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

[-hh]

The point is simply that DP Xeons are much more expensive than desktop Core chips. Ancillary chips for DP systems (5000X, FB-DIMM) are also more expensive.

We've been saying that the Mac Pro (and the Dell Precision) are expensive, not that they are over-priced. Big difference.

That might have been your intent, but it wasn't your message. As soon as you said that the Core i7 had the same performance at a fraction of the cost, you're projecting the message of "over-priced".

Dell offers single-socket systems using desktop parts, including Core 2 Quad and Core i7.

Sure, Dell offers that today, but were they offering that in January 2008? Considering that the i7 was just released, the answer is "No". As such, you're trying to insert the non-issue of normal technological advancement product development leadtimes and making a "2009 Product vs 2008 Product" comparison.

And what is playing a part here is the Law of Diminishing Returns: to get the last 10% of available performance costs disproportionately more than the cost of going from 66% to 75% - - always. All technologies.

The Apple (& Dell) Xeon Workstations functionally represent last year's "95th percentile performance" product, which because of a year's worth of technological progress, is now equivalent to this year's 75th percentile performer. As such, we can rely on that the price for its 'equal performance' replacement will be progressively lower with each passing month, for as long as Moore's Law remains in effect.

FWIW, I can recall when 16K of memory cost $1000. Today, I can get 100,000x more for roughly 1/100th the cost.

That is why Dell can offer systems which match the performance of the Mac Pro (and Dell Precision) in some cases, and beat the price of the Imac.

There's yet another example of a "...they are over-priced..." inference statement.

I don't know why you want to argue that a Dell Xeon workstation price is wrong, that's just a distraction that doesn't follow from the arguments that have been made.

You find it 'distracting' because what it does is detracts from your message of "...they are over-priced..." that you claim to not be saying.

Once Dell Precision has Nehalem Xeons, the current situation where the desktop system can match the workstation will end - the much more expensive system will be more powerful than the desktop.

Once the Mac Pro has Nehalem Xeons, the huge gaping hole in the product line will get even larger. (if...)

If one speculatively assumes that the iMac will remain a relatively mundane (mobile-CPU based) performer then it can be reasonably argued that the performance gap is likely to become larger. However, it is also possible that the next iMac might very well get the i7, which changes the terrain and arguably closes this chasm. The answer won't really come until there's a reliable leak, or official product announcements. Granted, this is a rumor site, but there's a bit too much Chicken Little (sky is falling!) for my tastes.

Yes, it's a great deal for what it is, but even with the Pros, most do not want or need a xeon workstation. If you need a desktop and have to spend almost an extra grand beyond what you paid on you're last PowerMac, its not such a good deal. When your computer and operating system company forces the hardware to basically, two extreme, it's very difficult to make direct comparisons. A lot of the time you're caught in no man's land have to make relative comparisons because the machine that you need does not exist on this platform anymore.

I hear you, but with ~30 years of personal desktop computing under my belt, I'm going to disagree: the general fallacy is in assuming that users come in a virtually continuous gradation of demands for horsepower. The reality is that they don't: its not a continuous distribution, but grouped in clusters. One cluster is low end. Another is midrange. Another is high-end. As such, one doesn't really need 100 discrete products to cover 1%-100%, but merely a couple of products that generally address where the data is clustered: simplistically, visualize this as being at 33%, 66% and 99%.

What the crux of this whole 'xMac' debate is that it is being claimed that the 66% solution isn't good enough and that the 99% is too expensive, so you want a "75%" solution.

There is life below the super high professional end of the spectrum and above the low to middle end typical consumer level.

Sure there is. But that's not the only issue to be considered when running a business: the key question is if the "75% need" is a significant enough cluster to be worth providing a solution.

And do keep in mind that just because Dell chooses to sell a 75% doesn't make the market segment significance answer to automatically be 'Yes' for Apple too.

In fact, for most applications, 6 of those 8-cores are going to be doing nothing at all.

Which makes it certainly sound like there's a big cluster of users who mostly only needs 2 cores ... aka the iMac.

Nobody is saying that the MacPro isn't a great deal for a workstation. Workstations are inherently expensive. What they're saying is that it isn't a very good deal for someone who needs a desktop, something that does not exist with on Mac OS X currently.

