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

[NoNameBrand]

re: xMac, potential sales lost and cannibalization, another thing to consider is that in the past there's been no hackintosh.

For $800-1200 one can get a PC that, through EFI-X, runs an unmodified retail copy of Mac OS X. There's Apple's mini-tower, and they aren't the ones selling it. The question for Apple then becomes "Is the amount of lost sales greater than the sales cannibalized from the other three desktop products?" As soon as they answer 'yes', something is going to give.

 

[BenRoethig]

Thank you for saying this clearly.

All of the statistics about demand for Apples are warped by the limitations of the product line.

You're welcome

ps: Fiat does make trucks, though.

First, the Fiat branded entries are vans though I though you could sort of count the strada even though its based on a subcompact car platform. Second, Iveco doesn't count.

 

[AidenShaw]

Second, Iveco doesn't count.

Wikipedia: "Iveco is an Italian truck, bus, and diesel engine manufacturer, based in Turin, Italy. It is a subsidiary of the Fiat Group."

Depends on your point of view, and whether "selling FIATs" means "selling vehicles with FIAT on the hood" or "selling vehicles made by FIAT".

Anyway, it was meant in jest.

 

[BenRoethig]

re: xMac, potential sales lost and cannibalization, another thing to consider is that in the past there's been no hackintosh.

For $800-1200 one can get a PC that, through EFI-X, runs an unmodified retail copy of Mac OS X. There's Apple's mini-tower, and they aren't the ones selling it. The question for Apple then becomes "Is the amount of lost sales greater than the sales cannibalized from the other three desktop products?" As soon as they answer 'yes', something is going to give.

Not really. Business/institutional users aren't going to to try this neither are all but the most desperate Mac users. This is more a solution for home system builders to get on to the platform..

 

[-hh]

software: can be upgraded/updated on both sides
hardware: not so much on the Apple side

RAM & Hard Drives are the 'Pareto Principle' majority of the upgrade interest and not particularly impossible to do. We're predominantly looking at the relative niche of enthusiasts (including gamers) who want to do CPU transplants/overclocks and Graphics Card upgrades for what can't be done in an all-in-one ... or in a laptop.

Gosh, its odd how we keep on trying to ignore the brutal fact that huge percentages of the consumer base ... over 50% on PCs and even higher on Mac ... are voting right now with their wallets to buy products that aren't upgrade-friendly (eg, laptops).

and us heard that about 1 gazillion times:
before the mac mini launch
before the ipod mini launch
etc.

But not from me. Check the archives.

then your niche argument: was an acceptable argument 5 years ago but just look at the apple line objective for once:

a super mini desktop using laptop parts: in non apple world that's a niche in sales
an All-In-One PC: in non apple world even more of an niche
an 2300+ dollar workstations: compared to normal desktops: ultra niche
Macbook Air: ultra thin frequent travelling executive laptops: niche
Apple TV: niche

Yet nothing has really changed for more than merely 5 years in the overall scheme of things for the product line: the PowerMac was merely running on the G5 (G4 previous), and the iMac has been an all-in-one since it was introduced in 1999. The AppleTV has always been called by Jobs to be a 'hobby'.

Which brings us to the mini. It has never been a technially "serious" product, but was instead a pure business case: its a marketing honeypot to attract switchers based more on its price point than its technical prowess. Which merely makes my point that this debate isn't about technology, but business.

on the non niche side there is
Macbook
Macbook Pro
iPod
iPhone

Odd how you neglected to mention that MacBook Air: it is also a product intended to satisfy marketing prowess tour-de-force far more than technically filling a product 'niche'.

could it perhaps be that apples desktops haven't been updated like forever and are ridiculous bad value at the moment ?

Sure, that's a factor ... but because the way that Apple operates, this happens every year.

We do need to keep in mind that proverbially 99% of the all of the recent teeth-gnashing is simply because Intel has released the sexy new i7 chip, and other vendors are to market first ... apparently, you've forgotten the looooooong painful wait for the PPC G5 back in 2003.

and why no netbook from apple ? been a raving non-niche success and ridiculously popular and apple does nothing

I don't dispute that a big bagful of netbooks have been sold, but that's not the key question. The key question is: but are they making any money on them (profit)?

edit: what i forgot: isn't it better to have mac sales cannibalized by _other_ mac sales than having mac sales cannibalized by non-mac sales ? or do you need a business plan for that ?

