It's terrible value for the performance it gives over the E5-1650 V2, that's why I think they will avoid it. They didn't offer the W3570 or W3690 either when those offered very little over the next model down. I know they finally added the W3580, but that was awful value too at $1,200 for 3.33GHz rather than $400 for 2.93GHz.
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.
Dell has announced Ivy EP workstations
- Thread starter theSeb
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's terrible value for the performance it gives over the E5-1650 V2, that's why I think they will avoid it. They didn't offer the W3570 or W3690 either when those offered very little over the next model down. I know they finally added the W3580, but that was awful value too at $1,200 for 3.33GHz rather than $400 for 2.93GHz.
It seems having both slots and Thunderbolt in a workstation actually is technically possible.
External loop back DisplayPort cables didn't pass certification all last year.
It will be interesting to see what the restrictions are on these cards (e.g., restricted to iGPU less systems or will work in others ). However, that kind of Rube Goldberg kludge was never going going to fly as an Apple design solution.
It never was a question of technical feasibility. For the Mac Pro it is far more a market size+growth feasibility.
It's just a pci-e card, he shows it in the video. Probably data only which is totally fine on a workstation.
Not really kludge at all.
The 3570 vs. 3580 issue was far more one of timing than value. Intel didn't release the 3580 until Q3 '09. The Mac Pro 2009 came out in Q1 '09. It wasn't an option for release and it didn't really make much sense to release the 3570 just to supercede it in less than 6 months. The 3570 and 3580 are priced the same. That 133 MHz wasn't and isn't a huge value mover. So Apple just left the top end unreleased for a while. There would be more Mac Pros later so could fill in the blanks later.
In the case of the 3690, again timing. It was not released until Q1 '11. More than six months later than Mac Pro 2010. The 3600 series was cluster screwed release in terms of an Mac Pro line because in August 2010 it consisted on one and only one offering; the 3680. And it was priced right in this $999 zone. It has come down since the there were eventually 3 offerings by the time got into 2011. But the Mac Pro 2010 needed to ship in 2010 (and the far more complete 5600 was already complete with respect to Mac Pro applicable parts. ) In 2012 Mac Pro the price shifted down, but in 2010 there was different component pricing structure.
From all appearances by 2010 Apple was winding down the Mac Pro and Intel was screwing up the 3600 series. There was little reason to wait as the only new architecture offering available was at the top end (since being pressed by Intel into using 3500 series for entry/mid level for yet another year. )
Depends upon had apps that needed the extra throughput. Everything at the top end of Intel line up has that "as fast as available" tax on it. More than a few folks pay it.
In contrast to these dribbled out 3500 and 3600 series offerings, Intel dropped three E5 1600 offerings at the start and still have 3 E5 1600 offerings now that the v2 versions have come out. The likelihood that some "better spec'ed" E5 1600 v2 is coming in 6 months is very slim. This is the line up to choose from. This E5 1600 v2 line up is highly likely going to start and end its active product lifecycle with just 3 entries. If Apple is looking for a $999 part to fill a "best" Mac Pro nothing particularly different is going to show up later.
The 2.5GHz 10 core E5 2670 costs $1552. Add Apple's 30% mark up and that is $2018. There is no way that is going to be just $900-$1200 more than the base entry configuration. Apple isn't going to subsidize the part.
Users have relatively fixed budgets, which means the Mac Pro has to be aimed at price points. A $999 part is going to hold down prices better than $1200+ parts will.
I believe another way to look at Mac Pro pricing historically (as a general rule) has been such that the price = $2K + CPU cost (within a couple hundred dollars). But I haven't verified this with every config.
If so, we might have...
$300 4-Core system priced at $2500 (or maybe even $500 6-Core at $2500)
$1000 6-Core system priced at $3000
$1500 10-Core system priced at $3500
$2500 12-Core system priced at $5500
The key assumption here, is that the formula of $2K + CPU cost remains in tact. I think it's a big question mark if the constant will remain at $2K given dual GPUs being standard.
PCI-e card is not particularly material. There is a picture on the blog.