Yes, but you've not successfully made the business case that there's enough of a cluster (demand for "75%") to be fiscally viable for Apple to cater to you.

It is not germane to Apple what Dell does, because Dell is in a different enough market ... and with different competitors ... such that Dell makes different business decisions.

To abuse YA automobile analogy, Porsche doesn't make motorcycles even though BMW does, and BMW doesn't make heavy trucks, even though Mercedes does. Since all three (cars, trucks, motorcycles) are transportation products, how come none of these three companies make all three?




-hh

 

[AidenShaw]

...

Yeah, whatever. There's no point in continuing this debate...
</end>

 

[Chicane-UK]

I think it's a really well reasoned and well argued set of points, -hh but my problem is here:

What the crux of this whole 'xMac' debate is that it is being claimed that the 66% solution isn't good enough and that the 99% is too expensive, so you want a "75%" solution.

My problem is that the iMac just isn't satisfying users at the 66% level in terms of performance quite frankly. Whenever our desktop support guys at work buy new desktops for departments in my place of work now, some of the cheapest workstations they buy (like the absolute cheapest) feature faster dual core CPU's than the iMac does, and more typically they buy quad cores as they barely cost any more. We're talking basic workstations here.

So at the moment we have, for desktops at least, the Mac Mini languishing in something like 30% in terms of desktop performance (because whilst it may have a dual core CPU it's throttled by mediocre graphics and a laptop HDD) and the iMac probably sitting at around 50%. The Mac Pro is definately still well up there as a high end performer as at this point it's impossible to argue with dual quad cores and all that expandability.

 

[takao]

To abuse YA automobile analogy, Porsche doesn't make motorcycles even though BMW does, and BMW doesn't make heavy trucks, even though Mercedes does. Since all three (cars, trucks, motorcycles) are transportation products, how come none of these three companies make all three?

Since Porsche owns VW and VW has it's own small truck group (they are making 40 tonners for south africa) and Scania -> Porsche also makes trucks

 

[-hh]

Since Porsche owns VW and VW has it's own small truck group (they are making 40 tonners for south africa) and Scania -> Porsche also makes trucks

So where's the Porsche motorcycle?


-hh

 

[-hh]

I think it's a really well reasoned and well argued set of points, -hh but my problem is here:

What the crux of this whole 'xMac' debate is that it is being claimed that the 66% solution isn't good enough and that the 99% is too expensive, so you want a "75%" solution.

My problem is that the iMac just isn't satisfying users at the 66% level in terms of performance quite frankly. Whenever our desktop support guys at work buy new desktops for departments in my place of work now, some of the cheapest workstations they buy (like the absolute cheapest) feature faster dual core CPU's than the iMac does, and more typically they buy quad cores as they barely cost any more. We're talking basic workstations here.

I understand & agree with your point, but the counterpoint is that there is invariably a price to be paid for Apple in general, plus a more specific one on the iMac due to its form factor.

I'd love for there to not be an "Apple Tax" ... or an "iMac Form Factor Tax" either. Afterall, the potential of a lower cost/better value is much of te reason why many of us would like to have an xMac (myself included).

However, this is the reality that we have in dealing with Apple. Not unlike if we're both a motorcycle and a Porsche fan and are thus disappointed that Porsche doesn't sell motorcycles.

So at the moment we have, for desktops at least, the Mac Mini languishing in something like 30% in terms of desktop performance (because whilst it may have a dual core CPU it's throttled by mediocre graphics and a laptop HDD) and the iMac probably sitting at around 50%.

We can pick whatever "%" numbers we want, because they're not particularly profoundly significant to the other question at hand. I agree that 30%-50%-95% might very well be a more technically accurate representation of the respective power levels within Apple's desktop lines, but it still comes down to the question of how adequately do these numbers align with the customer base.

If the customer base clusters are at 30-50-95, and the products are at 30-50-95, then the matchup is good, whereas if the customer base clusters are at 15-65-100, then there's serious product mismatch problems.

Granted, it is arguably generally better to "over" rather than "under" when it comes to matching the product to the consumer demands, but this is predicated on an 'all other factors being roughly equal': it may be better to be slightly under if this results in some other beneficial measure of value for the consumer, such as a significant reduction in size or cost.

