Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
That pretty much sums up this forum. If it doesn't have 12 cores and 100GB of RAM as the upper limit people will be pissed...I mean...these specs MIGHT please half the MR crowd:

12 cores, 24 core option (4x CPU's)
100GB of RAM
Matte 40 inch display included
8 PCI-E video card slots
Will Run Mac OS 9 through 10.7
Under $1000
Available in 10 trillion different colors

Do I make myself clear?

:D:D:D

Made my day. Thanks.
 
In the full article, 9to5 seems pretty sure Apple will do them both at once, either tomorrow or Tue. I want new ACDs too. Probably change the line to just 21.5" and 27". Basically, the new iMacs sans-the-computer.

I really do hope Apple updates the ACD lineup with those models...

Edit: How much do you think Apple could get away with prices on a 21.5" and a 27" ACD? As it is I think the 24" is grossly overpriced and next to the iMac it doesn't look like a good deal at all. I think the 24" needs a price drop.
 
I really do hope Apple updates the ACD lineup with those models...

Edit: How much do you think Apple could get away with prices on a 21.5" and a 27" ACD? As it is I think the 24" is grossly overpriced and next to the iMac it doesn't look like a good deal at all. I think the 24" needs a price drop.

Dell is selling a 27" with a very similar - if not identical - LCD panel for ~$1k, and it has a CCFL backlight and a plastic chasis, IIRC. LED is gonna up it a few hundred with the number of LEDs you'd need on something as big and bright as a 27" computer monitor. Throw in the aluminum and the Apple Tax....$1499 is a nice, round price in that ballpark. For the 21.5....maybe somewhere in the 300-500 range. Can't see it going for less than $299. $350-400 probably.
 
Dell is selling a 27" with a very similar - if not identical - LCD panel for ~$1k, and it has a CCFL backlight and a plastic chasis, IIRC. LED is gonna up it a few hundred with the number of LEDs you'd need on something as big and bright as a 27" computer monitor. Throw in the aluminum and the Apple Tax....$1499 is a nice, round price in that ballpark. For the 21.5....maybe somewhere in the 300-500 range. Can't see it going for less than $299. $350-400 probably.

Yea, that sounds about right, but I have a feeling the 21.5 would go for $599. Isn't that what the previous 20" went for? But a sub $500 display from Apple would sound perfect.
 
That pretty much sums up this forum. If it doesn't have 12 cores and 100GB of RAM as the upper limit people will be pissed...I mean...these specs MIGHT please half the MR crowd:

12 cores, 24 core option (4x CPU's)
100GB of RAM
Matte 40 inch display included
8 PCI-E video card slots
Will Run Mac OS 9 through 10.7
Under $1000
Available in 10 trillion different colors

Do I make myself clear?


Pffft, 40" is too big for me!
 
That pretty much sums up this forum. If it doesn't have 12 cores and 100GB of RAM as the upper limit people will be pissed...I mean...these specs MIGHT please half the MR crowd:

12 cores, 24 core option (4x CPU's)
100GB of RAM
Matte 40 inch display included
8 PCI-E video card slots
Will Run Mac OS 9 through 10.7
Under $1000
Available in 10 trillion different colors

Do I make myself clear?
If there's no iSight camera built into the display, it's just Apple still ripping us off again.
 
AnandTech's Final Words on the i7 980X...

Final Words

I have to say that Intel's Core i7 980X is the first Extreme Edition CPU that I've ever gotten excited about. In the past you used to have to choose between more cores or high clock speeds. Thanks to power gating and Gulftown's PMU, those days are over. The 980X gives you its best regardless of what you throw at it. Lightly threaded apps benefit from the larger L3 cache and heavily threaded apps take advantage of the extra cores. The performance advantage you get at the low end ranges from 0 - 7%, and on the high end with well threaded code you're looking at an extra 20 - 50% over the Core i7 975. Even more if you compare to a pedestrian processor. There are a few cases where the 980X does lose out to the Core i7 975 thanks to its higher latency L3 cache, but for the most part it's smooth sailling for the 6-core beast.

The performance advantage comes at no extra power cost either. Enabling 6 cores on a 32nm process means that the die actually got smaller and power consumption remained mostly unchanged. It really is the best of both worlds, at least for a 130W chip. It's almost Conroe-like in its ability to dominate the charts without any technical limitations. If money were no object, the Core i7 980X is clearly the best you can get.

The only problem is price, as is always the case with these Extreme Edition processors. While I don't expect 6-core CPUs to trickle down to the mainstream, if we had a version priced at ~$500 it would be an amazingly easy sell. I wonder where Intel will price the Core i7 970, allegedly also a 6-core Gulftown derivative. We'll have to wait another quarter to find out.