[from http://blogs.adobe.com/davtechtable/2013/09 entry "Here’s a New Video featuring working in full 4K resolution on a 4K display" ]
In the video at around 7:57 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UrxEx8ICqME#t=485 ) he plugs into the upper connector on that edge. The others are likely for DisplayPort Input.
Data only Thunderbolt is exactly was has not passed certification so far. Intel could be loosening the reins a bit, but not going to be first time that folks made something that didn't ship. ( coming later next year sounds alot like hasn't passed certification. )
Let's see you run the DisplayPort signal out of a box and then back into the box and then back out again. In constrast the cable that runs the DisplayPort back into the box could just be hooked to the DisplayPort Monitor eventually going to directly. The first isn't a kludge? Using 3 cables to get to a display when one would work is a kludge in my book.
It is nice if somehow had a Promise Pegasus drive and a 4K display directly embedded in some kind of portable rig so that if plug into TB laptop (in the field ) or into HP 820 ( in the lab ) that rig have both hooked up with one cable. However, for configs were the display and computer box doesn't leave a desktop under 99% of normal operating conditions .... it is a kludge.
The 2009-2012 systems all had two Mac Pro's priced below $3K. (just barely under $3,000 but highly indicative they know it one of those red-line boundaries. ). I don't think anything has changed with new Mac Pro as to what barriers a single CPU package Mac Pro faces. Sub $3,500 for the whole standard configuration is still going to be an issue if not looking to sell significantly fewer systems.
Apple has never priced the Intel CPUs at Intel prices. They have always added their mark-up to the BTO change. If Intel charges $1500 then the Apple price is about $1,950. Even if they take the $310+30% ($403) off since removing the 1620 v2, $1547 increase which when rounded to even hundreds is $1600 more. Could it fit in the $3600 zone yes. But there is now a huge gap between $3000 ($2999 ) and $3600 ($3599). If drop a E5 1660 v2 in there around 3,399 then would be taking up the price slot that the old entry dual used to hold down. There is zero good reason to leave a hole that large open in the line up at all.
Again... Intel doesn't even charge that low and having stuck on the 30% mark-up... No way it is going to be that low. If can afford a $2,500-3,000 12 core part probably can afford a better SSD and/or GPU also. I doubt Apple will let the base entry configuration to have a 12 core BTO option. The baseline systems will have a slightly higher price ( due to bigger SSD and/or GPU ). [ Similar to how cannot attach top end i7 to entry 27" iMac. ]
That is the big question mark. It is doable if just use 40-60% mark-ups on the video card components instead of the 100+% that the mainstream FirePro's have. It boils down to what kind of deal they hammered out with AMD. If they didn't hammer out a good deal that is makes it even more likely to use the lower priced 1600 series though. There is going to be even smaller allocation in the system pricing for the CPU if the GPUs have 70-100% mark-ups on them.
Last edited:
Here's an analysis of the 2012 Mac Pro Pricing
The single socket systems follow the $2K + CPU price formula exactly. The Dual Socket systems are at a premium (but also come with more RAM)... but average out at around $3K + CPU
Base Model:
4-Core 3565 ($560) Priced at $2500 = CPU + $1940
BTO:
6-Core 3680 ($1000) Priced at $3000 = CPU + $2000
High End:
12-Core 2x E5645 ($550/CPU) Priced at $3800 = CPUs + $2700
BTO:
12-Core 3x X5650 ($1000/CPU) Priced at $5000 = CPUs +$3000
BTO:
12-Core 2x X5675 ($1440/CPU) Priced at $6200 = CPUs + $3320
So, I suppose based on this it's reasonable to assume New Mac Pro pricing might look more like:
Base Model (One of):
$300 4-Core 1620 v2 Priced at $2300 (2K + CPU)
$500 6-Core 1650 v2 Priced at $2500 ($2K + CPU)
BTO:
$1000 6-Core 1660 v2 Priced at $3000 ($2K + CPU)
High End:
$1500 10-Core 2680 v2 Priced at $4500 ($3K + CPU)
BTO:
$2500 12-Core 2697 v2 Priced at $6000 ($3.5K + CPU)
Again, this all assumes a fixed cost of the other components (GPUs) of around $2K with a similar $1K premium on the high-end config.
