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 Waiting on Quad-Core Desktop CPUs for January?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I know people mac fun of WINDOWS but without us switchers, can you imagine? Ever meet a real MAC APPLE lifer? They have no idea about FSB, cooling, wattage, scripts LOL- but sometimes wonder as the market grows - will we someday see overclocking and FSB bumps on macs? One would think it should be here now -
Some say if you run bootcamp and OC, then it will stay for OSX. Not sure about that - only possible in a DIY kit as you change the bios.
Thoughts?
No, the MAC PRO - did I read it wrong? Aren't the MAC PRO's quad core now?
I thought there were 8 cpu's in a Mac Pro -?
Now that the 8 core is a year away - imagine? WOW! 16 core laptop! 2012.
Better - 32 CORE DESKTOP -
Gotta wonder how digidesign stays in business.
Nice.
I disagree with you on only having the server CPUs in the the xserve. The xserve is a very different machine than the Mac Pro. Some people need a server grade CPU in their workstation for big calculations and things like 3D modeling, and these things are not possible with servers, especially since there isn't really a viable graphics card option for the XServe.
The only magic of a Xeon is muti processor support, ECC RAM, and slightly different thermals from time to time. Pit a Core 2 Duo/Quad against an indentical Xeon, you'll get nearly identical results. In fact Intel sells single socket Xeons that are just relabeled Core 2 processors.
Let me tell you a tale of PowerPC 750 upgrade cards, Power Mac G3 overclocking, DIP switch multiplier fun, upgrade PowerPC 74xx cards with dual processors, G4 Cube processor upgrades, flashing PC video cards with Mac BIOS, overclocking ATI GPUs, soldering eMac logicboards, PowerBook G4 2.0 GHz, and ATITool.
Sadly I wasn't around for the 68000 days.
How would one fit a desktop socketed CPU in that thin iMac case? Its one thing to have a desktop CPU with a low TDP, but unless Intel is making a surface mount BGA version that is attached to the mobo, the socket itself will take up a good amount of vertical space in the case, reducing the possible vertical profile of the heatsink.
I'm voting for cheap Mac Pro. It was said that desktop sales are lagging, maybe Steve realized that he needs a "prosumer" desktop that doesn't involve a monitor. Plus, buying an iMac with a new monitor every time you want to upgrade isn't exactly "sustainable" or "green".
How much? Specs? Who knows. I'd put the cheapest one at $899 on the Nvidia GF9400 platform and the most expensive at $1499 with a 4650/9800GT video card.
I'm voting for cheap Mac Pro. It was said that desktop sales are lagging, maybe Steve realized that he needs a "prosumer" desktop that doesn't involve a monitor. Plus, buying an iMac with a new monitor every time you want to upgrade isn't exactly "sustainable" or "green".
How much? Specs? Who knows. I'd put the cheapest one at $899 on the Nvidia GF9400 platform and the most expensive at $1499 with a 4650/9800GT video card.
Why not this?:
Two varients of the Mac Pro:
1 Dekstop oriented Mac Pro with standard RAM, 2GB RAM standard, ATI Radeon HD 4850 standard (other high-end Nvidia and ATI video cards as BTO).
$1499
1 Workstation orientated Mac Pro:
8-core workstation CPU (no quad core at all) with low-end Nvidia Quadro video card or ATI FireGL video card as standard, 4GB RAM standard, basically all the workstation orientated stuff.
$2799 but wish the price would be back to $2499
Nice idea but I can see that "Mac Pro" being smaller. Something half-way size between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro. Maybe it should be called: "Mac Mini Pro" if it starts at $899.
Doubt Apple would use the intel heatsinks, they'd probably continue to use their heatpipes and a fan like they do now to reduce the thickness.
http://210.157.201.118/~kodawarisan/imac_2007_mid/DSC_3841L.JPG
Yes, but I would assume the dimensions of LGA775 sockets are much larger (2x) than the 478-pin socket P.
Your breaking things up too much and your naming scheme proves it. Apple is all about simplicity. Sure at one point they might offer desktop CPUs in their Pro line, but they will never break it into little pieces like you suggest.
