8-Core Mac Pro Details Emerging?

[McKellar]

Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.

Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:

Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz

So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.

 

[Multimedia]

2.66GHz Clovertowns Are Highly Unlikely To Be Offered • +40% More Money For +8% Power

Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:

Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz

So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.

I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.

I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.

Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.

One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?

All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:

Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]

Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.

There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.

I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time.

Multimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.

Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?

Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?

You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.

I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.

So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.

 

[orak]

How quickly do new Macs come out after CPUs become available?

What I really would like to know is when the eight-core Mac will be available.

Does anyone remember how much lag there was between the availability of the Woodcrest chips and the time the Mac Pros came out?

The new Quad core chips are expected to be out in mid-November. Considering that the new chips work with the current Mac Pros, so long as Apple doesn't plan on having big changes to the motherboard, they could theoretically update the product line pretty quickly.

I've asked someone who needs to purchase large quantities of professional machines from Apple for a company, and he couldn't get info from tight-lipped Apple about this.

So I just wanted to hear some educated guesses to help with my impatience.

 

[Multimedia]

No Way To Predict How Soon

What I really would like to know is when the eight-core Mac will be available.

Does anyone remember how much lag there was between the availability of the Woodcrest chips and the time the Mac Pros came out?

Right away. Same for the C2D iMacs. But now we're waiting way past the time we thought the mobiles would get Meroms.

The new Quad core chips are expected to be out in mid-November. Considering that the new chips work with the current Mac Pros, so long as Apple doesn't plan on having big changes to the motherboard, they could theoretically update the product line pretty quickly.

I've asked someone who needs to purchase large quantities of professional machines from Apple for a company, and he couldn't get info from tight-lipped Apple about this.

So I just wanted to hear some educated guesses to help with my impatience.

Sorry to say there is no way to predict how soon nor even if Apple will certainly offer the Clovertown option. As you can read above, there is considerable disagreement about how much the market wants and needs 8-core Mac Pros.

We can pray for December and hope for January is my best random and unsubstantiated pure guess. Technically I agree with you completely and it should happen in December or even November as I explain above with the simple addition of one line on the "Configure Now" page:

Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]

But Steve may want to hold back the offering for dramatic purposes so he can present it as "new" in his January 9 SteveNote at MacWorld San Francisco. I hope not, although I may wait until then anyway so I can get a copy of iLife '07 with it for no extra charge.

 

[orak]

1.5 weeks for Woodcrest -> Mac Pro

OK, it seems like Woodcrest was officially unveiled by Intel on July 27 and the new Mac Pros were available for purchase (same day they were announced) on August 7.

So if it goes like that, we could see these things as early as late November, right? Just doing some wishful thinking!

Ugh, it's gonna be hard waiting until December or January. I just hope the price won't be so much higher than what we see now.

 

[Multimedia]

Should Happen In November And Price Should Be Same As 3GHz Quads

OK, it seems like Woodcrest was officially unveiled by Intel on July 27 and the new Mac Pros were available for purchase (same day they were announced) on August 7.

So if it goes like that, we could see these things as early as late November, right? Just doing some wishful thinking!

Ugh, it's gonna be hard waiting until December or January. I just hope the price won't be so much higher than what we see now.

Yeah if it happens in November I will buy right away. I agree with you it SHOULD happen in November.

Price should be same as the 3GHz Woodie Quad because the published price for the 2.33GHz Clovertowns is exactly the same as the published price for the 3GHz Woodies - $851 each. Anything higher would be price gouging and all of Apple's customers should know that. So it would be shockingly unexpected if price is any higher at all.

 

[AppliedVisual]

OK, it seems like Woodcrest was officially unveiled by Intel on July 27 and the new Mac Pros were available for purchase (same day they were announced) on August 7.

So if it goes like that, we could see these things as early as late November, right? Just doing some wishful thinking!

Ugh, it's gonna be hard waiting until December or January. I just hope the price won't be so much higher than what we see now.

