Mac Pro Suitable Xeon (Nehalem) Processors Due March 29th

[mabhatter]

What would you be expecting to see in this tower that the single CPU version of the Mac Pro offers at the lower cost of $2,299.00? Admittedly its $100 more than the 24" iMac... I would say it would need a lower price point still and perhaps that is where the i7 could come in perhaps as soon as we see the prices for these CPUs go down some more.

It's really a $900 gap. Because the 24" iMac includes an "$800" monitor you can't swap out... What some people want is a $900 -$1200 machine without being forced into a monitor they don't want. The choices are Mini for $799 and Mac Pro for $2299... I'm surprised they haven't brought back something like the Apple 2 based on a mini + a few slots like PCI-E and express card.

I think "gamer" PCs are too close to Pro PCs for Apple's liking. But the real issue is that the apps you can use a Mac for are severely limited. Enterprise and hobby apps need custom hardware. Think Asterisk boxes, home automation, motion control apps /hobby robots, shop kiosks that need to operate custom hardware via PCI controller card.. you can't EVER make those apps for Macs (even the Pros) because the hardware is so Byzantine and locked down. Sure you can use some PCI cards in Mac Pros under Windows.. and it works great.. but as a MAC user you can't have that!

 

[AidenShaw]

The current mac pros are actually not over-priced at all.

If you need a quad desktop, and not an 8 CPU workstation, the Mac Pro is a terrible value.

Sure compare it to a cheaper i7 by Dell, but you get a computer that users complain is so loud you can't think....

This statement is ignorant - our experience with Dell (and HP) desktops is that they are very quiet.


http://reviews.dell.com/2341/1770/reviews.htm - comments on this Core i7 Studio XPS

• Great feature set, latest technology, compact, quiet, reasonable price.
• this system is very quiet (except when it first power up but it'll get quieter after a second) - alot quieter than my sony laptops!
• but under normal use (even gaming in TF2) is it quite silent. Not as silent as a laptop obviously but quieter than your average desktop.

There's a review of the Dell Core i7 here - http://www.desktopreview.com/default.asp?newsID=537 . This guy complains about the noise from the fan test, but says it's quiet the rest of the time. This review also has a bunch of photos of the inside. (The fanbois will cry "the inside is ugly" - but do you really care about what the inside looks like?)

 

[MrRage]

All I want is a new fancy GFX card for my existing Mac Pro. The 8800GT is a little weak imo.

 

[diamond.g]

All I want is a new fancy GFX card for my existing Mac Pro. The 8800GT is a little weak imo.

New Fancy GFX Card of course you can use one in your Mac Pro. Although you'd probably have to boot Windows....

 

[JGowan]

Really I'm not sure why there is an attempt to correlate a drop in sales here with the hardware age. For server grade hardware the Mac Pro isn't that bad, it certainly wouldn't keep people from buying it if they needed a powerful machine.

I would imagine people want the most bang for their buck they can get. If I buy a middle of the road computer then I don't mind upgrading every 2/3 years depending on what's out, especially if it's a secondary computer. However, the primary bread-winning machine that I'm going to drop A LOT of money on with the best processors and lots of ram/HD space... this... this I'm going to want to be the very best it can be as I'm going to be keeping it far longer (say, 5-6 years).

No one here who knows anything about the Mac Pro would even think about dropping thousands on the current Mac Pro right now with updates coming. My G4 Quicksilver (bought Feb 02) crapped out on my in early summer and my wife almost ordered me to finally buy a new machine. I told her I'd been waiting for these new Xeons and I would continue to wait and I bought a used G4 Mirror Door (03 tech) to hold me over.

 

[umbilical]

mac pro here, I want change for imac quad core!

 

[Umbongo]

Is that WWDC?

It could be. We don't really know what Apple are going to do inregards to hardware announcements now. I mean logically we could say WWDC would be a great platform to announce Snow Leopard, Mac Pros and Xserve to the world, but then Macworld could have beengreat for products too and it's been lackluster for a while. The original Mac Pro was announced at WWDC.