By refusing to make 'cheap crap', Apple is definitely losing sales. However, one must again take a step back and ask yourself: is the goal more sales? Or is it something else? The old adage applies: "We lose money on every sale, but we make it up on volume!".

edit2: forgot as well: 1 year warranty as standard for a premium brand: should i laugh or should i cry ?

You should be more cynical and recognize that it is a business opportunity to increase profits through the add-on-sale of an extended warranty.

Like it or not, Apple is a for-profit enterprise, not a charity.


-hh

 

[-hh]

(RE: report that 70% of all Mac sales are laptops)

Of course they are. There aren't any desktop lines to choose.

So then what's the excuse for why PC sales are now over 50% laptops too?

Its real easy to make the numbers what you want when you;re actively streering them in that direction and you're the only game in town.

Understood, but we also need to recognize that Apple has a pretty decent track record of being "ahead of the power curve" in recognizing trends, if not literally being the trend-setter. Thus, it might take the PC community another 5 years to catch up, but don't be surprised if by 2015 we're hearing reports that PCs have crossed the 70% laptop mark too.

FWIW, I'm not wishing the desktop to die: I just believe that I'm a witness to the unfolding of the event.


-hh

 

[-hh]

re: xMac, potential sales lost and cannibalization, another thing to consider is that in the past there's been no hackintosh.

For $800-1200 one can get a PC that, through EFI-X, runs an unmodified retail copy of Mac OS X. There's Apple's mini-tower, and they aren't the ones selling it. The question for Apple then becomes "Is the amount of lost sales greater than the sales cannibalized from the other three desktop products?" As soon as they answer 'yes', something is going to give.

Precisely: this is all about business, not technology.

However, the key underlying question is how many sales are really being lost to Hackintoshes, as well as how many extra sales of just OS X are being made, which effectively carry a much much lower production cost....the numbers aren't necessarily as simple as it might seem on the surface.

-hh

 

[BenRoethig]

(RE: report that 70% of all Mac sales are laptops)So then what's the excuse for why PC sales are now over 50% laptops too

There's no law saying you can only have one or the other. I have my 12" iBook for travel and the bedroom and my desktop for the more higher end tasks or at least did until I got forced into the iMac which can't do the high end tasks. In theory at least I get the best of both worlds. I don't have to compromise in portability by buying an MBP while not compromising on power either. The reason you see the 70% is because Apple already made the power compromise without asking you. It makes a lot more sense with Apple's lineup to just buy a display for your Macbook than to buy either the iMac or the Mini.

Understood, but we also need to recognize that Apple has a pretty decent track record of being "ahead of the power curve" in recognizing trends, if not literally being the trend-setter. Thus, it might take the PC community another 5 years to catch up, but don't be surprised if by 2015 we're hearing reports that PCs have crossed the 70% laptop mark too.

If you would have said this two years back, I would have agreed. When the first Cores was released, desktop and laptops were nearing parity. However as higher clocked desktop core 2 duos and quads have been becoming more affordable, the laptop chips have fallen behind again. Even with the more efficient core 2 designs, mobile platforms are starting to hit a wall. Depending on what happens, you could actually a see a move back towards desktops if the gap continues to widen.

 

[Eidorian]

Wait, what?

We're almost there.

 

[-hh]

There's no law saying you can only have one or the other. I have my 12" iBook for travel and the bedroom and my desktop for the more higher end tasks ...

True, one can own more than one machine. At home, I similarly have a laptop + desktop, and at work, I have two laptops. Hmmm....3 out of 4 aren't desktops.

...or at least did until I got forced into the iMac which can't do the high end tasks.

Well, a current iMac has more horsepower than my current Mac Tower, which is still a G5. I'm essentially waiting for the next bump for the Mac Pro, although I wouldn't look the gift horse of an xMac in the mouth, although I wouldn't expect it to have as long of a productive lifespan.

The reason you see the 70% is because Apple already made the power compromise without asking you. It makes a lot more sense with Apple's lineup to just buy a display for your Macbook than to buy either the iMac or the Mini.

Not really...especially if you're looking at buying an Apple Cinema Display.

Besides, if a new $3K Mac Pro was too costly, you could have alternatively found an earlier revision available for easily $1000 less on the used market. Afterall, the only real reason to put a display for your laptop is because it generally has enough "oomph!" for your needs. Otherwise, its foolish to do.