You seem to know an awful lot about every specific detail of this part for having never seen nor used it.
I really hope this intel made part can pass the intel verification test. Especially with all the other PC thunderbolt parts that seem to be able to pass it and are coming out daily.
It fits because you entered numbers to make it fit. These aren't the prices. The W3565 is a $294 processor from Intel. Even with Apple's 30% mark up it would only be 382. Even a 40% mark up 411. $560 would be about a 90% mark-up.
Similar for the 3680. It is $583. 30% $758. 40% $817. A $1000 price is about a 71% mark-up.
So you have taken base system price/costs and reassigned it to CPU pricing/costs which isn't there. That is very convenient for your later 2013 prices when add back in without the 70+% mark-up on CPUs.
The Mac Pro 2012 didn't have two GPUs. Apple made some trade-offs ( no SATA drives , bays , 5.25 bays & drives , etc.) but probably not same base costs. Apple will be doing good to hit to the old $2,499 price point let alone go lower if there is decent RAM, SDD capacity, and GPU on board.
While it is possible to hit $2K base without CPU, I suspect that would be gimped either on RAM or SSD capacity (in addition to super deal on GPUs). Again these CPUs don't have the 70+% mark-up as your earlier one.
Go back and look at post #6 in this thread. A System from BOXX with that CPU is going for $7300. ( definitely likely more RAM than standard config will be, but only one GPU. ). A E5 2680 v2 costs $1723 from Intel without Apple's mark-up.
Never seen it having posted links to a picture and video of it? OK sure.
The usage I talked about was the cabling which again was highlighted in the video.
Similarly
"... Just had a conversation with Dave Helmly about this, and while the PCIe Thunderbolt card does feature Displayport IN as per Intel's Thunderbolt specs, it's not required to be connected - unless you want the video looped through. ... "
http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/58182#58182
Intel is in the PCI-e card selling business now? Intel doesn't even sell the Xeon Phi cards to end users. They have to flow through a system vendor. It is unclear whether this is some reference design card or the finished product. I haven't seen anything about Intel jumping into the contract Thunderbolt AIC (add-in-card) business.
And how many of those are "data only" TB implementations? Plenty of the non Rube Goldberg stuff passes. There has been some reports that Intel is creating a new compliance class for X79 based board ( WS/HEDT and therefore also C600 ) boards that doesn't have a DisplayPort input requirement (but GPIO connection requirement). However, the vast majority of systems that have passed have been ones with iGPUs. The "coming out daily" are those systems not the WS/HEDT solutions.
Since I'm using the price at introduction for the new CPUs, I thought I should use the same for the outgoing models. So, I used the prices at introduction for those CPUs obtained from CPU-World. Obviously they are cheaper now. Maybe they were even cheaper when the 5,1 launched, but I don't know the exact price history to that level of detail so I just went with price at introduction.
Agreed, as I've said a few times, it's a big assumption or question as to whether the pricing of the 2013 system before CPU can meet what was effectively the old systems base price (before CPU) of $2K (single socket) or $3K (dual socket).
Maybe the pricing (before CPU) will be $3K for the 2013 system given the dual GPUs and SSD, and we'll be looking at an entry level price of $3300 for the 1620 v2 system. We just don't know. All we can do is see how Apple priced stuff in the past, which is the analysis I've attempted to do here.
Right (don't know where I got $1500 for the 2680 v2 from?!). Anyway, we basically have two data points to work with here:
1. 2012 Mac Pricing for the top models is roughly $3000 + CPU cost (using price at introduction). Using the same formula would put the 2013 2680v2 model at about $4.5-5K
2. A near comparable workstation from BOXX comes in at $7300.
I think it's safe to say, the price for the 10-Core config will land somewhere between $5K and $8K depending on the GPUs and other trim that goes with it as well as Apples desire to either add or reduce margin vs. the 2012 machines.