It's difficult to say. Intel has been making engineering samples of Cloverton available to companies like Apple and Dell and motherboard makers for a while now. From the time Intel formally announces availability to the time we can buy a Cloverton Mac Pro should be a matter of days, maybe a week or two. Now, if there are problems with cooling or voltage or BIOS/ROM incompatibilities/bugs to work out, then it could be longer. I'm pretty confident that it won't be a delay anywhere near as long as the Merom Macbook[Pro] delay.

2.66GHz (or 3GHz? maybe?) Cloverton Mac Pro for me... Hopefully they have a better graphics card offering than the current choices too.

 

[Roy]

2.66GHz (or 3GHz? maybe?) Cloverton Mac Pro for me... Hopefully they have a better graphics card offering than the current choices too.

And what would be your choice of graphic cards, considering that money doesn't grow on trees and price would be a factor?

 

[Anonymous Freak]

It's difficult to say. Intel has been making engineering samples of Cloverton available to companies like Apple and Dell and motherboard makers for a while now. From the time Intel formally announces availability to the time we can buy a Cloverton Mac Pro should be a matter of days, maybe a week or two. Now, if there are problems with cooling or voltage or BIOS/ROM incompatibilities/bugs to work out, then it could be longer. I'm pretty confident that it won't be a delay anywhere near as long as the Merom Macbook[Pro] delay.

2.66GHz (or 3GHz? maybe?) Cloverton Mac Pro for me... Hopefully they have a better graphics card offering than the current choices too.

Nope, 2.66 is the official fastest Intel has announced. (And the nice thing about Intel, from a corporate point of view, is that they announce EVERYTHING ahead of time. So we know there won't be a surprise 3 GHz release.)

 

[AppliedVisual]

And what would be your choice of graphic cards, considering that money doesn't grow on trees and price would be a factor?

At this moment, an nVidia 7950GX2oc would be just dandy. Or the ATI X1950XTI. I'd also take the current FX4500 if they would get with the program and knock $500 off the price tag. I can buy the PNY FX4500 for a PC right now in oem whitebox packaging for $1349. Apple wants $1650 as an upgrade price. Ouch... And while it has extra features like stencil buffers and multiple overlay planes, it's stuff that isn't really used except by very specialized visualization software. Even my 3D apps - Lightwave, Maya, Modo don't use those features. So, not worth the money since it barely outperforms the X1900XT option for most everything else.

Ultimately, I'd like to see some support for multiple cards working in parallel like SLI. Dual 7950GX2s would be great and I'd buy in an instant. ...Dell has that very config as an option and it's cheaper than what Apple wants for that FX4500, c'mon Apple, let's go!

 

[AppliedVisual]

Nope, 2.66 is the official fastest Intel has announced. (And the nice thing about Intel, from a corporate point of view, is that they announce EVERYTHING ahead of time. So we know there won't be a surprise 3 GHz release.)

Yeah for now... But I'm sure we'll see 3GHz and faster as they increase production. All depends on when I finally decide to make my purchase. But the 2.66GHz is probably it... I may go with the 2.33GHz if the price on the 2.66 is to far out of line, but we'll see. Right now, the current 3GHz Mac Pro is $800 more, but to me that would be worth it for that extra edge on my renderings.

 

[Multimedia]

2.33GHz Clovertowns Will Sell For Same Price As 3GHz Woodies

Yeah for now... But I'm sure we'll see 3GHz and faster as they increase production. All depends on when I finally decide to make my purchase. But the 2.66GHz is probably it... I may go with the 2.33GHz if the price on the 2.66 is to far out of line, but we'll see. Right now, the current 3GHz Mac Pro is $800 more, but to me that would be worth it for that extra edge on my renderings.

As I've explained in detail above AV, the 2.33GHz Clovertowns are the most likely candidate as they cost Apple the same $851 as the 3GHz Woodies. So Apple can give customers a clear choice of fast 4 or slower 8 for the same +$800 total $3,300.

If Apple offers the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, they will have to charge an additional $700 just to cover their additional cost - or very little more than. While the first 8 processors will cost a little over $400 each, that additional $700 will only buy you another 2.64GHz of power or one more processor at a $300 premium. But perhaps it will be worth it to some. I just hope we get the option. I'd rather not spend that last $700 on a little faster and buy RAM instead.

