Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Using Exclusive 3GHz Xeon from Intel?

And don't forget: it's not just computer sales now. With the Apple TV, Intel will probably sell millions of extra cpu's. Potentially there's intel chips in the next iPod, iPhone, whatever. If I were Intel, I'd give Apple preferential treatment as well... So long the other big players, don't find out and start complaining that is :rolleyes:
 
Whistleway said:
Not really. Just another way to keep up the prices by staying on high price curve.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but have you actually attempted to price out a matching workstation class system from HP or Dell? You may be surprised at how good of a deal the Mac Pro is for what you get (not even including the nice case and near silent cooling you get with the Mac Pro).

Again the Mac Pro isn't a consumer system...
 
theshibboleth said:
But 3 GHz isn't the same for different chips.
Click to expand...

Yes, but wasn't Steve referring to the PowerMac G5? Not the chip inside it.

I guess by the that logic still haven't reached 3ghz then. After all, there is still no Power Mac G5 that runs at 3Ghz.

I'm going to count myself in the "we were told one year, it took four years" camp.
 
BenRoethig said:
Unfortunately apple has positioned themselves where it has to be. They don't have a desktop in their lineup.
Click to expand...

They have two desktop units in their lineup ... granted they aren't a mini tower but they are desktop consumer systems.

Now would it be nice to have a mini tower from Apple.. HECK YEAH

I believe we may get one in the not so distant future given the that Mac Pro will stay a workstation class system (even more so with the likely gain of additional 8-core processor options and hopeful leverage of hardware RAID in the chipset).

Anyway my comments on pricing was in regards to the Mac Pro and the Mac Pro is well priced against the competition.
 
Umbongo said:
And this is where most complaints from potential buyers stem from.
Click to expand...

And the mismatches in reviews. It's not that the Mac Pro is a bad deal. It's an excellent deal as it was intended to be used. However, if it's put up against a PC Core 2 Duo desktop because it's the only thing Apple offers with twin optical drive drives, multiple hard drive slots, upgradeable high end graphics, and can practically accept more than 2GB of RAM it doesn't look like such a good deal. It's kind of like having to buy a commercial duty truck if you want a bed to haul something in.
 
Sucks that popping those quad core chips into my Mac Pro would void my warranty, cause in a few months time when those prices might come down, I'd do it in a second.
 
GFLPraxis said:
On the other hand, you could imagine that it is helpful to Intel to have a testing ground for the new processors. The Mac users are the test subjects, and since the Xeons are only available in limited quantities, this allows Intel to release them without having to worry about huge orders being placed from every manufacturer (just let Apple have them).
Click to expand...

That's exactly why Intel and Apple's relationship is going to be strong. Apple get's to be just where it wants. A niche market of expensive high end machines. Intel gets to put out it's new processors ahead of the competition. Other computer manufacturers don't really complain because they need either more quantity or their market is lower end.
 
dartzorichalcos said:
Interesting. This is the fastest mac Apple has ever made. I would want to see some benchmarks on how it compares against PowerMac G5 Qaud. I will get the next Mac Pro update model and keep the G5. I will have two powerful computers.
Click to expand...

I am in the same boat. I am curious to see how much faster is the octo using Adobe CS2 and CS3 in comparison to the quad G5.
Everyday it passes I am glad I purchased the Quad back in October 2005. This computer still one of the most powerful in the Mac world.
 
belovedmonster said:
Arent Apple the biggest computer maker in the world now? Im sure I read somewhere that out of all the computer brands like HP and Dell they are now the biggest selling. Isnt that reason enough for Intel to give them special treatment?
Click to expand...

It's not Apple's size that counts - it's their willingness to push the technology. Before Apple Intel was stuck with rather boring and slow changing OEMs who were about as exciting for Intel as watching as snail run around.

Now Intel has a company that will be far more dynamic. This not only serves Apple well, but wil also light a fire under some PC OEMs.
 
PlaceofDis said:
1. yes.
2. possibly exclusive.
3. wrong.

just because there are 8 processing cores, does not mean that you're getting 24GHz out of it.
Click to expand...

I didnt say you would be.... but you do have 8 cores... and they all run at 3GHz... if you do the math... you have a total power of 24GHz under the hood. Which is not wrong.
 
Apple before Dell or HP?

Isn't it interesting that Intel are getting the 3GHz Clovertown piece to Apple before letting their bigger customers like HP and Dell have access to it?? Wonder what's going on here? Maybe they think they'll work the kinks out with Apple before it goes prime time with the big boys...
 
iBunny said:
I didnt say you would be.... but you do have 8 cores... and they all run at 3GHz... if you do the math... you have a total power of 24GHz under the hood. Which is not wrong.
Click to expand...