It's all a wild ass guess at this point. However, I've been saying from the beginning that the pricing is likely going to shock most people which will create a whole new series of threads flowing with tears.
Last edited:
They were also obviously cheaper in 2012 also. The fundamental flaw is which introduction point you are using. It should be for the Mac Pro, not the parts. Especially if the parts are already over a year old when the Mac Pro is introduced/upgraded. If you wanted to work with baseline pricing for relative new CPU packages and Mac Pro upgrade, you would have to go back to 2010; not 2012. By June 2012 (the Mac Pro introduction point you are using, the whole W3000/W5600 line up you are using had been superseded by the next generation that was actually shipping. Apple cherry picked some offerings that shifted down in price. Probably to crank up margins on what was going to be an even slower selling product offering for what turns out to be more than a year of time.
The single socket entry baseline has some slack in there. Components by themselves weren't the complete picture. Some of that was "eblow room" for iMac BTO models also. Single xx20 CPU , 1 GB RAM DIMMs, modest HDD, mid-range GPUs , etc. even with Apple mark up were a bit much to push $2,499 pricing.
If it does then this will die off over the next couple of years. Again, a $1,000 hole between iMac and Mac Pro isn't going to do the Mac ecosystem any good, and will be even worse for the Mac Pro long term. The apparent Mac Pro growth problems before, will be worse with that sort of baseline pricing.
The SSD capacity can be tuned to hit a price point ( as it is on the MBP 15" offerings ). Similarly the dual GPUs is partially offset by all the stuff that Apple dropped from the Mac Pro. It is really somewhat of Apples or Oranges comparing the non-CPU component break down of the 2013 Mac Pro to the previous ones. It is radically different. So the costs aren't necessarily going to be the same. "Missing" things can offset GPU pricing. There aren't going to be "special" GPU drivers. There is going to be a separate long warranty and support queue for the GPU cards. They just don't warrant the same pricing as the mainstream FirePros at all, because they aren't mainstream FirePros beyond the physical functionality.
So, what do you think the pricing will look like across the line?
All I can gather from what you've wrote is that you believe the entry level can't possibly be as low as $2300 but also can't be as high as $3000. But then you also say there's historical evidence that there might be a second model under $3K. The only way that's possible is with a 1620v2 ($300) and 1650v2 ($500) in a system that is priced at around $2200-$2400 before CPU. Is that your assertion?
And you're also asserting that a 10-core model must be somewhere around BOXX pricing of $7300. That's an insane gap so I'd like an explanation on how you see that making sense. And while you're at it, throw out your best guess for a 12-core configuration.
So rather than pick apart my reasoning, give us something to discuss... What are your proposed price points for an entry level quad, a 6-core, a 10-core, and a top of the line 12-core model?
Last edited:
I could see Apple actually not offering a 10-core and going with the E5-1680 V2 (3GHz 8-core and same price as the 2680 V2) as it is a workstation CPU for uni-processor systems, and then the only E5-2600 V2 being the 12-core option. Which also gives it a big jump over the 8-core.
That would be a rather odd choice. First, while there is an ark entry ( http://ark.intel.com/products/77912/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1680-v2-25M-Cache-3_00-GHz ) it is pretty well hidden ( e.g, if go to ark and display all E5 products it doesn't show up.)
Second, the price jump is taxed about as heavily as the 12 core one. The bang-for-the-buck just isn't there. Trading off two fully complete cores for 200MHz increase in speed (+7%) ? Over eight cores about a 56% aggregate increase; that isn't even a single core worth. That is a horrible performance trade off on anything that scales with cores. For folks doing single threaded drag racing the 1680's top end of 3.9GHz is nice, but that is done much cheaper and faster with a 1660.
None of these E5 1680 v2 , 2680 v2 , or 2697 v2 make sense in any standard configs (all have either a dual tax and/or bleeding edge top end tax on them). As BTO options if the objective is to give "core count" options then the 1680 doesn't have it. 4 and 6 core increases are significant jumps in core count.
If big jump is what is driving the value perception to motivate paying for the price increase then 4 is a bigger jump than 2.
