Mac Pro and Woodcrest: Confirmed?

[Mord]

Name another consumer workstation with a XEON Processor in it. For XEON based machines, the Apple's will be a deal, much like the XServes were the cheapest 1u you could get with the power.

the powermac/mac pro is not a consumer mac they are workstations and are priced and specced accordingly.

 

[manic]

Okay, people are hyped about the 4 core xeon. But arent we overlooking something here? Arent server processors designed to do substantially different work than desktops? Whats the point in fitting a >1000 dollar processor into a machine that runs photoshop and see it slug away? Im not saying thats the case, but I think its a relevant point and would like to know if anyone knows the answer. If its slower at desktop tasks, than we will be seeing conroes in mac pros. If its faster, then theres a pretty good chance it will fit the highest end one.

now, unless the other chap who said "anything other than woodcrest would be absolutely insulting" knows wc is insanely faster at desktop tasks, I think hes just building some negative hype. Conroes are supposed to outperform by a wide margin everything weve seen so far. Its by no means insulting

 

[Evangelion]

Also bear in mind that Conroes are cheaper for apple to buy than Meroms, as well as offering faster clock speeds and more performance. So it wouldn't cost Apple much more, per machine, to put a 2.4Ghz conroe in rather than a 2.0Ghz merom.

Take a look at the iMac. Now, it's quite small, isn't it? Nice and thin, and silet as well. How are you planning to cool that 2.4GHz Conroe in a machine like that? And why should Apple go for a whole different CPU, when they already have a great replacement for their current CPU: Merom. Only thing they need to do is to replace the current CPU with the new one. Conroe would take a lot more work.

I don't buy your argument that Apple needs to spec iMac similarly to consumer desktop-Dells and the like. I mean, Apple hasn't done so so far (with the current Core Duo-version), why should they do so in the future?

What I still believe is that we will have a third desktop that gets placed between MacPro and iMac. And that minitower-machine WILL use Conroe.

Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop.

If that is true, then current iMac isn't competetive either. It's "overpriced" and "underperforming". Is that what you think?

If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.

Merom is the logical choice. It's a drop-in replacement, it runs cooler, it's about 20% faster, clock for clock... What I think will happen is that current 1.83 and 2Ghz Core Duo'w will be replaced by 2 and 2.13Ghz Meroms.

 

[Demoman]

My DualCore 2.0 PM G5 is just fine and will be REALLY fine until CS 3 is released next spring/summer. Until then, I wouldn't be able to fully utilize the new Mac Pro. I installed my CS 2 on my MacBook and what a dog compared to my G5 at home and my G5 at work. Granted my buddy who is stuck on a 867 QuickSilver at work says that it runs about the same, but that doesn't cut it when I've been using a G5 for 2 years at work and 6 months at home.

I hope that the "little apps" out there hurry up and get converted over quicker than has been happening. Flash Player has bugged me. They keep using "Betas" and "trials". Flip4Mac hasn't released their update yet for Universal so viewing WMV's is near impossible on the MacIntels. Little things like that make a world of difference.

My DualCore 2.0 PM G5 is just fine too. I have a quad right beside it, but I only fire that up for rendering/compressing or when I want to work the video and sound/animation concurrently. I will buy another PM as I am doing more motion graphics and would like to throw another 4 processors at it. If the new high-end Intel looks good, I will get one. But, I might also look to pick-up a super deal on a PPC Quad. Love those machines!

 

[Mord]

Okay, people are hyped about the 4 core xeon. But arent we overlooking something here? Arent server processors designed to do substantially different work than desktops? Whats the point in fitting a >1000 dollar processor into a machine that runs photoshop and see it slug away? Im not saying thats the case, but I think its a relevant point and would like to know if anyone knows the answer. If its slower at desktop tasks, than we will be seeing conroes in mac pros. If its faster, then theres a pretty good chance it will fit the highest end one.

now, unless the other chap who said "anything other than woodcrest would be absolutely insulting" knows wc is insanely faster at desktop tasks, I think hes just building some negative hype. Conroes are supposed to outperform by a wide margin everything weve seen so far. Its by no means insulting

it's not slower at desktop tasks, at all.

it uses the same or faster fsb (1066/1333) and the memory is faster but has a slightly higher latency but with an fsb the latency does not have that big of an impact.

xeon 51xx > conroe.

 

[manic]

I disagree with the line of thought that Macbooks will remain with yonah processors. heres why:

intel has announced merom will ship at the same price point as yonah. they are pin compatible. Apple can, therefore, simply fit the chips without increasing the macbooks price point/ incurring in high engeneering costs.

One might say: oh, but theyll do it to differentiate the mb from the mbp.

