Mac Pro and Woodcrest: Confirmed?

[THX1139]

After reading through many threads on several forums, I've come to think that Apple will go with Conroe on the Macpros instead of Woodcrest. Apple might kickout one high-end Quad Woodcrest just to say they have it, more as a marketing ploy than to sell any at real numbers. But that is even doubtful.

The reason I think they will go with Conroe is because it's an affordable kick-ass chip and MOST mac buyers only need dual processors. Yeah, even if they do Logic or Final Cut Pro. Aside from a few relative markets, the only users (at this time) who can benefit the most from more than 2 cores is 3d (rendering) or scientific visualization. Many applications don't support 4 processors and so forcing people to buy a Quad when they don't need one is stupid. If you are selling a dual processor machine, Conroe is the way to go since board options are better and cheaper.

I believe in 2007 is when you will see Quad go mainstream as more affordable solutions in hardware and software become available.

Remember, just because YOU think you need a Quad, doesn't mean the rest of the world does. If Apple were to throw Woodcrest in all of their Macpros, it would be a waste of money. They will either split the line-up into two Quads (one PPC and one Intel) and then have 2 or 3 Conroe machines. If Apple wasn't going to use Conroe, then why did they hold off release until WWDC and Conroe started shipping? If they were planning to use Woodcrest, the machines would be out already!

Finally, I don't think Apple will release Quads to keep up with other companies. They believe the OS is enough to differentiate the market. Who cares if you can get a faster machine from Boxx or Dell, if you can't run OSX on it?

 

[Mord]

do you not comprehend the concept of a workstation? which is what the powermac and mac pro are/will be.

 

[THX1139]

do you not comprehend the concept of a workstation? which is what the powermac and mac pro are/will be.

A workstation by my definition is a computer that runs professional software for billable hours at a reasonable profit. What's your comprehension? If you think the Conroe is not a "work station" worthy chip, you obviously don't know anything about the new Intel chips.

Seriously, do you think an Apple has to have a Quad/Woodcrest to be "work station" worthy? What differentiates the current G5's from the upcoming Macpro's?

 

[Mord]

the whole point of workstations is they offer bleeding edge performance, thus woodcrest is pretty much required, all throughout history people who don't do any REAL pro work complain about how expencive systems are and how most people don't need the power, yes thats right YOU don't, but most people who buy powermacs do, and to have their rendering times cut in half by a quad is well worth the extra money if they can get more jobs done faster.

and as has been explained again and again and again economies of scale make it make more sense for apple to keep and all woodcrest line.

conroe is quite simply a consumer/prosumer cpu, woodcrest a workstation/server cpu and merom a mobile cpu, for good reasons.

oh and by the way you deliberately seperate the two words you obviously do not know what a workstation is, go read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workstation

 

[milo]

Uh... yeah, but the original argument was that the new Quad Woodcrests wouldn't sell that well because graphics people and print houses rely on Adobe products that aren't universal yet. You are coming in during the middle of the conversation and putting a different spin on it and thus taking my post out of context. I stand by my original post... that professionals will hesitate to buy Intel until Adobe releases CS3. Milo and the dozen or so other power-users out there (Logic etc.) will of course jump on the new machines. The MAJORITY who need Quad power will take a wait and see approach.

You keep insisting that the vast majority of people using mac users for a living are doing graphics. Do you have any numbers to back this up?

Just for reference, the logic users group (on yahoo) has over 21k members (and many power users run multiple machines). There's no question that there are plenty of graphics users, but I think it's silly to insist that releasing a tower now would be a flop because the number of users running other apps is insignificant. Especially when you consider FCS users, particularly running in shops with many computers - it makes sense to upgrade some towers to intel to run FCS apps while keeping PPC machines to use for apps that aren't universal yet.

After reading through many threads on several forums, I've come to think that Apple will go with Conroe on the Macpros instead of Woodcrest. Apple might kickout one high-end Quad Woodcrest just to say they have it, more as a marketing ploy than to sell any at real numbers. But that is even doubtful.

The reason I think they will go with Conroe is because it's an affordable kick-ass chip and MOST mac buyers only need dual processors. Yeah, even if they do Logic or Final Cut Pro. Aside from a few relative markets, the only users (at this time) who can benefit the most from more than 2 cores is 3d (rendering) or scientific visualization. Many applications don't support 4 processors and so forcing people to buy a Quad when they don't need one is stupid. If you are selling a dual processor machine, Conroe is the way to go since board options are better and cheaper.

I believe in 2007 is when you will see Quad go mainstream as more affordable solutions in hardware and software become available.

Remember, just because YOU think you need a Quad, doesn't mean the rest of the world does. If Apple were to throw Woodcrest in all of their Macpros, it would be a waste of money. They will either split the line-up into two Quads (one PPC and one Intel) and then have 2 or 3 Conroe machines. If Apple wasn't going to use Conroe, then why did they hold off release until WWDC and Conroe started shipping? If they were planning to use Woodcrest, the machines would be out already!

Finally, I don't think Apple will release Quads to keep up with other companies. They believe the OS is enough to differentiate the market. Who cares if you can get a faster machine from Boxx or Dell, if you can't run OSX on it?

I seriously doubt they'll go all conroe, simply because a dual machine won't keep up with the G5 quads. They'd have to face the public reaming they'd get over releasing new machines that are slower than the old ones, not to mention that people who DO need the power will hold out for quads. And I think that they do need to compete with Dell, there's no way they can max out with a machine that's HALF the speed of available PC's.

I think that a split lineup makes the most sense. Some users need maximum power, some people want a moderately fast tower at an affordable price. Splitting the lineup is the only way to make both customers happy. I assume they're waiting for WWDC for two reasons - because some machines will have conroe, and because they planned a big release event there before the woodcrest release date was moved up.

Believe it or not, even Logic users can max out a quad (easily). Audio is extremely processor intensive, and many users shell out thousands of dollars on pci cards with DSP farms. Others use multiple machines at once. The audio geeks are some of the ones most excited about quad and even 8 core intel machines. Though I have to mention, right now the 4 gig per app limit on memory is often more of a killer than CPU speed is for audio apps. Hopefully that will get upped either when the intel towers ship, or with 10.5.

 

[leandroc76]

Montecito

if not said before, I say the Mac Pros will use the new Montecito.😉

 

[Gurutech]

Wondering why Apple didn't put G5 in Powerbooks.. after someone in this thread insists that TDP of G5 for iMac is about 45 or so..

I believe Yonah is about the same.. (> T2300)...
Well.. perhaps actual TDP for G5 used inside iMac isn't that low.

 

[Eidorian]

Wondering why Apple didn't put G5 in Powerbooks.. after someone in this thread insists that TDP of G5 for iMac is about 45 or so..

I believe Yonah is about the same.. (> T2300)...
Well.. perhaps actual TDP for G5 used inside iMac isn't that low.

Yonah is around 31-35 watts.

 

[milo]

Wondering why Apple didn't put G5 in Powerbooks.. after someone in this thread insists that TDP of G5 for iMac is about 45 or so..

I believe Yonah is about the same.. (> T2300)...
Well.. perhaps actual TDP for G5 used inside iMac isn't that low.

I've heard that the intel numbers are max power/heat, while the G5 numbers are average use. After seeing the cooling system in a quad, I can't imagine how they'd get that chip in a laptop, even getting it into an iMac is pretty darn impressive.