Since I've been living off of a laptop at work exclusively for the past ~6 years, my observation is that modern laptops generally have enough horsepower for routine tasks...and I'm speaking from the perspective of a 2-3 year old XP laptop, which is clearly not the latest-and-greatest.

Personally, my main reason to even consider a big desktop at home is my images collection which is probably by most computing standards in the 90th percentile even before I consummate an upgrade from an 8MP camera system to a 21MP camera system, or digitize 10K-15K slides from my film days.


-hh

 

[jaw04005]

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.

Have you seen the inside of an Intel iMac? It's an utter mess covered in sticky EMI shielding. Not to mention, it's a major pain to get a part.

Apple doesn't make a mini-tower because Steve Jobs is obsessed with all-in-one's. I'm sure there are at least a few people at Apple who have read the countless xMac threads and thought "We have one! We just can't sell it."

 

[BenRoethig]

Not really...especially if you're looking at buying an Apple Cinema Display.

Anyone who does that actually does that either needs an IPS screen or is buying into the RDF a little too much. I refuse to pay $900 for a 24" screen just so it matchs.

Besides, if a new $3K Mac Pro was too costly, you could have alternatively found an earlier revision available for easily $1000 less on the used market.

I'll pass on someone else's outdated leftovers.

Afterall, the only real reason to put a display for your laptop is because it generally has enough "oomph!" for your needs. Otherwise, its foolish to do.

Or because Apple requires you to get the laptop if you don't want a workstation. The option on whether you want it inside the display or in a portable package is yours. The iMac I'm typing on maybe sitting on a desk, but it is not a desktop.

 

[polaris20]

Not really. Business/institutional users aren't going to to try this neither are all but the most desperate Mac users. This is more a solution for home system builders to get on to the platform..

what's so "desperate" about putting together a system in 30 minutes for $800 that runs OSX perfectly?

 

[22Hertz]

These Xeon based nehalem's will cost an absolute packet. Every new release of apple's products recently in the laptop department has also seen a considerable cost increase (even more so when you take into account the fact that remotes and cable converters must be bought separately now). Expect the mac pro is cost more in the refresh too.....

The new Xeon's may well be suitable for high end pro work, but I echo the sentiments of many here when I say they are not affordable... nowhere near.

I also dont want an iMac with its own screen.

I'd like a mini if it were priced effectively, but as its been about 18months since it was released Im not holding my breath. (plus then I can barely upgrade it when needed)... its a hobson's choice really.

Christ Apple.. no wonder your desktop sales are plummeting.. you are not building anything that 90% of people actually want or can afford.

And their excuse... a mid range tower will eat into their pro sales.. NEWSFLASH APPLE.. your pro sales are diving.. and we are in a recession.

Mid Range Tower please....

^^^APPLE PLEASE READ OVER AND OVER UNTIL YOU GET IT^^^

 

[AidenShaw]

Sad....

By refusing to make 'cheap crap', Apple is definitely losing sales. However, one must again take a step back and ask yourself: is the goal more sales? Or is it something else?


You should be more cynical and recognize that it is a business opportunity to increase profits through the add-on-sale of an extended warranty.

Like it or not, Apple is a for-profit enterprise, not a charity.

How far Apple has fallen since

"Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water or do you want a chance to change the world?"​

 

[windoze7]

(RE: report that 70% of all Mac sales are laptops)








Understood, but we also need to recognize that Apple has a pretty decent track record of being "ahead of the power curve" in recognizing trends, if not literally being the trend-setter. Thus, it might take the PC community another 5 years to catch up, but don't be surprised if by 2015 we're hearing reports that PCs have crossed the 70% laptop mark too.




-hh

ahead of the power curve? please state your reasons for this comment. how many macs can run off a corei7

 

[-hh]

Anyone who does that actually does that either needs an IPS screen or is buying into the RDF a little too much. I refuse to pay $900 for a 24" screen just so it matchs.

Same here, but adding a screen (and probably keyboard too) is still is only a consideration if the laptop has 'sufficient' horsepower. Otherwise, its good money after bad, even if it is a $300 Dell 24" LCD.

I'll pass on someone else's outdated leftovers.

Your loss. You can't complain about things being "too expensive" and then simultaneously demand buying only brand new...and it doesn't matter if we're talking about high end electronics or automobiles.

If you want a Porsche, BMW, etc, you're not going to find any of them on the new car showroom floor selling for your "Under $25K" price point...you either pony up the dough, or you take a walk out to the used car lot.