Seems to me that if they were concerned with pushing a high performance gap they wouldnt have specced the mb so similarly to the mbp in the first place.

seccondly, it makes no business sense. Apple knows people are holding out for merom. this will increase after its been released. if they choose to keep yonah just to justify the price gap between the mb and the mbp, theyll be alienating buyers y crippling its product without sound reason. Mac users are tech savvy. theyd be put off by being forced to by a yonah notebook with merom widely available. It will happen and its Intels merit.

lastly, lets not forget the "dell factor". If apples consumer laptops are ony available with yonah, and dells consumer laptops are fitted with merom at the same price point, I think we would see a lot of would be switchers not switching.

Conclusion: all apple would benefit from keeping yonahs in the macbooks would be to make mbp users feel happier about their machines. on the other hand, it would lose sales of macbook from customers (i) not switching or (ii) further delaying their purchase. Doesnt make business sense to me

 

[MacQuest]

Spooky - I predicted this. Me and everyone else except a couple naysayers. I only buy laptops though, so I'm not really the target market. But I think this will be on every graphic designers desk by Xmas. Go Apple and Intel!

Yup, I agree. companies need to expire their annual budget by Q4, so they're just lookin' for things to buy at that time. I saw it all the time at Xerox. The account rep's would scrape and scrounge for sales for the first 9 months, start getting easier sales in October and November [since it's Q4], and then they ould just sit back and wait for sales to come to them from customers that had[/b] to buy things before the end of the year and spend their remaining allocated budget, otherwise their budget would get cut for the following year.


Maybe for Easter we'll get Adobe CS3 in a colorful egg or frilly basket. 🙄

Adobe blows.😡

😉

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Er...have you seen the MacBook Pro pricing? The MacBook pricing? The iMac pricing? The Mini pricing? (Which went UP by a fair amount). If you're thinking that x86 processors are cheaper than PPC, you're sadly mistaken. Cheap computers being cheap has just about nothing whatsoever to do with the CPU....

--Eric

What I wrote was that after the PPC->x86 transition, it is easier to compare Apples prices with other manufactures selling PCs with the same hardware configuration as Apple. This has nothing to do with the price of the processor. The transition has made it possible to compare apples to apples. For example, if you compare the price of a MBP with a PCs with same hardware configuration, you will see that the prices are about the same. I suspect that MacPro will be priced in the same ball park as high-end PC workstations.

 

[QCassidy352]

I'd just like to direct all of your attention to this thread and ask those of you who said merom was going to be in the imac: what were you thinking? 😕 😉

I realize it's a little early to be gloating, but c'mon, it's definitely going to be conroe. Which, btw, I find even more exciting than the mac pro news because while I'll never have a mac pro, an imac is always possible. 😎 (though I'm thrilled about woodcrest in the mac pro anyway because it allows the imac to get conroe, and because it's great news for those of you who want a mac pro. 🙂)

 

[mmmcheese]

I expect they will be Xeon based....but here's a crazy thought. Maybe, since Intel is supposed to be designing the motherboard, they will be putting 2 dual core Conroe in each machcine. I know what you're saying...impossible. Yeah, Intel said that about the early Celeron too...no SMP, but it was possible, and popular with enthusiasts because it was affordable. If anyone would know the tricks and backdoors to unlocking the processors, it would be Intel.

Of course I'm sure Intel would prefer to sell Xeon processors to Apple, even if they sold them at the same price as Conroe. Since Apple is Intel's new show pony, they want to have their entire processor line represented. Budget/Yonah...Mobile/Merom...Mainstream Desktop/Conroe....Workstation and Server/Xeon.

 

[stunna]

Maybe Apple will give you a choice.

 

[Multimedia]

Perhaps Both Woody & Conroe In Mac Pros?

So, what, this leaves us with:

* Mac Pro - Xeon/Woodcrest
* iMac - Core2 Duo/Conroe
* Mac Mini - Core Duo or Core2 Duo

Would the laptops get updated with the Core2 Duo?

I'm still wondering why not both - Xeon Woody in pairs for the top of the line Quad and Conroe in the mid and low Core 2 Duo models. I can't see Apple spending all that extra money to support two cores from one Woody when it will cost them a lot less to use Conroe and a Conroe motherboard for the same two core performance. Can you?

because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.

Fair enough. Thanks for helping me understand why you think the line won't be split. I see Boncellis' point of view as well. Well we only have 26 more days to find out.

I expect MacBook Pros will get Merom ASAP up to 2.33 GHz and that mini and MacBooks will go Merom later by January at the latest only 2GHz max.

 

[MacQuest]

Seems to me that if they were concerned with pushing a high performance gap they wouldnt have specced the mb so similarly to the mbp in the first place.

