusion. Apple figured this out. the Windows world hasn't completely. this is one of the dangers of clones etc.

even in the professional world, the issue isn't choices so much as upgrades possible when you need them, without having to start over with all new equipment every time, at a cost that is high value (ie, the most bang for your buck). that's why a tower is what the professionals are looking at.


[QUOTE=GenNovE;6967329]iN OTHER NEWS APPLE TO USE THE NEW MAC OS OPERATING SYSTEM ON NEW COMPUTERS.

:rolleyes:

I know you are being silly on purpose, but you may have hit the nail.

The last go around, Apple released hardware that wasn't in sync with the OS of the time. It wasn't until Leopard came out a few weeks later that things were really grooving.

Apple is likely about to repeat this with Snow Leopard. It is a system that will move Apple into 64 bit computing. Perhaps not across the board but certainly on the higher machines like the Pro, the MacBook Pro and perhaps the higher level iMacs. For now, the system might have built in both 32 and 64 modes, much like the early Mac OS X had classic for carry folks over as their apps upgraded.

If Apple has examined and tested the processors just now hitting the market looking for the bits to put in these new machines, the delay makes total sense. And I think that is the case.

Snow Leopard, by best estimates, is due in mid to late summer and I think it will be THE item at WWDC. New machines will be released or announced by then as well. And Apple's stock will go through the roof again, just like when the first iphone came out.

no way i see apple tv and mac mini lines merging, no way to keep the price point for apple tv low if that happens.

well you have to look at what folks are talking about. they are considering a machine much like the one that HP just put out.

basically a headless home server that could be used for media or files. So think of a multipurpose box that could be set up as a time capsule (personally I think that should be in the equation as well), a shared drive for files or even a shared media drive. you could have the whole families itunes library on one box that anyone can listen to or watch on any computer. the Apple TV as we know it would be just a streaming converter. the translator for the wifi received data into a tv/receiver signal.

so you have this mini computer/drive with an airport extreme perhaps and then a small receiver about the size of a cable box (and perhaps half the price of the current Apple tv)

given that this is what a lot of folks are basically doing with the mini already, I could see it being a viable option. and they don't really have to change much.

[azentropy]

At least somebody understands.

The Mac Pro is a decent value for a maxed out 8 CPU workstation.

It's a horrible value if you need something more than a Mini or Imac, but less than a maxed out 8 CPU workstation.


Right... The real issue that matters to many is something like this:

User already has a wonderful 24" LCD (non-glossy). Has about $1250 budgeted to spend on a new system (could afford to spend more but could afford to spend $60K on a car and chose not to).

Adding the previous generation Quad core to an iMac doesn't help with that issue.

[PeterQC]

> and [a lot more] powerful then the one on the XPS

No. Check the Core i7 performance - core for core it blows the Xeon away.



Nah nevermind, edited my message. I need to tighten the lease of my inner fanboy

[charlituna]

but as someone else stated it's Steve he doesn't want us to mess his hardware!:(

keep in mind that the iMac was designed for consumers more than for professionals. Consumers don't generally know how to safely mess with the internals of a computer. They are the ones that try cool things and break things. Thus why the iMac is a closed box.

the Mac Pro is for those that want to play. many more options available there.

[VoR]

You can't say that desktop and Xeon chips have the same power, though. That's why I asked whether or no they're faster; I didn't state it.

Why can't you say that? You're basically paying for multiple cpu potential.
What is 'faster' anyway? 95% of apps won't be any quicker with 8 cores over 2. Go back to telling people about fsb speeds, cache, googling "mhz myth" etc, it's more entertaining than your 'new mac pro' authority speeches!

[kingtj]

I started tossing around the idea of switching our office from PC to Mac, myself. (With what we were paying our outside consulting firm and system supplier for new PCs, we could have been buying lower-end iMacs or refurbished higher-end versions.)

Some of the new LCD monitors I've purchased in recent months have come with glossy screens, though - and nobody I've given them to has seemed to mind. I think that would become an issue for a few people who sit by windows. (They've requested anti-glare filters for their old CRT monitors before.)

The Mac Mini, as under-spec'd as it is, would probably still be just fine for daily office use, EXCEPT for the fact that people here would want to run a few native Windows apps on it. (I think it would feel too sluggish using Parallels or VMWare.)

Like you said though, the Mac Pro is total overkill for 90% of the people in the office. (It might make sense for the people we've got here who do estimating and bidding on building projects, since they tend to work with large blueprint drawings.)

I guess I used to always think of the people begging for Apple to make a headless iMac tower as home users, whining because they were too cheap to replace their existing monitors. (Well that, or they're fixated on wanting multiple internal hard drives. Nevermind the iMac + good-looking external drive enclosure still looks FAR neater/cleaner than a regular tower and all the cable mess it involves for the monitor, speakers, etc. etc.)

But this really IS a valid request for corporate use, and Apple might do well to consider it.


Apple used these processor for a "Mac midi". Where I work, we've started to exchange Windows PCs for macs, but most users don't want the glossy screens, besides, we have lots of good, large screens that we could reuse if Apple only had a sensible screen-less model. The current mac mini is an underspecified joke of a computer, and the Mac Pro is total overkill for the intended office use.

[-hh]

You're comparing a Nehalem desktop class processors, which are now out, to the one year old Mac Pro with server class processors that already has the strongest procs available of it's class.

If you want a fair comparison, find a desktop with server processors. The Mac Pro is still one of the best offering for the price for this kind of hardware.

My apologies for "starting" this tangent. What we need to remember is that it is inevitable is that there will be changes in technologies, and that "The Lead" is always transient: it will shift back and forth based on factors (which often can be non-technical) such as who gets their product to market first.

In this case, my point wasn't really to compare new, different CPUs that's just fallen from the Intel tree to existing CPUs, but to merely to compare same CPUs from Intel that are being delivered to the market by different systems manufacturers (Apple, Dell).

As such, my statement stands that if you want a PC with two quad core Xeon CPUs, the one from Apple costs less than from Dell, despite the Mac Pro now effectively being "due" for an update/refresh (since this invariably improves its overall value).


-hh

[Tallest Skil]

Why can't you say that? You're basically paying for multiple cpu potential.

Which we'll actually be able to take advantage of with Snow Leopard.

What is 'faster' anyway? 95% of apps won't be any quicker with 8 cores over 2.

Snow Leopard.

Go back to telling people about fsb speeds, cache, googling "mhz myth" etc, it's more entertaining than your 'new mac pro' authority speeches!

If you don't see the value of a Mac Pro, don't get one.

[Eidorian]

It is pretty well known that Intel's Core chips have been able to run near 4 Ghz on air for a while. With liquid cooling over 4 Ghz and with phase change cooling at or around 5 Ghz.

Intel doesn't have any competition forcing them to up the clock rate. Now it is all about how many cores one can stuff on a die. Intel so far can do 6.Exactly, why go through the effort and quality control to bin out higher clocked chips?

[AidenShaw]

Nah nevermind, edited my message. I need to tighten the lease of my inner fanboy

By the way, your edit says "the one year old Mac Pro with server class processors that already has the strongest procs available of it's class".

You must not realize that Intel is selling 3.4 GHz Penryn Xeons these days, and Apple is only using 3.2 GHz.

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon5000/specifications.htm?iid=products_xeon5000+tab_specs

[diamond.g]

Which we'll actually be able to take advantage of with Snow Leopard.

What is 'faster' anyway? 95% of apps won't be any quicker with 8 cores over 2.

Snow Leopard.



If you don't see the value of a Mac Pro, don't get one.

But what happens when you need more than 8 cores?

[Tallest Skil]

You messed the quotes up, so I don't know who you're quoting here...

[iMacmatician]

On Monday, Intel dropped prices (http://www.pcworld.com/article/157948/intel_cuts_quadcore_chip_prices_by_40_percent.html) on existing desktop Quad-Core processors and introduced three new power-efficient Quad-Core desktop processors:According to a report (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/19/apple-waiting-on-quad-core-desktop-cpus-for-january/) from November, Apple was said to be specifically waiting for these Quad-Core processors to launch new machines. Oh, they were released now? I thought they were released last month (must have confused them with some other CPUs). That might be why we haven't seen an iMac yet.

Despite their "power efficient" designation, the new processors still use significantly more power then their mobile counterparts currently found in the iMac. 65 W vs. 55 W, an increase, but not a very big one. I think quad-cores will be confined to the 24" iMac, and it may have an upgraded cooling system.

And I don't think, given the CPUs in the Mac Pro, that Apple will use lower-clocked quad-cores and higher-clocked dual-cores in the same lineup. So that would mean that the four iMacs would likely be 2.53 dual / 2.67 dual / 2.67 quad / 2.83 quad.

Why is this necessary anyway? Intel already makes Quad core mobile processors, so isn't it much more likely that some version of that processor will be the one eventually finding itself into the mainstream Apple lineup?Possible, but quad-core mobile CPUs cost way more than these ones. The 65 W quad-cores aren't far from equivalent-GHz mobile dual-cores in price.

I think Apple is preparing the iMac to use the Core i7 CPUCore i7 CPUs have 130 W TDP.

they wouldn't do it without a big announcement. and there was none and no change to the store. so that would be a no. There have been many silent updates in the past.

[eiprol]

Hi everyone;

I'm thinking about buying an iMac 20" 2.66GHZ right now... Should I?

I'm hearing that a new imac is coming out soon.. But how soon? Do you think It will be shown at the end of January? Or we should wait until March? In that case, I think I would buy the imac right now, because I can't wait anymore :p!

[diamond.g]

By the way, your edit says "the one year old Mac Pro with server class processors that already has the strongest procs available of it's class".

You must not realize that Intel is selling 3.4 GHz Penryn Xeons these days, and Apple is only using 3.2 GHz.

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon5000/specifications.htm?iid=products_xeon5000+tab_specs
Oh, don't forget the 6 core CPU's (http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon7000/specifications.htm) they are selling as well.
You messed the quotes up, so I don't know who you're quoting here...Yeah, noticed that after the posting. Fixed

[Tallest Skil]

Yeah, noticed that after the posting. Fixed

Aha. I messed up the quote there...:p

So you go buy a Beckton box running Linux.

[VoR]

In this case, my point wasn't really to compare new, different CPUs that's just fallen from the Intel tree to existing CPUs, but to merely to compare same CPUs from Intel that are being delivered to the market by different systems manufacturers (Apple, Dell).

As such, my statement stands that if you want a PC with two quad core Xexon CPUs, the one from Apple costs less than from Dell, despite the Mac Pro now effectively being "due" for an update/refresh (since this invariably improves its overall value).


-hh

Maybe it's different in other countries, but I can buy a dual socket xeon workstation off dell starting at just over £700 (after clicking the first workstation link on there site) or the cheapest mac pro for just over £1700 - I'm not sure what apple offer, but dell have loads of different systems, special offers, honoured misprices, redeemable cashbacks and you don't 'have' to buy a substandard extended warranty. It's easy to pick a random system, add a few customizable options and escalate the price to something that makes the mp look like great value for money, and seeing some peoples comparisons is very frustrating - do you have any idea how to shop?




Which we'll actually be able to take advantage of with Snow Leopard.


If you don't see the value of a Mac Pro, don't get one.


Last time I checked, snow leopard wasn't out and the software optimized for the (niche?) osx libraries hasn't been written. Last time I checked, the open libraries and cuda and chums were little use for anything other than number crunching and brute forcing passwords. We've had multiple core systems with powerful gpus and lots of libraries to use for many years and little to show for it. If some slightly more unified libraries do make a difference on all the os', maybe we'll get a few luxuries, but I doubt they'll be huge changes instantly like a fair few people seem to think.

I bought my mac pro just to mess about on by the way (since sold it now - osx86 is perfectly mature), how many workstations do/have you owned and what's their value to you?

[iMacmatician]

Oh, don't forget the 6 core CPU's (http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon7000/specifications.htm) they are selling as well.Different CPU class.

[gianpan]

keep in mind that the iMac was designed for consumers more than for professionals. Consumers don't generally know how to safely mess with the internals of a computer. They are the ones that try cool things and break things. Thus why the iMac is a closed box.

the Mac Pro is for those that want to play. many more options available there.
I understand that, but where does the gamer category fall? I guess for apple it goes as far as iphone/ipod touch.