The Mac Pro is definately still well up there as a high end performer as at this point it's impossible to argue with dual quad cores and all that expandability.

Agreed, but the problem that any flagship product has is that it is pushing performance limits, which invokes the Law of Diminishing Returns, and since new technology advancements ship every week, the flagship becomes "overpriced" nearly from the day that it ships.

This is a tyranny of the technology business development cycle that will be with us for as long as we have ongoing technological progress.

For example, on one project that I'm running, I'm expecting some jackass manager to criticize my program for not using a new chip design. Hey, I'd love to use it, but its still vaporware and my program's schedule is already 6 months past design lock & wafer run commitment at the foundry, so we've already received our run and the tech's are busy cutting and picking.


-hh

 

[polaris20]

The obvious comeback here is that "Snow Leopard will be what Leopard should have been in the first place."

But that would be a cheap shot - I won't do it.

It would be obvious, except that Leopard is nowhere near the pig Vista is on the same hardware.

 

[Eidorian]

It would be obvious, except that Leopard is nowhere near the pig Vista is on the same hardware.

Don't try running Leopard on a G4.

Talk about steep system requirements.

 

[BenRoethig]

If the customer base clusters are at 30-50-95, and the products are at 30-50-95, then the matchup is good, whereas if the customer base clusters are at 15-65-100, then there's serious product mismatch problems.

The question here is what you consider the base. Is it the people who have bought one Mac or the repeat buyers. We've gotten to the point where the windows switchers/ first time buyers out number Mac users. If history is any indication, we can't take for granted that they'll buy another Mac and Apple sure can't treat them like they do Mac users. Apple's worldwide marketshare fell as meteorically as it rose during the Bondi iMac saga from the mid 3% range worldwide when they were selling like hotcakes backdown to the low-2s (Apple's US marketshare is usually roughly double the world wide figures).

Granted Apple didn't have the iPod back then, but then again they weren't attracting switchers at the expensive of existing users. The Blue and White G3 was a home run as well, especially with a very affordable starting price of $1599. When the lean times came, it was the PowerMac users who stuck around. If those switchers turn out to be as flaky as the ones a decade ago, do you really want a situation where Apple is not on the best of terms with some of its most loyal users. If we finally do get sick of it and do what you and others suggest in buying from someone else and the switchers do flake, who is going to be here to hold down the fort. Personally, I like the way Jobs did things when he initially got back, cover all your bases with amazing products and take no prisoners with the compeition. The "milk the Mac users for all their worth" strategy has a lot of potential for profit, but it also can backfire in a big way.

 

[Eidorian]

The question here is what you consider the base. Is it the people who have bought one Mac or the repeat buyers. We've gotten to the point where the windows switchers/ first time buyers out number Mac users. If history is any indication, we can't take for granted that they'll buy another Mac and Apple sure can't treat them like they do Mac users. Apple's worldwide marketshare fell as meteorically as it rose during the Bondi iMac saga from the mid 3% range worldwide when they were selling like hotcakes backdown to the low-2s (Apple's US marketshare is usually roughly double the world wide figures).

It's sad to see us hard line and entrenched Mac users begin to question if our next computer purchase is going to be a Mac.

While I do welcome more Mac users, switchers and what their perceptions of Apple and OS X have caused a noticeable change in what hardware and price points Apple offers to its customers.

The late PowerPC days still hold the most value per dollar for me when it came to your Mac purchase. The Core Duo switch changed that with an increase in performance but a major increase in price on the laptop side. Building the majority of the iMac off of mobile components has cause a major disparity which is only getting worse.

The best band for your buck Mac right now is the 9400M WhiteBook for US$999.. I wouldn't recommend any Apple "desktops" to anyone. I imagine Apple is going to focus even more now on mobile sales.

 

[BenRoethig]

It's sad to see us hard line and entrenched Mac users begin to question if our next computer purchase is going to be a Mac.