Even taking into account price, if you do any significant amount of compute intensive 3D work, video encoding or Excel modeling, the Core i7 980X is worth it. If you're the type of user who always buys the Extreme Edition knowing that you can get better bang for your buck further down the lineup, this time you're actually getting your money's worth. On the desktop, the next 12 months are fairly stagnant in terms of CPU performance improvements. We'll see a clock bump to the 980X at the beginning of 2011, but it'll be even longer before we get a replacement.

There is of course the higher powered alternative. You could pick up a dual-socket Xeon board and a pair of quad-core Nehalem Xeons for a bit more than a X58 + 980X. You'd end up with more cores, albeit with a higher power budget and higher price tag. The Core i7 980X is such a difficult processor to recommend. It's something I'd personally never spend the money on. But if I needed more compute in a single chip, it's really the only thing that could scratch that itch.

The last paragraph is perhaps most relevant to Mac Pro shoppers. If Apple's pricing remains relative, he's saying you could go with an Octo core for a bit more than a hex core will cost, if you need the added cores, but he's not really recommending either it seems. The Quad core is likely going to remain the best choice for most power users in value and usable performance. Let's just hope for a price drop on the entry-level Quad systems. While that might sting my resale value, I'd rather see more Mac Pro customers getting on-board! :D
 
Yea, that sounds about right, but I have a feeling the 21.5 would go for $599. Isn't that what the previous 20" went for? But a sub $500 display from Apple would sound perfect.

Apple currently sells 24" and 20" displays. I could see them adding a 27" display (once the quality problems are solved), but why do you think they would add a smaller display to their mix? That's not their business model.
 
Apple currently sells 24" and 20" displays. I could see them adding a 27" display (once the quality problems are solved), but why do you think they would add a smaller display to their mix? That's not their business model.

I assume you're actually referring to the 30" display.

You mean, shrinking and miniaturizing their products to razor thin form factors is not their business model? :rolleyes: And what about the Mac Mini? iPod Nano? Where did those come from?

But seriously, a 21.5" display makes sense to me as it gives an option for current 21.5" iMac owners to match their displays, as well as give an option for a cheaper display to those who don't need that much real estate and have smaller budgets.

I personally would swoop two 21.5" ACDs in a heartbeat if Apple delivered one for $500-$600. The 24" at $899 is absurdly priced and a 21.5" would offer the same amount of resolution for several hundred dollars cheaper.
 
The last paragraph is perhaps most relevant to Mac Pro shoppers. If Apple's pricing remains relative, he's saying you could go with an Octo core for a bit more than a hex core will cost, if you need the added cores, but he's not really recommending either it seems. The Quad core is likely going to remain the best choice for most power users in value and usable performance. Let's just hope for a price drop on the entry-level Quad systems. While that might sting my resale value, I'd rather see more Mac Pro customers getting on-board! :D

Would you be able to swap out the 4core for a 6 in a 10? I know some were saying no for the 09's.

It'd be nice to have that as a possibility when they get the software/core usage issue squared away.
 
Would you be able to swap out the 4core for a 6 in a 10? I know some were saying no for the 09's.

It'd be nice to have that as a possibility when they get the software/core usage issue squared away.

I would guess that it would work just fine. It would be most economical for Apple to only maintain one firmware version for all 2010 Mac Pros that would include the necessary parameters and microcode for all 2010 processors.

It might also be fairly economical after a lower clocked non-extreme i7 6-core variant like the i7 970 comes along (apparently due this fall)... especially if you can get a reasonable return on your quad Xeon CPU on CL or ebay.

I suspect the 2010 firmware would also work in a 2009 machine assuming most of the rest of the platform remains the same. The only problem is finding someway to pull the firmware from a 2010 to a file and then flashing it to an 09.
 
I assume you're actually referring to the 30" display.

Yes, I meant 30", sorry for the typo.

But seriously, a 21.5" display makes sense to me as it gives an option for current 21.5" iMac owners to match their displays, as well as give an option for a cheaper display to those who don't need that much real estate and have smaller budgets.

Your argument makes sense to me, but it probably doesn't make sense to Steve. IMO it's psychotic for a 46 billion dollar a year company to have such a sparse lineup of products. E.g. where's that damn mini-tower that everyone wants? But Apple would argue that they are "focused". It seems to work for them.
 
I doubt they would go offline again in the middle of ipad pre-ordering, so Tues, is it is going to happen, looks more likely now.
 
i guess Intel byatch slapped Apple after last year. no more releases before the official launch. maybe that's why Apple hasn't released any i Core CPU MBP's and iMac's yet. Intel won't sell them any.
 
What happened? Where did you guys go? Every time our hopes and dreams are crushed with the reopening of the store, everyone always goes back to a vegetative state again lol.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.