Constrained Supplies Suggest Mac Mini Server and Mac Pro Server Headed for Refresh

[milo]

It won't work. You have to have the $499 Snow Leopard Server product already installed to get the $49 dollar upgrade to Lion Server. It says this on the Apple site. The original Lion info from Apple suggested Lion and Lion Server were the same product so I can understand your comment.

That is weird, I hadn't seen that pointed out before. What is it going to cost for people buying brand new macs after 10.7 ships? Or who upgrade to 10.7 then want to upgrade to Lion? The website only mentions upgrades from 10.6 server, which is a pretty limited number of cases.

Because almost all personal computers are grossly overpowered for the vast majority of users who surf the web, exchange e-mail, and edit documents. So there is no reason to make a bigger, louder, Mac Mini that consumes much more power (due to its use of desktop components).

There sure as hell is a reason to go that route - it would allow a much CHEAPER machine with that performance. Even if the CPU is overpowered for many users, these days even the lowest end users likely need a fair amount of hard drive space for music, photos, and video. A laptop hard drive is a terrible way to go for a desktop machine. And basic users are getting into things like video editing and Garage Band which are extremely consumer friendly but still CPU hogs. Even things like rerendering audio (and in the future possibly video) for mobile devices can benefit from more power.

And I'm very skeptical that the small size of the mini outweighs the disadvantages. I'd bet if they went slightly bigger to use desktop components and either bumped specs or lowered prices (or hopefully some of each), it would provide a nice boost to sales. But the main reason they won't do it is because it would probably make the mini too appealing and eat into iMac sales.

The price of the Mac Mini has little to do with the cost to manufacture the Mac Mini.

Flat out wrong. Just compare the prices of the components, particularly CPU, memory, and hard drives. The parts used in the mini are more expensive than their desktop counterparts, period.

 

[toddybody]

Slimmer, mid tower MP + 1500.00 starting point + full AMD 69xx support (no Mac only cards) + SATA III + TB = pure awesomeness

 

[Umbongo]

For the mac pro, it definitely needs an update. The chip issue is definitely a concern, but what apple should have done years ago is use the i7 family for the single chip designs (4/6 core) and save the xeon for the dual (8/12 core). The quads haven't been competitive performance or price wise for years, and this would give them much much better bang for their buck.

Using Core i7 processors offers no benefit. They are the same as the ones Apple used except the Xeons allow the use of ECC memory.

 

[toddybody]

Using Core i7 processors offers no benefit. They are the same as the ones Apple used except the Xeons allow the use of ECC memory.

Price would be the advantage. Xeons are considerably more than their i7 counterparts (with exception to the 980x, etc). Though it would be a step backwards in some processing tasks, an i7 2600 would be a fantastic CPU for non-server/heavy work station MP owners. As in my comment above, I'd love to see a consumer oriented MP with a friendlier price entry...IMO, SB would facilitate this. Apple could have a separate server/work station class with dual cpu options, etc.

Ha ha! Im just dreaming of the day when I can game on a Mac

 

[macbook123]

You know, I wish Apple would produce a consumer desktop headless Macintosh, because the design of the iMac sacrifices graphical performance for the sake of form factor. I'd love to have a mac which did not compromise on graphical power and had a fast DVD drive.

Apple will never do this of course since they have the iMac range.

Exactly my point! Thank you!

 

[deconstruct60]

Using Core i7 processors offers no benefit. They are the same as the ones Apple used except the Xeons allow the use of ECC memory.

There are two subdivisions inside of i7 line ups. There the mainstream i7 which are not Xeon derivatives and the "extreme"/"ultra"/etc. (i.e., expensive) versions which are. In the first round of "Core iX" marketing labeling perhaps that was true, but the latest round of offerings from it is not. If this is a "cut costs" exercise the "extreme" i7s would get dumped too.


Since this is a "shave costs" exercise the is opportunity for a lower price point box. The design isn't driven by price it is driven by providing value. Turning it into an exercise of which parts bin has the cheapest parts leads to substantially lower profit. It is a race to the bottom. There zero reason for Apple to engage in that. They cannot possibly win the "PC" war because they only have a minor share of OS/Applications market. The correct strategy is to make money with what you got.


Splitting the Mac Pro design into two different boards/builds might lower costs for the i7 model but would raise R&D costs fo the Xeon model (even smaller numbers. ). That move would doom it to the same fate at the XServe (too few numbers sold to bother with). Once the dual package Mac Pro is gone then the single package one would be next in line on the chopping block. At that point it would be even more glaringly an value overlap with the high end iMac.

 

[silentnite]

This is excellent news. Hoping this leads to an i5 replacement in all Mac Mini's or at least an i3 with the option of an i5 upgrade.

 

[opeter]

I would be happy with an i3 CPU inside the Mac mini. Please, update it, Apple!

 

[Thomas2006]

Quad Core i5 for the Mac mini please Apple.

