Intel Announces 45-nm Penryn Processors

[milo]

Apple doesn't like being behind either. They want to be the best of the best. And currently, with this line...

"Clovertown processors — the fastest Quad-Core Intel Xeon available"

They're not. Well, after December something they won't be the fastest "available." So hopefully Apple bought up the first batch to release this week.

They're not NOW, or they won't be in a few weeks? Right now, is there anything faster available?

You obviously missed the news a few weeks ago that stated that Apple has supposedly got first dibs on all these processors, putting other system builders in a predicament where they would only be able to produce initial orders only. Apple allegedly has got the first lot of these new processors spoken for. Therefore, it would be quite realistic for them to announce and ship new Mac Pros this week.

Nope, I'm fully aware of that. And wasn't it a rumor, not "news"? Assuming it's true, even if they have all the fastest units locked up, that still doesn't mean that they necessarily have enough right now (if ANY right now) to start shipping this week. And if they're not ready to start shipping, they may hold an announcement until they are ready to ship (which still may be before PC companies ship). Don't forget, that rumor was only about the fastest chip, that doesn't mean apple has the other speeds available which they'd need unless they want to be shipping different speeds weeks apart.

They are not the fastest as of today.

So what faster chips are shipping today?

Somebody has them. Even the 2.80 is faster per clock than the Clovertown which is available now.

Who has them? Link? Where could I buy a machine with one of these new chips and have it shipped today?

Hmmm - new processors have been officially released by Intel (not IBM or Moto), but nobody can ship a system with them until the end of December? Who has all these newly released chips, then? Is Intel just sampling them at this time, or does someone have an exclusive for the first few batches? I guess we'll find out before the end of the month, and possibly tomorrow...

You really need to go back and read the original announcement from intel. They ANNOUNCED new processors yesterday, didn't release them all. In their announcement, they say that some of the chips aren't shipping for 45 days. Some are supposedly shipping now, but they don't say which and I have yet to see a source shipping any of them yet.

 

[milo]

I think this is the clue to why we will never see an Apple mini tower. The only people who really want it are gamers...

Absolutely not. Of course gamers are one part of the market, but there are many users who simply want a machine that doesn't include a monitor and isn't as crippled as a mini.

I agree with your reasoning about why apple hasn't done it yet. I'm sure they're convinced that they're protecting iMac sales, but I think they're doing it at the expense of gaining market share (and making more profit overall).

I'll tell you this. I have been working on macs professionally for 15 years and still do, but the moment the apple OS is available on a standard PC I switch!

If you can get the same results more cheaply then why stay with apple. They have already lost credibility with there range of monitors.... old outdated spec for the top price, honestly... the whole apple ethos is refine, re-evaluate and innovate... Mac users should do the same, times change and we need to as well, if the PC world offers a better product then only a stagnating fool will remain loyal to a product that is actually inferior in it's function.

I am prepared to sacrifice aesthetics for function if the price is right.

You can't get the same results more cheaply. And I don't believe that the PC world offers a better product. The problem with apple offering the OS as a software sale is that hardware sales and profits for the company would plummet. What's the use of gaining a ton of marketshare but decimating profits as a result? Ain't gonna happen. Ever.

I agree with you on monitors, apple really needs to get realistic with their pricing of peripherals and BTO items like drives and memory.

 

[MacinDoc]

You really need to go back and read the original announcement from intel. They ANNOUNCED new processors yesterday, didn't release them all. In their announcement, they say that some of the chips aren't shipping for 45 days. Some are supposedly shipping now, but they don't say which and I have yet to see a source shipping any of them yet.

So who has the ones that are supposedly shipping now? That way my question.

 

[AidenShaw]

Doesn't look like anyone has them....

So who has the ones that are supposedly shipping now? That way my question.