And if you think that this is all so horrible, just wait until you try to buy a house...are you only going to insist on buying "brand new" here too, or are things conveniently somehow different?

Nothing personal, but at times, I've bought used cars and I live in a "used house" (1951) ... and I suspect that most of us have done the same, so why should we get such a hangup on buying a used version of a higher-end computer?

Or because Apple requires you to get the laptop if you don't want a workstation. The option on whether you want it inside the display or in a portable package is yours. The iMac I'm typing on maybe sitting on a desk, but it is not a desktop.

Nothing personal to you, but this statement smells of tecchie bigotry.

What I mean by that is that intellectually, we've been blinded by the fact that we know that the CPU inside is a so-called "mobile", and since as a tecchie we know that low power has compromised performance, this product can't be any good.

The pragmatic reality is that most computers today have more than sufficient horsepower for 90% of what most of us use them for 90% of the time, but there's a segment of us who are greedy in that we still want even more power ... power that we won't use 90% of the time. The automotive analogy is that we have 450HP in our little C2D iMac sedan, but because there's 900HP SUV's, we have to feel that we're inadequate and that "only" 450HP sucks, even though the iron we had previously only had 180HP.


-hh

 

[-hh]

ahead of the power curve? please state your reasons for this comment.

Percentage of PC laptop sales:

0% - from 20 years ago
10% - many years ago
20% - several years ago
30% - just a few years ago
50% - today

See the consumer trend yet?

Repeating the same trend analysis with Apple:

yada
yada
yada
70% - today


Bottom line: consumers are moving away from desktops and towards portable devices (eg, laptops).

Quiz: the manufacturer who is furthest along on this tend is ... who?
Answer: Apple

how many macs can run off a corei7

Not yet irrelevant, but getting there, because with insight into the longer term trend, the real question to be asked is:

"Who's currently running the i7 in a laptop?"



-hh

 

[Sehnsucht]

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

And those benchmarks can be found where?

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.

Attention whiners: the Mac Pro is "pro" for a reason...8 server/workstation CPUs; up to 32GB of RAM...etc. If you don't need 8 CPUs and 32GB of RAM, then the Mac Pro shouldn't even cross your mind as an option. People who complain about the Mac Pro being overpriced seriously need to just go away. The Mac Pro wasn't intended for you. My guess is that you want 8 CPUs; but you don't want to pay the price. (Don't we all.)

 

[iMacmatician]

And those benchmarks can be found where?

2 synthetic benchmarks that favor Nehalem due to Nehalem's design.

 

[Umbongo]

Attention whiners: the Mac Pro is "pro" for a reason...8 server/workstation CPUs; up to 32GB of RAM...etc. If you don't need 8 CPUs and 32GB of RAM, then the Mac Pro shouldn't even cross your mind as an option. People who complain about the Mac Pro being overpriced seriously need to just go away. The Mac Pro wasn't intended for you. My guess is that you want 8 CPUs; but you don't want to pay the price. (Don't we all.)

The problem is those are not the only selling points of a Mac Pro. If I am in the market for a new computer and am considering OS X as my operating system then consideration of a Mac Pro can come from many requirements:

• more than dual core processing
• multiple display support
• 30" display support
• multiple internal hard drives
• fast hard drives
• powerful GPU to run games
• already own display(s) (don't need intergrated ones)
• support for more than 4GB of memory

Then when I see that the hardware is more expensive than a regular PC because of it's support for 8 cores and 32GB of memory and there is nothing between that and a system with dual core, integrated screen, single hard drive, 4GB of memory and mobile graphics cards it is easy to complain.

Now personally I'm not complaining as it doesn't matter to me and I don't think Apple need to offer such a system. That doesn't mean I don't think they would sell or people are not justified in complaining.

 

[BenRoethig]

Nothing personal, but at times, I've bought used cars and I live in a "used house" (1951) ... and I suspect that most of us have done the same, so why should we get such a hangup on buying a used version of a higher-end computer?

You can upgrade an house to the latest standards. With the Mac Pro, the fans are tied to the specific CPU so upgrading to to a faster CPU can be hazardous, you're stuck with expensive. DDR2 FB-DIMMs, and last time I checked, the Mac video card upgrade market wasn't exactly vibrant.

Nothing personal to you, but this statement smells of tecchie bigotry.