I am not a hardcore gamer, but I do enjoy a few games sometimes (like crysis or NBA 2K9) especially when I play with friends. If I get an iMac I am stuck with a graphics card that cannot run anything new (I am talking about the 2600 here). Of course even when they update the iMac I don't believe there will be something more than the 9600 in there maybe an IGP from Nvidia which could SLI (but not many chances for that SLI) and give a small boost. Then again in 2-3 years the 9600 will be outdated (right now it's just a normal graphics card that will be all games but not anything special) and probably it won't run crysis 3 :P.

On the other hand the Mac pro is not for gaming or normal usage (internet,word,spreadsheets, programming, music - that's all I need)

[LagunaSol]

The Dell would blast the Mac Pro away, not even close.

Wow, Aiden, way to compare Apples to oranges. I'll bet your Chrysler minivan has more cupholders than a Mercedes S class - and way cheaper too. :D

That said, I doubt anyone here will deny that Apple has a huge gaping hole in its product lineup - the consumer/mid-range tower. I for one miss the days of the sub-$1500 Power Mac.

Pull your heads out, Apple - there's a huge market segment here you're completely ignoring. To your peril.

Maybe with Jobs on leave for a while, Cook can take advantage and slip in some products and features that consumers are begging for but Jobs has been too stubborn to offer?

If not, I may be building my own Hackintosh.

[LagunaSol]

I'm thinking about buying an iMac 20" 2.66GHZ right now... Should I?

With the amount of time that has passed since the last iMac refresh, I think buying one now would be a crazy move. A refresh has to be right around the corner. Whether that means February or March who knows, but either way, you'd be kicking yourself if you bought now.

I'm buying a new 24" iMac the minute Apple announces a refresh.

[EmperorDarius]

So, would a weaker Quad Core processor be better than a more powerful Dual Core processor? For ex, Quad 2.5 GHz vs Dual 3.0 GHz?
And how much more would the iMacs cost, roughly? I mean a quad X.Y would cost how much more than a Dual X.Y?

[Tallest Skil]

So, would a weaker Quad Core processor be better than a more powerful Dual Core processor? For ex, Quad 2.5 vs Dual 3.0?
And how much more would the iMacs cost, roughly? I mean a quad X.Y would cost how much more than a Dual X.Y?

Apparently someone wants me to say this: "Megahertz Myth, man; Megahertz Myth!"

It depends on the relative costs of the current processors with the hypothetical ones.

[diamond.g]

Different CPU class. I know. Gotta think positive :D

Aha. I messed up the quote there...:p

So you go buy a Beckton box running Linux.Honestly I am hoping to turn my network over to Mac's. The biggest thing I need is a box that can take the place of the R900's I am using.

Personally I want a 30" iMac with CableCard support so I can finally replace my bedroom TV. C2Q would be nice for conversion of the HD Mpeg2 stream to HD H.264 realtime. But I am sure that won't help as much as offloading the encoding to the GPU.

[iMacmatician]

I am not a hardcore gamer, but I do enjoy a few games sometimes (like crysis or NBA 2K9) especially when I play with friends. If I get an iMac I am stuck with a graphics card that cannot run anything new (I am talking about the 2600 here). Of course even when they update the iMac I don't believe there will be something more than the 9600 in there maybe an IGP from Nvidia which could SLI (but not many chances for that SLI) and give a small boost. Is there a reason you can't get the 8800?

With the update the 20" will likely have 9400M/9600M and the 24" will probably have 9600M/9800M or low-end/midrange desktop GPUs.

[mags631]

Pull your heads out, Apple - there's a huge market segment here you're completely ignoring. To your peril.

What I find amazing is that Apple is performing much better than the rest of the market, and these comments still appear. It's one thing to want Apple to meet your specific need -- it's another to claim to have better insight into the market than Apple. Don't you agree?

[Sun Baked]

Pull your heads out, Apple - there's a huge market segment here you're completely ignoring. To your peril.

Not really a narrow product lineup might lose you some sales, but acting like the auto companies chasing all those niche markets can bite you in the ass during lean times -- when all those product lines become expensive to update.

[unknown mr T]

after reading the forums for a couple of months I have finally registert. I am waiting since october for a imac update, because my parents want to buy a new computer. we decided to buy a mac, but the problem is that my parents want to buy a new computer before februari:mad:!?!!? So, will there be a update in the next 2 weeks??? everybody is waiting for a new imac, or mac mini. and I dont want to buy a imac and find out that it is already outdated after a few weeks. so please, what should I do? :(:confused:

[dwl017]

after reading the forums for a couple of months I have finally registert. I am waiting since october for a imac update, because my parents want to buy a new computer. we decided to buy a mac, but the problem is that my parents want to buy a new computer before februari:mad:!?!!? So, will there be a update in the next 2 weeks??? everybody is waiting for a new imac, or mac mini. and I dont want to buy a imac and find out that it is already outdated after a few weeks. so please, what should I do? :(:confused:

Don't be silly!there is absolutely no reason in the world why a current iMac should not fit your parents needs unless they plan to do heavy video rendering with FCP etc. this is a rumors web site no one here has any credible information on when anything new will come out. So buy what you want and enjoy it! who said everyone was waiting for new iMacs? do you realize how many millions of people have never heard of this web site? do you think they are waiting? NO! Unless your parents are graphic artist or web designers or using FCP what difference does it make?

There will always be something new coming out no matter when you buy it.

[gianpan]

Is there a reason you can't get the 8800?

With the update the 20" will likely have 9400M/9600M and the 24" will probably have 9600M/9800M or low-end/midrange desktop GPUs.

I think the 8800 is only available on high-end model and well the only reason I could think is money :p

Although the 8800 is ok for me, if the high-end iMac have something like 9800GT I may go for it.

[Full of Win]

The old iMac G5's were power hungry desktop CPUs. New aluminium iMacs have far better cooling, so it should be fine for desktop processors.


No. The old PowerMac had better cooling than the current iMac. The reason the PowerMacs ran hotter was the CPU, not the design of their cooling system. Conversly, the reason the current iMac run cooler is not because they have 'far better cooling', its because they have a much cooler CPU.

[Chopper9]

iMac Pro????

I'd like it!

[t0mat0]

This is a rumors web site no one here has any credible information on when anything new will come out. So buy what you want and enjoy it! who said everyone was waiting for new iMacs? do you realize how many millions of people have never heard of this web site? do you think they are waiting? NO!

There will always be something new coming out no matter when you buy it.

Slanderous! :eek: :p

There might be something new, but they don't usually update those *right* after they've just updated them. They usually update them a while after they last did...
Credible but not too precise advice. Heck, check the buyers guide.

[Tallest Skil]

This is a rumors web site no one here has any credible information on when anything new will come out.

I completely agree with your entire post except for this sentence.

[Eric S.]

It is pretty well known that Intel's Core chips have been able to run near 4 Ghz on air for a while. With liquid cooling over 4 Ghz and with phase change cooling at or around 5 Ghz.

Intel doesn't have any competition forcing them to up the clock rate. Now it is all about how many cores one can stuff on a die. Intel so far can do 6.

There are a lot fewer problems in cranking up the clock rate than there are in stuffing more cores on a chip, where you have significant interconnect and cache issues. My feeling is that they've just about maxed out the performance that is currently possible through clock speed, hence the turn to multicore CPUs.

[ChrisA]

....So, will there be a update in the next 2 weeks??? everybody is waiting for a new imac, or mac mini. and I don't want to buy a imac and find out that it is already outdated after a few weeks. so please, what should I do? :(:confused:

This has to be the #1 or #2 most frequent question. But always the answer is the same....

If you need a new computer now by a new computer now. If you don't need a computer now, don't buy one

If a new model is released your old model will continue to operate and will continue to perform the job you bought it to do.

What is it you are doing that requires a four core machine? If the task you are doing today required four cores buy a four core machine today

Back in the 1970's I bought a simple calculator for close to $200. I knew the price would come down but I figured it was worth it to spen the extra money rather then wait 6 months becasue I would get 6 months of usage. It's the same today with Macs. If you are buying a computer so you can edit photos in Aperture or record music with Logic Express then it is worth paying more to get started on those projects NOW rather then this summer. You have to figure in the cost of delays in planned projects.

[alphaod]

if they carried on ramping up the clock speed with te old Pentium 4, within 5 years time the processor would be as hot as the surface of the sun.

"Intel invents the fusion processor—renewable energy and self-sustaining CPU" :D

[evilcat]

I'm thinking about buying an iMac 20" 2.66GHZ right now... Should I?

Buy the machine that makes sense to you... if you need an iMac now (as in really need it), go buy it. If you're happy to wait a while, then give it a couple of months, but remember that Apple don't really follow any regular release schedule (Mac Mini is now 3x it's average update day... Mac Pro well past due).

Always buy the best Mac you can afford and stick as much RAM in there as you can. Don't plan on upgrading later. That way, you will have many happy years of using your Mac. Just get one fast enough for what you need, and accept that it will be your computer for three to five years, and ignore the new releases till your old Mac is no longer doing what you need well enough.

[AidenShaw]

Sure, but the current Mac Pro is now a year 'stale' and Dell still hasn't really beaten it on price/performance.



Dell Studio XPS Apple Mac Pro
------------------------- -------------------------
Price $949 $2799
CPU Core i7-920 (2.66 GHz quad) Dual 2.8 GHz Quad Xeons
RAM 3 GiB 1066 MHz DDR3 2 GiB 800 MHz FB-DIMM
(8 GiB add $250) (8 GiB add $1500)
Disk 500 GB 7200 RPM SATA 320 GB 7200 RPM SATA
Optical 16X Superdrive 16X Superdrive
Blu-ray $120 option not available
Graphics ATI Radeon HD 3450 256MB Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB

SPECrate 2006 Performance (Multi-core)

Integer 102 98.8
Floating 76.0 68.5

(For $2289 in the Dell, you get Core i7-940 (2.93GHz),
12 GiB, Blu-ray, 750 GB, ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB)


I checked the SPECrate numbers (which measure multi-core performance) and the quad 2.66 GHz Dell Core i7 outperforms the octo-core Mac Pro 2.8 GHz on multi-core jobs !! :eek:

At one third the price.

Guess that really shoots a hole in the price/performance equation.

[iMacmatician]

No. The old PowerMac had better cooling than the current iMac. The reason the PowerMacs ran hotter was the CPU, not the design of their cooling system. Conversly, the reason the current iMac run cooler is not because they have 'far better cooling', its because they have a much cooler CPU.He was comparing the iMac G5, not the Power Mac, with the current iMac.

I think size also plays a part, as in the G5 days the largest iMac display size was 20".

[QuarterSwede]

This is a rumors web site no one here has any credible information on when anything new will come out.
It'd be pretty stupid to buy an iMac now when there is evidence of new models (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/19/evidence-that-next-imacs-and-mac-minis-to-use-nvidia-chipsets/) coming. That evidence is certainly credible. It's in OS X!

[AidenShaw]

It'd be pretty stupid to buy an iMac now when there is evidence of new models (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/19/evidence-that-next-imacs-and-mac-minis-to-use-nvidia-chipsets/) coming. That evidence is certainly credible. It's in OS X!

Also, that same evidence points to the possibility of better performance with future applications that will be written to use OpenCL.

Not a good time to buy the Imac or Mini if you can wait.

[QuarterSwede]

I checked the SPECrate numbers (which measure multi-core performance) and the quad 2.66 GHz Dell Core i7 outperforms the octo-core Mac Pro 2.8 GHz on multi-core jobs !! :eek:

At one third the price.

Guess that really shoots a hole in the price/performance equation.
The Core i7 proc is brand spanking new. What'd you expect? Also, it's not a server grade CPU like the Xeon is. Apple will eventually upgrade the Mac Pro and it will once again be very competitive.

[AidenShaw]

The Core i7 proc is brand spanking new. What'd you expect? Also, it's not a server grade CPU like the Xeon is. Apple will eventually upgrade the Mac Pro and it will once again be very competitive.

Apple will drop the price to $949 ?? ;)

I didn't expect a 2.66 GHz quad to beat a 2.8 GHz octo - I thought that it might be about "6 cores" worth.