No, it's incorrect.

You can make a comparison saying "If I harness eight identical horses together, they'll be able to run eight times as fast!" Except not. They won't be able to run any faster than a single horse would, they just might be able to pull more weight and maintain speed.

Running a properly threaded application that does not require any more CPU cycles than, let's say, 2 cores can handle, it will be no faster on an 8-core machine. Arguably, it will even be slower due to overhead created by communication between processing cores. However, when it becomes important is when using a heavily threaded application (Final Cut, etc. etc.) under duress, when having more workers available on the assembly line will speed up a complex operation.

There's a formula that explains this.

The statement above would be more correct, however with Peryn (or later?), when Intel has planned what is essentially the ability to combine multiple cores into one big core. In that case, you might actually be able to produce 24GHz of processing power in a straight line (probably less, given overhead) out of 8 3GHz cores. Not many details about that is known, however, but I'm sure it will become something of an industry standard across Intel/AMD chips in the future.

In short, I think 8-cores only has a performance increase for a very small set of users, given the same MHz measurement as an equivalent 4-core chip. If you need it, you definitely know. Most users will probably be better off using the same money they'd use on the 8-core upgrade on RAM.
 
Howmanoid said:
Isn't it interesting that Intel are getting the 3GHz Clovertown piece to Apple before letting their bigger customers like HP and Dell have access to it?? Wonder what's going on here? Maybe they think they'll work the kinks out with Apple before it goes prime time with the big boys...
Click to expand...

Intel gives lots of engineering samples to all their OEMs, and even to software players. The kinks get worked out.

Apple probably decided that it could meet demand with the quantity of engineering samples that Intel could provide.

Note also, that these chips are *IDENTICAL* to the 2.66 GHz chips - there's really no difference in the systems from anyone else's dual-dual-duals.

Intel's yields and quality are improving and there are now enough chips landing in the "3.0 GHz bin" that they can be sold. That's all.
 
Howmanoid said:
Isn't it interesting that Intel are getting the 3GHz Clovertown piece to Apple before letting their bigger customers like HP and Dell have access to it?? Wonder what's going on here? Maybe they think they'll work the kinks out with Apple before it goes prime time with the big boys...
Click to expand...
I have to agree with AidenShaw. All the Xeon processors are made using the same processes. In the end they still have different performing characteristics for different environments. Intel is just now able to effectively supply enough 3.0 GHz Clovertown processors for Apple to be able to have it as an option.

Sadly, there is a rather nice post from ages ago that shows a silicon wafer and what poritions of it would eventually turn out as certain Intel processors (Celeron, Mobile, or Xeon.) Defective chips just get cache cut or cores turned off. (Celeron or Conroe w/2 MB of L2 Cache) There's no reason to dump a chip when you can guarantee it'll live on just fine as a Celeron.
 
Eidorian said:
I have to agree with AidenShaw. All the Xeon processors are made using the same processes. In the end they still have different performing characteristics for different environments. Intel is just now able to effectively supply enough 3.0 GHz Clovertown processors for Apple to be able to have it as an option.

Sadly, there is a rather nice post from ages ago that shows a silicon wafer and what poritions of it would eventually turn out as certain Intel processors (Celeron, Mobile, or Xeon.) Defective chips just get cache cut or cores turned off. (Celeron or Conroe w/2 MB of L2 Cache) There's no reason to dump a chip when you can guarantee it'll live on just fine as a Celeron.
Click to expand...

Thanks to you both for this. I had no idea that all the variants came off the same production and were classified after production. It makes tons of sense the way you've explained it.
 
Howmanoid said:
Thanks to you both for this. I had no idea that all the variants came off the same production and were classified after production. It makes tons of sense the way you've explained it.
Click to expand...
A Core 2 is a Core 2 is a Core 2. They just meet different thermal envelopes and sustainable clock speeds.

Intel at one point did make every line using an entirely different set of processes. (Pentium 4 would become Celeron and Pentium-M had no relation. And let us not talk about bringing in Itanium.) It is much more cost effective to just use the same process across the board then slap a different pin set, SKU, and price once you know how a Core 2 will perform after burn in testing.
 
further evidence. .

Further evidence that Apple will get Santa Rosa a few weeks before everybody else. Apple is high-end, high-profile and has limited production runs. Perfect company to introduce cutting-edge technology.

But, will the big boys on the block get upset? Dell, HP and IBM? We'll see.
 
And what gives? No rumors about MacBook Pros? With Intel basically announcing the release of Santa Rosa within the next few weeks?

And NAB right around the corner?

I am grateful for MacPros (they enable creative geniuses across the world), but I'm interested in portable power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back