What I mean by that is that intellectually, we've been blinded by the fact that we know that the CPU inside is a so-called "mobile", and since as a tecchie we know that low power has compromised performance, this product can't be any good.

If the iMac had been up to the task, I'd be singing its praises. I don't care if the CPU is mobile, desktop, or whatever, I care about bang for my buck. The iMac has not lived to what I have come to expect from an Apple product. My PowerMacs gave it to me in speed. Even the iBook performed better than my expectations. 3D performance has been lackluster, the RAM ceiling is too low with only 2 slots, and I've seen far too many slowdowns and appearances of the beach ball for a $1500 machine.

I'm not looking for anything special, but I'm not looking to spend that kind of money for what performs like an $800 desktop in premium aesthetically pleasing case. For the average family user, this is an excellent machine with a lot of power with added clutter reducing benefits. For a power user (who isn't making hollywood blockbluster and doesn't need a xeon workstation) it just isn't the right tool for the job.

what's so "desperate" about putting together a system in 30 minutes for $800 that runs OSX perfectly?

The fact that you have to choose your hardware very carefully and that Apple could with the next patch incorporate a fix that bricks your system. EFI-X may not work with something you buy off the shelf. There have been rumors that Apple is going to require an EFI ROM on the video card closing the last loop hole from the BIOS based developer machines that EFI-X and the osx86 community depend on.

 

[AidenShaw]

And those benchmarks can be found where?

2 synthetic benchmarks that favor Nehalem due to Nehalem's design.

Yes, nonsense programs like H.264 encoding

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/6968425/

          Dell Studio XPS             Apple Mac Pro
          -------------------------   -------------------------
Price     [s]$949[/s]  $899                  $2799
CPU       Core i7-920 (2.66 GHz quad) Dual 2.8 GHz Quad Xeons
RAM       3 GiB 1066 MHz DDR3         2 GiB 800 MHz FB-DIMM
           (8 GiB add $250)            (8 GiB add $1500)
Disk      500 GB 7200 RPM SATA        320 GB 7200 RPM SATA
Optical   16X Superdrive              16X Superdrive
Blu-ray   $120 option                 not available
Graphics  ATI Radeon HD 3450 256MB    Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB

SPECrate 2006 Performance (Multi-core)

Integer   [B]102[/B]                         [B]98.8[/B]
Floating  [B]76.0[/B]                        [B]68.5[/B]

(For $2289 in the Dell, you get Core i7-940 (2.93GHz), 
    12 GiB, Blu-ray, 750 GB, ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB)

I checked the SPECrate numbers (which measure multi-core performance) and the quad 2.66 GHz Dell Core i7 outperforms the octo-core Mac Pro 2.8 GHz on multi-core jobs !!

At one third the price.

Of course, YMMV - but the SPEC suite is a fairly well-respected standard for performance measurements. On the SPECrate suite, which measures multi-thread performance, the 8-thread Dell Core i7 got better throughput than the 8-thread 2.8GHz octo Mac Pro.

Yes, Nehalem's design favors higher performance than Penryn.

Attention whiners: the Mac Pro is "pro" for a reason...8 server/workstation CPUs; up to 32GB of RAM...etc. If you don't need 8 CPUs and 32GB of RAM, then the Mac Pro shouldn't even cross your mind as an option.

Agreed. Those people should get a quad-core mini-tower, not the Mac Pro.

 

[Umbongo]

Aiden, are you aware your comparison between the sub $1000 dell and Mac Pro is being used on many sites to start Mac vs Pc flame wars? Sadly the discussions don't focus much on your quest for the Mini-Mac-Pro-Quad-MacTop(mini).

 

[Chicane-UK]

Attention whiners: the Mac Pro is "pro" for a reason...8 server/workstation CPUs; up to 32GB of RAM...etc. If you don't need 8 CPUs and 32GB of RAM, then the Mac Pro shouldn't even cross your mind as an option.

So er.. if the iMac isn't powerful enough, and there is nothing else between that and the Mac Pro, what exactly is one supposed to do?

How many more times can those of us who need something more than the iMac stress it? The 8800GS is a crap graphics card - it might stand a chance if dealing with lower resolutions but having to drive a 24" display at native resolution is too much. Ergo the Mac Pro is the only other viable option.

Or alternatively I'll just have to abandon Mac ownership - I guess I can only ask/wait for so long before I get sick of Apples ignorance.