The "hole" in Apple's lineup is incredible when other companies selling desktops can beat Apple's desktop for 1/3 the price.

[QuarterSwede]

Apple will drop the price to $949 ?? ;)

I didn't expect a 2.66 GHz quad to beat a 2.8 GHz octo - I thought that it might be about "6 cores" worth.

The "hole" in Apple's lineup is incredible when other companies selling desktops can beat Apple's desktop for 1/3 the price.
I didn't mean to imply that it would be competitive with a non server grade proc. But if you actually compare apples to apples it's not so bad.

The Core i7, while only a quad, has a faster FSB which makes a huge difference.

[hiimamac]

I think this new quad-core processor will only be in the next update of the Mac Pro. Apple needs to stick with the Core 2 Duo for the iMac.

Anyon

Wondering if I have misread past CPU articles but isn't Intel supposed to be realeasing a 8 or 16 core CPU? I would think this would make it to the Mac Pro.

Can someone elaborate?

Personally, I would ramp up all the machines keeping the same price points and making killer machines as follows:
16 Core Mac Pro or 32 Core, (4 8 cores)
One 4 core (someday soon 8 cores) on Macbook Pro
2 Core CPU lower power consumption MB, firewire, 3 USB ports.
4 cores on these if the MBP have 8.
4 core iMac, same config as MB or MBP, depending on your needs
2 core 3.0 newer chips, 512 GPU, DVI dual, all PCs =HDMI cables, and make this a mini.
2-4 Core Tablet that doubles as laptop, ultra thing, DVD Blu Ray, Firewire.

[-hh]

Yup, all twelve of them :D

If that's the case, then the solution is a Mac Pro. If you can't afford a new one, then simply do the same thing that people who want a Porsche for 1/2 the MSRP: buy used.

here's the thang. most of the whining I hear about wanting a mini tower isn't so much cause of the size of the tower but the price to get started...

Agreed, which is why I mentioned the 'buy used' alternative.

For example, quickly looking on eBay, I see a couple of dual-quad 2.66GHz sold in the $1700-$1900 range; ballpark it as roughly $900 discount from new, although the new ones are now dual-quad 2.8GHz, which shouldn't matter if the xMac demand is for expandability more so than raw horsepower.

Of course, if the $2K price point is too high, there's the prior (pre-quad core) generations to look for, plus if one keeps going, even the G5 PowerMacs in the <$1K range which will run Leopard quite satisfactorally. If the expansion need is for hard drives, a Sonnet Jive and SATA card ($100 if you shop around) can chug along with five 3.5" SATA drives installed internally in a G5 PowerMac.


...for what you get out of the box it is rather pricey. but component prices are dropping so we might see the same tower but with a lower starting point come out. same upgrade possibilities though. which for many is still a win.

Understood, but how much of the cost savings comes from generally deferring the purchase until later, when yesterday's newest/fastest has been superceded by the newer/faster and the prices accordingly altered?

For example, a couple of years ago, I upgraded my internal HD - it cost me roughly $100 for a 250GB drive. Had I waited until today, that same upgrade would only have cost me $50.

Plus, another dimension on this is if the buyer is really keeping good track of his costs. Even though these may be "nickles and dimes", they still add up.

Its surprisingly easy to only remember the original purchase price and forget all of the subsequent upgrades. Personally, my "$100 here, $100 there" upgrades over time have probably increased the total true cost of my system by around 33%.



But if the problem is canabalization, then not reducing the total number of 'close contenders' will solve the problem ... how?

too many choices leds to consumer confusion. Apple figured this out. the Windows world hasn't completely. this is one of the dangers of clones etc.

Agreed. Trying to build a permutation for every possible niche is one of the major factors that just about killed Apple off in the 1990s.


even in the professional world, the issue isn't choices so much as upgrades possible when you need them, without having to start over with all new equipment every time, at a cost that is high value (ie, the most bang for your buck). that's why a tower is what the professionals are looking at.


YMMV. Where I work, we pretty much stopped bothering with internal component upgrades about the time that the Pentium first came along. It does still pay to do at times, but for the most part, we're managing at the "System" level now. A lot depends on what the application is...for example, at home, since I don't play 'reaction' games, the GPU video card in my highest-performing machine is the bottom tier one that it shipped with back in 2003.


-hh

[diamond.g]

The Core i7, while only a quad, has a faster FSB which makes a huge difference.Nope, the IPC is higher. The base clock and memory clock is lower on the i7 (133 vs 200). A common OC is to run the base clock (and memory clock) at 200Mhz.

[Theophany]

Oooohh. I like your thinking!;)

A man can dream, can he not? :D

[orhun]

Actually Precision T7400 is the Dell offering that is comparable with Mac Pro.

2 Quad Core Xeon Processor E5440 (2.83GHz,2X6M L2,1333)
Windows Vista Ultimate
256MB PCIe x16 nVidia NVS 290
2GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 667MHz, ECC (2 DIMMS)
16X DVD-ROM with Cyberlink Power DVD™
320GB SATA 3.0Gb/s,7200 RPM Hard Drive

which costs
Starting Price $4,078
Instant Savings $200
Subtotal $3,878

Now compare it with Mac Pro...

[Umbongo]

Anyon

Wondering if I have misread past CPU articles but isn't Intel supposed to be realeasing a 8 or 16 core CPU? I would think this would make it to the Mac Pro.

Can someone elaborate?



8 Core CPUs may come this year, though with Intel pushing things back they may not come until 2010. They will initially be for the MP platform which is 4 CPUs to a board. I woudln't expect to see 8 core DP processors until late 2010.

[SuperCompu2]

"...Apple's tradition of using mobile processors in their iMac line"

hmm. interesting...

Intel iMacs? definitely. iMac G3, ok. iMac G4, sure. iMac... wait

:eek:


PowerBook G5 next tuesday!!!

(somebody had to do it :D )

[AidenShaw]

I didn't mean to imply that it would be competitive with a non server grade proc. But if you actually compare apples to apples it's not so bad.

If your customers want apples, it's not so bad.

If your customers want smaller, cheaper systems, it's very bad. Very bad because your competitors are selling smaller, cheaper systems that are just as fast as the big expensive box that you are selling.

And again, "server grade processor" means "the same processor with a couple of extra pins and a triple price tag". It's not "better" in any way except for the ability to run in multiple socket configurations.


The Core i7, while only a quad, has a faster FSB which makes a huge difference.

The Nehalem also has a new design (better IPC, as was mentioned), a better memory interconnect with 3 memory channels, and hyperthreading.

When you look at the activity monitor - you see 8 CPUs on the Dell, just like you see 8 CPUs on the Mac Pro.


Actually Precision T7400 is the Dell offering that is comparable with Mac Pro.

But at least Dell sells a $950 computer that can beat their $4000 computer in some tasks.


Now compare it with Mac Pro...

They're both oversized, expensive systems that are overkill for most people. If you need 64 GiB of RAM, the Dell T7400 is great. (Note that Dell also has the T5400 in a smaller mid-tower case if a max of 32 GiB is OK. BTW, I'm typing on a T5400 with 16 GiB and 8 cores right now....)

Note that the topic of this story is *quad desktop processors*....


Wondering if I have misread past CPU articles but isn't Intel supposed to be realeasing a 8 or 16 core CPU? I would think this would make it to the Mac Pro.

A dual socket Gainestown will have 16 logical CPUs - perhaps those reports are what you've seen. That many cores on a single socket aren't on the near term roadmap.

[archer75]

Core 2 is outdated now. I want core i7.

[Eidorian]

As much as I do like OS X, if Apple doesn't have the hardware to back it up they don't have my purchase.

Apple software is another story.

[PeterQVenkman]

Agreed, which is why I mentioned the 'buy used' alternative.

For example, quickly looking on eBay, I see a couple of dual-quad 2.66GHz sold in the $1700-$1900 range; ballpark it as roughly $900 discount from new

I looked back when I was shopping, but I'm terrified of buying a used computer off of ebay. I've had refurbs from apple have nothing but problems.

The idea of buying a used machine, have it be a lemon, and have no recourse to take makes me reconsider. What has your luck been?

[Bregalad]

The rumors of the mini going to Ion aren't believable because nobody pays to go backwards. Around my office everyone believes that if Apple is going to use Ion it'll be in a highly upgraded 1080p capable AppleTV.

Apple would love to move the mini into a higher price category, but they would need to find additional markets to make it work. The solution to that problem is the home server market. People are rapidly amassing huge collections of digital photos, videos from digital cameras and camcorders, music, music videos, TV shows and movies, but Apple doesn't offer any product designed to serve that content.

The new entry level Mac and home server would be the same machine: two 3.5" hard drive bays, an entry level CPU and built-in nVidia 9400 graphics. Offer a high end build-to-order version with a quad core CPU, powerful graphics card and upgraded power supply and you've got a machine that meets the needs of the xMac crowd.

I don't believe Apple will make such a box so my next Mac, like my current one, will probably be a used pro tower. Either that or I'll follow the lead of several friends and build a hackintosh.

[mags631]

If your customers want apples, it's not so bad.

If your customers want smaller, cheaper systems, it's very bad. Very bad because your competitors are selling smaller, cheaper systems are just as fast as the big expensive box that you are selling.

Smaller, cheaper, less profitable machines -- what is Apple thinking?! They should totally try to be Dell.

[Ramashalanka]

I still think this is unlikely. It would be a lot of heat in that small chassis. Apple is far more likely to use the Q9000 - a 45W QC CPU.

Why did noone reply to the above post?

If the xmac/midi/iMac pro is not going to happen, and surely it isn't, then were still in the world of compromise (no i7).

The Q9000 is $348, similar to the $369 for the Q9550S. Sure the Q9550S is faster (2833 MHz vs 2000 MHz, bigger cache, faster FSB), but 45W TDP seems more like the compromise style of the all-in-one.

[AidenShaw]

Smaller, cheaper, less profitable machines -- what is Apple thinking?! They should totally try to be Dell.

Not a bad idea....

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


Seriously, nobody is suggesting that Apple should produce a dozen models to cover every range. They'd only need one or two, or three max to fill that hole.

A premium mini-tower and a small-form-factor using desktop parts, starting at $899 for a quad Core 2 with integrated graphics.

[hiptobesquare]

Smaller, cheaper, less profitable machines -- what is Apple thinking?! They should totally try to be Dell.

Smaller, cheaper, less profitable can be turned to be:

Versatile, value-priced, and selling in much higher volume.

Sorry, but not everyone needs a 2000+ dollar workstation for general use. They just don't.

I certainly don't.

Some see the need for All-in-one. Good for them. Not everyone does. Some want big screens, some want two screens, some want NO screens.

And not everyone wants the compromises with laptops, when the machine isn't going to go anywhere.

There is a huge hole, bigger than ever.

An xMac, Mac Midi, or whatever they want to call a headless small factor desktop machine is not going to impinge on those who want MacPro.

It probably won't impinge much on those who want a nice AIO form factor and small desktop footprint.

What it will do, is help people buy Apple products rather than buying Dell, HP, or other, even home-built machines. Even if the profits aren't as hugely high, isn't it better than turning good customers away, without an option?

And it is a bogus argument that it is too niche. What is Apple if it isn't a hugely successful company at putting niche technology into the mainstream.

Secondly, a modest/moderate desktop machine is most company's bread and butter, not their niche machines. Most hardware companies are not going broke by offering mainstream desktop hardware, and it would not amount to Apple spreading itself too thin. If Apple is spread too thin, it isn't by computer variation.

And, BTW, the car company analogy doesn't work, either. Their problem isn't variation, it is that the products don't match the demand, or the expectation of quality for the price. And their costs are out of control, and their decision making is entrenched in bureaucracy, so improvement is difficult to come by.

Apple is also not meeting a demand, although their quality is pretty good, with a few niggles in terms of details. Their decision making is starting to be a little cloudy, if their detail niggles are telling about the decisions going on.

[Bad Paper]

The potential of desktop chips in an iMac fits nicely with the rumoured possibility of the iMacs getting bigger (30"?) screens. The extra 6 diagonal inches equates to a hell of a lot more space inside. That's space for cooling and bigger components, n'est ce pas?What rumored possibility of 30" iMacs? There's no evidence that Apple has any 30" backlit-LED screens on the horizon.

