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

[polaris20]

Yes, nonsense programs like H.264 encoding

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



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.





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

The Core i7 is faster than any 8-core machine currently, simply because Intel hasn't released the i7-based Xeons yet, which Apple will most likely use. These benchmarks will then be rendered useless.

The $800 is faster than the $5000 HP XW8600 I've got sitting here that's less than 6 months old as well.

It's just convenient to apply the benchmarks in terms of Apple vs. the rest of the world.

 

[AidenShaw]

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).

I didn't know that - but I know how Apple could put an end to it with one little product announcement!

Once the Nehalem dual-socket Mac Pro is out, it will be better. At least then the system that costs 3X as much will outperform the cheaper box.

Do you have any pointers to the discussions elsewhere? I might chip in if people are making false statements.

 

[Umbongo]

I didn't know that - but I know how Apple could put an end to it with one little product announcement!

Once the Nehalem dual-socket Mac Pro is out, it will be better. At least then the system that costs 3X as much will outperform the cheap box.

Do you have any pointers to the discussions elsewhere? I might chip in if people are making false statements.

It gets posted on at least one the *chan sites every day, I forget where else I saw it as they are mostly in image form I couldn't search for it again. Though maybe if you searched for your text you might find it. I've also been sent the image by two people looking to start an argument about the topic (to which I linked them to macrumors).

 

[Eidorian]

It gets posted on at least one the *chan sites every day, I forget where else I saw it as they are mostly in image form I couldn't search for it again. Though maybe if you searched for your text you might find it. I've also been sent the image by two people looking to start an argument about the topic (to which I linked them to macrumors).

Other knowledgeable Mac users and a possible intelligent switcher base aren't willing to cough up the cash for a crippled iMac or an overkill Mac Pro.

It's rather nasty with the MacBook Pro as well. The new 9400M WhiteBook is the new popular model and then bundle that with a Hackintosh desktop. Apple's current desktops are a dying breed with what Apple offers for the hardware on them.

 

[-hh]

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

Sounds like nearly all of this list would be satisfied with a Revision A (2006) Mac Pro. Last time that I looked on eBay, these were selling for roughly $1700.

The only catch is that some people are adding the additional constraint of "Oh, and it must be brand spanking NEW, too".

As such, I'll be happy to buy for them a brand spanking new Mac Pro and sell it to them for a mere $999 ... but only if they recipricate by providing for me a similarly brand spanking new Porsche 911 for an equivalent mere $25,000.


-hh

 

[Umbongo]

Sounds like nearly all of this list would be satisfied with a Revision A (2006) Mac Pro. Last time that I looked on eBay, these were selling for roughly $1700.

The only catch is that some people are adding the additional constraint of "Oh, and it must be brand spanking NEW, too".

As such, I'll be happy to buy for them a brand spanking new Mac Pro and sell it to them for a mere $999 ... but only if they recipricate by providing for me a similarly brand spanking new Porsche 911 for an equivalent mere $25,000.

It would, or a $2000 2.8GHz quad refurb which would at least have a warranty. Eitherway you are still paying double for weaker hardware.

 

[Eidorian]

Sounds like nearly all of this list would be satisfied with a Revision A (2006) Mac Pro. Last time that I looked on eBay, these were selling for roughly $1700.

The only catch is that some people are adding the additional constraint of "Oh, and it must be brand spanking NEW, too".

As such, I'll be happy to buy for them a brand spanking new Mac Pro and sell it to them for a mere $999 ... but only if they recipricate by providing for me a similarly brand spanking new Porsche 911 for an equivalent mere $25,000.


-hh

It's a very tough sell on the old 2.66 GHz Mac Pro when there are much cheaper 45nm solutions. Even the single processor quad core 2.8 GHz Mac Pro falls in at $1,999 refurbished. Why buy the old 2.66 model again?

How about that Core i7?

 

[AidenShaw]

Sounds like nearly all of this list would be satisfied with a Revision A (2006) Mac Pro. Last time that I looked on eBay, these were selling for roughly $1700.

$1700 is roughly twice the price of a certain Core i7 mini-tower that would spank the bejesus out of the old Mac Pro.

I wouldn't want someone else's three year old headache - no thanks on used.

 

[-hh]

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.