Yes it is, there was a time not too long ago where I never dreamed of purchasing something without the Apple logo. I had no reason to. I had the Powerful and affordable desktop, the portable but full featured and affordable laptop, and the most productive OS. I can get the OS, I can get the notebook (at least for now), but the desktop is quite the quandary. iMac's not working out, extra grand on a Mac Pro is not even close to the realm of possibility, and while Win7 is a decent OS I'd greatly prefer not to be using it as my main everyday OS. You do get used to the little things.

While I do welcome more Mac users, switchers and what their perceptions of Apple and OS X have caused a noticeable change in what hardware and price points Apple offers to its customers.

It's not as much they changed Apple as much as Apple found a receptive audience. Job and Ive wanted to go this direction in 2001. More practically minded Mac users took a look at the cube and while they were impressed by the cool design, they weren't as impressed with the computer inside or the price and kept buying the big PowerMac towers. There has always been a mismatch between Ive and the semi-professional core. He's an artist at heart and his sculptures are computers. Apple wasn't able to go full tilt in that direction again until they were back on their feet from the iPod.

The late PowerPC days still hold the most value per dollar for me when it came to your Mac purchase.

Not so much in the final days. Toward the end, it became apparent to both Moto and IBM that making competitive PowerPCs were not very cost effective when Apple was your only client. Making a PowerPC isn't any cheaper than an x86 CPU and with computer and embedded CPUs starting to go in completely different directions, it really wasn't worth it anymore.

The Core Duo switch changed that with an increase in performance but a major increase in price on the laptop side. Building the majority of the iMac off of mobile components has cause a major disparity which is only getting worse.

In their defense, I thought it was a brilliant move at the time (using laptop chips, not replacing the lower rungs of the PowerMac with it). I honestly didn't see the current situation coming. The assumption was that cooler and faster was the new paradigm. The Pentium-M based core architecture was much faster than the power Hungry P4s and there wasn't a whole lot of difference between the desktop and laptop chips at the time. Even with the Merom/Conroe Core 2 chips, there wasn't much of a difference. As the core chips started to hit the thermal wall, the higher clocked desktop chips drastically dropped in price while the mobile chips haven't changed much in price. The solution to the thermal wall was to use quad core chips. Problem is that they are even more expensive in a mobile form than high clocked dual core chips.

The best band for your buck Mac right now is the 9400M WhiteBook for US$999.. I wouldn't recommend any Apple "desktops" to anyone. I imagine Apple is going to focus even more now on mobile sales.

I have to agree. I'd love to have the LED backlight screen, the new design scheme, the new glass touchpad, the extra half pound shaved off, or even to backlight keyboard, but I'm not so comfortable in what I have to give up to get them. I'm sure I'd be as happy with the whitebook (especially after easy RAM and hard drive upgrades) as I've been with the iBook G3, but honestly I want to wait to see if your kind has any kind of future on this platform first.

 

[RebootD]

It's sad to see us hard line and entrenched Mac users begin to question if our next computer purchase is going to be a Mac.

While I do welcome more Mac users, switchers and what their perceptions of Apple and OS X have caused a noticeable change in what hardware and price points Apple offers to its customers..

Plus it seems pretty obvious the shift from Professionals first to Consumers only (Mac Pro Jan/08 same price old hardware, Aperture 2 Feb/08 rarely updates camera support, FCS 2 May/07 two years is a LONG time) since they don't seem to update them often. I bought Lightroom 2 over Aperture because at the time it still didn't fully support my D300 and I got tired of waiting.

I know I've said it before but I took off the rose covered glasses, put the kool aid down and started to really think about what I need to do. Sell my current gen iMac for $900 and put it towards a core i7 build that would cost me $1,400? For $500 more I could have quad, 12GB of ram, actual video card w/512MB and multiple hard drives or keep hopelessly waiting for that mystery xMac to come into existence but we know that isn't going to happen.

This is a sad time for a pro (who doesn't want/need) a Mac Pro.

 

[philius]

I'd HATE to see an Xmac released, and I truly feel it would go against everything Apple stand for.

If your favorite car make happens to be Mercedes, what do you do if you can't afford/justify buying their top-of-the-range model; but on the other hand the next model down isn't quite good enough for you, or doesn't contain some of the features you so love with Mercedes cars?