HP has them as options on the DL3x0G5 systems:

• Woodcrest
• Dual Core Intel® Xeon® 5110 (1.60GHz, 1066 FSB) Processor [Subtract $230.00]
• Dual Core Intel® Xeon® 5120 (1.86GHz, 1066 FSB) Processor [Subtract $100.00]
• Dual Core Intel® Xeon® 5130 (2.0GHz, 1333 FSB) Processor
• Dual Core Intel® Xeon® 5140 (2.33GHz, 1333 FSB) Processor [Add $180.00]
• Dual Core Intel® Xeon® 5148 LV (2.33GHz, 1333 FSB) Processor [Add $350.00]
• Dual Core Intel® Xeon® 5150 (2.66GHz, 1333 FSB) Processor [Add $480.00]
• Dual Core Intel® Xeon® 5160 (3.00GHz, 1333 FSB) Processor [Add $670.00]
• Clovertown
• Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® E5310 (1.60GHz, 1066 FSB) Processor [Subtract $180.00]
• Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® E5320 (1.86GHz, 1066 FSB) Processor [Subtract $80.00]
• Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® L5320 (1.86GHz, 1066MHz FSB) Processor [Subtract $30.00]
• Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® E5335 (2.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2 cache) Processor [Add $20.00]
• Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® E5345 (2.33GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2 cache) Processor [Add $121.00]
• Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® X5355 (2.66GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2 cache) Processor [Add $470.00]
• Harpertown
• Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® E5405 (2.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 80W) Processor [Subtract $179.00]
• Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® E5410 (2.33GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 80W) Processor [Subtract $79.00]
• Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® E5420 (2.50GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 80W) Processor [Add $21.00]
• Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® E5430 (2.66GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 80W) Processor [Add $121.00]
• Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® E5440 (2.83GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 80W) Processor [Add $371.00]
• Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® E5450 (3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 80W) Processor [Add $771.00]
• Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® X5450 (3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB,120W) Processor [Add $621.00]
• Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® X5460 (3.16GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 120W) Processor [Add $1,071.00]

but when you select a Harpertown the "ship date" goes from "7 days" to "Call for availability".

Note that the 2.33 GHz Harpertown is $79 cheaper than the 2.0 GHz Woodcrest!

Alienware's QX6950 system says "31 December" for shipping.

As I posted recently, the HP/Lenovo shipping dates of December to January don't bode well for early shipments. There will probably be a few getting out sooner, but I doubt that volume shipments will happen much before MWSF.

Which means that a MWSF announcement for the Mac Pro revision might not be "late".

 

[ktlx]

As I posted recently, the HP/Lenovo shipping dates of December to January don't bode well for early shipments. There will probably be a few getting out sooner, but I doubt that volume shipments will happen much before MWSF.

I've been reading various reports around the net saying that although Intel is claiming immediate availability for many parts, others are saying that four to six weeks for shipping systems is more realistic.

I think when we will see them depends on how Apple wants to present it and if they are waiting on the ATI HD 38xx GPUs. I think Apple's past makes it more likely they'll want either an nVidia 8800 GT or an ATI HD 38xx than an nVidia 8800 GTX/Ultra or ATI HD 2900. Also, the new processors have SSE4 which is supposed to just seriously increase video processing time. Steve Jobs may wish to make a splash in January demoing a new Mac Pro with eight cores running at 3.2GHz and an ATI HD 3870 cranking away at an SSE4-optimized version of Final Cut Studio.

As for the "Tokyo rumor", I mean anyone with any knowledge of who shells out the big bucks for Mac Pros could write the same thing with absolutely no inside information and be assured it's close to right.

 

[AidenShaw]

That Tokyo rumour

As for the "Tokyo rumor", I mean anyone with any knowledge of who shells out the big bucks for Mac Pros could write the same thing with absolutely no inside information and be assured it's close to right.

One other point about the 3.2 GHz CPUs - usually the fastest chips are much more scarce than the midrange and slow chips.

If Apple is waiting for an adequate supply of 3.2s - they might have "reserved" 100% of nothing.

 

[ktlx]

I'm sure they're convinced that they're protecting iMac sales, but I think they're doing it at the expense of gaining market share (and making more profit overall).

I don't think anyone would argue they'd increase market share. However, that doesn't necessarily mean more profit since a mini-tower would have worse margins than either an iMac or a Mac Pro and would eat into both lines. In order to justify the "releasing a mini-tower means more profit" claim, there needs to be a business case to support it that shows whatever margin hit and increased support costs Apple takes by entering the low margin mini-tower market is more than offset by the increased market share.