It's part of the E5-1600 line up, why would it be an odd choice?
deconstruct60 said:
So you feel $700 for up to 3% performance is worth offering and there is no good reason to skip it, but ~$1,700 for up to 25% makes no sense?
Oh right, you just like to refute every point anyone makes on here.
Last edited:
Interesting... I've never heard of the 1680 before now. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. It's a good mix of cores and clock speed. If terms of raw compute power (3x8 vs 2.8x10), it does fall slightly below the 2680v2 for the same money and also doesn't have the same exotic marketing opportunities that a 10-core does, but as you say, it spreads out the high end a bit, perhaps at the expense of cluttering up the mid tier configurations.
I think entry will be price around where the entry is priced now ( 2,499 +/- 100 ) . If iMac prices don't shift down significantly then many of the non-overlap issues will remain. So dramatically down isn't likely. Dramatically up is goofy. When has Apple ever radically revised a product and stuck a 20% price increase on it? There is zero historical track record for that? Even the drop-and-replace of MBA 11" -> MacBook or rMBP 15" -> MBP 17" larger hit the old price slots.
Apple can tweak the components to hit the price points they want to hit.
Then you aren't looking very hard at what I wrote. The lower boundary is a combination of components + Apple mark-up + iMac boundaries. I think there will be two W7000 equivalents, reasonable sized SSD ( 256GB ) , and 8GB RAM so it would be pretty tough with those constraints to drop below $2300.
$3000 is possible, but suicidical for the product's long run outcome. I don't think Apple is trying to kill off the Mac Pro.
If I think the entry is around the $2500 how hard is it to fit the next model up to be under $3K? Even more so when there is a $290 gap between the E5 1620 v2 and E5 1650 v2. Same gap that has been there before between the xx20 and the next logical step up the Xeon 3xxxx product ladder?
There is no competitive advantage at all of pushing the Mac Pro pricing out of the 2-3K zone as quickly as possible. None. My presumption is that Apple isn't purposely trying to shot themselves in the head.
The 1620 v2 won't have a $300 effective price since Apple will layer their mark-up on top. But if this is a "will or won't use quad core" issue, then yes I think Apple will use the quad core offering. There is zero good reason not too. If folks have some sort of "I can only buy 6 cores" dilemma they just skip the entry model. There are many thousands of folks who don't have that drama. There is no good reason to deny them a Mac Pro because some happen to have that other issue.
No. I primarily asserting you could do a reality check by looking at the BOXX model. Your price differed by almost $3000. The "around" implication in my assertion is that +/- $1000 is around. A $2800 delta isn't. I think Apple's pricing is going to be different ( mark-ups on FirePro cards different. Also some differences due to components in respective configurations ). Just matching CPUs is off, but minimally matching CPUs should bring into same zipcode. If doesn't then need to look at what big gap is. In your case, it was that was in part that your CPU price was off.
Let's see you are the one with the wrong CPU price but the implication is that I have an insane gap to explain. Yeah right. Part of the gap is the difference in RAM. Part of it is the difference in FirePro costs and part of the gap is that your CPU prices are made up. They aren't what Apple is going to charge.
The flawed parts of your reasoning are worth discussing because they are repeated in these threads over and over again. The "why" behind the numbers are only part worth a long discussion. The prices of the components are posted around the web. They are what they are ( as long as quoted correctly).
