Do you think the new Mac Pro will be cheaper?

[Umbongo]

Can anyone elaborate on why X5482 costs less than its desktop version where i7 desktops cost a lot less than Gainestown?

As far as I've read, desktop vs workstation chips don't differ much in performance. Sometimes none at all.

Ok there is no real difference in performance, you are correct. The QX9770 is supposedly more optimized for game type applications, but whether that translates in to real world performance has never been shown I dont think.

The price differences are because they are aimed at very different markets. The QX9770 is targeted at gamers and enthusiasts who will overclock it, this means the QX9770 chips may be of a better quality than those going in to the Xeons. The Xeons are for servers and workstations and as most customers will be buying two anyway Intel can offer it at a lower price. Think of it more as $1,400 for 4 cores and $2500 for 8.

For Nehalem the i7 parts are inline with Intel's previous high end desktop prices, $999 being the top spot. Intel will probably come out with a 3.33GHz, 3.46GHz or 3.6GHz processor with a $1400 price tag when they have built up enough inventory. The Xeons are more expensive because they offer more to the buyer over Penryn. Intel obviously feel they can charge that amount, again different markets so you can't compare the fact that desktop processors stayed similar but dual processors went up.

 

[iBug2]

Ok there is no real difference in performance, you are correct. The QX9770 is supposedly more optimized for game type applications, but whether that translates in to real world performance has never been shown I dont think.

The price differences are because they are aimed at very different markets. The QX9770 is targeted at gamers and enthusiasts who will overclock it, this means the QX9770 chips may be of a better quality than those going in to the Xeons. The Xeons are for servers and workstations and as most customers will be buying two anyway Intel can offer it at a lower price. Think of it more as $1,400 for 4 cores and $2500 for 8.

Ok, but if same rules apply for i7 products as well, why would we pay 1600$ for 3.2 Ghz chip where desktop version is 1k$?

 

[robbieduncan]

Ok, but if same rules apply for i7 products as well, why would we pay 1600$ for 3.2 Ghz chip where desktop version is 1k$?

Because the desktop version is not the same! You cannot run a desktop CPU in a 2-CPU setup. It will not run on a Xeon platform. So assuming Apple continue to use the same logic board for all Mac Pros you simply cannot use the desktop version. Otherwise they need to design 2 logic boards, use 2 different core logic chipsets etc just to support the low-end Mac Pro. Not going to happen. Just accept: it's not going to be significantly cheaper.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Ok, but if same rules apply for i7 products as well, why would we pay 1600$ for 3.2 Ghz chip where desktop version is 1k$?

Because you won't be purchasing a Mac Pro if you don't.
Because Apple can charge whatever they want and we will pay it.
Because they like using the best chips possible.

 

[iBug2]

Because the desktop version is not the same! You cannot run a desktop CPU in a 2-CPU setup. It will not run on a Xeon platform. So assuming Apple continue to use the same logic board for all Mac Pros you simply cannot use the desktop version. Otherwise they need to design 2 logic boards, use 2 different core logic chipsets etc just to support the low-end Mac Pro. Not going to happen. Just accept: it's not going to be significantly cheaper.

No, I understand that the desktop versions won't match on the boards. What I meant was, why the workstation versions of the new chips are more expensive, where the workstation versions of old chips were cheaper than desktop versions. It's not about Apple, it's about Intel. Unless the workstation versions of new chips are gonna offer something, more than dual CPU option, that desktop versions don't offer, I fail to see how intel can price them at almost more than twice as high compared to desktop versions at same Ghz.

 

[Umbongo]

I fail to see how intel can price them at almost more than twice as high compared to desktop versions at same Ghz.

Because people will pay it. Intel are going to offer the fastest dual processor solutions, offering more performance in a number of areas for less than their own solutions cost before. A Nehalem 2.66GHz 8 core server will perform similar to or outperform (memory, power consumption, certain applications) a Penryn 3.2GHz 8 core server. That is at $1,916 in processors vs $2,558. AMD won't even be on the radar for 2 socket solutions for those needing performance. So Intel are offering a lot in that area at a better price than before.

Now as I said, the single socket, high end enthusiast desktop platform is a very different market. The processors have always been cheaper than the Xeons, it's only the highest end QX chips that were the exception, these are intended to be overclocked and are probably the "pick of the litter" as it were and are aimed at a very niche group who will pay it.

 

[jjahshik32]

It will probably cost the same as the current models as it will use a xeon variant.

 

[Chaos123x]

Apple will get a deal on the Xeon processors they will not pay that much.

But I doubt the Mac Pros will be cheaper unless they stick with the current chips or only use single quad chip for the base model.


Who knows though, I doubt it cost intel anything more to make different processors. It's just supply and demand.

 

[nanofrog]

Apple will get a deal on the Xeon processors they will not pay that much.

But I doubt the Mac Pros will be cheaper unless they stick with the current chips or only use single quad chip for the base model.


Who knows though, I doubt it cost intel anything more to make different processors. It's just supply and demand.

Granted, the materials and processing costs are similar, but the new parts will cost more, even for Apple.

Intel had to add in the R&D costs, and the two new fabs they're building.