[BenRoethig]

Weren'we supposed ot have a 3.0 ghz machine by like june of 2004?

Then they found out its much easier to make more efficient multi-core designs than it was it focus only on clocks speed. There's a hard limit to most designs in the 3.5-4ghz range.

You can't say that desktop and Xeon chips have the same power, though. That's why I asked whether or no they're faster; I didn't state it.

Uh, yes can. Especially, with the Nehalem designs, Bloomsfield and Gainestown are the exact same core. The only difference is the second QPI link for communicating with the second CPU. If the Core i7 Bloomsfield is going to suck, then so is the Xeon Gainstown.

At least somebody understands.

The Mac Pro is a decent value for a maxed out 8 CPU workstation.

It's a horrible value if you need something more than a Mini or Imac, but less than a maxed out 8 CPU workstation.

Sad but true. Apple seems to think everyone exists in one of the two extremes. If you're a consumer, you have very minimal needs. If you're a professional, you have extremely high needs. If you live in reality where the line no where near that neat and tights, you're out of luck. You either have to deal with hardware that is either does not meet your needs or is too expensive or you have to try to not be driven insane by windows on the machine you really want.

What rumored possibility of 30" iMacs? There's no evidence that Apple has any 30" backlit-LED screens on the horizon.

Not much of a market for such a machine unless it also acts as a TV. 30" displays are too large and expensive for consumers and all in one designs aren't the best fit for professionals.

[-hh]

Maybe it's different in other countries...

Invariably, it is different in different countries.

What doesn't help matters is that trying to use Dell's website to find comparable hardware is a nightmare.

As such, there's lots of opportunites to make a mistake, or to be dishonest and try to game the system to force it to the conclusion that you want.

This all merely makes it harder to get to the real question that is the underlying objective of these sorts of inquiries: for reasonably equal configurations where we've made the honest effort to zero out the obvious differences, and from a value paradigm also tried to avoid known price traps (eg, overpriced Apple RAM), what's the answer to the question of relative product value?

And there are always going to be limitations in 'equal' comparisons. For example, in post #143, orhun offers the dual-quad Xeon Dell Precision T7400. This isn't a perfect match, but one that's hopefully close enough: if you look at the specs, you'll see that its using the 667MHz RAM (thus, 1333MHz FSB) whereas the Mac Pro uses 800Mhz (1600MHz FSB), which is a ~20% difference in bandwidth, which probably shouldn't be ignored...but has to at least be noted as a mismatch.

... I can buy a dual socket xeon workstation off dell starting at just over £700 ...

I'm not suggesting that this is a poster child example, but I've found that there's a lot of extremely bad hardware combinations out there, which mismatch between the CPU and the Motherboard. The crux of the problem are vendors cutting costs. They make what can almost be called a "Bait & Switch" by dropping a new (often multi-core) CPU onto an older, cheaper, CPU plug-compatible Motherboard. They hope is that the buyer only pays attention to the CPU and their price, and overlooks that the old motherboard lacks the bandwidth/pipes to let the new CPU run without being bottlenecked. As such, you end up with a system that has great looking specs, but doesn't ever deliver the expected real world performance.

...seeing some peoples comparisons is very frustrating - do you have any idea how to shop?

Personally, I did the exercise of a full, honest, and objective cross-comparison back in April 2008. It came up again last month and I did a quick spot check and found that nothing significant had appeared to have changed. There is the new i7 CPU, but I reject any use of that hardware as a basis of comparison: this is strictly a Xeon vs Xeon comparison by explicit objective and intent.


Last time I checked, snow leopard wasn't out and the software optimized for the (niche?) osx libraries hasn't been written. ...We've had multiple core systems with powerful gpus and lots of libraries to use for many years and little to show for it.... I doubt they'll be huge changes instantly like a fair few people seem to think.


Agree that the progress towards leveraging multiple cores has appeared slow. For the most part, it has been in some specialty software that has been explictly designed for it that the benefits exist. This is essentially why we need to avoid claims like "one Chip i7 is equivalent to two...", since benchmarks are merely guidelines and not an assurance that a particular software solution is actually optimized or not. Besides, benchmarks have also been known to have been 'gamed' by some hardware manufacturers, so they can't be 100% trusted.


-hh

[-hh]

I checked the SPECrate numbers (which measure multi-core performance) and the quad 2.66 GHz Dell Core i7 outperforms the octo-core Mac Pro 2.8 GHz on multi-core jobs !! :eek:

At one third the price.

Guess that really shoots a hole in the price/performance equation.

Not at all, unless your job is to run SPECrate numbers all day :p

I'm not trying to downplay the i7 CPU as being "bad" or anything. I'm merely pointing out that it is different and we don't necessarily know what all of the implications of that difference really mean.

Similarly, I've been around long enough to have seen hardware vendors purposefully "game" their products to post better benchmark numbers. I'm not saying that it is happening here, but merely pointing out that it has happened before. In any event, benchmarks are merely generalized predictors of expected real-world performance, for when integer and floating point operations are actually distilled down into the actions that the computer's operator will see as better responsiveness (or whatever) that result in the operator being able to get more done...higher productivity.

Plus, this sort of shifting is merely an expected part of technology advancements. Give Intel a fwe more months and the core technologies of the i7 will be in their Xeon counterpart. Maybe prices will come down too, but who knows? That's expected noise and flux from living in a non-static R&D environment.


-hh

PS: another factor in price-performance is the Law of Diminishing Returns. It always costs a disproportionate amount more to get that last 5% of performance. Yes, this often can mean a literal doubling in price...and sometimes more. If you want the biggest bang for the buck, you're never going to buy at the top, but instead, you're going to look for the "knee in the curve". Suffice to say that the Mac Pro (...and all of the other dual-quad Xeon's being sold...) are above the knee. This does say something positive in regards to the xMac advocacy, but its problem remains that its a slice-of-a-slice-of-a-slice marketshare.

[-hh]

I looked back when I was shopping, but I'm terrified of buying a used computer off of ebay. I've had refurbs from apple have nothing but problems.

The idea of buying a used machine, have it be a lemon, and have no recourse to take makes me reconsider. What has your luck been?

In general, I prefer the fewer hassles that stem from initially having an OEM Warranty, so I tend to follow the "buy new and keep it forever" paradigm.

Insofar as specifics, I don't care for buying off of eBay either...as far as I'm concerned, its mostly become a "Seller's Market", not a Buyer's Market. This isn't specific to computers, but pretty much anything on eBay.

For Apple, I don't have any particular qualms about buying refurbs, although the price-value determination has to be there for it, since I generally expect to be keeping the machine for a long time, so saving $500 when it is going to be amortized across 5+ years isn't as big of a deal. My current desktop Mac is 5.5 years old and counting; the one that I had before that went 7+ years which was IMO "too long", but I was waiting for the G5 CPU.


-hh

[Bad Paper]

...how long until they're in new Apple machines? Does anyone know the historical delay? a week? a month?

[Mousse]

A premium mini-tower and a small-form-factor using desktop parts, starting at $899 for a quad Core 2 with integrated graphics.

Yes, bring back the Cube.:cool::cool::cool:

[FF_productions]

I think this new quad-core processor will only be in the next update of the Mac Pro. Apple needs to stick with the Core 2 Duo for the iMac.

Why do you want the iMac to remain dual-core? Don't you want Apple to compete?

You can buy Quad Pc's for the price of Mac Mini's these days.

Sometimes I think some Apple Fans are true robots.

I own a Mac Pro, these chips are not designated for Mac Pro (workstation), they are meant for desktops. If Apple can shoehorn a processor in a MacBook Air, they can shoehorn a Quad in an iMac. (Just makes you wonder, how did they get a G5 in there before?).

[AidenShaw]

And there are always going to be limitations in 'equal' comparisons. For example, in post #143, orhun offers the dual-quad Xeon Dell Precision T7400. This isn't a perfect match, but one that's hopefully close enough:

The problem with this "comparison" is that the Mac Pro is the wrong solution for "I want a quality quad core mini-tower".

So, who really cares what the price is for Dell's wrong solution and how it compares to Apple's wrong solution?

Therefore, it is valid to compare the performance and price of Dell's right solution to Apple's only offering - even if the machines are in different price and performance classes.


since benchmarks are merely guidelines and not an assurance that a particular software solution is actually optimized or not. Besides, benchmarks have also been known to have been 'gamed' by some hardware manufacturers, so they can't be 100% trusted.

Not at all, unless your job is to run SPECrate numbers all day

Interesting, since one of the SPEC FP tests is H264 video encoding.

I agree that benchmarks are merely estimates, and SPEC numbers are the averages of a quite a few different applications. If you only run one application - then that app is the only benchmark of interest. If you do lots of different things, then a benchmark suite like SPEC is a useful piece of information to consider.

You'll note that I used wiggle-phrases like "can beat" rather than "is faster".

On the H264 tests, the Xeon 2.8 8 core system got a score of 235, and the i7-940 (2.93) got 155. That's 2/3 performance for 1/3 of the price.

The single-stream H264 performance is 33.9 for the i7-940, and 31.0 for the Xeon 2.8. The 8-core Xeon got 95% of expected performance (235/(8*31)), the 4-core Core i7 got 1.15% of expectations (155/(4*33.9)).


You can buy Quad Pc's for the price of Mac Mini's these days.

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=153178&d=1232066136

The Mini is
- 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
- 1GB memory 1GB memory
- 120GB hard drive

for $799.

[preservative]

Why do you want the iMac to remain dual-core? Don't you want Apple to compete?

You can buy Quad Pc's for the price of Mac Mini's these days.

Sometimes I think some Apple Fans are true robots.



That is very true. You mean like Maximillian or C3PO?

[Ramashalanka]

That's 2/3 performance for 1/3 of the price.

That's funny, you could say the same about a lot of things. The final third is always going to be the most expensive.

[thoshino]

Are you sure you don't mean 4 Ghz? My girlfriend's ancient (c. 2004) laptop has a cpu of 3.06 Ghz (as does the top end imac). In fact, Prescott processors reached 3.8 Ghz before intel regressed to the Pentium III design to launch the core range.

No, as I said a few have peaked over. In fact, I purposefully omitted 3,06 Ghz C2D and the 3,8Ghz P4. My main reasons are:
1. The 3,06Ghz C2D is only barely past the 3Ghz mark. Even the 3,2 Ghz Xeon isn't way beyond 3 Ghz (only looking at clock frequency). Compare this to how each new Intel moniker up until the P4 increased clock-speed by more than a factor of two (P2 maxed out at 400Mhz and P3 at 1000Ghz if I'm not mistaken).
2. The 3,8Ghz P4 was a dead end. If I recall correctly the TDP (i.e. "lightbulb factor") was through the roof and (feel free to prove me wrong by presenting some kind of benchmark) the performance improvement over previous processors of the same line was far less than the clock frequency boost would indicate.

Of course processor performance has increased several-fold the last years without increasing clock frequency. My point (being one of pure novelty) was that we (users of Intel desktop processors) jumped back from 3,8 Ghz to 1,66 Ghz to go dual-core (and change tech). And now that we're at about 3Ghz again we most likely will jump back to about 2Ghz to go Quad Core. Also, it's not impossible (pure speculation though) that Xeon processors might go to 2,6 Ghz Octo Core before going to 4Ghz Quad Core.

Also, I'm not sure that saying that Intel regressed to Pentium III to launch Core is a correct analogy (if you have a good source I'd love to read it though) since the Core line is more closely related to mobile processors, such as Centrino(?) which I guess might be derived from the P3, but it's a bit far. (this is moving off the boundry of my knowledge)

[Eidorian]

E8600 was here. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115054&Tpk=E8600)

[thoshino]

...
This is from the mouth of a (really) old Apple engineer, "Because Steve Jobs didn't want the end-user messing around with his (Jobs') hardware." ...
A computer with user-expandability goes against Jobs' business model.


This reminds me of the yellow paper that was on top when I opened C&C Tiberium Sun many years ago (after paying several months worth of my then allowance for it). It began something like this:
"YOU DO NOT OWN THIS PRODUCT, THE SOFTWARE, NOR THE MEDIA ON WHICH IT IS CONTAINED..."