 

[AidenShaw]

2.33 perhaps a good idea for heat as well

As I've explained in detail above AV, the 2.33GHz Clovertowns are the most likely candidate as they cost Apple the same $851 as the 3GHz Woodies. So Apple can give customers a clear choice of fast 4 or slower 8 for the same +$800 total $3,300.

The slower Clovertowns also match the Woodie for TDP - you can get more power (for multi-threaded workflows) at the same power consumption (and heat production) with the quad.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Yeah for now... But I'm sure we'll see 3GHz and faster as they increase production. All depends on when I finally decide to make my purchase. But the 2.66GHz is probably it... I may go with the 2.33GHz if the price on the 2.66 is to far out of line, but we'll see. Right now, the current 3GHz Mac Pro is $800 more, but to me that would be worth it for that extra edge on my renderings.

Yeah, from what I've seen, it's very likely that Woodcrest (dual-core) and Clovertown (quad-core) could easily make it to the mid 3 GHz range on the current production process; and might even see 4 GHz. (Although 4 GHz would be toward the end of next year at the earliest.) With 45 nm production, we'll see bigger L2 caches, four cores as 'standard' on workstation/server chips, (four fully integrated cores, the way Woodcrest is two fully integrated cores now.)

But I in raw GHz, we'll be stuck at about 4 GHz as the max for quite a while. Remember, "Moore's Law" didn't predict GHz, it predicted 'number of transistors or cost per transistor'. As long as we're doublling the number of cores each 1.5-2 years, we're keeping up with Moore's Law.

 

[Multimedia]

Quad Slower Clovertowns or Faster Woodie Pairs?

The slower Clovertowns also match the Woodie for TDP - you can get more power (for multi-threaded workflows) at the same power consumption (and heat production) with the quad.

By Quad you mean each slower Clovertown or a pair of faster Woodies?

 

[AidenShaw]

By Quad you mean each slower Clovertown or a pair of faster Woodies?

I meant quad-core package (socket) - be it Clovertown/Woodcrest or Kentsfield/Conroe.

On a multi-threaded workflow, twice as many somewhat slower threads are better than half as many somewhat faster threads.

Of course, many desktop applications can't use four cores (or 8), and many feel "snappier" with fewer, faster cores.
_______________

In one demo at IDF, Intel showed a dual Woodie against the top Opteron.

The Woody was about 60% faster, using 80% of the power.

On stage, they swapped the Woodies with low-voltage Clovertowns which matched the power envelope of the Woodies that they removed. I think they said that the Clovertowns were 800 MHz slower than the Woodies.

With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more). This made it 95% faster than the Opterons, still at 80% of the power draw.

You can see the demo at http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/webcast.htm - look for Gelsinger's keynote the second day.

 

[amin]

...With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more)...

Faster at what? I'm too lazy to find the part in the keynote where they showed this. Was it 20% faster at something designed to use all 8 cores?

 

[AidenShaw]

Faster at what? I'm too lazy to find the part in the keynote where they showed this. Was it 20% faster at something designed to use all 8 cores?

The task was a multi-threaded matrix multiplication that easily scales to multiple cores.

This is representative of many HPC and rendering apps, but not as realistic for most desktop apps (unless, of course, you're like MultiMedia and run several separate instances of the desktop apps simulataneously).

The sections in the video are at 11:50 to 15:00, and 26:30 to 28:00. (The gap is while the engineer is swapping CPUs and rebooting.)

My earlier numbers were a bit off - rewatching the video the Woodie system was 40% faster than the Opteron, at 17% less power. The Clovertowns were low-voltage parts "about 900MHz" slower than the Woodies. The octo (dual quads) was about 60% faster than the Opteron at 17% less power. (I'd like to have seen them put in faster Clovertowns, and show what the octo Clovertown would do when matching the power draw of the Opteron.)