Upgrading a house requires a specialist (and building permits & inspections, in many municipalities). The same applies for doing brain surgery on any PC to swap out CPUs ever since an error in thermal cooling interface can slag a chip within seconds/minutes. Nevertheless, I do recall that hobbiests did put quad-core Xeons in Mac Pro's before Apple did, so there's proof that for the dedicated, it can certainly be done.

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.

For the 'bang for the buck' paradigm, the problem is that cost-vs-performance measures, we invariably are hit by the law of diminishing returns: there is always a point where to gain another 10% of performance results in a 100% price increase (not a 10% price increase).

The point here that is being overlooked is that the Mac Pro is "knee deep" in the land of these diminishing returns, which undoubtedly contributes to its high ticket price. This is why the Mac Pro doesn't cost appreciably more than its Dell counterpart using the same exact CPUs.

And yes, the new i7 is a wonderful new CPU ... but if we're going to moan about how Apple is suddenly "non-competitive" with their Mac Pro, then please explain why Dell is equally non-competitive on their dual-quad Xeon PC too, but its somehow okay for us to ignore that?

The dilemma that Apple has is that they're going to be criticized no matter what they do. For example, if they chose to do second best, then those consumers who are willing to pay top dollar for the fastest hardware will complain. And if they don't do that, then customers complain that the flagship costs too much ... which is exactly what is happening here. And if they try to be "all things to all people", then we have product line proliferation which is what just about killed the company a decade ago. If you believe that there is a clear win-win option, then you can have your cake and eat it too by simply presenting the good, professional, detailed business case study that successfully makes your argument. I'm still waiting.

FWIW, there are strategic business benefits in having a clear performance gap between the "best" and whatever's in second place, as this minimizes canabalization that would make the flagship even more expensive. The historical case study is from Apple's IIcx/IIci series (the "xMac" of the 68K days, since it reduced the number of expansion slots) canabalized the "full tower" IIx, such that when the IIfx replaced the IIx 6 months after the IIci shipped, the IIfx had a whopping $2000 price increase over its IIx predecessor.

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.

I'm not looking for anything special, but I'm not looking to spend that kind of money for what performs like an $25,000 japanese sports car, even though I don't want the label to say anything other than 'Porsche'...and I want it to be brand spanking new. Can you help me out here?


-hh

 

[-hh]

It would, or a $2000 2.8GHz quad refurb which would at least have a warranty. Eitherway you are still paying double for weaker hardware.

Then cough up another $800 and have the latest revision.
Or wait another 6 months for the used prices to fall further.

This isn't Rocket Science.

It's a very tough sell on the old 2.66 GHz Mac Pro when there are much cheaper 45nm solutions. Even the single processor quad core 2.8 GHz Mac Pro falls in at $1,999 refurbished. Why buy the old 2.66 model again?

The trade-off is that with these solutions, you get OEM support for OS X.

How about that Core i7?

The trade-off is that you now don't get OEM support for OS X.

Choose your poison.

$1700 is roughly twice the price of a certain Core i7 mini-tower that would spank the bejesus out of the old Mac Pro.

Then go right ahead and buy that instead... and enjoy running VISTA on it, since its not currently legal to run OS X on it.

Life is full of trade-offs and we don't always get what we want no matter how much we pout. This is merely one more example.

-hh

 

[AidenShaw]

...on any PC to swap out CPUs ever since an error in thermal cooling interface can slag a chip within seconds/minutes.

This is simply wrong - why are you inventing scary stories?

...on any PC to swap out CPUs ever since an error in thermal cooling interface can slag a chip within seconds/minutes. Nevertheless, I do recall that hobbiests did put quad-core Xeons in Mac Pro's before Apple did, so there's proof that for the dedicated, it can certainly be done.



For the 'bang for the buck' paradigm, the problem is that cost-vs-performance measures, we invariably are hit by the law of diminishing returns: there is always a point where to gain another 10% of performance results in a 100% price increase (not a 10% price increase).

The point here that is being overlooked is that the Mac Pro is "knee deep" in the land of these diminishing returns, which undoubtedly contributes to its high ticket price. This is why the Mac Pro doesn't cost appreciably more than its Dell counterpart using the same exact CPUs.