1. Integrated graphics [MB] vs dedicated gpu [MBP].
2. Built in expansion card slot.
[everyone I see seems to either have or plans to get those internet service cards through their mobile phone service providers].

Just those 2 things make the MB and MBP sooo different, that customers walk the line ALL the time on whether or not they can "get buy" with "just" a MacBook.

If you meant that the MB and MBP are similar in processing power ONLY, then yes. Other than that, they are VERY different.

Plus, a lot of people want the larger 15" screen. Just as many as those that want the more mobile 13". Again, VERY big differences.

 

[Mord]

I'm still wondering why not both - Xeon Woody in pairs for the top of the line Quad and Conroe in the mid and low Core 2 Duo models. I can't see Apple spending all that extra money to support two cores from one Woody when it will cost them a lot less to use Conroe and a Conroe motherboard for the same two core performance. Can you?

I expect MacBook Pros will get Merom ASAP up to 2.33 GHz and that mini and MacBooks will go Merom later by January at the latest only 2GHz max.

because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.

 

[boncellis]

This is news, albeit somewhat inconsequential in the end. I would have thought the iMac would see Merom as its upgrade because of heat issues--perhaps Conroe won't pose a problem or there is a slight redesign of the iMac case in the cards.

As far as the Mac Pro, there is a difference between Woodcrest and Conroe beyond the multiprocessor functionality, however small. But, in my opinion, to have the entire Mac Pro line be Woodcrest would mean Apple missing out on a market segment that want a pro level machine at an intermediate price. If Apple includes just one Conroe configuration along with the Woodcrest screamers, and prices it accordingly, I think they would find something of a "sweet spot" in covering the majority of its users and potential switchers.

The price is what's going to make or break it. And I don't see it breaking.

 

[Multimedia]

G5 Quad Valuable Forever - IntelQuad May Be A Hit Among Video Pros Sooner

I bet the the Quad G5 will retain their value for awhile.

Yes, it will. Given that many pro apps are still not Universal, and that many times first ported version is somewhat buggy, the PPC hardware running native PPC software will become very valuable during the next 12ish months.

I agree. It is a classic that can also run classic. And it is incredibly quiet - a feature seldom mentioned that many find valuable. In any event the G5 Quad will still be the second fastest Mac after this first round of Mac Pros ship. And I'd still rather have four G5 cores than two Core 2 Duo cores. Wouldn't you?

But I also think that for certain verticle markets, like video that are already completely Universal, this new IntelQuad may perform significantly faster than the G5 Quad - enough so for many video pros to take the leap. Looking forward to the benchmarks on this front. But realy waiting for 8 cores with Leopard next Spring. 🙂

 

[QCassidy352]

seccondly, it makes no business sense. Apple knows people are holding out for merom.

not really. People are buying macbooks in droves. Only a very few people (the numbers seem inflated on a board like this) are holding out.

I can build my own PC for way less than the cost of a mac so I'm switching to XP, blah blah blah

really?? You don't say! Well stop the presses; apparently it costs less to custom build a PC than to buy a premade computer! My goodness, this is news. I think Apple, Dell, HP, Sony, and all the rest should shut down their factories now because it's clear that they can no longer do business in light of this development.

But you know, now I'm thinking that maybe some people don't have the time, know-how, or patience to build their own PCs. And I'm thinking that they like having warranties for when something goes wrong and they don't know how to fix it. And I'm thinking that for the majority of users the friendliness of the OS is going to be about 1000x more significant than having the latest omg-wtf-bbq-roxxor!!11!1! graphics card. So good for you that you're happy with a high-end home-built XP box, but please don't act like people are stupid for going with a professionally built and supported machine that does everything they need and runs a better OS.
-------
Moving on... the issue of a headless-upgradable-imac (which really isn't an imac at all because imacs are pretty much defined as being all-in-ones and non-upgradable, so I'll call it a low-end tower) has come up a lot recently. Everyone in this thread seems very sure that apple will release such a product, but I'm quite skeptical. I don't see who it appeals to. Demanding gamers, as macenforcer points out, are much better off building their own machine. Pros will want a true pro tower, not a stripped down version. Students would do better with a space saving, all-in-one design like an imac. "Average home users" like my mom will never upgrade anything (except *maybe* the RAM) so should get imacs or mac minis. The target market for this low-end tower seems to be knowledgable consumers who like upgrading. There are many such people on this board, but they're a comparatively rare breed in the real world.

Also, apple is not going to have very high margins on such a machine, I'd wager. After all, it's a budget tower, right? But the people who buy them are going to keep them and upgrade them (with 3rd party hardware) for a very long time. So apple has one initial sale at low margins and then doesn't see that consumer again for years. If I were apple I'd either want to make a really big sale up front (like with a mac pro), or sell a not-very upgradable machine that will have you coming back in 2 or 3 years rather than 5 or 6.

