Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere,
But is there any estimations on what the upgrade to 6-core will cost?
But is there any estimations on what the upgrade to 6-core will cost?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
6-core price?
- Thread starter jamesedward
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
based off the current 4 core 3.33ghz Mac Pro, I'd guess it'd be £2950 in the UK. Presumably $3500ish in the US?
If base is $2499 then the 6-core upgrade is probably going to be $1200. $3699 anyone? These things get breathtakingly expensive quickly 
If its 3699 for a 6-core then its not even worth it when an 8 core with 8 memory slots is 3499. You might as well get 2 more cores for that price. If thats the case no one will buy the 6 core because its price. I hope its more like 2600 or something because if it is i will buy it.
If base is $2499 then the 6-core upgrade is probably going to be $1200. $3699 anyone? These things get breathtakingly expensive quickly
$1200 is the current upgrade price for going from a 2.66 GHz quad to a 3.33 GHz quad. So it's not unreasonable to guess that Apple might charge a similar amount to go from the new base 2.8 GHz quad to a 3.33 hex.
Then again, the 3.33 hex costs $999 in quantity, minus the $294 cost of the 2.8 GHz quad processor it would replace when upgrading - a difference of $705. And Apple already prices the base quad machine so it gets a hefty (some would say excessive) profit.
So Apple could price the 3.33 hex upgrade for something less than $1000 and still make a pretty penny. But if they can get away with charging more, they probably will. It'll be interesting to see how they position it relative to the base octocore at $3499 - a bit higher or a bit lower?
I fear they'll go with a bit higher, even though it would seem logical for a 6-core machine to be priced somewhere between the basic 4-core and the basic 8-core. But the much higher clock rate on the one available uniprocessor 6-core could justify higher.
^705$ difference
I dont understand why the 3.33 hexacore upgrade would be any less expensive than the current 3.33 quad upgrade. It's not like the base 2500$ Mac Pro was upgraded from 2.66 quad to 2.66 hex.
I dont understand why the 3.33 hexacore upgrade would be any less expensive than the current 3.33 quad upgrade. It's not like the base 2500$ Mac Pro was upgraded from 2.66 quad to 2.66 hex.
I know it seems counter-intuitive, but for certain uses, a single hexacore will out-perform the dual quad. And in general, it will probably never be slower.
I agree that it will probably be the same price. It's also going from 1066 to 1333 RAM...
octa core is completely absurd unless its is much cheaper then the six core. look at these benches:
and the desktop version of the six core:
the only reason to go for the 8 core is the ability to use 8 ram modules.
The W3580 and W3680 are both 3.33GHz, and the same cost from Intel ($999 quantity pricing), only differing by core count. The current W3580 SP system is $3699 and it should remain the same, or close to it given the CPU cost didn't change (GPU, HDD and RAM have changed, but shouldn't be significant at all, as those subsections of the budget typically aren't all that flexible to maintain the margin at a target MSRP).
Now that doesn't mean Apple won't push the MSRP up, but they've not incurred any significant increase in costs for this particular machine.
As per performance, the Hex core will be faster for single threaded applications, and similar for SMP work given the faster clocks (CPU and RAM). HDD could have a small influence, but not all that significant IMO, as a single drive is a bottleneck for SMP work that's memory intensive as well.
As mentioned however, those that need a significant amount of RAM, may have to consider the Octad, as it does have 2x the DIMM slots, just as it's been with the 2009 Quad v. Octad systems. Users would have to cost out the RAM upgrades and add it to each system to help determine which is the better choice for their needs (hardware cost/usage).
Now that doesn't mean Apple won't push the MSRP up, but they've not incurred any significant increase in costs for this particular machine.
As per performance, the Hex core will be faster for single threaded applications, and similar for SMP work given the faster clocks (CPU and RAM). HDD could have a small influence, but not all that significant IMO, as a single drive is a bottleneck for SMP work that's memory intensive as well.
As mentioned however, those that need a significant amount of RAM, may have to consider the Octad, as it does have 2x the DIMM slots, just as it's been with the 2009 Quad v. Octad systems. Users would have to cost out the RAM upgrades and add it to each system to help determine which is the better choice for their needs (hardware cost/usage).
for my uses, I'd rather have a faster 6-core 3.33ghz than the slower standard 2.4ghz octo-core given the same price point.