You buy another brand of car, maybe a VW; but don't go blaming Mercedes, or for that matter Apple, for not specifically targeting you as a consumer.

No company is ever going to please everyone. Just buy whatever suits you best, be it Apple/Microsoft/custom-built, etc. and be happy. And stop complaining...!

 

[dotheDVDeed]

A big problem is Apple's refusal to discount computer as their design ages and their components get cheaper. I may begrudgingly accept an "Apple Tax" when Apple first introduces new model but that tax is ever increasing as Dell and Compaq discount their computers over their lifespans.

Another problem I have with Apple is that they are inclined to design a computer and wait for the chip maker to update the chips for it. I think they should be more aggressive and design a computer around a newly released chip.
Yes.... an xMac that uses the iCore7 to it's maximum potential.

TIM

 

[BenRoethig]

I'd HATE to see an Xmac released, and I truly feel it would go against everything Apple stand for.

Judging my the join date, you may know what Jobs and Ive stand for aka pretty looking minimalist consumer machines, but you don't have a clue what the Mac and its users stand for.

If your favorite car make happens to be Mercedes, what do you do if you can't afford/justify buying their top-of-the-range model; but on the other hand the next model down isn't quite good enough for you, or doesn't contain some of the features you so love with Mercedes cars?

You picked the exact right company for this analogy. Why? You focused on the consumer cars and completely left out the Vito, Sprinter, and Vario. Mercedes commercial vehicle business is just as important to it as its car business.

You buy another brand of car, maybe a VW; but don't go blaming Mercedes, or for that matter Apple, for not specifically targeting you as a consumer.

When you switch to a VW, you don't have to move to a different fuel source or a completely different set of roads.

No company is ever going to please everyone. Just buy whatever suits you best, be it Apple/Microsoft/custom-built, etc. and be happy. And stop complaining...!

Apple did a pretty good job of it before your kind showed up.

 

[philius]

Wow, many assumptions and bitterness there Ben, are forums not for airing opinions?

Judging my the join date, you may know what Jobs and Ive stand for aka pretty looking minimalist consumer machines, but you don't have a clue what the Mac and its users stand for.

I've been working with video production and motion graphics for close to 10 years now, owning primarily the Mac Pro/G5 along the way... no glossy screens and slimline designs will be found here. And I tend not to join forums very often because
a) I haven't the time; I use my Mac to produce work, not to witter on about my next Mac purchase.
b) The type of people found here and the responses you tend to recieve...

Now obviously i'm in danger of sounding like the bitter guy now; but I was only trying to get across my opinion. Which is that Apple, as a company, doesn't owe me anything. If they produce computers which suit me, then great; if not i'll start looking elsewhere. If you're not happy with Apple vote with your feet and stop buying. If enough others do the same, they'll soon get the point.

The bottom line is computers are tools. Buy one and use it instead of getting all upset on here.

 

[takao]

So where's the Porsche motorcycle?


-hh

VW also took over Wanderer, DKW, NSU and D-Rad in the early days so actually it's more of a case how the cheaper Japanese and the better Italians won the battle

(actually under Piech command Audi secretly designed some motorcycle prototypes ... and just last year Piech yet again talked about aquiring Ducati ... ) )

 

[Eric S.]

Don't try running Leopard on a G4.

Talk about steep system requirements.

I run Leopard on my PowerMac G4. It's fine.

 

[Eidorian]

I run Leopard on my PowerMac G4. It's fine.

I had a wide range of Power Mac G4's from 800 MHz - 1.25 GHz with 1.5-2 GB of RAM and found it rather lacking compared to Tiger. It was a world of a difference on a 1.6 GHz iMac G5 over Tiger.

 

[Eric S.]

I had a wide range of Power Mac G4's from 800 MHz - 1.25 GHz with 1.5-2 GB of RAM and found it rather lacking compared to Tiger. It was a world of a difference on a 1.6 GHz iMac G5 over Tiger.

My PM G4 is 1.0GHz w/ 1.3 GB RAM. For the things I do I find Leopard comparable to Tiger. If there's any performance loss it's hard to detect. You may well have stressed it more. But this system is certainly capable of running Leopard.