 

[SHOlover]

Just in time for...NAB? I bet Final cut Studio 3 will come out around April, even though Apple is not going to participate in NAB. I base this on...nothing.

 

[RebootD]

I would imagine people want the most bang for their buck they can get. If I buy a middle of the road computer then I don't mind upgrading every 2/3 years depending on what's out, especially if it's a secondary computer. However, the primary bread-winning machine that I'm going to drop A LOT of money on with the best processors and lots of ram/HD space... this... this I'm going to want to be the very best it can be as I'm going to be keeping it far longer (say, 5-6 years).

The Mac Pro only makes sense for video editing/animation. For us long term print/web designers (and aspiring photographers) the Mac Pro is overkill but the iMac is purely underpowered so I think most of the anger is from the 'inbetweeners' like me who want the power of core i7 (like the dell mentioned earlier) without paying Mac Pro prices for 8/16 cores my software won't utilize until 2012. (Curse you Adobe!)

 

[JGowan]

I really want a midrange tower. with upgradable video card slot, and.... blu-ray.

Maybe they feel like they're giving us this "midrange tower"...

One 2.8GHZ Quad-Core Intel Xeon for $2299 (mid-range)

…*all the way up to the top tier version…

Two 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon for $4399 (top-of-the-line)

I know you'd like to think of yourself as a consumer user, but consumers don't upgrade their video cards. They barely would think of opening up the machine and installing more RAM. If you want the ability to upgrade cards, Apple considers you a Pro-user.

Honestly, $2299 is not a bad price for the computer you'd get. IMHO.

The Mac Pro only makes sense for video editing/animation. For us long term print/web designers (and aspiring photographers) the Mac Pro is overkill but the iMac is purely underpowered so I think most of the anger is from the 'inbetweeners' like me who want the power of core i7 (like the dell mentioned earlier) without paying Mac Pro prices for 8/16 cores my software won't utilize until 2012. (Curse you Adobe!)

I'm just curious -- could you link to a PC you'd like to see a Mac version of (the hardware/price-point)? Honest... just curious.

 

[Umbongo]

Honestly, $2299 is not a bad price for the computer you'd get. IMHO.

I would agree, but not if the comparison is against a similar budget for non-Apple hardware. This is the issue, it isn't the Mac Pros aren't great. I mean that money for a windows systems buys you an awful lot of hardware.

 

[AidenShaw]

Honestly, $2299 is not a bad price for the computer you'd get. IMHO.

Well, except for the little issue that the $899 Dell outperforms the $2799 Apple on major benchmarks. ($2799 is 8 core 2.8 GHz.)

As has been mentioned, the Mac Pro price is reasonable compared to other Xeon class machines. If you don't need 8 CPUs, though, its price is outrageous.

 

[takao]

Maybe they feel like they're giving us this "midrange tower"...

Honestly, $2299 is not a bad price for the computer you'd get. IMHO.

yeah you get:
+ xeon processors
+ firewire 800

o case looks ok but cooling concept should be updated

- no blu ray
- no esata
- no hdmi
- a HD 2600 which is already _two_ generations behind and wasn't great to begin with
- 2 GB of 800 mhz memory
- 320 GB of memory

2299 isn't midrange and hasn't been midrange since years (15 years ago) ... and then even for actual midrange a lot of stuff would be missing

 

[-hh]

What Apple would get is Windows to OS X "switchers!" A bunch of people want this product and would make the switch.

The problem is that with roughly 70% of the buyers choosing to buy notebook computers, the segment whose preferences are for a desktop is shrinking (rapidly!).

When you take that ~30% segment and then divide it up amongst Apple's desktop products ... mini, 20" iMac, 24" iMac & Mac Pro ... the even split would be that each item is only getting roughly 7% of the total sales pie. To add another desktop product is more than likely going to simply cause the currently slim split to become even slimmer.

Apple is really good at making it's core fan base happy when it updates its Mac Pros and iMacs, but it could really expand its fan base by offering a "headless" Core I7 Mac now.

Sure, and while we're at it, let's ask Apple to sell them to us at a loss The problem is that the gravity has shifted and the core fan base is predominantly using laptops, so this lane of enhancement doesn't necessrily do all that much for them.