What pisses me off is that they could have redesigned the single CPU daughterboard to accomodate more DIMMS. I'm not asking for 9 or 12 slots but heck, give us a 6 dimms slots.
What pisses me off is that they could have redesigned the single CPU daughterboard to accomodate more DIMMS. I'm not asking for 9 or 12 slots but heck, give us a 6 dimms slots.
My bet: more than base 8-core
On the U.S. "New MP" page, Apple states in their little price box:
Quad-core starting at US$2499
8-core starting at $3499
12-cores starting at $4999
But then in the text they talk about how lucky we are to be able to pick from 4, 6, 8 or 12 cores. Hexamagical.
This selective price list has caused several hasty posts on a variety of threads ("There is no 6-core model. Oops, yes there is, my bad.") These could have been avoided by simply including the hex in the list.
So what would motivate Apple to leave the 6-core out of their mini-price-list on the same page where they were telling the world about their dazzling new array of core choices?
One answer is that the 6-core is just considered an upgrade to the base quad, just like the 2009 3.33 quad over the 2.66, and hence did not need to be called out separately. Possible. But weak. Why give up an opportunity to blow your own horn on an advertising page? By the same logic you could consider the 12-core an upgrade to the base 8-core, and they sure didn't leave out the 12-core.
One answer is that the hexa price hasn't been decided yet. Don't think so.
My theory: if they had included it, then their price list would have looked like this:
Quad core starting at $2499
6 core starting at $3799
8 core starting at $3499
12 core startling at $4999
Kinda stinks, doesn't it? It would have set off even more irritated WTF threads than it already has. Sure there are technical arguments to justify that price structure, but those would not be the first thing to spring to the customer's mind upon encountering that list. So they prudently spared themselves some vitriol, and left it out.
Bottom line: I think that little omission constitutes a (very) strong hint that the 6-core model will be more expensive than the base 8-core. How much more of course I have no idea. But forget something under $3.5K.
I certainly agree with the poster who said Apple could still make a ton of money if they sold the 6-core upgrade for $900 or even less. But as they say in the biz, we don't want to leave any money on the table, now do we.
On the U.S. "New MP" page, Apple states in their little price box:
Quad-core starting at US$2499
8-core starting at $3499
12-cores starting at $4999
But then in the text they talk about how lucky we are to be able to pick from 4, 6, 8 or 12 cores. Hexamagical.
This selective price list has caused several hasty posts on a variety of threads ("There is no 6-core model. Oops, yes there is, my bad.") These could have been avoided by simply including the hex in the list.
So what would motivate Apple to leave the 6-core out of their mini-price-list on the same page where they were telling the world about their dazzling new array of core choices?
One answer is that the 6-core is just considered an upgrade to the base quad, just like the 2009 3.33 quad over the 2.66, and hence did not need to be called out separately. Possible. But weak. Why give up an opportunity to blow your own horn on an advertising page? By the same logic you could consider the 12-core an upgrade to the base 8-core, and they sure didn't leave out the 12-core.
One answer is that the hexa price hasn't been decided yet. Don't think so.
My theory: if they had included it, then their price list would have looked like this:
Quad core starting at $2499
6 core starting at $3799
8 core starting at $3499
12 core startling at $4999
Kinda stinks, doesn't it? It would have set off even more irritated WTF threads than it already has. Sure there are technical arguments to justify that price structure, but those would not be the first thing to spring to the customer's mind upon encountering that list. So they prudently spared themselves some vitriol, and left it out.
Bottom line: I think that little omission constitutes a (very) strong hint that the 6-core model will be more expensive than the base 8-core. How much more of course I have no idea. But forget something under $3.5K.
I certainly agree with the poster who said Apple could still make a ton of money if they sold the 6-core upgrade for $900 or even less. But as they say in the biz, we don't want to leave any money on the table, now do we.
I agree, but even this scenario would raise an eyebrow for people just counting the price-per-core.
Quad core starting at $2499
6 core starting at $3399
8 core starting at $3499
12 core startling at $4999
On the other hand, the 4-8-12 marks are clear, with $1000-$1500 between steps.
But since 6-core is a BTO option, you won't find the prices side-by-side (on the Apple site at least).
