Slanderous!
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.
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.
Apple to Use Newly Released Quad-Core Desktop Processors?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Slanderous!
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.
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.
....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 and I don't want to buy a imac and find out that it is already outdated after a few weeks.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?
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.
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.
It looks like the quad-core Dell can beat the octo-core Apple for 1/3 the price
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 !!
At one third the price.
Guess that really shoots a hole in the price/performance equation.
Code:
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 [B]102[/B] [B]98.8[/B]
Floating [B]76.0[/B] [B]68.5[/B]
(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 !!
At one third the price.
Guess that really shoots a hole in the price/performance equation.
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".
It'd be pretty stupid to buy an iMac now when there is evidence of new models 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.
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.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 !!
At one third the price.
Guess that really shoots a hole in the price/performance equation.
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.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.
The Core i7, while only a quad, has a faster FSB which makes a huge difference.
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.
Yup, all twelve of them
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.
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%.
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.
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
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.
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...
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...
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.
"...Apple's tradition of using mobile processors in their iMac line"
hmm. interesting...
Intel iMacs? definitely. iMac G3, ok. iMac G4, sure. iMac... wait
PowerBook G5 next tuesday!!!
(somebody had to do it )
hmm. interesting...
Intel iMacs? definitely. iMac G3, ok. iMac G4, sure. iMac... wait
PowerBook G5 next tuesday!!!
(somebody had to do it
)
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 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.
But at least Dell sells a $950 computer that can beat their $4000 computer in some tasks.
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*....
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.
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.
Apple software is another story.
One more xMac thought
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.
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.