So IMO, while this low-end tower would fill a gap in apple's line up and be ideal for many on this board, I'm not sure it's a gap that many consumers fit in to, or that apple particularly cares about filling.

 

[boncellis]

...So IMO, while this low-end tower would fill a gap in apple's line up and be ideal for many on this board, I'm not sure it's a gap that many consumers fit in to, or that apple particularly cares about filling.

As much as I hate to say it, you're probably right. Apple seems to be doing rather well with their current lineup after all.

What gets me is why Apple wouldn't put Merom in the Mini? A redesigned Mini offering different processors might help close the gap for those who want a more robust solution than the current Mini but can't (or won't) shell out the money for the Mac Pro.

 

[shawnce]

The most intelligent post on this thread.

...but Intel has workstation chipsets that support the Xeon 51xx series and they have 16x PCIe (among several other nice things)...

For example...
Intel® 5000X Chipset (Product Brief PDF)

Also review page 7 of this PDF.

 

[fewture]

have to agree with Manik and generik,

Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible. Apple has to compete with the other companies now, and if it doesn't fill Macbook with Merom, it doesnt have a small laptop with latest specs - while its competitors will.

Unless they introduce a smaller Macbook Pro which no one is suggesting. Makes business sense to throw the same price Merom into the Macbook.

Could someone please explain, other than this 'we must make some distinction' between MB and MBP (which already exists) why apple wouldn't put in Meroms into the Macbook asap?

 

[Multimedia]

The Question Is WHEN Not IF MacBook & Mini Will Get Merom - Sooner Won't Hurt Sales

have to agree with Manik and generik,

Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible. Apple has to compete with the other companies now, and if it doesn't fill Macbook with Merom, it doesnt have a small laptop with latest specs - while its competitors will.

Unless they introduce a smaller Macbook Pro which no one is suggesting. Makes business sense to throw the same price Merom into the Macbook.

Could someone please explain, other than this 'we must make some distinction' between MB and MBP (which already exists) why apple wouldn't put in Meroms into the Macbook asap?

I wholeheartedly agree. It's just a question of how soon Apple will pull the trigger on the switch to Merom in mini and MacBook not if they will. I'm not sure Apple thinks they are competing with PC specs yet. But what's the upside to sticking with Yonah in anything until next year? I don't get it. Aren't we better off in the long run retiring Yonah ASAP?

Is it:

1. Low Supply of Meroms until next year?
2. Lower Cost of Yonahs until next year?

Am I out of line for not believing either of the above? I can't understand Apple not wanting to lose Yonah as soon as they can. I don't see anyone buying a different model because one is Yonah and another is Merom. MacBooks are way too different from MacBook Pros in many other ways than their processor's speed and 32/64 bitness. 😕

I'm confused for now. Maybe we're being too pessimistic about Apple's willingness to drop Yonah ASAP. 😕

 

[greenstork]

What astounds me about this thread is that most people are treating Conroe like it's some second rate, compromise chip, like it pales in comparison to the Woodcrest, which is absolutely ridiculous. The conroe is a revolutionary chip, with virtually identical architecture to the Woodcrest. It's only downside is that you can't run dual conroe's and the bus speed is slightly different.

If the entire Mac Pro line came out with Conroes, which are dual core, we would have excellent and fast machines (for the record though, I think we'll see Woodcrests). My guess is that we may see at least one lower-end Mac Pro or headless media unit with a Conroe but in all likelihood, most of the Mac Pro line will use one chip because of the engineering costs associated with different socket and motherboard designs.

As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance. Merom is a laptop chip and I'm not sure it will ever end up in a desktop system, even if it is the same socket as the Yonah.

 

[shawnce]

As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.

Pentium D has horrid heat output. 🙂

Merom is a laptop chip and I'm not sure it will ever end up in a desktop system, even if it is the same socket as the Yonah.

Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. 🙂

Anyway...

The Merom has a TDP of 35 W and the Conroe has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).

So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.

Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.

Apple could go either way on this...

 

[thogs_cave]

your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.

Actually, I was just reading a bit on PCI-E, and apparently even the beefy dual-card (SLI) GFX don't saturate a pair of 8x slots. Quad SLI might need 16x, but for one or even two cards the boost from 8x to 16x is pretty much a wash.

(And this was from a PeeCee magazine!)

 

[sbarton]

This is what I want from Apple

Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM

I want it at or less than $1199.00

Now gimmie

Oh, and P.S. - Don't make me put a Dell 24" LCD on it - Drop the 23" cinema display to $999 and the 20" to $699 - that still leaves you with a nice premium.