The base Octad went up by $200 for the 2010 systems, and as the current 3.33GHz Quad is $3699 (W3580 and W3680 are the same cost from Intel), it's not that unreasonable that the Hex core SP system will have an MSRP of $3899 IMO. It certainly won't be less than the current Quad, and is expected to be more than the 2010 base Octad due to the faster performance gain due to the higher clock speeds.
If you are just counting cores then that seems possible, but you gotta consider clock speed. 8 cores at 2.4 or 6 at 3.33, in most apps the 6-core would kill the 8-core because of clock speed.
If you start with Apple's list prices for the new machines, and subtract the Xeon prices from Intel, that gives you Apple's net revenue for everything else:
Quad core starting at $2499
- one W3530 2.8 GHz $294
= $2205 balance
8 core starting at $3499
- two E5620 2.4 GHz (2 x $387 = $774)
= $2725 balance
12 core startling at $4999
- two X5650 2.66 GHz (2 x $996 = $1992)
= $3007 balance
A single W3680 hex core goes for $999, which places it $225 above the basic 8 core machine in terms of processor cost to Apple. Then again, since it's a single-processor unit, there would be only one daughter card, which would lower the system cost to Apple. Does anyone know how much the daughter cards cost Apple?
In sum, if you just look at processor cost, you might expect the single 6-core to be priced a couple hundred above the basic 8-core machine. But if the cost of the extra daughter card is significant, then it's possible the 6-core could be priced the same (or maybe even less?) than the base 8-core and still provide the same net revenue to Apple.
Quad core starting at $2499
- one W3530 2.8 GHz $294
= $2205 balance
8 core starting at $3499
- two E5620 2.4 GHz (2 x $387 = $774)
= $2725 balance
12 core startling at $4999
- two X5650 2.66 GHz (2 x $996 = $1992)
= $3007 balance
A single W3680 hex core goes for $999, which places it $225 above the basic 8 core machine in terms of processor cost to Apple. Then again, since it's a single-processor unit, there would be only one daughter card, which would lower the system cost to Apple. Does anyone know how much the daughter cards cost Apple?
In sum, if you just look at processor cost, you might expect the single 6-core to be priced a couple hundred above the basic 8-core machine. But if the cost of the extra daughter card is significant, then it's possible the 6-core could be priced the same (or maybe even less?) than the base 8-core and still provide the same net revenue to Apple.
On the U.S. "New MP" page, Apple states in their little price box:
Quad-core starting at US$2499
8-core starting at $3499
12-cores starting at $4999
But then in the text they talk about how lucky we are to be able to pick from 4, 6, 8 or 12 cores. Hexamagical.
This selective price list has caused several hasty posts on a variety of threads ("There is no 6-core model. Oops, yes there is, my bad.") These could have been avoided by simply including the hex in the list.
So what would motivate Apple to leave the 6-core out of their mini-price-list on the same page where they were telling the world about their dazzling new array of core choices?
One answer is that the 6-core is just considered an upgrade to the base quad, just like the 2009 3.33 quad over the 2.66, and hence did not need to be called out separately. Possible. But weak. Why give up an opportunity to blow your own horn on an advertising page? By the same logic you could consider the 12-core an upgrade to the base 8-core, and they sure didn't leave out the 12-core.
One answer is that the hexa price hasn't been decided yet. Don't think so.
My theory: if they had included it, then their price list would have looked like this:
Quad core starting at $2499
6 core starting at $3799
8 core starting at $3499
12 core startling at $4999
Kinda stinks, doesn't it? It would have set off even more irritated WTF threads than it already has. Sure there are technical arguments to justify that price structure, but those would not be the first thing to spring to the customer's mind upon encountering that list. So they prudently spared themselves some vitriol, and left it out.
Bottom line: I think that little omission constitutes a (very) strong hint that the 6-core model will be more expensive than the base 8-core. How much more of course I have no idea. But forget something under $3.5K.
I certainly agree with the poster who said Apple could still make a ton of money if they sold the 6-core upgrade for $900 or even less. But as they say in the biz, we don't want to leave any money on the table, now do we.
+1
I think your spot on
You have to add the margin to the price difference in the CPU/s as well to the system to get an accurate MSRP.
I got close in my predictions, only being over by $50 on the slowest Dodeca (I figured it at $5049 using a margin of 40% v. the $4999 published).