Since Apple has far better history of making money in the personal computer market than anyone posting to this forum, I'm betting on their strategy.

 

[milo]

I don't think anyone would argue they'd increase market share. However, that doesn't necessarily mean more profit since a mini-tower would have worse margins than either an iMac or a Mac Pro and would eat into both lines. In order to justify the "releasing a mini-tower means more profit" claim, there needs to be a business case to support it that shows whatever margin hit and increased support costs Apple takes by entering the low margin mini-tower market is more than offset by the increased market share.

Since Apple has far better history of making money in the personal computer market than anyone posting to this forum, I'm betting on their strategy.

Why would a minitower necessarily have worse margins than anything else? Apple sets pricing, so that means they set their own margins. I don't think anyone thinks that such a model would match the prices of comparable PC's, but even with apple's 30% or so profit margin the difference in price wouldn't be that much.

And apple's history has been extremely spotty. They have really only started getting it right in the last few years, and even now they still make some decisions that don't pay off. I just don't buy the whole notion that a big company that is generally successful can do no wrong.

 

[tk421]

-sigh-

No announcement. Today is a sad day.

 

[darthraige]

-sigh-

No announcement. Today is a sad day.

Yes, today is a sad day, and either way, tomorrow will be a happy day for me since I will probably buy no matter what.

 

[whatever]

Yes, today is a sad day, and either way, tomorrow will be a happy day for me since I will probably buy no matter what.

Hey, the US Apple store is down, they must be updating their site with the new Mac Pros.

Oh wait, so I must have leaped into the future. Yes, I did it's January 14, 2008 and it must be down for Steve's Keynote. I wonder if I click Submit Reply now and then leap back when will my message be posted (good the head aches of time travel)?

 

[ktlx]

I don't think anyone thinks that such a model would match the prices of comparable PC's, but even with apple's 30% or so profit margin the difference in price wouldn't be that much.

Apple's gross margins for the last quarter were 37%. That means the margins on the iMacs and Mac Pros are well over 40%. The people screaming the loudest for the mini-tower want a gaming machine to run Windows PC games and therefore Apple would have to price more competitively in order to sell enough units to justify the effort. Everyone else in the mini-tower business works on razor thin margins according to report after report.

And apple's history has been extremely spotty. They have really only started getting it right in the last few years, and even now they still make some decisions that don't pay off. I just don't buy the whole notion that a big company that is generally successful can do no wrong.

I never said they can do no wrong. I said that they have a track record that is unmatched by anyone posting to this forum. Given a choice of betting on either Apple's strategy, or any different one posted here, that choice is rather obvious. You pick the proven winner betting they will be more right, more often.

Overall, I think understanding Apple's path is a no brainer. If creating a mini-tower was really the financial slam dunk people here keep making it out to be, Apple would be making and selling one. Apple is a whole lot smarter than the people on this forum and if they aren't making a mini-tower, the business case doesn't prove out. If it was clearly as obvious as people portray it, Apple would be risking a shareholder lawsuit.

 

[gugy]

damn,

nothing today.
Well maybe tomorrow. One thing is almost sure, if does not happen until next Tuesday, then at MWSF. Oh I hate the wait.

 

[whatever]

Apple's gross margins for the last quarter were 37%. That means the margins on the iMacs and Mac Pros are well over 40%. The people screaming the loudest for the mini-tower want a gaming machine to run Windows PC games and therefore Apple would have to price more competitively in order to sell enough units to justify the effort. Everyone else in the mini-tower business works on razor thin margins according to report after report.

I never said they can do no wrong. I said that they have a track record that is unmatched by anyone posting to this forum. Given a choice of betting on either Apple's strategy, or any different one posted here, that choice is rather obvious. You pick the proven winner betting they will be more right, more often.

Overall, I think understanding Apple's path is a no brainer. If creating a mini-tower was really the financial slam dunk people here keep making it out to be, Apple would be making and selling one. Apple is a whole lot smarter than the people on this forum and if they aren't making a mini-tower, the business case doesn't prove out. If it was clearly as obvious as people portray it, Apple would be risking a shareholder lawsuit.

Good God, I must have jumped ahead and missed all of the talk of the need for a mini tower.