A quad-core i5 would be nice, but I would prefer the ATI graphics in the 15" MacBook Pro. Since the chances of that are pretty thin then I will second the quad-core i5. If you look at the internals of the Mac mini you can see how much more motherboard space would be available for dedicated graphics if the Mac mini was taller. I know Jonathan Ives could design a Mac mini that would be just as, if not more, ascetically pleasing as the current model if he would get the green light from Steve, but Steve's obsession with thinness is giving us form over function.

 

[Umbongo]

Price would be the advantage. Xeons are considerably more than their i7 counterparts (with exception to the 980x, etc).

Apple have offered six different processors in the single CPU LGA 1366 Mac Pros (2009-2010). The Core i7 counterparts had the same price, features and specifications - less ECC memory support.

Though it would be a step backwards in some processing tasks, an i7 2600 would be a fantastic CPU for non-server/heavy work station MP owners. As in my comment above, I'd love to see a consumer oriented MP with a friendlier price entry...IMO, SB would facilitate this. Apple could have a separate server/work station class with dual cpu options, etc.

Ha ha! Im just dreaming of the day when I can game on a Mac

It isn't the components used that make the price seem so high. A Core i7 2600 costs more than the Xeon W3530 used in the base Mac Pro.

 

[pbuerk]

Upgrades to both are way overdue, IMO. Thunderbolt finally gives mini's a way to connect to fibre, and it will be interesting to see exactly how the XSAN bundling in Lion will work. Some racked Quad Mini's could make for a decent software render farm at an attractive price. Now if they could only find a way to put redundant power on those things...

 

[jonnysods]

Great news! We are looking to get the Mac Pro server in the next few months at our office!

 

[milo]

Using Core i7 processors offers no benefit. They are the same as the ones Apple used except the Xeons allow the use of ECC memory.

I didn't say it offers a benefit. The reason they should do it is because the Xeons offer no real benefit in a single chip machine and the i7s offer the same performance at a lower price. The main reason to use Xeon is because it allows multi chip use, in a single chip machine you're paying for a feature that isn't being used, it's wasted money. The only other benefit is ECC but in real world use consumers aren't even going to notice the difference.

Using Xeon in a single chip machine is just a waste of money, it was a dumb decision when they first shipped those machines and it's just as dumb today.

Since this is a "shave costs" exercise the is opportunity for a lower price point box. The design isn't driven by price it is driven by providing value. Turning it into an exercise of which parts bin has the cheapest parts leads to substantially lower profit. It is a race to the bottom. There zero reason for Apple to engage in that. They cannot possibly win the "PC" war because they only have a minor share of OS/Applications market. The correct strategy is to make money with what you got.

So what is the "value" in the 4/6 core mac pros? You're paying the price premium for the xeon but getting performance that doesn't beat the high end i7 iMac in many cases. If Apple was using a pricier chip that provided real benefit for the extra price, that would be defensible. But right now Apple is using expensive parts and selling an expensive machine that performs WORSE than many machines that are much cheaper. Apple absolutely could use cheaper parts and lower prices while still maintaining the same profit margins, there's no reason it would have to be a race to the bottom.

Splitting the Mac Pro design into two different boards/builds might lower costs for the i7 model but would raise R&D costs fo the Xeon model (even smaller numbers. ).

That would be a good point except that the MP line ALREADY has two different boards/builds. And they're not even that similar, they don't even have the same number of ram slots. Since there are two different mobos already, making the single chip one i7 wouldn't be a big deal. Not to mention that design for a tower has very minimal design demands. There's no optimization for space required like in a laptop (or iMac), and apple tends to just reuse intel's reference mobos with minimal tweaks anyway. Switching half the line to i7 would have minimal R&D impact.

Apple have offered six different processors in the single CPU LGA 1366 Mac Pros (2009-2010). The Core i7 counterparts had the same price, features and specifications - less ECC memory support.

But they wouldn't just be limited to the ones that are counterparts. If they can ship an i7 imac for $1699 with a screen (with performance that can beat the low end MP), there's no reason they can't ship a desktop without the screen (and without the size constraints, and with all desktop parts) for less than that.

 

[the8thark]

According to 9 to 5 Mac, trusted source Mr. X

 

[KnightWRX]

The only other benefit is ECC but in real world use consumers aren't even going to notice the difference.

These aren't consumer grade machines, why would consumers buy them ?

 

[milo]

These aren't consumer grade machines, why would consumers buy them ?

Apple wants to convince you that they aren't consumer grade machines (and keep the price up)...but if the performance is the same or worse than other "consumer grade machines" I'd argue that's exactly what they are.

 

[the8thark]

The editors should read their own stories... it might give them a clue...
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/0...ebut-priced-at-29-99-mac-app-store-exclusive/
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/0...re-separate-paid-download-from-mac-app-store/
Hmm... I wonder why there's a constraint on the server versions of these products???

I happen to agree here. Apple even said in the latest keynote, almost 75% (I think it was) Macs sold are notebooks. And of the remaining I would guess most of those are iMacs. The Mac Pro as I see it is not getting a lot of love from the customers. Their dollars are (I guess) going to other Macs.