Wonder if Apple will start with:
"Engineered AND OWNED by Apple in California"

[AidenShaw]

That's funny, you could say the same about a lot of things. The final third is always going to be the most expensive.

Buy 3 Dell's, and get twice the performance for the same price as one Mac Pro. :p For a render farm, it would be silly to buy 8-core Xeons instead of i7 quads....


It would be interesting to benchmark a real multi-threaded video encoder on the two systems.

The SPEC tests are done using 8 single-threaded copies of the program simultaneously.

Depending on the ability of the encoder to use more than four cores, the i7 might do better against the Xeons in real life than the SPEC results show.

[FF_productions]

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=153178&d=1232066136

The Mini is
- 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
- 1GB memory 1GB memory
- 120GB hard drive

for $799.

Point proven. Makes it hard to justify a budget desktop Mac purchase with that. Don't throw OS X at me, I'm sorry, look at the friggin photo and tell me I'm wrong.

[Ramashalanka]

For a render farm, it would be silly to buy 8-core Xeons instead of i7 quads....


For a render farm, it would make sense to wait for the Gainestown Mac Pros.

[VoR]

or consider as many machines from other manufacturers as possible using your money/rack space/power/etc budget - since when are apple first or cheapest? :)

[dwl017]

Just plain old sad!

[synth3tik]

To bad Apple won't announce that they were going to release computers with quality hardware besides the CPU. CPU means nothing when everything else is as cheap as they come.

Sorry after comparing the parts and build quality between my MBP and my old powerbook I am a little irritated at the new lack of quality on their hardware.

[AidenShaw]

Point proven. Makes it hard to justify a budget desktop Mac purchase with that. Don't throw OS X at me, I'm sorry, look at the friggin photo and tell me I'm wrong.

Quad core with Blu-ray for the price of a Mini....


For a render farm, it would make sense to wait for the Gainestown Mac Pros.

That is a hard claim to justify based on what we know.

If the pricing holds similar to what we're looking at here, then you'd need twice as many smaller, cheaper boxes to match the power of Gainestown. Bloomfields would be 2/3 the price overall.

If you need ECC memory, or huge memories, or for some reason twice as many boxes isn't workable - then Gainestown might be the right answer.

Myself, I'd wait for SuperMicro Gainestown Twins, though. The Mac Pro maxi-towers are way too humongous for my farm. Why buy those huge boxes when I can get 16 cores (32 threads) in a 1U box? (Mac Pros would be 16 cores in 12U - 12 times bigger)

http://supermicro.com/a_images/products/SuperServer/1U/SYS-1025TC-TB.jpg

http://supermicro.com/products/system/1U/1025/SYS-1025TC-T.cfm

[MattInOz]

Just to have all the facts, here, I'd like to point out that the current iMacs are using cpus with a TDP of 55W and that those low-power quad cpus have a TDP of 65W.
1- I believe that with a slightly better cooling system, at least the 24" iMac could receive those cpus.
2- nvidia also has desktop versions of its single-chip 9400 chipset, in two flavors 9300/9400


So it's only a 10watt increase in heat over the current iMac's. Then really is that hard?
We aren't talking laptop here.

Heat loss is all about air volume, and noise is all about how fast that air moves. But the the iMac has plenty of room to increase the size of the airflow system. No reason not to have a twin zone system with extra air vents half way up the back. Which could mean 50% extra air flow with no extra depth.

Don't the current iMac's use an intel chip set with separate north and south bridges. So would a move to nVidia's single chipset offer any saving in to overall heat load. We maybe talking a heat neutral change here?

Well sure the heat is more concentrated but if anything that might help things.

What's more the current cooling system was designed when there was a 17" model in the range as the internals and designed heat movement didn't change much with the case revision to Aluminium. So if Apple is following their standard profile the next Revision to the iMac will see big internal changes but much the same visual look. But set them up for a) a larger screen in the range and b) major case revision.

It's not that hard to believe a quad-core could be accommodated.

[Ramashalanka]

Myself, I'd wait for SuperMicro Gainestown Twins, though. The Mac Pro maxi-towers are way too humongous for my farm. Why buy those huge boxes when I can get 16 cores (32 threads) in a 1U box? (Mac Pros would be 16 cores in 12U - 12 times bigger)


Fair enough. Personally I use four Mac Pros for my numerical work. They are all (under)used as desktop machines as well. We have a linux cluster, but it is just so easy to keep things on OS X and 32 cores is enough for me at the moment, but clearly not for you.

The Xserve Gainestowns will surely make sense for some users, given the existing Xserve clusters.

[diamond.g]

Fair enough. Personally I use four Mac Pros for my numerical work. They are all (under)used as desktop machines as well. We have a linux cluster, but it is just so easy to keep things on OS X and 32 cores is enough for me at the moment, but clearly not for you.

The Xserve Gainestowns will surely make sense for some users, given the existing Xserve clusters.
XServe Beckton would be better.

[-hh]

The problem with this "comparison" is that the Mac Pro is the wrong solution for "I want a quality quad core mini-tower".

Yes, it is.

And guess what: Porsche doesn't make motorcycles, either.


So, who really cares what the price is for Dell's wrong solution and how it compares to Apple's wrong solution?

So who died and left you as King to dictate that Apple made the "wrong" solution? The Mac Pro isn't the wrong solution for those that are interested in its performance class.

Therefore, it is valid to compare the performance and price of Dell's right solution to Apple's only offering - even if the machines are in different price and performance classes.

But a brand new Mac Pro isn't Apple's only offering: just like Porsche, the response is to buy used instead of new, or go buy someone else's product.

If you really want to play the game, the next question to ask is how much is it worth to have the ability to run OS X legally and fully supported by Apple?

YMMV, but that trumps all of the bogus i7 comparisons: since the i7 isn't available as a supported architecture, its performance is moot.

I agree that benchmarks are merely estimates, and SPEC numbers are the averages of a quite a few different applications. If you only run one application - then that app is the only benchmark of interest. If you do lots of different things, then a benchmark suite like SPEC is a useful piece of information to consider.

You'll note that I used wiggle-phrases like "can beat" rather than "is faster".

Oh, I most certainly noticed the wiggle room phrases that you've left for yourself.

On the H264 tests, the Xeon 2.8 8 core system got a score of 235, and the i7-940 (2.93) got 155. That's 2/3 performance for 1/3 of the price.

A demonstration of the Law of Diminishing Returns, nothing more...just as how a VW GTI can go 2/3 the velocity of a Porsche 911 for 1/4 the price.

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=153178&d=1232066136

The Mini is
- 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
- 1GB memory 1GB memory
- 120GB hard drive

for $799.

And a huge difference in system size/footprint. This flavor of gambit has been used many times before.

-hh

[Ramashalanka]

XServe Beckton would be better.

Sure, but that's like another 6 months.

[cherry su]

This hypothetical iMac is tempting me to replace my 3-yr old MBP…if only it weren't so big! I guess I will still be able to enjoy it in the Apple Store.

[Umbongo]

XServe Beckton would be better.

Doesn't really fit the market for OSX servers.

[AidenShaw]

So who died and left you as King to dictate that Apple made the "wrong" solution? The Mac Pro isn't the wrong solution for those that are interested in its performance class.

But a brand new Mac Pro isn't Apple's only offering: just like Porsche, the response is to buy used instead of new, or go buy someone else's product.

These two statements are in reference to my first line: "I want a quality quad core mini-tower"

A big, expensive maxi-tower is not the right solution for desired mini-tower. Apple sells only one system with 4 or more cores, so the Mac Pro the "only solution" for a quad core.


If you really want to play the game, the next question to ask is how much is it worth to have the ability to run OS X legally and fully supported by Apple?

YMMV, but that trumps all of the bogus i7 comparisons: since the i7 isn't available as a supported architecture, its performance is moot.

The "Apple tax" here is about 142% ($949 for Dell i7 vs. Mac Pro 2.8 quad for $2299). Some people are saying that's too much. Some have gone back to the Windows side.

We're pointing out how the gaping hole in Apple's lineup is getting bigger and bigger. Not saying that the Mac Pro is a bad product, not saying that the Mini is a bad product. Just saying how they aren't good products for some people.

And the obvious question is "Why doesn't Apple have a Core i7 system?". The response "because Apple sells no systems with desktop chips" is true, but misses the point of the question.


A demonstration of the Law of Diminishing Returns, nothing more...just as how a VW GTI can go 2/3 the velocity of a Porsche 911 for 1/4 the price.

Not another lame automobile analogy....

I'm amazed at the Apple fans who are proud of Apple's high prices and margins, and brag about how much of their money Apple has in the bank.


And a huge difference in system size/footprint. This flavor of gambit has been used many times before.


The "gambit" you are using is to assume that system size is an important criterion to everyone, and that therefore the Dell Core i7 is "bad" because it is bigger than a Mini. That's a simple fallacy.

If you're building the system into a car or tiny cabinet, then system size may be important. If it's going under your desk, you may not care (although the Maxi-tower Mac Pro is too tall for some desks).

Besides, except for Apple ads, I've never seen a Mini that wasn't surrounded by a pile of extra disks, hubs, cables, USB thingies and the like. I'd rather have a modest-sized system with room for that stuff inside.

http://www.keyscorner.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/MacMini20060520.jpg

[Ramashalanka]

The "Apple tax" here is about 142%.

I would love an xMac too, but I think it's wrong to call it an Apple tax. They just don't make what we want, period. Where is the Apple tax on the following?

Dell T7400 Apple Mac Pro
------------------------- -------------------------
Price $6023 $5198
CPU Dual 3.2GHz Xeon Dual 3.2GHz Xeon
RAM 4 GiB 800 MHz FB-DIMM 4 GiB 800 MHz FB-DIMM
Disk 500 GB 7200 RPM SATA 500 GB 7200 RPM SATA
Optical 16X Superdrive 16X Superdrive
Blu-ray $470 option not available
Graphics Nvidia NVS 290 256MB Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB
Warranty 3 Years next day 3 Years Applecare

I'd have a blast with $800!

Your go again.

[AidenShaw]

I would love an xMac too, but I think it's wrong to call it an Apple tax. They just don't make what we want, period. Where is the Apple tax on the following?

I said quite a few posts ago:

The Mac Pro is a decent value for a maxed out 8 CPU workstation.

It's a horrible value if you need something more than a Mini or Imac, but less than a maxed out 8 CPU workstation.

If you want to spend around $1000 for a good, quality, powerful quad core - why do you care whether a $5000+ octo-core is a good value compared to other octo-cores?

[iMacmatician]

Also, I'm not sure that saying that Intel regressed to Pentium III to launch Core is a correct analogy (if you have a good source I'd love to read it though) since the Core line is more closely related to mobile processors, such as Centrino(?) which I guess might be derived from the P3, but it's a bit far. (this is moving off the boundry of my knowledge)Pentium III » Pentium M » Core » Core 2.

So it's only a 10watt increase in heat over the current iMac's. Then really is that hard?
We aren't talking laptop here.Depends on whether the 55 W CPU is at the iMac's TDP limit. But then again we have the new cooling system rumor.

It's not that hard to believe a quad-core could be accommodated.I believe the 55 W CPU(s) is only in the 24" version. That may mean, due to the smaller case of the 20", that quad-core is 24" only (OR we may see the 2.0 GHz mobile quad in the 20"). So I'm fairly sure the 24" will have quad-core—it's just a question of the 20".

On another note, how long does it usually take after the release of new CPUs before updated Macs with those CPUs are released? I think we'll be seeing a February iMac update (and Mac mini update) now.

[-hh]

These two statements are in reference to my first line: "I want a quality quad core mini-tower"

Apple doesn't make exactly what you want.

Dell doesn't make what I want, because while they do have a more granular product line, they can't sell OS X to run on any of it.

We both simply have to suck it up and deal with it.


A big, expensive maxi-tower is not the right solution for desired mini-tower. Apple sells only one system with 4 or more cores, so the Mac Pro the "only solution" for a quad core.

And yet the irony is that if it only cost $949, you wouldn't be whining, because a "huge box" is acceptable to you as evidenced by your comparing that Lenovo tower to a mac mini.

The "Apple tax" here is about 142% ($949 for Dell i7 vs. Mac Pro 2.8 quad for $2299). Some people are saying that's too much. Some have gone back to the Windows side.