Why don't people understand that Apple sits in two computer markets. The Professional and the Consumer. They are not interested in entering the Gaming market, if game publishers want to enter Apple's market place (by creating games an Apple device), fine, but Apple has no interest in becoming the next Alienware.

When Apple sees a market they feel is profitable and they can succeed in they jump into it will both feet, recent examples include the iPod and the iPhone and even the submarket space that contains laptops. Making game machines and mini-towers just don't fit!

Even if there was (and there isn't) a solid business case for a Mini-Tower, Apple would never be at a risk for a shareholder lawsuit, because all Apple would need to say is that they're focusing on other market segments.

 

[gugy]

The Mini-tower won't happen. Let me say another way. Very, very unlikely.

If it was part of Apple plans, we would have it by now. So, I would save all the whinning and let's move on.

I want my MacPro now!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[babboxy]

damn,

nothing today.

...I'll go and play crysis in the meantime...see you next week.

 

[happydude]

nothing today

huh, kinda expected something today. a shame but it'll come soon (relatively soon, depending on if you are waiting to buy or not). personally, we got rid of waiting and just went with the imac of which we have no regrets!!! in 3 years or so we'll upgrade that to a tower system for sure. 3 years from now - now that's something to dream about!!! what will apple have in store for us in 2010/2011?!?!?!

 

[AidenShaw]

Look at the single socket workstations, not the PCs.

Everyone else in the mini-tower business works on razor thin margins according to report after report.

Apple's mini-tower entry wouldn't compete with the Emachines of the PC world - the single socket Intel workstation market would be a better model.

Look at the Dell PW 390 workstation. With a quad core 2.66, it's about $1000 less than a quad-core Mac Pro with similar specs. That's still a $1700 system, though, so hardly "razor thin" margins.

 

[ktlx]

Look at the Dell PW 390 workstation. With a quad core 2.66, it's about $1000 less than a quad-core Mac Pro with similar specs.

That doesn't seem like a very good model for what people seem to be clamoring for. It has outdated CPUs and chipset and doesn't have gaming GPUs. People are crabbing about how outdated the Mac Pro is and that system is even weaker.

That's still a $1700 system, though, so hardly "razor thin" margins.

Margins have nothing to do with the absolute price of the system. Something sold for $2T could still have a razor thin margin. HP's margins on PCs can't be anywhere near Apple's because their system division makes less profit than Apple's on something approaching twice the revenue. Although the above system should have pretty decent margins. Most of the parts are last generation (1066MHz bus and 975x chipset with DDR2 memory).

Ooops: Dude, that's a Dell, not an HP...

 

[milo]

Apple's gross margins for the last quarter were 37%. That means the margins on the iMacs and Mac Pros are well over 40%. The people screaming the loudest for the mini-tower want a gaming machine to run Windows PC games and therefore Apple would have to price more competitively in order to sell enough units to justify the effort. Everyone else in the mini-tower business works on razor thin margins according to report after report.

You make a lot of assumptions, and you don't really justify any of them. I don't agree that it's all gamers. And if apple can sell a mini that is that uncompetitively priced, I don't see why they can't sell a minitower at their usual margins. The difference between 15% margin and 35% margin on a $1000 machine is only $200. I think plenty of people would be willing to pay that small a difference to get a mac, especially after years of having the only alternative be a machine that's $2200.

Not to mention that most minitowers sold are probably more in the $800-1200 range, where the margins aren't as thin.

I never said they can do no wrong. I said that they have a track record that is unmatched by anyone posting to this forum. Given a choice of betting on either Apple's strategy, or any different one posted here, that choice is rather obvious. You pick the proven winner betting they will be more right, more often.

That's garbage, equivalent to the fanboys who counter any criticism of Star Wars with "Well, have YOU made a hit movie?" The Coca Cola company had a track record unmatched by anyone in the general public, yet they discontinued Coke in favor of a new flavor, a move that any random person walking down the street would tell you was colossally moronic.

And seriously, a mini tower would invite a shareholder lawsuit? Sorry, but you've crossed the line into sycophantic territory with that.

That doesn't seem like a very good model for what people seem to be clamoring for. It has outdated CPUs and chipset and doesn't have gaming GPUs. People are crabbing about how outdated the Mac Pro is and that system is even weaker.