At about 25:00 minutes in, Gelsinger says that the "two woodies in one socket" is the "right way to do quad-core at 65nm", due to manufacturing and yield issues.

 

[Multimedia]

In Multi-Threaded Workflow - 8 Slower Cores Beat 4 Faster Cores

I meant quad-core package (socket) - be it Clovertown/Woodcrest or Kentsfield/Conroe.

On a multi-threaded workflow, twice as many somewhat slower threads are better than half as many somewhat faster threads.

Of course, many desktop applications can't use four cores (or 8), and many feel "snappier" with fewer, faster cores.
_______________

In one demo at IDF, Intel showed a dual Woodie against the top Opteron.

The Woody was about 60% faster, using 80% of the power.

On stage, they swapped the Woodies with low-voltage Clovertowns which matched the power envelope of the Woodies that they removed. I think they said that the Clovertowns were 800 MHz slower than the Woodies.

With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more). This made it 95% faster than the Opterons, still at 80% of the power draw.

You can see the demo at http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/webcast.htm - look for Gelsinger's keynote the second day.

I thought so. This is the first time I have seen the term "Multi-Threaded Workflow" and I thank you for that. In the Gelsinger Keynote he calls it "Multi-Threaded Workloads".

I'm glad to see you confirm my suspicion that the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown Mac Pro will in fact be faster than the 2.66 or 3GHz Dual Woodie when someone knows how they work simultaneously with a set of applications that can use all those cores a lot of the time. Very exciting.

Also thanks for the link to all those sessions from the IDF. Fantastic to be able to "attend" all of them. I'm stoked and looking forward to watching them ALL. I love all the new Intel self-promotional videos. Intel is happening and hip!

And no premium for that "ninth" processor when you buy a 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown after all bringing the total cost to $3,699 plus ram. So now I hope there will be TWO new lines in the Processor section of the Customize Your Mac page of the online Store:

Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $1200]

I now think I will opt for the 2.66GHz 8-core for $3,699 if Apple will offer it for sale.

The first 8 being a little over $400 each. With the 2.66 you get 2.64GHz more total power so it's like getting a ninth processor for +$400 IOW for no premium. Maybe Apple will only offer the 2.66GHz Clovertown so as not to confuse the buyers.

Wonder if the 2.66GHz Clovertown introduces heat issues under the hood.

 

[AidenShaw]

I thought so. This is the first time I have seen the term "Multi-Threaded Workflow" and I thank you for that.

Yes, I was thinking of your workflow when I said that.

I'm glad to see you confirm my suspicion that the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown Mac Pro will in fact be faster than the 2.66 or 3GHz Dual Woodie when someone knows how they work simultaneously with a set of applications that can use all those cores a lot of the time.

IBM's Blue Gene supercomputer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Gene) is fundamentally based on the fact that for parallel tasks you can essentially add all of the "MHz" together, and that lots and lots of slower CPUs will beat a much smaller number of much faster CPUs.

In the case of the current dual and quad core chips, you double the number of cores - but the cores aren't that much slower than the earlier chips. It's a win for lots of workloads, and not much of a loss for a completely single-threaded task.

 

[Multimedia]

Schiller Skips Reference To Core 2 Duo When Presenting The C2D iMac At IDF

I meant quad-core package (socket) - be it Clovertown/Woodcrest or Kentsfield/Conroe.

On a multi-threaded workflow, twice as many somewhat slower threads are better than half as many somewhat faster threads.

Of course, many desktop applications can't use four cores (or 8), and many feel "snappier" with fewer, faster cores.
_______________

In one demo at IDF, Intel showed a dual Woodie against the top Opteron.

The Woody was about 60% faster, using 80% of the power.

On stage, they swapped the Woodies with low-voltage Clovertowns which matched the power envelope of the Woodies that they removed. I think they said that the Clovertowns were 800 MHz slower than the Woodies.

With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more). This made it 95% faster than the Opterons, still at 80% of the power draw.

You can see the demo at http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/webcast.htm - look for Gelsinger's keynote the second day.