The Mac Pro isn't affordable,...

And a brand new Porsche isn't particularly affordable either. Fortunately, there's the option to save money by buying used. Since xMac advocates frequently claim that the Mac Pro has "too much" horsepower for them, it shouldn't be any sort of burden for them to buy a 2007 vintage Single CPU 2.66GHz Xeon, thereby shaving $1000 off what they have to spend.

... and the iMac lacks the ability for expansion...

Actually, the iMac does have the ability to be expanded: its just not an easy internal expansion, so therefore, most expansions are done as external peripherals (USB, Firewire, Ethernet).

And yes, the real underlying comment here is a latter enhancement to the graphics card, most likely for playing the latest games. YMMV on if a better tool for that job is to buy a Wii or similar dedicated games console.

There is a market of people who have built PCs or have always bought desktop case computers because they enjoy upgrading an optical drive, adding a new card, and swapping the video card. These people enjoy the incremental possibilities for a true desktop.

True, but not only are they a dying breed, because their incremental upgrades come from 3rd parties, they're a less profitable customer.

Like it or not, these sorts of business realities are a factor in a company's decision-making process on what products to choose to offer.

I know Apple has ignored this opportunity in the past...

Ignored, or that they've learned from it? Recalling Apple history, the Mac7500/7600/8500/8600/9500 models had their CPUs on riser cards which made 3rd party aftermarkets very easy, which would have had an obvious impact on Apple sales because customers upgraded CPUs instead of bought new desktops...and even in those instances where the high end user move up, the still reasonably quick 180MHz 604e CPU card in his old 8500 could be popped into a 7500 to replace a 120MHz 601 CPU card, whch roughly doubled performance essentially for free...and without a dime going to Appl.

...it will be able to sell more cinema displays when people are ordering their new "desktop" Macs. An introduction of a new line of Apple Cinema Displays are expected, and this is how Apple can encourage the desktop Mac buyers to spend more making up the difference in total sales price for each new Mac sale...

The proposition is that value-oriented DIY upgraders are going to suddenly be willing to pay triple the price ($900 vs $300 for a Dell 2405FPW), just to get a pretty monitor case with a built-in iSight? YMMV, but I suspect that you really should have included a "COKE Alert!" on that one.


-hh

 

[AidenShaw]

another possibility

The problem is that with roughly 70% of the buyers choosing to buy notebook computers, the segment whose preferences are for a desktop is shrinking (rapidly!).

The mini-tower may attract additional sales, and therefore reduce the percentage of laptops sold.

Perhaps there are "mini-tower people" who do not want a laptop, don't like all-in-ones, think the Mini is a joke, and think the Mac Pro is humongous and expensive.

These "mini-tower people" aren't Apple's customers today, so your assumption that mini-tower sales subtract from other Apples isn't valid for them.

 

[deze]

All I want is a new fancy GFX card for my existing Mac Pro. The 8800GT is a little weak imo.

I can't blame you one bit there MrRage, I think its pretty poor of Apple not supporting or having the option to upgrade your graphics card once a substantially better model arrives 6 months later or so.
They should at most have gfx upgrade options for the first three years of your MP's life.
Is it really that hard for apple to work with Nvidia to enable this ... Well i guess we can dream...

 

[JasonUKBristol]

I've saved up a gert load of cash and waiting to buy either the mac pro or top of the range imac (but only the imac if it lets me use two monitors).

I currently still have a G5 imac and can't use a lot of new apps due my imac not being intel.

I hope I don't have to wait until 29th of March.

 

[0488568]

So what would be the probable price of the new 16 cores mac pros?

-Thanks

 

[diamond.g]

So what would be the probable price of the new 16 cores mac pros?

-Thanks

Well, best guess would be at least 6 or 7k since the only (currently) known way to get 16 core would be a 4 CPU MacPro.

 

[JGowan]

The problem I see with this new "mid range" computer that people want Apple to build is the same I saw I saw when it was all about the "headless Mac": you want a lot of computing power and you want it for cheap. I don't blame you. I like cheap, too. Free is even better. Let's be realistic.