 

[iMacmatician]

W5580 - 3.20GHz - $1600
X5570 - 2.93GHz - $1386
X5560 - 2.80GHz - $1172
X5550 - 2.66GHz - $958

E5462 - 2.80GHz - $797

About time too. And I believe the 3.2 GHz Harpertown was cheaper than $1600 at launch.

Edit: And apple always gets chips a lot cheaper than retail prices. So even if those prices are correct, it doesn't give much clue.

So…

Apple gets a CPU price drop with Penryns. Apple gets a CPU price drop with Nehalems. Don't you think the price drops largely if not wholly cancel each other out?

Unless the workstation versions of new chips are gonna offer something, more than dual CPU option, that desktop versions don't offer, I fail to see how intel can price them at almost more than twice as high compared to desktop versions at same Ghz.

Dual-CPU alone is enough, apparently. The high-end Xeon MP CPUs cost over $2000 per CPU.

 

[michaelsviews]

Considering i7 processors are a lot cheaper than the ones used in Mac Pro's currently. 3.2 Ghz i7 costs 1000$ while Apple's current 3.2 used to cost 1700$.

And the 2.66 i7 costs a surprising 290$. So getting an octo 2.66 would be quite cheap, might bring the entry level MacPro to iMac price range.

At least 3 to 5 hundred dollars more

 

[jjahshik32]

At least 3 to 5 hundred dollars more

I highly doubt it will cost even $50 more than the current prices. If anything it will drop in price by a hundred or two.

I noticed that with more advanced technology, prices seems to come down.

 

[ButtUglyJeff]

I think the new RAM will be more expensive too........

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

If your question is "Will the new 2009 model of the Mac Pro be cheaper second hand in 2010 than the current Mac Pro will be in 2020" then yes, it will be cheaper.

 

[dr. shdw]

Also don't the Xeons (Nehalem based) have extra Quickpath channel(s)?

 

[Umbongo]

I highly doubt it will cost even $50 more than the current prices. If anything it will drop in price by a hundred or two.

I noticed that with more advanced technology, prices seems to come down.

As was highlighted in the thread earlier the processors the base model will probably use have increased in price by $160 a piece over the price of the current ones. As other components will tend to remain at similar prices to their current counterparts the price is likely to rise to $2,999.

I think the new RAM will be more expensive too........

It will be, at least initially. Registered ECC is currently $95/GB from Crucial and Unbuffered ECC is $55.50/GB in 2GB DIMMs. I don't know if non-ecc unbuffered will be supported, but it is currently going for $35/GB. For comparison sakes Crucial charge $34/GB for the current Mac Pro and OWC are now at $24/GB. OWC were $50/GB when the Mac Pros launched if I remember right.

Also don't the Xeons (Nehalem based) have extra Quickpath channel(s)?

Yeah they do.

 

[Eidorian]

It will be, at least initially. Registered ECC is currently $95/GB from Crucial and Unbuffered ECC is $55.50/GB in 2GB DIMMs. I don't know if non-ecc unbuffered will be supported, but it is currently going for $35/GB. For comparison sakes Crucial charge $34/GB for the current Mac Pro and OWC are now at $24/GB. OWC were $50/GB when the Mac Pros launched if I remember right.

That's DDR3, right?

 

[ryanws]

When will they be launched?

I am waiting to buy a Mac Pro... Patiently... Any ideas on release dates? I thought it would be Jan. '09, but that doesn't look like it is going to happen.

Any thoughts on the release date... At this point, I willing to pay whatever.

 

[Tallest Skil]

That's DDR3, right?

It is.

I am waiting to buy a Mac Pro... Patiently... Any ideas on release dates? I thought it would be Jan. '09, but that doesn't look like it is going to happen.

Any thoughts on the release date... At this point, I willing to pay whatever.

Release date? 6-8 weeks after Gainestown goes into production. That is supposed to happen this month, but we're already in the middle of the month.

 

[nanofrog]

Release date? 6-8 weeks after Gainestown goes into production. That is supposed to happen this month, but we're already in the middle of the month.

6 - 8 weeks from release, not production.

Production has to begin and continue for a period of time before the parts are released to vendors. It's known as Lead Time, and is typically 13 weeks.

So if they started production on Jan 5, that gives a release of April 6.
As they're already late, I would think they're pushing like crazy to make the end of March. Slightly short of 13 weeks, but not by much.

 

[iMacmatician]

6 - 8 weeks from release, not production.

Production has to begin and continue for a period of time before the parts are released to vendors. It's known as Lead Time, and is typically 13 weeks.

So if they started production on Jan 5, that gives a release of April 6.
As they're already late, I would think they're pushing like crazy to make the end of March. Slightly short of 13 weeks, but not by much.

Wait...they're starting production at the end of March?

 

[m1stake]

Release at the end of March is what he's guessing.

 

[numbersyx]

Considering i7 processors are a lot cheaper than the ones used in Mac Pro's currently. 3.2 Ghz i7 costs 1000$ while Apple's current 3.2 used to cost 1700$.

And the 2.66 i7 costs a surprising 290$. So getting an octo 2.66 would be quite cheap, might bring the entry level MacPro to iMac price range.

Not for one second. The cost depends as much on the CPU and the Mac Pro tends to go with the more expensive ones. Expect the same price or higher.... (although the economic downturn may temper any Apple price rises)...

 

[nanofrog]

Release at the end of March is what he's guessing.

It is.