And yes, the new i7 is a wonderful new CPU ... but if we're going to moan about how Apple is suddenly "non-competitive" with their Mac Pro, then please explain why Dell is equally non-competitive on their dual-quad Xeon PC too, but its somehow okay for us to ignore that?

The dilemma that Apple has is that they're going to be criticized no matter what they do. For example, if they chose to do second best, then those consumers who are willing to pay top dollar for the fastest hardware will complain. And if they don't do that, then customers complain that the flagship costs too much ... which is exactly what is happening here. And if they try to be "all things to all people", then we have product line proliferation which is what just about killed the company a decade ago. If you believe that there is a clear win-win option, then you can have your cake and eat it too by simply presenting the good, professional, detailed business case study that successfully makes your argument. I'm still waiting.

FWIW, there are strategic business benefits in having a clear performance gap between the "best" and whatever's in second place, as this minimizes canabalization that would make the flagship even more expensive. The historical case study is from Apple's IIcx/IIci series (the "xMac" of the 68K days, since it reduced the number of expansion slots) canabalized the "full tower" IIx, such that when the IIfx replaced the IIx 6 months after the IIci shipped, the IIfx had a whopping $2000 price increase over its IIx predecessor.



I'm not looking for anything special, but I'm not looking to spend that kind of money for what performs like an $25,000 japanese sports car, even though I don't want the label to say anything other than 'Porsche'...and I want it to be brand spanking new. Can you help me out here?


-hh

 

[-hh]

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?"​

That was the alleged recruitment phrase pitched to John Sculley, the man who many people blame for nearly killing Apple in the 1990's.

From his wiki page:

"The 'Sculley Era' at Apple was characterized by market division and further subdivision, with a large number of models covering what critics called a too-finely subdivided range....This strategy backfired, as it resulted in high engineering, manufacturing, and marketing costs, as well as market confusion...Too many products with similar specifications led to decreased profits, despite high gross margins."​

So explain to me again how increasing the subdivision of Apple's desktop line starting with an i7 minitower (and has already been mentioned too, an i7 "full tower" for a full compliment of expansion bays & slots) is going to somehow deftly avoid the failures of the past?

As someone else has already said: increased product proliferation can be accomodated after Apple has successfully secured a larger market share. FWIW, I do agree that there is also going to be a Catch-22 element to this (if you don't build it, how can they come?), but one thing that should also be clear is that from a market timing standpoint, now is a bad time: such a strategy should be deferred until the economy is back on an upswing, since personal home computers are a discretionary purchase.

-hh

 

[AidenShaw]

...on any PC to swap out CPUs ever since an error in thermal cooling interface can slag a chip within seconds/minutes.

This is simply wrong - why are you inventing scary stories to try to bolster your argument?

You can run Intel CPUs without heat sinks, without causing damage. Tom's Hardware ran a test where they put Pentium 4 and AMD chips under heavy load, and removed the heatsinks.

No damage to the Pentiums - in fact they kept running. Athlons, not so lucky. (See picture below of the "before" and "after" state.)

Please stop making stuff up, it may damage your credibility.

...but if we're going to moan about how Apple is suddenly "non-competitive" with their Mac Pro, then please explain why Dell is equally non-competitive on their dual-quad Xeon PC too, but its somehow okay for us to ignore that?

The difference, obviously, is that Dell offers the choice. Dell offers a less expensive solution for people who don't require 32 GiB and 8 cores. Dell also offers a competitive solution for those who do need 32 GiB and 8 cores.

Apple is competitive at the premium all-in-one level. (The Mini is a joke now.) Apple is competitive at the dual socket workstation level.

Apple has nothing competitive for in-between range, where other makers have quad Core 2 and Core i7 systems in the $500 to $1500 range.

It has nothing to do with comparing an octo Mac Pro to a Dell Precision. There's simply a huge hole in the lineup.

Forum wizards - is there a way to upload an image and have it appear where you want instead of down here at the end?

 

[-hh]

This is simply wrong - why are you inventing scary stories?

Because its not wrong. Granted, the reports of 'instant' deaths typically come from extreme overclockers, but if you Google cpu+overheating+damage, you'll get thousands of hits which repeatedly affirm that thermal management issues will at the very least cause BSOD's and reduced lifespans.