After watching that video I am more hyped up about getting the 8-core Mac Pro than before for my Multi-Threaded Workload. I also watched the Otellini Keynote and was struck by Phil Schiller's appearance where he REFUSED to utter the phrase "Core 2 Duo" with regard to the 24" iMac on stage. I was shocked and appalled that he made no mention it is Core 2 Duo. He called it a Core Duo iMac. Blows me away he forgot to say the "2" part.

I can't tell if that was intentional on his part or not.

 

[rxse7en]

Morning all,

Two things. Guesstimates on release of quad-core Mac Pros (time to upgrade here). And MultiMedia, how do you like the Dell 24" LCDs?

B

 

[Multimedia]

8-Core Mac Pro Could Be Added To Configure Page Before Thanksgiving. Love The Dells

Morning all,

Two things. Guesstimates on release of quad-core Mac Pros (time to upgrade here). And MultiMedia, how do you like the Dell 24" LCDs?

B

If Apple wants to be aggressive, it will happen next month. But if they don't, it could be as late as January. I am sitting on a large pile of cash to buy one the day they are added to the configure page. Love the Dell Screens. They have refurbished 30" models for $1349 now.

I know no one here likes to read my stories of inadequate power, but even with the Quad G5 and that cheap 2GHz Dual Core G5 I picked up at Fry's, I still have to put my Multi-Threaded Workload into a Queue that all runs much slower than it will with 8 cores. I am very excited about the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro.

 

[rxse7en]

If Apple wants to be aggressive, it will happen next month. But if they don't, it could be as late as January. I am sitting on a large pile of cash to buy one the day they are added to the configure page. Love the Dell Screens. They have refurbished 30" models for $1349 now.

I know no one here likes to read my stories of inadequate power, but even with the Quad G5 and that cheap 2GHz Dual Core G5 I picked up at Fry's, I still have to put my Multi-Threaded Workload into a Queue that all runs much slower than it will with 8 cores. I am very excited about the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro.

I was one click away from buying a refurb 2.66 Mac Pro last evening and decided to wait until next month to see what Apple brings to the table. I've sold off my Quicksilver, Pismo, G4 AL 'book, and G4 Mini and picked up a MBP and MB now all I need is a new tower and my Intel transition is complete. Aside from the lack of UB CS2 apps it's been a great transition.

Now I have to get rid of two 21" Viewsonic CRTs and upgrade my displays. I was able to check out the Dell 24" display and it's pretty sweet, but on Friday Costco will have the Viewsonic 22" LCDs on sale for $300 each. For the less than the price of a 24" I could pick up two 22" LCDs. Granted they are lower resolution, but I think the extra monitor makes up for that missing real estate. Any feedback on this is appreciated.

B

 

[Multimedia]

I'm Shocked Mac Pro Is Already In Refurb • What Resolution Model Screen For $300?

I was one click away from buying a refurb 2.66 Mac Pro last evening and decided to wait until next month to see what Apple brings to the table. I've sold off my Quicksilver, Pismo, G4 AL 'book, and G4 Mini and picked up a MBP and MB now all I need is a new tower and my Intel transition is complete. Aside from the lack of UB CS2 apps it's been a great transition.

Now I have to get rid of two 21" Viewsonic CRTs and upgrade my displays. I was able to check out the Dell 24" display and it's pretty sweet, but on Friday Costco will have the Viewsonic 22" LCDs on sale for $300 each. For the less than the price of a 24" I could pick up two 22" LCDs. Granted they are lower resolution, but I think the extra monitor makes up for that missing real estate. Any feedback on this is appreciated.

Wow. I can't beleive they are in refurb after only two months and also the one month old C2D iMacs are all there as well. But I'm holding out for the 8-core no matter what. They should be priced same as the 3GHz Quad Xeon according to published price lists.

Please explain more about what will be for sale Friday at Costco for $300. Link, model number and resolution please? I'm not currently a member but could join if worth it. Is it the VX2235wm 1680x1050? That's a far cry from 1920 x 1200 for around $700 from Dell. While you may save money at Costco, you get what you pay for. Native HD resolution capable is one of my priorities.