Not by a long shot. Since there's the option of buying a used 2.66GHz for around $1700, the "tax" is overstated. Or you can find some other alternatives (with a 90 day warranty) here (http://www.usedmac.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=1), for as low as $535. For some tasks, these may be just as satisfactory; YMMV. Generally, the trade-off is that you get expandability at the desired price point, but at the cost of CPU power. Life is full of such trade-offs.

We're pointing out how the gaping hole in Apple's lineup is getting bigger and bigger. Not saying that the Mac Pro is a bad product, not saying that the Mini is a bad product. Just saying how they aren't good products for some people.

Sorry, but because of customer demographic shifts to more and more laptops, the hole isn't becoming bigger: its actually getting smaller, because the way that a business measures isn't necessarily based on technology, but on sales (and sales opportunities lost).

And as I've said before, I wouldn't mind having an xMac either, but I can understand why its introduction is unlikely: its not the marketplace direction.

Now I could do the same as you are and whine about how Apple is aligning their corporate strategic direction based on the actions of 10 million consumer wallets instead of just little egotistical "me", but that's an easily recognizable exercise in futility. Even the two of us together aren't a large enough market subsegment for even a company as small as Apple to pay any attention to us.

FWIW, I find the same frustration in finding good quality hatchback automobiles: as a consumer, I'm an obscure minority niche that's not popular or in demand, so on even the best of days in the marketplace, I only have a few "table scraps" to choose what to buy. Again, deal with it.


And the obvious question is "Why doesn't Apple have a Core i7 system?". The response "because Apple sells no systems with desktop chips" is true, but misses the point of the question.

The real point is that it misses that desktops are in decline, both in PCs and at Apple. The trend is towards mobility (and by extension, a trade-off is non-upgradability of hardware) and Apple is an industry trend-setter, so they've minimized their downside risk exposure in the desktop market by minimizing their product options.

Disliking this fact won't change reality. And reality doesn't care.

From a business perspective, Apple still really isn't all that big and they've been severely burned in the recent-enough-to-remember past by excessive product proliferation. Thus, they clearly and very much want to avoid the GM business model of trying to be the "be all to everyone" and tolerate product line gaps so as to avoid overlap.

Not another lame automobile analogy....

Yet it is still indisputable. FWIW, my first car wasn't bought new but used. Same thing for my first home computer. And if you want to go 200mph, you're simply not going to do it in a VW GTI unless you push it off a cliff.


I'm amazed at the Apple fans who are proud of Apple's high prices and margins, and brag about how much of their money Apple has in the bank.

Fortunately, I'm doing neither, for I'm the consummate cheapskate.

Its just that I believe that I better understand the box that Apple is in and instead of banging my head against the wall hoping that it will somehow change via magic pixie dust, I strive to understand what and why they've done and if there's any reasonable expectation of it changing...and then pick my fights. I'd like to be wrong and for a great $999 xMac to appear next week, but this simply isn't one of them as far as I can see.


The "gambit" you are using is to assume that system size is an important criterion to everyone, and that therefore the Dell Core i7 is "bad" because it is bigger than a Mini. That's a simple fallacy.

Incorrect. System size is clearly a purposeful product attribute of the mini (its even in its name) so when trying to find an objectively honest "equivalent", we are ethically obligated to try to accommodate the general spirit and intent of that feature, even if its not important to us individually.


Besides, except for Apple ads, I've never seen a Mini that wasn't surrounded by a pile of extra disks, hubs, cables, USB thingies and the like. I'd rather have a modest-sized system with room for that stuff inside.

Irrelevant, since the USB cable birds nest soup isn't unique to the mini: virtually everyone's desktop system that I've seen over the past half decade - no matter the brand - is progressively surrounded by a plethora of USB cables and the like.

We need to keep in mind that there's predominantly only two things that ever get installed inside the generic PC tower's case:


a second hard drive ... but mostly because we won't throw away the old small one because it 'still runs' (I'm guilty of this myself)
a PCI card for more expansion ports (USB, eSATA, etc)


And sure, there will also be a gamer contingent that upgrades their video card every 9 months, but that opens the can of worms of why are they using a $949 PC as a replacement for a $199 or $299 console?


-hh

[MattInOz]

Pentium III » Pentium M » Core » Core 2.

Depends on whether the 55 W CPU is at the iMac's TDP limit. But then again we have the new cooling system rumor.

I believe the 55 W CPU(s) is only in the 24" version. That may mean, due to the smaller case of the 20", that quad-core is 24" only (OR we may see the 2.0 GHz mobile quad in the 20"). So I'm fairly sure the 24" will have quad-core—it's just a question of the 20".

On another note, how long does it usually take after the release of new CPUs before updated Macs with those CPUs are released? I think we'll be seeing a February iMac update (and Mac mini update) now.

If the 20" stayed dual core then it would have the same heat load as a 15" MacBookPro right? well plus any difference between battery and internal power supply to deal with. Yet the iMac is what twice the volume maybe more.

The iMac has far greater capacity to add extra airflow openings than it has every used, so say half up the back so they create 3 cooling zones like the MacPro but running diagonally across the machine. It would be easy to add 50% extra air flow to the machine with no extra bulk. I'm always surprised the iMac drags all it's air from the bottom to the top. The back could still be very clean looking with extra grilles.

I think if the iMac goes quad it will go quad across the range. If they can't get the 20" to work it'll stay dual core.

Still would put money on Quads, well maybe not a lot of money.

[PVguy]

"I guess I used to always think of the people begging for Apple to make a headless iMac tower as home users, whining because they were too cheap to replace their existing monitors. (Well that, or they're fixated on wanting multiple internal hard drives."

USB 3 is only a year away. Given how fast the USB 1 to USB 2 transition was (and how soon USB 2 peripherals came out that did not run on USB 1 ports, like the iPod shuffle*) I feel confident that 6 months after USB 3 ships any computer that can not be upgraded to handle it will be in the dumpster. So expansion slots are a necessity. No expansion slot, no sale.

The exception would be if the new machine was cheap enough to frisbee after two years, say less than $400, or roughly netbook cost. Still a lot of fuss and bother to move machines twice in two years though.

ExpressCard slots definitely count, and would easily fit on an iMac. Or a Cube 2 (which for the sake of argument I'm defining as 7.7" in all dimensions)

* Yes I know Apple said the shuffle would work on USB 1 power macs, like my quicksilver. They lied. It never worked on the machine's USB 1 ports. Apple also said it would not work on a USB 2 upgrade card. That was also a lie or at least an error, as it has worked fine on the card. In fact, it only works on that card.

So, I'm still waiting for Apple to produce upgradable hardware that will run without a dedicated branch circuit, preferably for less than $1000. If that doesn't appear, then the choices are;

1) Service Life Extension plan for my quicksilver, while I wait for USB 3 to appear on their line.
2) Hackintosh;
3) Linux.

PS Dell just mailed me a flyer for a $400 PC which includes a 19" monitor and 2 GB RAM, Core 2 Duo and a 3.5" HD. It's too big for the stereo cabinet, but performance wise it'll stomp a mini flat. Apple needs to get something at least remotely competitive out in the market.

[-hh]

PS Dell just mailed me a flyer for a $400 PC which includes a 19" monitor and 2 GB RAM, Core 2 Duo and a 3.5" HD. It's too big for the stereo cabinet, but performance wise it'll stomp a mini flat. Apple needs to get something at least remotely competitive out in the market.

All of Apple's desktop products are clearly beyond their refresh update averages. That's pretty much a general indicator that they're either waiting for something really important to ship from a supplier (eg, Intel) for a major upgrade, or that they have a bad overstock of desktops...or both.

With the economy tanking and with consumers strongly trending towards mobility, I'd be inclined to suspect that they have a supply glut regardless of what they may be waiting for from Intel. And given Apple's longstanding reluctance to ever discount prices, they're boxed in the corner pretty tight insofar as their available options if they want to avoid setting any new precedences. The easiest thing is to continue to stretch it out to the right despite being less than competitive on the hardware...but the question is how far can they realistically go down this road before something has to give?


-hh

[iMacmatician]

If the 20" stayed dual core then it would have the same heat load as a 15" MacBookPro right? well plus any difference between battery and internal power supply to deal with. Yet the iMac is what twice the volume maybe more. Basically if the 20" cannot handle the 65 W CPUs, then it has to use the 35 W ones as they are the next step down (besides the expensive 45/55 W ones).

[AidenShaw]

...but the question is how far can they realistically go down this road before something has to give?

Maybe we'll discover how "fanatically loyal" the Apple fans really are.

Where are the Core i7 Apples?

Are Apple hoping that none of their customers realize that Apple are shipping yesterday's technology at tommorrow's prices?

It doesn't make sense to me....

[BTW]

Not sure I see it happening. Would be pretty cool if it did though!

Yeah, it would be interesting.

I see the following hardware announcements this year.

Refreshed:
iMac 20" (April)
iMac 24" (April)
MacBook (Late 2009)
MacBook Pro 15" (Late 2009)
MacBook Air (Late 2009)
Mac Pro (March)
Mac Mini (March)
iPhone (June - dropping the 3G from the name)
AppleTV 3.0 (March)

New:
iMac 30" (April)
MacBook Mini (March)
MacBook Air 15" (March)
iPhone Flip (June - same dimensions as the iPhone mini was rumored to have)
AppleTV 3.0 integrated Televisions (March - PVR is in the mix)

Discontinued:
xServe (Apple will license its OSX Server to OEMs)

:eek::D:cool:;)

[winterspan]

I'm sure this has been pointed out in the 10 pages of thread, but

1) The Mac Pro is a dual processor workstation that currently uses Intel's (Core 2 based) Xeon processors. You can not just slot in two single-processor Core 2 Quad chips into a dual-Xeon motherboard, these are specific models used for the DP Xeon platform.

2) The next refresh to the Mac Pro will undoubtedly use Nehalem-based Xeons aka "Gainestown". Although a Core 2 Quad may sound nice in an iMac, in reality these chips are outdated, particularly when talking about expensive desktop computers. I thought for sure the iMac would see a quad-core CPU before Nehalem-based desktop PCs came out, but apparently not.

3) a 65W Core 2 Quad can easily be used within the thermal limits of the iMac, considering they have used 55W Core 2 duos in the past. It would hardly need any modification, particularly if they downclocked them a bit. Regardless, there are ~2Ghz Core 2 quads for laptops that are 45W TDP.

[Theophany]

What rumored possibility of 30" iMacs? There's no evidence that Apple has any 30" backlit-LED screens on the horizon.

There was speculation as such.

[gazonk]

Some of the new LCD monitors I've purchased in recent months have come with glossy screens, though - and nobody I've given them to has seemed to mind. I think that would become an issue for a few people who sit by windows. (They've requested anti-glare filters for their old CRT monitors before.)


Where I work, most of the people that probably will switch to mac sit close to windows (no pun intended :D), and two are already using iMacs and have ordered anti glare filters for them.


The Mac Mini, as under-spec'd as it is, would probably still be just fine for daily office use, EXCEPT for the fact that people here would want to run a few native Windows apps on it. (I think it would feel too sluggish using Parallels or VMWare.)


I agree that the mini is quite capable for office work, but that it would be too weak for running VMWare or Parallels on (if you're doing that extensively, 4GB of RAM is a good idea). Also, you feel pretty ripped off buying the mini now, I mean: The cheapest model comes with an 80GB disk! I'm amazed that they're even able to aquire that small disks.

[dnguyen]

wow i'm really excited about these

[-hh]

Maybe we'll discover how "fanatically loyal" the Apple fans really are.

So for those Apple consumers who aren't buying today, but waiting for the eventual refresh to leverage for higher product value ... are these consumers still "fanatics" in your book-of-stereotypes because they're willing to use a slow computer with OS X instead of a fast one with Vista?

Are Apple hoping that none of their customers realize that Apple are shipping yesterday's technology at tommorrow's prices?

Software (and OS) are the technology wildcard variable that you're overlooking. Afterall, fancy new hardware without software merely heats a room.

It doesn't make sense to me....

Ever heard the phrase, "Its the Economy, Stupid" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_the_economy,_stupid) (1992)?