For one development project that I'm working on, thermal management is a major bogey. Despite already using liquid cooling, we've had to significantly reduce our component density; we're now at 25% of the density of the 1st Generation design and we have a fallback design to take it down even further to 12.5%. People tend to forget that a semi-conducter by definition means that a lot of power gets converted to heat.


-hh

 

[AidenShaw]

So explain to me again how increasing the subdivision of Apple's desktop line starting with an i7 minitower

The Performa era was a mess - no question.

It's absurd, however, to suggest that filling the gaping hole in Apple's lineup with one or two small towers would return Apple to the Performa era.

I would say that Apple should be afraid of *not* filling the hole in this economic climate. They have more than enough cash to buy market share - so let the margins suffer a little while they attract new customers.

Apple does not have *any* desktop systems that look like a good value to a consumer who is being careful with spending.

The Mini is more expensive than most entry and mid-entry mini-towers, with laughable performance.

The Imac is expensive - not unreasonable given its premium styling and components, but still expensive when compared to what a 20" screen and mini-tower costs.

 

[-hh]

You can run Intel CPUs without heat sinks, without causing damage.

Incorrect: you can run the CPU that was in the test that you cited ... under the conditions of the test ... without causing (apparent) damage.

Change the CPU to a different design, or change the test conditions, and all bets are off: you have no test data.

Athlons, not so lucky.

Gosh, a different brand/model of CPU did get fried.

That proves my point.


-hh

 

[-hh]

The Performa era was a mess - no question.

It's absurd, however, to suggest that filling the gaping hole in Apple's lineup with one or two small towers would return Apple to the Performa era.

I already talked about this point (not sure if it was this thread or another).

Bottom line is that I generally agree with you, but the problem is that neither you nor I are running Apple. As I've said before, the Performa Era is burned into the corporate memory of Apple, and as such, it invariably affects their decisions. There's not much that we can do about it except to understand this part of their psyche in terms of how it influences their product decisions.

I would say that Apple should be afraid of *not* filling the hole in this economic climate. They have more than enough cash to buy market share - so let the margins suffer a little while they attract new customers.

The question of how much risk to take similarly comes down to the Apple leadership, and in general, they've been extremely conservative in certain areas. Without trying to second-guess them, it is entirely possible that their corporate 'fear of destruction' (shades of Skully) make them conservative and thus willing to miss some near-term growth opportunities if it makes their long term survivial more likely.

Its kind of like how one drives more cautiously for awhile after sliding sideways on the ice patch, even though it looks like the road ahead is clear.


-hh

 

[Eidorian]

Incorrect: you can run the CPU that was in the test that you cited ... under the conditions of the test ... without causing (apparent) damage.

Change the CPU to a different design, or change the test conditions, and all bets are off: you have no test data.



Gosh, a different brand/model of CPU did get fried.

That proves my point.


-hh

The CPUs will shut down once they pass their thermal limits before any damage is caused. The ever so loveable Tom's Hardware test of Intel vs. AMD chips was before AMD started placing similar thermal shutdown mechanisms on their chips. Not to mention the hair thin amounts of mechanical load you could place on an Athlon/XP with the cooling solution without destroying the chip itself.

You don't need to overclock either. You just need to provide inadequate cooling. To make matters worse that varies on a chip basis too.

 

[BenRoethig]

Sounds like nearly all of this list would be satisfied with a Revision A (2006) Mac Pro. Last time that I looked on eBay, these were selling for roughly $1700.

Not so much. It comes with twin 2 ghz dual core CPUs (most software won't recognize that second CPU) and a GeForce 7300GT and uses the expensive and laggy FB-DIMMs. In most real world Apps, it might actually be slower thanmy iMac.

 

[RebootD]

Sounds like nearly all of this list would be satisfied with a Revision A (2006) Mac Pro. Last time that I looked on eBay, these were selling for roughly $1700.
-hh

Why WOULDN'T people want to buy a new computer?! Why would I pay more for a 2 year old tower when I can get a new one for less? That makes no sense.

 

[BenRoethig]

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.

I wouldn't exactly call the 8800M GTS crap, but you have to pay just shy of $2000 to get it. I can sympathize though. From your sig, it looks like we're in exactly the same position.

I'm not looking for anything special, but I'm not looking to spend that kind of money for what performs like an $25,000 japanese sports car, even though I don't want the label to say anything other than 'Porsche'...and I want it to be brand spanking new. Can you help me out here?