baseline infrastructure:
16GB ( 4 x 4GB ) [ Don't find many 2GB modules in the DDR3 1866 range ... that is going to escalate cost since Apple is moving from 1GB modules and will need minimal 4 to match the memory controllers. That is huge jump even with the interim number of years. ]
256GB SSD [ this is capacity that rMBP 15" come with. It is going to be hard to justify why a higher priced Mac Pro is coming would come with less. Given there is possibly only a single drive even more weak justification. ]
Dual equivalents to W7000 [ to drive 7 monitors and also not have iMac equivalent GPUs this is where have to start from. 7870 equivs with 80% mark-up for AMD licensing + 2GB upgrade are about $400 before Apple mark up. ]
So baseline without about $2,100 ( with Apple's mark-up of 35% )
The primary way to a around a $2K (or lower ) baseline is to gut RAM (kind of hard for reasons outlined... don't make them that small, although Apple could possibly twist someone's arm. ) and/or SSD capacity. [ there is crippling the GPU with a W5000 equivalent but at iMac graphics level now, gutted GPGPU performance, and can't drive 7 outputs. ]
Standard 2013 configs:
quad 1620 v2 $2,499 ( $294 + 35% -> $396 )
hex 1650 v2 $2,999 ( $583 + 35% -> $787 )
hex 1660 v2 $3,599 ( $1080 + 35% -> $1458 )
Shockingly (*cough*) Apple's 2010 line up was....
quad 2.8GHz $2,499
quad 3.2GHz $2,899
hex 3.3GHz $3,699
So some drift with the top two but inside of a +/- $100 delta. Up two cores with middle (so +$100 isn't a value drop) and hex is more mainstream 2013 so down $100.
What they do with BTO is more up in the air. Minimally there is a12 core model:
E5 2697 v2 (12 core ) would mean $2614+ 35% so around 3,528. Plus baseline that is about $5,699.
That is a big enough gap with the top end standard there is likely another in there.
E5 2658 ( 10 core 2.4GHz ) is $1440; so 1,944 . Plus baseline is $4,099.
[ The 2658 is only 95W which means can more easily swap the extra 35W for at least one W9000 equivalent for same thermal headroom . The flawed CPU selection so far in this thread is that it purely 130W clock chasing. That isn't necessarily a holistic system perspective. If looking for GFLOPs output there is bigger bang-for-the-buck by assigning that thermal headroom to the GPGPU. ]
The 1680 v2 or 2680 v2 option I wouldn't be surprised if present, but I wouldn't count on them either. The 2680 v2 makes more sense of the two.
I don't think Apple is going to try to cover a high number of the old dual processor price points. If that was a big market they'd still be in that competition. They aren't. Only expect there to be two BTO options max.
Perhaps they will split those over the entries.
So perhaps entry/mid gets two BTO options. And the top end gets two BTO options with only an intersection. But not expecting more than 6 CPU configurations and probably only 5.
BTO on graphics.
Minimally a W9000 equivalent offering. I would expect that Apple allows mix-and-match (e.g., a W7000 equiv paired with a W9000 equiv. ) so that covered more price/value points.
Depending upon how good the price is on the W9000 they may not offer a W8000 equivalent to fill the gap. I initially thought they would, but now suspect better for platform to not have a huge gap here and get the performance into more systems.
I overlooked this post earlier... I tend to agree with Umbongo here that offering two 6-core systems with similar performance priced $700 apart will never happen. It's too confusing and just unnecessary.
I also think your 10-core option is priced low... It's effectively $1400 for the CPU which doesn't even cover Apples cost never mind your 30% added margin. You should re-look at this based on some your own arguments.
Primarily because it is the stealth offering. Not even Intel is really promoting it.
First, that $700 is primarily driven by what Intel charges. There isn't much of a way around that. If have a more price sensitive, cost effective solution present it. The price is hinged primarily on having a higher dynamic range 3.3-3.9 than 3.2-3.8.
A $1,000 more is going to filter off a significant number of users. Their budgets just aren't going to go that high. The other factor you are sweeping under the rug is that Apple puts a 30-35% markup on these CPUs. The bigger the price the bigger the bump. 35% on $700 is $245. On $1,700 it is $595. That $350 additional won't knock off as many as the $1,000 additional but it will be some.
25% over what? The 1650 v2 ? The core counts aren't the same. The higher percentage increase from core count increase would come from a 4 core jump rather than a 2. If additional cores help the jump by 4 can be worth another $1K. If have a "good enough" number of cores with respect to the workload then $1K cheaper and faster is better.
