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.
Intel Debuts Xeon 5600 Series Processors Appropriate for Mac Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Please. The defacto standard config top end iMac tops out at $2100 ( the Core i7 model. yeah you have to go to BTO to put it in but if don't touch anything else it is relatively standard configure to the $1999 one). That $400 gap (two $2,500) is about the same as the other $200-400 gaps between the mini and iMac , among the imac models , and between iMac and Mac Pro.
It is unlikely the entry point on a Mac Pro will start at $2999 since Apple has no gap in the rest of their pricing line up as large as $900 .
Unless Intel drops the pricing on the old 3500 line, seems doubtful that a Apple will push Mac Pros across the $2000-3000 price range. Personally I think it should be "fair" for Mac Pros to compete against any iMac in the $2000+ range. iMac gets $1000-2000 to itself but pushing across into the next range without competition is a bit much. However, since Intel has basically pushed up the pricing on Xeons, that gap will likely continue to exist at the current levels.
That's not what people are asking for at all. And I don't buy that one with a built in screen "fits right between" two headless models.
Probably not for a gaming machine specifically, but I'd argue there is for a multipurpose flexible midrange box.
Or else it's possible you missed that he was at least partly kidding.
Ah, thanks. Looks like the 3530 just launched with these new other Gulftown now. That would make sense. Apple would use that 2.8 part to replace the 2.66 they currently sell for appropriately same part cost. No need for price increases and still print money in the basement. However, much more of a speed bump than an upgrade.
Likewise the new E5620 can replace the old E5520 at roughly the same price too. So the entry dual package edition won't have to limp in at 2.26 anymore, start at 2.4 and packing a bit more of punch on cache and features.
If so pretty sure going to draw lots of flak as to how the single package version is a value proposition problem. Even more so than last year since separated by intel tech generations.
There is difference between exists and large and differentiated.
Most of the minitower crow wants to through in the users who could be serviced with an iMac. Those folks are out and you have to have a differentated enough problem so that not signficantly cannibalize iMac sales. (like everyone in this special market requires two/three identical screens to solve their problem. etc. ). Otherwise want going to do is create a mac product which competes (more than currently ) with another mac product. For example, if just can ad el cheapo screen from new egg to mini tower and skip iMac sale that is likely a no go.
Numerous studies have presented with folks buying minitowers and then never putting anything in them. That clearly demonstrates that the are highly substitutable into the iMac market and that the perception of slot usage is sold much more than actually utility.
Every screen you kill off of an iMac sale, decreases Apples volume pricing on iMac parts and very likely decreases corporate profit margin.
You challenge is to intro a mini-tower product that keeps Apples profit margins exactly where they are. Otherwise it all really boils down to saying you want Apple to take money off the table. Almost no Apple exec , with gobs of stock options, is going to buy into that. Lower margins, lower stock price , takes money right out of their portfolio.
Similarly, over time with the product line deployment of LightPeak across mini, iMac models there will be an every smaller market even if you could identify one. Will have ability to do plug-in a break-out external box that does I/O at PCI speeds. At that point will be hard pressed as to why need internal single slot.
If talking about the "putting with the internal components crowd", Apple unlikely to completely shut down hackintosh crowd. There is little reason for Apple to make (and support ) those.
I'm looking for a computer for both rendering and gaming, so it's either going to be the Mac Pro or a hackintosh with the dual-socket motherboard that EVGA is coming out with.
EVGA's new dual socket motherboard, released today. http://www.evga.com/products/moreIn...rboard Family&series=Intel 5520 Series Family
That's not a mid range computer. It's an $800 machine (if it's a core i7) with a $1400 27 inch monitor wrapped around it.
Hence....a midrange computer
Ah.... you got me fair and square on that one. Cheeky monkey!
I would think Gulftown and Westmere EP are distinct. Even though they are technically the same die and come from the same wafers, Westmere EP have both QPI links active and are validated in dual processor setups. Gulftowns are only validated with 1 QPI link with the other being disabled or defective. There might also be some tuning in the microcode to reflect their different workload environments.
I'm curious if the lack of Mac Pro announcement may be due to a souring of relationship between Intel and Apple. I'd imagine Intel wasn't too happy that Apple didn't use the Atom in the iPad. It's possible Intel may have pulled the "early looks" at processors that Apple had previously enjoyed.
Back when Intel on Mac was fresh, there was a marketing advantage for early release and first access that justified Apple making advance payments, contracts for runs of chips, and things other than ordering off the menu. Now that it is a forgone conclusion the latest Intel chip will be on the latest Mac and that due to Apple's quality program, typically has a lag of 3-6 months from the Wintel world early adopters.
Each product line is its own virtual "business division". I find the continued sale of the Mac-Mini to be Apple's homage of loyalty to Intel. Here is a product that uses less difficult to produce chips and puts it in a device that is not a pure commodity product, and has predictable demand to a large degree.
The iMac, PowerMac, and MacBookPro are the stable lines that need bleeding edge chips.
The iPhone, iPodTouch and iPad are an exercise in minimalism and cost reduction at the hardware level. Intel likes value added. They have shareholders.
Gee, I wonder if Intel will be providing any equipment for Apple's new server farm on the east coast, or their new double size campus in Cupertino?
Rocketman
I'd think that Apple's very public move to Nvidia motherboard
chipsets, with the harsh adverts touting their superiority over
Intel chipsets, did much more to sour the relationship than using
ARM over Atom.
Now Apple's in a bind, since Nvidia can't make chipsets for Core i*
CPUs.
For their notebook market, but certainly not the Mac Pro. There should be no effect on the MP at all.
You could say the same thing with Apple not using AMD CPUs and it's effect on ATI GPU selection or Apple not using nVidia's new Tegra 2. These different product lines are probably handled by different divisions and departments so unless there are explicit instructions from the top, it's probably still business as usual in the Apple-Intel Xeon/Mac Pro integration teams even if their is a loss in other departments.
Besides, Intel would still want to maintain a good relationship with Apple for their CPUs given Apple's marketing power. It would be a greater strategic blow for Intel to lose Apple's CPU business to AMD by griping too much about Atom. Apple is also useful to Intel to promote more risky, cutting-edge technologies like Light Peak, while Apple needs Intel to help offset the development costs for those technologies and to drive mass market adoption after Apple paves the way like for USB and WiFi.