The LGA775 socket would add height to that, in addition to thicker heatpipes for the 65W TDP.
Nope. Try explaining to the consumer why they need the midrange tower, or why they need the mac mini, or why they need an iMac, or why they need a Pro. If you have all those machines things will just get cluttered and confusing.
I can't find an image right now but I know that several review sites have placed Conroe/Merom and Wolfdale/Penryn side by side. Maybe it was the heatspreader that threw you off?
Mobile processors can come in socketed variants and the iMac uses them.
Edit: I know it's either Anandtech or Tom's Hardware but here's something that I found quick.
Attachments
Unless you discontinue the iMac and Mac Mini and sell just the Mac Pro mid-range tower and Mac Pro workstation.
Mid-range towers are meant for geeks then you think?
Unless you discontinue the iMac and Mac Mini and sell just the Mac Pro mid-range tower and Mac Pro workstation.
Mid-range towers are meant for geeks then you think?
It would make Apple just another PC manufacturer if they cut the iMac and the mini.
As for being just for geeks: I think that some form of a cheaper Mac Pro would be great for just about anyone. The geek part comes in when people start wanting to upgrade their computers, and since for the most part Macs aren't user upgradable I don't see this being too geeky. Moral of the story, Macs are for people who don't know how a computer works, nor do they care, they just want to look cool in a coffee shop.
Remember when Macs used to be about creativity and work? Now they're about facebook and syncing the iPhone...
I want Apple to return back to that philosophy.
I also think that a Quad core desktop CPU iMac would be great for anyone. Maybe there is no need for a mid-range tower then if the iMac gets that upgrade.
A four model range of computers is more confusing than a three model range ? Are they idiots that they can't understand the difference of another model ? Who do you think you're fooling in this feeble defense of Apple's glaring holes in their product line and their limited hardware choices. Absurd.
A four model range of computers is more confusing than a three model range ? Are they idiots that they can't understand the difference of another model ? Who do you think you're fooling in this feeble defense of Apple's glaring holes in their product line and their limited hardware choices. Absurd.
Yes it is more confusing. It may not be confusing for people on here, but the macrumors community, especially those likely to be posting in a thread about processors, represent a very small portion of mac buyers. If Apple released a full range of single socket i7 systems (using the Bloomfield processors that are out now) and dual socket Nehalem Xeon systems there would be a thread every day on here asking which someone should buy for their specific use.
For example, let's say Apple offered a Nehalem based range with the following:
2.66GHz x 4 @ $1,499
2.93GHz x 4 @ $1,999
3.20GHz x 4 @ $2,499
2.66GHz x 8 @ $2,999
2.93GHz x 8 @ $3,999 (Apple will probably go with 2.8GHz @ $3,799)
3.20GHz x 8 @ $4,599
Which would be better for photoshop? What about Finalcut? Logic? What if I like to browse the web, edit photos and video and want to play some games? Should I spend extra to get more cores? Do I need more cores? Should I get the faster 3.2GHz quad or spend that extra $500 for 20% less speed but double the cores?
Other companies don't care about such things and offer a full range of products so that every angle is covered, but Apple aren't like that, have said they won't become like that and haven't shown any signs they would.
If this article is accurate and the intended use of this processor is for all-in-ones the I would think it is guaranteed that Apple as the biggest all-in-one manufacturer had a hand in this.
I would think most "Pros" who have money invested in OSX applications and are happy with OSX itself are just going to keep buying competitvely priced dual socket workstations even if they could get by on a Windows system for $1,500-$2,000 less.
That's pretty cool there.
Here is a 2.66 running at 3.8 on air (meaning fan) - wondering what these new chips will do and if the motherboard used here"
http://legionhardware.com/document.php?id=790
can be used with EFI-X as this would be worth it - having a MAC EFI-X running at 3.8 duo core, quad core. For video, photoshop, audio (plug-ins) would be almost 100 fold for a fraction of the cost - lasting at least 3-4 years.
If the new chips are that cool, then the chips could last a lifetime as they will not be that hot.