Chuckle. So Intel "top edge additional tax" pricing doesn't work for the 1660 v2 but does work for the 1680 v2? The points I refute are the ones that doesn't make sense. There not refuted "just because". The same priced 10 core has better bang-for-buck than they edge priced 1680. Same reasons why the 12 core doesn't make alot sense in dual (or single) set ups. 8 and 12 (single and dual respectively) weren't even on Intel roadmap for v2 about a year ago. Those were Haswell era kinds of target core counts and the current pricing is indicative of that kind of early generation arrival.
It think you missed the distinction. While it may not be a mid-range GPU weaved in, it will probably be something other than CPU that is changed on the $700 more offering. (e.g., storage/GPU changes on iMac and rMBP entry versus top end). But including these top end 1660 v2 in a standard config Apple probably haggle for slightly better price points due to volume. I don't miss the point of sold loose the top end tax is high. But the real question is whether Apple will actually pay that..... or purely differentiate models solely on CPUs. That's were these discussions typically go down the rabbit hole ( where the CPU is the only concern.)
Yeah that one is off. I used Umbongo's numbers for the additives. If go back to quote of his I quote you'll see why the 2.5 10 core is only areound $1,200. But yeah you are... I should have pulled the numbers from the source instead of relying on the ones posted ad hoc here.
At this point, I've already done numbers from the source about 4 posts above.
P.S. And in that post where I said no reason to skip 1600 is when I was aware of just 3. The 1680 v2 is out in a zone where it doesn't make sense because there is a 2600 v2 offering with approximately the same speed and a higher core count for exactly the same price. The speed difference can't really dig out from the core count deficit unless purely focused value evaluation on single threaded drag racing. The dynamic range is larger than anything else but the throughput is not there at the price point.
Last edited:
I tend to agree except I'm still skeptical that they would offer all three of these. However, as you say maybe the 1660v2 makes more sense as part of a high-end configuration with more RAM and SSD... (more on that below).
I'm also not sure I agree the base model will come with 16GB of RAM. I think 8GB is more realistic (but it's not worth arguing about too much as the impact on pricing is probably not enough to change things significantly).
At any rate, I think we're within a small margin of error on these entry level systems unless Apple does something very unexpected and irrational with their pricing this time.
I think where there's a lot of room for improvement is in our guesstimates on the pricing for 10 or 12 core models.
I expect the 10 core model to be part of a high-end config that likely includes double the RAM, double the SSD, and possibly better GPUs than the entry level models discussed above. So obviously this is where it gets challenging to predict a price, because we have no idea how Apple will price the GPUs. However, I would suggest if we think the base price (before CPU) of the entry level configuration is $2100, it's not unreasonable to assume that the entry level price before CPU is $800 more for a higher end config as follows:
Price of Base Config = $2100
Upgrade 256GB to 512GB SSD = +300
Upgrade 8GB to 16GB RAM = +500
Upgrade W7000 to ??? = ???
So if they don't upgrade the GPUs on this higher-end config, you have a new base price (before CPU) of $2900.
So without upgrading the GPUs on the 10/12-Core offerings we're looking at something like (assuming your 35% margins on CPUs)...
10-Core (2670v2 @ $1552 * 1.35 = $2100) + base price of $2900 = $5000
10-Core (2680v2 @ $1723 * 1.35 = $2326) + base price of $2900 = $5300
12-Core (2697v2 @ $2614 * 1.35 = $3528) + base price of $2900 = $6400
Of course, if the standard GPUs are upgraded, then the price can only go up.
Either way, there's a fairly significant gap between the entry-level configuration and this high-end configuration.
Perhaps this is where your suggestion of a model based on the 1660v2 with more RAM and SSD (base price of $2900) makes more sense here at a price point that would be around $4000 for the system.
That would give Apple systems at these price points:
4-Core (1620) 8GB/256GB = $2500
6-Core (1650) 8GB/256GB = $3000
6-Core (1660) 16GB/512GB = $4000
10-Core (2670/80) 16GB/512GB = $5000-$5300
12-Core (2697) 16GB/512GB = $6400
That makes the most sense to me right now.
It still seams like a bargain compared to BOXX so perhaps we're way low on Apple's expected margins.