At this point, there's no clear indication of a market bottom as defined by the consumer. Given it all, I'd not be at all surprised if all new products get put on hold and we see zero hardware updates until early summer, so that existing inventory levels can be reduced. That's why I said that Apple's in a tight box.


-hh

[diamond.g]

Doesn't really fit the market for OSX servers.

What is the market? Are we admitting that Apple isn't interested in the virtualization gravy train? What about their work with parallels in getting OS X Server virtualized? Shoot it is more power efficient to run 8 servers on one box than it is to run 8 separate servers. Plus failover/clustering is even made easier (2 boxes versus 16).

Apple could hit MS hard in the virtualization world if they had hardware that could keep up with the needs.

[AidenShaw]

Apple could hit MS hard in the virtualization world if they had hardware that could keep up with the needs.

What popular server applications run on OSX that don't also run on Linux?

[diamond.g]

What popular server applications run on OSX that don't also run on Linux?

Well, it is good to separate out functions. So your Mail server should not be on your LDAP server nor should it be on your file server.

Yeah those functions could probably be done in Linux as well as they could be done in OS X, but then the question becomes what is the point of XServe if everything it does can be done in Linux (or Windows).

[VoR]

xserve is used for morale boosting giggles in stressful IT buying meetings

[AidenShaw]

Well, it is good to separate out functions. So your Mail server should not be on your LDAP server nor should it be on your file server.

I can understand the point of running different apps in different virtual machines.

I don't understand how a better XServe could be a threat to Microsoft, however. What MS apps would you switch to OSX apps? Would you run Windows Server VMs on the Apple server?

With Hyper-V, Microsoft has a modern, very high performance virtual server. It has High Availability and Disaster Recovery clustering. Running VMs can be moved from server to server without shutdown or hiccups. There is a whole suite of VM management tools.

http://i.microsoft.com/global/windowsserver2008/en/us/PublishingImages/diag-hyperv-arch.png http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/hyperv-features.aspx


Apple is missing a lot more than just a more powerful server box.


Yeah those functions could probably be done in Linux as well as they could be done in OS X, but then the question becomes what is the point of XServe if everything it does can be done in Linux (or Windows).

Yes, what is the point of a bigger XServe, and how is it a threat to MS?


xserve is used for morale boosting giggles in stressful IT buying meetings

LOL

[Wolfpup]

Hey, we've got an Xserver here :D It's a G5 one, I think. Of course it's only one, and like 90 gajillion Windows servers and tons of Unix (err...Sun Unix that is).

[Eric S.]

Hey, we've got an Xserver here :D It's a G5 one, I think. Of course it's only one, and like 90 gajillion Windows servers and tons of Unix (err...Sun Unix that is).

Solaris is Unix. Of course, Sun now ships Linux and Windows on some of its servers also.

[chewietobbacca]

On servers, running Linux has the benefit of being cheaper. Running Windows also has the benefit of being very mature with a big support base behind it.

As AidenShaw stated, Xserve needs a lot more than just fancy hardware to catch up to the Linux or Windows alternatives which dominate the market right now

[diamond.g]

With Hyper-V, Microsoft has a modern, very high performance virtual server. It has High Availability and Disaster Recovery clustering. Running VMs can be moved from server to server without shutdown or hiccups. There is a whole suite of VM management tools.


:D I actually like Hyper-V alot. That is what my R900 is running. I really wanted to move to an Apple environment (and VM Windows where needed) but when the opportunity arose to get the R900... I will admit I wish we had waited cause for the price we paid for the 16 core unit we could have gotten another 8 (24 total) for free.

Virtualization is really an area that Apple could work on.

[Digital Skunk]

Virtualization is really an area that Apple could work on.

Forget about it. We won't see any high end stuff coming from Apple in a long time if ever.

Apple is content on making toys for the masses, and ultra thin 17" laptops for rich college students to play WOW on.

I definitely don't see Apple using any quad core tech in the iMac or mini. They could have done it now but have to sacrifice everything for small footprints.

[Ramashalanka]

I said quite a few posts ago:

If you want to spend around $1000 for a good, quality, powerful quad core - why do you care whether a $5000+ octo-core is a good value compared to other octo-cores?

Well, I guess I agree with you really. I still don't agree with it being "apple tax". The way I think of it is that Apple don't offer a quad core at all: it's either 2 or 8. I think the quad-core option for the Mac Pro is terrible value for money, and probably shouldn't be offered at all. With an automobile analogy that you'll hate, it's like going to all the effort and cost of building a Ferrari and putting half of an engine in it.

Since it's either 2 or 8, I agree that there is a gaping lineup hole. Gaping in terms of a large power gap between the 3.06GHz 2 core iMac and the 2.8GHz 8 core Mac Pro. Gaping in terms of not having a reasonably priced system that you can put two drives in, etc etc. But maybe where we would disagree is perhaps it is not gaping in terms of number of extra machines in total Apple would sell if the filled the gap. But I'd buy one for doing calcs at home.

[sbarton]

I suspect that in this economy Apple will need to bring forward more competitive designs for the Home market if it hopes to avoid negative growth.

Imacs are nice, but fewer and fewer will be able to afford them. The pressure of commodity PC hardware and a renewed interest in Windows with Windows 7 will create tremendous pressure for households to pick 'what works well' over 'what works best'.

Not having a mid-range, expandable boxes has allowed Apple milk tremendous margins from thier product line. If they don't react quickly, they will find themselvs in the same boat as the car industry did when fuel prices skyrocketted. Left with excellent expensive products that lots would love to have, but few can afford to own and operate. This is already starting with the iPhone and will spread to thier other product lines very quickly.

[Digital Skunk]

households to pick 'what works well' over 'what works best'.

Mac OS X doesn't always work best.

I agree with everything else, and do hope that Apple does release a tower that has quad core desktop (not server) class chips and up to 8GB or 16GB of RAM.

When doing a lot of the photo work, 8 cores and 32GB isn't needed. I just need something that can hold my images in RAM and churn through some filters and adjustments.

Now when I am cutting HD, a Mac Pro would be nice.

[iMacmatician]

I suspect that in this economy Apple will need to bring forward more competitive designs for the Home market if it hopes to avoid negative growth. This may be another reason (besides TDP and desktop quad-cores) why Apple might choose to use the 65 W desktop quad-cores in the next iMacs.

[Eidorian]

This may be another reason (besides TDP and desktop quad-cores) why Apple might choose to use the 65 W desktop quad-cores in the next iMacs.Why didn't they use the 65W Conroe back in 2006? :rolleyes:

[chewietobbacca]

This may be another reason (besides TDP and desktop quad-cores) why Apple might choose to use the 65 W desktop quad-cores in the next iMacs.

The desktop 65W quads are LGA775, no?

[Eidorian]

The desktop 65W quads are LGA775, no?Yes they are. There are MCP79 derived chipsets for LGA775 as well.

[Umbongo]

Why didn't they use the 65W Conroe back in 2006? :rolleyes:

Maybe it just made more sense to use mobile processors at the time. Perhaps because they got the benefit of the lower TDP and the clock speed differences weren't enough to have an impact on sales. Where as now they need a quad core solution. For all we know Apple asked Intel for these specifically.

[chewietobbacca]

Maybe it just made more sense to use mobile processors at the time. Perhaps because they got the benefit of the lower TDP and the clock speed differences weren't enough to have an impact on sales. Where as now they need a quad core solution. For all we know Apple asked Intel for these specifically.

Apple doesn't have enough power over Intel to get em to do specific CPU's. It's actually all part of a microarchitecture's lifecycle - as the process improes, lower energy versions come out to milk as much out of the initial R&D costs.

Heck, AMD's still releasing low-energy variants of the K8 dual cores (great HTPC processors btw)

[Umbongo]

Apple doesn't have enough power over Intel to get em to do specific CPU's. It's actually all part of a microarchitecture's lifecycle - as the process improes, lower energy versions come out to milk as much out of the initial R&D costs.

Heck, AMD's still releasing low-energy variants of the K8 dual cores (great HTPC processors btw)

But they already did it once with the Macbook Air. They are the biggest all-in-one manufacturer, it's effectivley their market so if the reports that this is the main target platform of these processors are correct then I don't see it being to far fetched that Apple asked for a solution. I'm not saying Intel wouldn't have provided them anyway.

[Digital Skunk]

But they already did it once with the Macbook Air. They are the biggest all-in-one manufacturer, it's effectivley their market so if the reports that this is the main target platform of these processors are correct then I don't see it being to far fetched that Apple asked for a solution. I'm not saying Intel wouldn't have provided them anyway.

I agree. If Apple did go to Intel for a custom quad core for the iMac, then we may yet see it as standard on the high end, or as a BTO option.

[AidenShaw]

I agree. If Apple did go to Intel for a custom quad core for the iMac, then we may yet see it as standard on the high end, or as a BTO option.

No chance, with Apple making so much noise about the advantages of switching to Nvidia chipsets. :mad:

Also note that the "custom CPU" in the MBA wasn't really that custom. It was a standard 65nm chip on a SFF carrier that was already in Intel's roadmap. It was a custom combination of standard parts.

[Digital Skunk]

No chance, with Apple making so much noise about the advantages of switching to Nvidia chipsets. :mad:

Also note that the "custom CPU" in the MBA wasn't really that custom. It was a standard 65nm chip on a SFF carrier that was already in Intel's roadmap. It was a custom combination of standard parts.

Interesting indeed.

Good to know, and sadly, you are right. These days you can't expect much options from the Apple camp, even if you wish and pray and hope really hard it's just not going to happen.

[nickane]

What he said was that because of general interest, roadmaps and rumors, he pegs the likelihood of a release at 25% -- not that it would account for 25% of sales.

Read it again:

Exactly. Thanks for explaining. I was trying to distance myself from the people who think a $799 windows-killer with better specs than a $1399 dell is coming out next tuesday.

Were there really people who said that? Morons. :p

I couldn't care less about the cannibalism idea, personally, so I don't know where you're coming from singling me out.

This is why there won't be an xMac anytime soon:

Remember the Macintosh 128k? Heard of the iMac line? Do you know why they were all-in-one computers?

This is from the mouth of a (really) old Apple engineer, "Because Steve Jobs didn't want the end-user messing around with his (Jobs') hardware."

A computer with user-expandability goes against Jobs' business model.


I singled you out as one of the few rational ppl who won't argue 'til their blue in the face that the company Apple is most afraid of losing sales to is themselves. Occasionally a seasoned veteran will allude to the time when Apple confused consumers with its myriad product lines as if that relates somehow to the present in which they have exactly 3 laptop lines and 3 desktop lines. When I started following apple they had only 2 of each, and if a tablet is feasible, then why not a midrange tower?

I singled you out because you'd be more likely to mention what -hh ended up hinting at: planned obsolescence and the advantages of a business model that tends to limit the end-user's upgrade options. Apple dictates terms to its customer base simply because it can without upsetting the niche market for whom it caters. Why fill the gap in the product line when the bulk of your customers are so enamoured of everything you do that they'll take the time to tell ppl who demand such a product that they're wrong for doing so (I don't mean you or -hh, I mean the ppl who will argue unequivocally that there is no such gap)?

All salient points, -hh, and I agree with you for the most part, but I think that the shift towards laptops belies the fact that more family members have their own computers nowadays. There are no more roadwarriors than there used to be, just ppl who also bring their laptop to work, but very few households have a laptop as their primary computer. Nor do they want an all-in-one.

Similarly, an IT manager whose CEO has an MBA/MBP may be asked to look into the feasibility of switching to mac, but once they weigh up how many desks will need imacs vs mac minis, and how often those minis will need to be replaced (probably not factoring in the fact that they have the best resale value of any mac), they will probably decide against it out of a similar disdain for the AIO.

Your attempt to belittle the xmac crowd to a dozen or so ppl is immensely unfair, when you consider the fact that the best part of the market for such a computer would not frequent these forums to discuss its absence. As such, the only xmac fans on the forum are ppl like me disgruntled with the fact their imac didn't have the longevity ppl associate with macs and low-end powermac users who find the server-class processors price them out of the (semi-)pro market. But as you say, midrange customers who aren't going to upgrade too often aren't apple's biggest priority.