Several problems that get in the way of this:

1) Apple wants their stuff to be the best. They truly don't want to cut corners on design, outside and INSIDE of their computers. You want a mid range but Apple doesn't make junk. Their going to want the inside of their computer to look amazing. Sure you can buy a lot of computer elsewhere, but #1 you're running some form of MS OS on it. #2 it wouldn't look as nice on the outside (most likely) or as nice on the inside (definitely). Now for millions, this is no problem. For those of us running OS X, we know we'd never go back to Windows. Apple has no competition.

2) The PC world has cheaper computers because of competition. So they have to keep lowering their prices. But in lowering their prices due to competition, they're cutting corners in a million other ways. The overall QUALITY of the computer bought elsewhere will be less, every time. Apple doesn't have to lower their prices much because those who want OS X have to buy one of their computers to do so.

Recalling Apple history, the Mac7500/7600/8500/8600/9500 models had their CPUs on riser cards which made 3rd party aftermarkets very easy, which would have had an obvious impact on Apple sales because customers upgraded CPUs instead of bought new desktops...and even in those instances where the high end user move up, the still reasonably quick 180MHz 604e CPU card in his old 8500 could be popped into a 7500 to replace a 120MHz 601 CPU card, whch roughly doubled performance essentially for free...and without a dime going to Apple.

Agreed. Apple lets you upgrade your Mac Pro with other RAM/HD/Graphics cards because it's gotten at least $2299 out of you + probably another $1000-$1700 out of you for an Apple Display. Why allow the upgrade route for a cheaper computer, it's not making them any money. They don't have the marketshare to do what you're asking/wanting. They HAVE to have repeat customers. When they gain marketshare that's in the 30-40% range, you'll probably see your mid range computer.

Desktop Computers
Mac mini
599 - 1.83GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
799 - 2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
-----

iMac
1199 - 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo w/20"
1499 - 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo w/20"
1799 - 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Duo w/24"
2199 - 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo w/24"
-----

Mac Pro
2299 - One 2.8GHZ Quad-Core Intel Xeon
2799 - Two 2.8GHZ Quad-Core Intel Xeon
3599 - Two 3.0GHZ Quad-Core Intel Xeon
4399 - Two 3.2GHZ Quad-Core Intel Xeon

I thought I'd take a look at all the price points for the Destop line-up. The biggest gap is the $400 gap between top tier Mac mini and the 20" iMac... but you're also getting more computer power, 130GB more HD space and a 20" built-in display. The $400 difference also comes in a quite delicious looking machine.

All-in-all, I think Apple hits all the price points it can while preserving its integrity to build the best computers. Are they always the most powerful or fastest? No. But overall, they perform wonderfully and they run OS X which, for most people, is the whole reason to buy from Apple in the first place.

Call it paying the Apple Tax. I prefer to call it getting what I pay for.

 

[Axemantitan]

If they brought back the Cube and put a Core i7 in it (and similar and equivalent modern updates to drives, memory, etc.), would that satisfy anyone's desire for a minitower?

 

[0488568]

Well, best guess would be at least 6 or 7k since the only (currently) known way to get 16 core would be a 4 CPU MacPro.

Didn't intel announce an 8 core Xeon?

 

[earthandtone]

right on update the mac pro.

 

[iMacmatician]

Didn't intel announce an 8 core Xeon?

For the 4-socket and above segment, yes.

 

[diamond.g]

Didn't intel announce an 8 core Xeon?

Yes and no. Current speculation is that Beckton is going to be 8 core. The problem is Beckton is a 4 way part. Means you need a MP board and FB-DIMMs. It also mean that the chips are going to be pretty freaking expensive.

Mac Pros and xServes don't use MP boards. They use DP boards. Intel hasn't even brought the 6 core dunnington to the DP party. Why would they jump to the 8 core (and miss out on some 'free' $). Apple won't use the MP systems cause, well they are Apple and don't feel that people should give them 30k for more than 8 core system(with an appropriate amount of RAM and disk space).