All of this makes me think Apple is trying to expand their market share. Ie people try Lion on a Mac and love it and want to start using the server features of Lion. An iMac or MBP with a 500GB+ HDD could be set up as a basic server. Maybe not as a file dump server. But with an external HDD (via thunderbolt) in the future it could be a possibility.

So people who like Lion can easily upgrade their current Macs into servers without having to repurchase anything like you now. Now you can only get SL or SL+Server Apps. You can't just buy the server Apps on their own. So for these people they would be buying SL 2x.

I really think this is the market Apple is trying to get into. Not too many people would purchase a bunch of Mac Pros for a server farm. Other hardware which does the same job is much cheaper and rack mountable. The small business server on the other hand with a recent iMac or decent MBP would to just fine. Sure you could be a Mini Server or Pro.

My point here? Apart from rambling on random stuff. All my own opinions. Is to say I think Apple's server only oriented hardware is slowly dying simply cause I think the prosumer (high end imac and high end MBP) can do the job just as well for most things.

 

[Umbongo]

Using Xeon in a single chip machine is just a waste of money, it was a dumb decision when they first shipped those machines and it's just as dumb today.

What alternative would you have proposed in 2009? The Core i7 processors were the same less ECC memory support and there were no LGA 1156 processors. Using Xeon processors rather than Core i5 and i7 DOES NOT increase the cost to any degree of significance.

Core i7 930 - 2.80GHz quad core - $294
Xeon W3530 - 2.80GHz quad core w/ECC - $294

So what is the "value" in the 4/6 core mac pros?

To run OS X on an expandable desktop system.

 

[Gray.2]

Mac Mini Ram, etc.

8Gb of Ram for the 2010 Mac Mini (from Crucial) dropped 10% over the past few days. Coincidence?

Even if this rumor had not come out, I think everyone would agree we are overdue for a Mac Mini refresh.

The most interesting question that a refresh will answer (for me) is where Apple has decided to go with the Mac Mini graphics card.

Are they going to stick with Nvidia, or are they switching to Intel Graphics?

Is AMD a possibility?

If I had to bet, I would say Intel. It seems to gel with Apple's previous commitment to making a low-end, word-processing and internet browsing machine that can also run WOW-level games type machine.

 

[Eidorian]

No, you'd plug your ethernet cable into a TBolt dongle - what's the benefit (other than somebody made a bunch of money selling you the TBolt to GbE dongle)?

It is so compact.

 

[kazmac]

Good news

It will be interesting to see the new server-sized Mac Pros.

And always nice to see a Mac Mini or Mac Pro rumor. While I hope I don't have to get a new machine (may change if my job requires it), I'm still looking forward to seeing what the updates for both styles of desktop.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

The Core i7 2630QM is the entry level mobile quad core at a lovely 45W TDP.

Ah, I thought they had one i5 quad-core model for some reason...

The power draw isn't that bad when you take in to consideration that is the maximum power draw for CPU+North Bridge+graphics (plus 3.5W for the South Bridge.) The current Mac mini uses a dual-core chip at 35W for the CPU alone. I can't find any numbers for how much power the GeForce 320M draws... I found one reference to the previous-generation 9400M drawing 12W, which would make total CPU+North Bridge+graphics+South Bridge about the same between the two.

 

[Hellhammer]

Ah, I thought they had one i5 quad-core model for some reason...

The power draw isn't that bad when you take in to consideration that is the maximum power draw for CPU+North Bridge+graphics (plus 3.5W for the South Bridge.) The current Mac mini uses a dual-core chip at 35W for the CPU alone. I can't find any numbers for how much power the GeForce 320M draws... I found one reference to the previous-generation 9400M drawing 12W, which would make total CPU+North Bridge+graphics+South Bridge about the same between the two.

320M is the chipset, it has Northbridge and Southbridge functions in it. All what Mini has is the CPU and 320M, and that is 37W if we assume that 320M is 12W.

 

[Eidorian]

Ah, I thought they had one i5 quad-core model for some reason...

The power draw isn't that bad when you take in to consideration that is the maximum power draw for CPU+North Bridge+graphics (plus 3.5W for the South Bridge.) The current Mac mini uses a dual-core chip at 35W for the CPU alone. I can't find any numbers for how much power the GeForce 320M draws... I found one reference to the previous-generation 9400M drawing 12W, which would make total CPU+North Bridge+graphics+South Bridge about the same between the two.

320M is the chipset, it has Northbridge and Southbridge functions in it. All what Mini has is the CPU and 320M, and that is 37W if we assume that 320M is 12W.

You're looking at ~48W total, if you include the PCH, if want a quad core over the 25-28W Medium Voltage Penryn Core 2 Duo you see right now.

 

[Mord]

I really hope they'll make the mac mini server more affordable. I've been considering picking one up for a while but £900 is just too much for what it is.

I also wish the mac pro would gain a credible number of drive bays, our main server has 9 drives in it and can fit another 9. Even ignoring the cost of an equivalent mac pro you simply can't get a mac with that sort of capacity.