But your suggestion that such ppl should buy 2nd-hand 2.66's just doesn't cut it. Mac Pros are overkill in more ways than just money and size. They also consume way too much electricity to be a primary computer for a home. My bosses tell me it costs £100s a year to leave a mac pro on and there's no way I could use one as my primary computer. Besides, having a computer that is far too big and powerhungry for the purpose its required just isn't very apple. Dell can produce all the predictably shaped midrange towers they want but if apple rereleased the cube with a quad-core intel chip at the peak of the halo effect with typical 30-40% apple tax, the press attention, pool of potential switchers and eventual marketshare it would attract would be insane. But apple would rather be a market leader, designing new products altogether so that it can dictate terms, set prices and keep higher margins.

[Umbongo]

No chance, with Apple making so much noise about the advantages of switching to Nvidia chipsets. :mad:

As such, the only xmac fans on the forum are ppl like me disgruntled with the fact their imac didn't have the longevity ppl associate with macs and low-end powermac users who find the server-class processors price them out of the (semi-)pro market.

I'd be interested in hearing what you both would actually be happy with Apple releasing spec-wise for an xMac. I started a thread here to discuss this if you wanted to partake: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=638571

[AidenShaw]

...if apple rereleased the cube with a quad-core intel chip...

Please, don't bring back a form-over-function nightmare like the Cube.

Make it user-serviceable - socketed CPU, standard memory DIMMs, standard 3.5" hard drives, standard 5.25 optical slots, standard PCIe x16 graphics card slot with PCIe power connector, a couple of standard PCIe expansion slots. Enough power and cooling to handle midrange CPUs and graphics. No laptop parts.

I don't care if the length, width and height are identical - it can be cube-shaped as long as it is easy for a user (or the Geek Squad) to upgrade with standard parts either at the time-of-sale or later.


I'd be interested in hearing what you both would actually be happy with Apple releasing spec-wise for an xMac. I started a thread here to discuss this if you wanted to partake: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=638571

I made an entry in that thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6979534&postcount=11) - I suggest a small family of systems like these, identical except for expansion:

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

[takao]

put up another one on the "where are the desktops which use actual desktop parts ?" list
yeah the xMac (or whatever you call it) discussion is old but looking at the amount of threads which turn into such discussion again and again it seems to be more alive than ever before

my mac is 4 years old and i have to upgrade this year .. if apple can't deliver i know where i can find better hardware for a lower price at the end of the year (with windows 7 then i suppose)

[Eric S.]

yeah the xMac (or whatever you call it) discussion is old but looking at the amount of threads which turn into such discussion again and again it seems to be more alive than ever before

And yet one constant argument voiced by opponents of such a system is that there is no interest in it. :confused:

[Digital Skunk]

Make it user-serviceable - socketed CPU, standard memory DIMMs, standard 3.5" hard drives, standard 5.25 optical slots, standard PCIe x16 graphics card slot with PCIe power connector, a couple of standard PCIe expansion slots. Enough power and cooling to handle midrange CPUs and graphics. No laptop parts. :)

I don't care if the length, width and height are identical - it can be cube-shaped as long as it is easy for a user (or the Geek Squad) to upgrade with standard parts either at the time-of-sale or later.




I made an entry in that thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6979534&postcount=11) - I suggest a small family of systems like these, identical except for expansion:

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

***Drool*** ***slurp***

Sorry, I just love that word..... S.T.A.N.D.A.R.D. it has such a nice and friendly ring to it.

And yet one constant argument voiced by those that don't have a clue of such a system is that there is no interest in it. :confused:

Fixed that for you, though it didn't need fixing.... clarification I guess. I used to be such a person, and that group seriously just doesn't have a clue.

iMac is wonderful for some, but so many people would get by just fine with a tower config, or a cheaper Mac Pro that started at $1699 at the very least.

[-hh]

I singled you out as one of the few rational ppl who won't argue 'til their blue in the face that the company Apple is most afraid of losing sales to is themselves. Occasionally a seasoned veteran will allude to the time when Apple confused consumers with its myriad product lines as if that relates somehow to the present in which they have exactly 3 laptop lines and 3 desktop lines. When I started following apple they had only 2 of each, and if a tablet is feasible, then why not a midrange tower?

To a certain degree, some of the differences in perspective might be based on how one chooses to count.

For example, I disagree that there's only currently 3+3 product lines: I'd say that there's currently 5+5: that's 5 laptop lines (Air, White, MB, 15" MBP, 17" MBP) and 5desktop lines (mini, TV, 20" iMac, 24" iMac, MacPro), as well as 5 "other" lines (shuffle, nano, classic, touch, iPhone).

My rationale for making the distinction in this fashion comes from manufacturing: I consider the 20" iMac to be similar, but not the same as a 24" iMac because its differences are more than some small interchangable components (CPU, GPU, RAM, HD) which are relatively trivial swap-outs on a production line: their differences include a different LCD monitor and enclosure case too, which would tend to drive manufacturing to having a separate assembly line for it.

In any event, while I agree that its a fair enough point to be willing to accept some broadening of the product line ... indeed, Apple's retention of the White MacBook in the most recent update arguably is doing just this ... my general counterpoint is that the company was impacted to its core by the "confusing myriad" proliferation, so for better or worse, there's a very strong cultural resistance to increased product proliferation still to this day. I'm not defending them for doing this, but merely pointing it out as an observation of their general behavior.


I singled you out because you'd be more likely to mention what -hh ended up hinting at: planned obsolescence and the advantages of a business model that tends to limit the end-user's upgrade options.

I thought that I was stronger than merely hinting at it: I wholehearetedly agree that some of Apple's choices are indeed very much self-serving from a business sales perspetive.

However, I'm going to moderately disagree that there's a heavy motive here of planned obsolescence. By this, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen or that it isn't somewhat a factor, but rather that its more of a combination of other factors that make it lesser of a consideration.

First off, the days of where Moore's Law was roaring and each new PC perceptively felt 2x faster in every way was introduced every ~6 months (it seemed like) are behind us. As such, there's less "being left in the dust by new hardware" occurring today.

Second, there's the niggling problem of the high degree of popularity of laptops in today's consumer segment...by some counts, 50%-70% of all new sales. While Apple gets hammered for the mini and iMac being "non-upgradable", the reality is that they're just as (un)upgradable as all of those laptops being sold - - both PC and Mac laptops. As such, today's mainstream consumer is voting with his wallet that he's not necessarily as concerned about ease-of-upgradability.

Apple dictates terms to its customer base simply because it can without upsetting the niche market for whom it caters. Why fill the gap in the product line when the bulk of your customers are so enamoured of everything you do that they'll take the time to tell ppl who demand such a product that they're wrong for doing so (I don't mean you or -hh, I mean the ppl who will argue unequivocally that there is no such gap)?

No offense taken. I think that it is hard to grasp the concept that a gap may exist when looking at technical hardware performance values, but at the same time, the gap doesn't functionally exist when looking at business performance values ... ie, product sales.

All salient points, -hh, and I agree with you for the most part, but I think that the shift towards laptops belies the fact that more family members have their own computers nowadays. There are no more roadwarriors than there used to be, just ppl who also bring their laptop to work, but very few households have a laptop as their primary computer. Nor do they want an all-in-one.

I have a couple of thoughts on this. The first is that I do think that a certain amount of "family trickle-down" does still occur, although I also agree that it doesn't happen as much anymore. The second is that I don't think we necessarily need to get hung up on why individuals are buying fewer desktops / more laptops: just that they are, and regardless of whatever their reason for doing so is, reduced DIY upgradability is an irrefutable consequence of their decision.

Similarly, an IT manager whose CEO has an MBA/MBP may be asked to look into the feasibility of switching to mac, but once they weigh up how many desks will need imacs vs mac minis, and how often those minis will need to be replaced (probably not factoring in the fact that they have the best resale value of any mac), they will probably decide against it out of a similar disdain for the AIO.

Personally, I would expect the Mac to make inroads into the Enterprise in areas other than the AIO. Its more likely to start with managers who want a Mac laptop on the road and Cubical Tecchies who want the Mac Pro horsepower.

Your attempt to belittle the xmac crowd to a dozen or so ppl is immensely unfair, when you consider the fact that the best part of the market for such a computer would not frequent these forums to discuss its absence. As such, the only xmac fans on the forum are ppl like me disgruntled with the fact their imac didn't have the longevity ppl associate with macs and low-end powermac users who find the server-class processors price them out of the (semi-)pro market. But as you say, midrange customers who aren't going to upgrade too often aren't apple's biggest priority.

My "dozen" comment is sarcasm that is alluding to the statistical fallacies of trying to gain useful market insight when you have sampling bias from a self-selected sample. This has nothing to do with the issue under contention: its simply that a happy customer will tell "X" people, whereas an unhappy customer will tell "3X" people.

In general, the business risk is that its hard to gage the true demand because its hard to tell if 1,000 hits means that its 1,000 people quietly grumbling at Volume=1, or if its just 10 guys shouting at Volume=100.

My sincere suggestion to the die-hard xMac fans is to hire a lawyer and have each member put up a $1000 deposit in escrow. Once the total pot size reaches a sufficiently "interesting" total (eg, $1M, $5M, $10M, etc), have the lawyer contact Apple and tell them that he represents a block of clients with deposits already in place who's ready to buy a Macintosh of the certain general specifications (xMac) and ask them if they would be interested in replying. The fact that the lawyer is holding a bag of real world money is what will encourage Apple to take the request seriously.

And as I've said...I wouldn't mind having an xMac either - - the problem is that I simply don't see it as a profitable business model for Apple to pursue, so based on business realities, I have to doubt that its going to happen.

But your suggestion that such ppl should buy 2nd-hand 2.66's just doesn't cut it.

Even if it was cheaper than a 20" iMac? Most people would probably claim that at that price point, they would sell like hotcakes. My point here is that its my opinion that a fairly large segment of the xMac advocates aren't opposed to anything technical regarding the Mac Pro, but simply can't bring themselves "up" to its current price point.

Mac Pros are overkill in more ways than just money and size. They also consume way too much electricity to be a primary computer for a home. My bosses tell me it costs £100s a year to leave a mac pro on and there's no way I could use one as my primary computer.

As per this (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2836)and this (http://www.apple.com/environment/resources/calculator.html) page at Apple, a Mac Pro consumes 171W-250W of power (idle/max), which would be US$120/year (fairly close to £100/year at the current exchange rate) at an electrical generation cost of $0.10/Kwh.

However, a 20" iMac similarly run 24/7 uses $58/year, so the "Mac Pro tax" is really $120-$58 = $62/year.

And peeling the onion to apply the OS X energy saver to both of these, and only use the computer actively for 8 hours/day, then the costs become $44/year vs $21/year = $23/year difference...less than a dime per day. Kind of hard to see any boss really worrying about this magnitude, even in larger numbers: it takes 435 machines to crack $10K/year in fiscal significance.


Besides, having a computer that is far too big and powerhungry for the purpose its required just isn't very apple.

Chevy Corvette
Ford Mustang
Dodge Vyper
Plymouth Prowler
Porsche GT2
Audi R8
...
Apple Mac Pro
Dell XPS
etc

Your right: the idea of "More Power" flagships never happens.


... But apple would rather be a market leader, designing new products altogether so that it can dictate terms, set prices and keep higher margins.

To a degree, but one needs to read deeper into Tim Cook's comments from yesterday:

"We believe that we're on the face of the Earth to make great products, and that's not changing. We're constantly focusing on innovating. We believe in the simple, not the complex. We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies behind the products we make, and participate only in markets where we can make a significant contribution.

We believe in saying no to thousands of projects so that we can really focus on the few that are truly important and meaningful to us. We believe in deep collaboration and cross-pollination of our groups, which allow us to innovate in a way that others cannot."

In simplistic terms, there's a business niche for "Fastest Mac" and "Smallest Mac", perhaps we can claim that the iMac is the "Prettiest Mac". The question is under this philosophy expression, what is the 'significant contribution' that is the contribution from the xMac?

While we're beginning to ponder that, make sure to go watch the (circa 2007) "Top Gear" review of the Porsche Cayman, paying particular note to the allusions to management disallowing their engineers from having it out-Porsche their own 911. One of the things that we can suspect that Apple learned with the 7500/7600/8500/8600/9500 PowerMacs was what can happen when you allow the CPU be on an easily replacable riser card.


-hh