It looks like you're really misunderstanding what people want in a machine. People want expandability and upgradability and generally DON'T think that kind of machine needs the fastest processor. The complaining about how the MP is outdated is an entirely different issue than adding a mini tower. Apple needs to upgrade on the high end AND add cheaper expandable options on the low end.

If you want to compare a newer chip, just switch the dell to the quad core 2.4. That's $1640 for the dell with similar BTO options versus $2200 for the MP with a 2.0 quad (meaning the dell may be faster for most things).

 

[takao]

razor thin margins aside... actually i guess that's not so true compared to actual local PC suppliers where you often can get much better stuff since they don't have the water head of bureaucracy like HP or dell who also happen to spend gazillions on ads around the world

and cpus like the Q6600 are still a hell of a chip totally missing in apples line up even when it has a slower fsb

personallyi would got for a p35 board currently since they can handle the new Penryn desktop chips coming out in Q1 08

true the x38 etc. boards are faster etc. but you are paying for stuff you would even have to pay more to little more performance (which for most 3d apps is graphcis card limited anyway)

i still find it funny how apple chooses never desktop components where actually the margin could be the highest while having an excellent price performance ratio

 

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw
Look at the Dell PW 390 workstation. With a quad core 2.66, it's about $1000 less than a quad-core Mac Pro with similar specs.

That doesn't seem like a very good model for what people seem to be clamoring for. It has outdated CPUs and chipset and doesn't have gaming GPUs.

Yes - it's outdated. Today is Tuesday, and this system has a motherboard and CPU from Sunday. LOL

You can bet, however, that it will be updated with an X38 motherboard (the replacement for the 975) as soon as Dell can get sufficient quantities.

More to the point, though, is that it's a small tower (about 60% of the size of the Mac Pro maxi-tower) with room for 3 or 4 disks, a second optical, an x16 PCIe slot, and other expansion slots. It's also well made (sturdy metal) and very quiet.

 

[ktlx]

You make a lot of assumptions, and you don't really justify any of them.

I repeated stuff that's public record from SEC filings.

It looks like you're really misunderstanding what people want in a machine. People want expandability and upgradability and generally DON'T think that kind of machine needs the fastest processor.

I think the problem is more that you keep putting words in my mouth. You say what you want in a machine. But there are just as many others screaming louder who seem to want Apple to recreate an Alienware system.

Both you and AidenShaw point out directly the other issue with the mini-tower release. There are at least three target candidates for the mini-tower and all have different needs and wants.

You keep talking about other company's failures and fanboys and so forth. But let's go back to the original claims you made. What credentials can you put forth to back up the claim that Apple's releasing a mini-tower would increase the market share and therefore increase their profit? Why should any of us believe your claims have any merit in comparison to Apple's actions?

 

[takao]

Why should any of us believe your claims have any merit in comparison to Apple's actions?

well remember the apple tv and it's raving success ? that god damn thing got greenlighted and is an aweful lot more of a niche

can you show me how apples desktop sales have improved since the intel launch considerable ?
after all apple is really pushing so we should see a increase in more desktop sales ... right


telling me that a mid tower computer makes no business sense while in the real world more than 90% of all desktop have that format is simply not logical to me ... especially from a business point

 

[ktlx]

I'm sure they're convinced that they're protecting iMac sales, but I think they're doing it at the expense of gaining market share (and making more profit overall).

That's okay... I didn't really expect anyone other than AidenShaw to even atttempt to justify these types of claims. I assumed what would happen is what normally does is there would be misdirection and avoidance and eventually turn into labeling a fanboy anyone who doesn't assume Apple is retarded. At least Aiden points out Apple could do it, which I don't dispute at all. My belief is that Apple knows what it's doing, and if there really was non-trivial profit to be had, they would pursue it before going off on tangents like the iPhone and AppleTV.

I assumed when I started this, that like all the other previous times, people were just talking out their rears with no real data or analysis to justify their claims that Apple has no idea what it's doing in the business of making personal computers and they are smarter than the people in Cupertino.

We just have different assumption. I assume Apple isn't run by a group of morons. Others assume they know better than the people running a $148B+ company.