 

[xbjllb]

If the next MP doesn't have a Blu-Ray burner, even as BTO, I'll be unimpressed. This would be the perfect opportunity for Apple to update FCP w/ the ability to burn Blu-Ray and also release some new pro (read: matte) displays and top it off w/ a new bit-kicking MP w/ BD burner.

I know Jobs said BD is a "whole bag of hurt," or whatever, but Apple has to understand that people want the ability to not only edit their video in HD but also to burn it onto HD media as well. FCP and FCX are getting a little long in the tooth. FCP, especially. It's what two years old now w/ no major update.

I completely agree, and thanks for beating me to the punch. Apple has one more update to return back to cutting edge status, and if they fail, I and my $10-20 grand (over the next five years) are gone for good. Along with many other pro content creators. Apple doesn't come through and they can just kiss that market goodbye forever.

Apple's concentration on iCrap toys and abysmal neglect of its high end supposed "cutting edge" workstations has been enraging and suicidal.

 

[polaris20]

If they produce computers which suit me, then great; if not i'll start looking elsewhere. If you're not happy with Apple vote with your feet and stop buying. If enough others do the same, they'll soon get the point.

The bottom line is computers are tools. Buy one and use it instead of getting all upset on here.

I think you'll find that this board is filled people that have a heavy sense of self-entitlement. Kind of a microcosm of the world, isn't it?

 

[-hh]

The question here is what you consider the base. Is it the people who have bought one Mac or the repeat buyers. We've gotten to the point where the windows switchers/ first time buyers out number Mac users. If history is any indication, we can't take for granted that they'll buy another Mac ... When the lean times came, it was the PowerMac users who stuck around. If those switchers turn out to be as flaky as the ones a decade ago, do you really want a situation where Apple is not on the best of terms with some of its most loyal users.

FWIW, I've already (elsewhere) expressed a nearly identical concern: it is your repeat customers ... not the Johnny-come-lately ... that sticks with a business through lean times that allows a company to survive economic downturns.

However, even so, I think that some of the 'good things' that Apple did for their faithful customers in the 90s ... I'm specifically thinking of the CPU daughterboards on the 7500-9500 series (plus) ... the problem is that that they did also suffer an unintended consequence, which was to very much suppressing subsequent Apple sales for the very reason that we were able to easily upgrade instead of buying new.

Overall, I'm not about to suggest which is clearly 'right' or 'wrong', but simply observe that repeat customers are rarely a bad thing, particularly when the economy isn't great. True, we can be more of a nuisance by being more critically demanding, but this is more reflective of a stable, long term business relationship and not just the whims of the next fiscal quarter.


-hh

 

[BenRoethig]

I think you'll find that this board is filled people that have a heavy sense of self-entitlement. Kind of a microcosm of the world, isn't it?

There's a difference between self entitlement and being more than a little peeved that the company and platform you supported for over a decade and a half has put you in a very bad situation productivity wise and financially. This is the platform we have chosen and the one we have a substantial investment in.

No, I'm not entitled to Apple to make the machine I and others want. Likewise, Apple is not entitled to further blind loyalty and those who want to believe that everything is completely perfect in Mac land and Apple is somehow infallible are not entitled for every to to play along with that illusion. If new management came in and Apple changed directions and stopped making minimalist designs, you know the same ones who don't want to hear the complaints of the power users would be doing the complaining themselves. Its all to easy to be in the group that's currently having you needs met.

 

[polaris20]

There's a difference between self entitlement and being more than a little peeved that the company and platform you supported for over a decade and a half has put you in a very bad situation productivity wise and financially. This is the platform we have chosen and the one we have a substantial investment in.

No, I'm not entitled to Apple to make the machine I and others want. Likewise, Apple is not entitled to further blind loyalty and those who want to believe that everything is completely perfect in Mac land and Apple is somehow infallible are not entitled for every to to play along with that illusion. If new management came in and Apple changed directions and stopped making minimalist designs, you know the same ones who don't want to hear the complaints of the power users would be doing the complaining themselves. Its all to easy to be in the group that's currently having you needs met.

I don't recall ever saying Apple is entitled to blind loyalty, as I'm sure not blindly loyal to them. I can switch at any time, as I realize a computer is a tool, not a lifestyle.