-hh

No, I want a $1500 computer that performs like a $1500 computer. Believe it or not the iMac or the highway paradigm is not the ways its always been. Before late 2005, it was an entry level machine. The $1500 and up segment was the domain of the PowerMac. I also refuse to pay for an obsolete system just so a control freak can have his kicks. The user does not exist to serve Apple, its a partnership. They give the machine I want (or at least did) and I give them my money. If they don't and I'm put between a rock and a hard case became of it, I'm going to voice my displeasure.

Why WOULDN'T people want to buy a new computer?! Why would I pay more for a 2 year old tower when I can get a new one for less? That makes no sense.

It does make sense if you're looking for a way for Apple not to be wrong.

 

[BenRoethig]

The Performa era was a mess - no question.

It's absurd, however, to suggest that filling the gaping hole in Apple's lineup with one or two small towers would return Apple to the Performa era.

Right, it would be returning to the middle of this decade. Not very long ago Apple's line up consisted of

Mini at $499 and $699
eMac at $799
iMac at $1299, $1499, and $1899
PowerMac at $1499, $1999, $2499, and $2999.

12" iBook at $999
14" iBook at $1299 and $1499
12" Powerbook at $1499 and $1699
15" Powerbook at $1999 and $2299
17" Powerbook $2699

You didn't see any screaming OMG, OMG, we have too many models, everything is falling to choas! With the exception of the performance of the PowerPCs, users were generally happy with the product lineup You didn't see people really getting disenfranchised until Apple started to trying to fix what wasn't broken by consolidating models and moving the iMac even more up scale. They created a mess in the process. Actually update the Mini, replace the 17" education iMac with an $899 model offered to the public, replace the $1499 Macbook with 1280 resolution 15" model, and release a SP Xeon 3500 Mac Pro at the low end and Apple's lineup will be just about perfect.

 

[-hh]

Why WOULDN'T people want to buy a new computer?! Why would I pay more for a 2 year old tower when I can get a new one for less? That makes no sense.

I agree that it doesn't make sense to "pay more to get less".

However, the problem's not that simple: people are trying to compare hardware where the one is authorized to run OS X and the other isn't.

It doesn't matter if we call this an "Apple Tax" or a "Windows Subsidy" or something else: the bottom line is that its not an equal comparison because they're choosing to ignore a constraint.

The constraint is if OS X is being supported (Apple) or unsupported (Hackintosh).

The question is how much is that worth to you?

Sure, you can go buy an i7 & Leopard and go the Hackintosh route, and you'll save money...today. But it won't necessarilyi still be cheaper if it stops working for whatever reason (including getting caught violating the EULA) and that's the trade-off that has to be made.

If you want to eliminate a risk, you'll invariably pay more.
Nothing unique to Apple here - - its basic business and risk management.


-hh

 

[AidenShaw]

...and release a SP Xeon 3500 Mac Pro at the low end and Apple's lineup will be just about perfect.

Looks reasonable:

For the single-processor systems will be proposed the following versions :
Xeon w3570 (3.2 GHz) - > $999;
Xeon w3540 (2.93 GHz) - > $562;
Xeon w3520 (2.66 GHz) - > $284.

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-6971-view-Intel-Xeon-Xeon-55xx-series.html​

Those prices are quite close to the Core i7 prices (should be, since that's basically what they are).

As long as the mobo for a Xeon isn't considerably more expensive, it would fit into the hole.

But please, a smaller, less expensive case than the cheese grater.

 

[BenRoethig]

Looks reasonable:

For the single-processor systems will be proposed the following versions :
Xeon w3570 (3.2 GHz) - > $999;
Xeon w3540 (2.93 GHz) - > $562;
Xeon w3520 (2.66 GHz) - > $284.

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-6971-view-Intel-Xeon-Xeon-55xx-series.html​

Those prices are quite close to the Core i7 prices (should be, since that's basically what they are).

Same chip. ECC-support is turned off in the consumer i7 chips.

As long as the mobo for a Xeon isn't considerably more expensive, it would fit into the hole.

It's the exact same x58 SP chipset.

But please, a smaller, less expensive case than the cheese grater.

I happen to like the cheese grater. Besides, I'd rather use an existing part than let Ive get ahold of it and design all the functionality out of it.