Mac Pro To Continue Quad-Core Tradition? Woodcrest?

[AidenShaw]

I benchmarked my MBP 17-inch... it clocked up nearly 18,000 MIPS... so did my Pentium Extreme Edition 840 at 3.2GHz. I was kind of shocked to find that this Mobile Core Duo processor was delivering performance, in a variety of benchmarking tests, equating to that of last year's top of the line Extreme Edition Dual Core Pentium.

IBM state the PowerPC G5 970MP as coming in at 9,250 MIPS. So that kind of suggests that, at least in terms of MIPS, the MacBook Pro 2.1GHz can perform close to the Quad Core G5 doesn't it? :-S

My new Pentium D 960 clock in at just under 20,000 MIPS. The Woodcrest Xeons will certainly exceed this and if Apple sticks two in the high-end Mac Pro systems then it could be too much for people to handle! This is a very exciting time for Mac performance.

Banias 1.7 - 6,202
Xeon 3.6 - 9,989
Opt 2.6 - 11,222
Woody 2.66 - 29,019

Note that this test is single CPU only - it only runs on one core.

 

[SPUY767]

Banias 1.7 - 6,202
Xeon 3.6 - 9,989
Opt 2.6 - 11,222
Woody 2.66 - 29,019

Note that this test is single CPU only - it only runs on one core.

Well Intel's product chief said that he had gotten caught resting on his laurels by AMD, apparently, when he said he wasn't kidding, he meant it. That performance is absolutely stunning from a single core.

 

[SPUY767]

Banias 1.7 - 6,202
Xeon 3.6 - 9,989
Opt 2.6 - 11,222
Woody 2.66 - 29,019

Note that this test is single CPU only - it only runs on one core.

What did you use to get those readings Aiden? I'd like to get some numbers on my rig.

 

[brianus]

$1999 is only "a little extra"? Wow. I wish I had your bankroll. That sort of attitude would help explain why apple's marketshare is so tiny.

Haha, are you kidding? Check my sig, I have a mini. I don't need that kind of expandability, and based on what people on this thread claim they'd use it for, I would think they could afford more than I. I mean, what market segment are you referring to, gamers?

Apple got rid of its lower-end, lower priced Power Macs a year ago.. shouldn't that tell us something?

And you haven't given any reason why a mini tower couldn't make money by the bucket load for apple. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't other than "but apple just wouldn't do that..." Which also applied to the ipod and the mini...and turned out to be wrong.

As far as I can see, none of their product lines overlap. A mini-tower of the sort you describe would most certainly overlap with the iMac (no, I don't mean in terms of specs, but it would compete in terms of price and attention). The Mac mini, on the other hand, catered to people Apple had never even bothered to try for before.

 

[zac4mac]

I have my MBP 2.0 with 1GB RAM running windows now - just ran PC Wizard and got:
whetstone(FPU) 6439 MFlops
whetstone(SSE2) 8421 MFlops
dhrystone(ALU) 17034 Mips

There is a "compare" tab, checking that, this Core2 slaughtered everything on the list but an AMD64X24800+ @ 2.4GHz...

Damn this is a fast 'Book
Time to play some HL2

I'm not voting; I like the G5 box. I have a RevA 2.0duallie and love it, but I think the new MacPro needs a new box. Can't see looking at a big Intel logo on the heatsinks.

Z

 

[milo]

As it is now, they have to work on the following:
32-bit PowerPC
64-bit PowerPC
32-bit x86 (Intel)
64-bit x86 (soon to be released)

I doubt we'll ever see 64 bit OSX for PPC.

Oh ok. So with the PowerMac G5 they should of had a Dual 1.8GHz G4 alongside it and say "We've saved hundreds and the only real difference is the FSB!".

If it meant having a tower config hundreds less than their cheapest one? Hell, yes!

In this case, single conroe is likely the only way they can come close to $1999. Do you really think single woodcrest is a good idea if it means a price increase of hundreds of dollars on the base tower?

Wha?

You're the tenth person with this exact same response. This has been explained MANY times already. Seriously, is it that hard to read at least some of the thread? There are responses to this on this very page.

Funny you call it a box, because that's exactly what it would be, and it woul lead to the commoditization of Apple. With a 4% market-share and a 15-17% install base, Apple absolutely cannot afford to commoditize its product line.

Hate to break this to you, but all computers are already commodities. The main selling point of Apple is the OS and the exclusive software, regardless of how cool the boxes are. Apple has no choice but to compete with dell, and keeping prices down and offering more choices to the consumer can only help apple. Like it or not, people already do head to head comparisons with dell. Apple might as well do a basic budget model in addition to the fancy ones they can get away with marking up more.

I could care less how pretty my hardware is, I just want something that pushes the data as fast as possible. A "box" suits many people's needs perfectly fine, and the ability to run OSX is what would differentiate one from Apple.

 

[milo]

Wait a second. It was only a suggestion and you're throwing a tantrum over a product that doesn't even exist yet?

Tantrum? No way, are you nuts? I just think it's ridiculous that people have become so blindly loyal to marketing and insisting that Apple should use a particular chip in a particular config just because intel is hyping it as "better".

Haha, are you kidding? Check my sig, I have a mini. I don't need that kind of expandability, and based on what people on this thread claim they'd use it for, I would think they could afford more than I. I mean, what market segment are you referring to, gamers?

Apple got rid of its lower-end, lower priced Power Macs a year ago.. shouldn't that tell us something?

Sure. That apple had a terrible lack of options when it came to processors. I think there are plenty of people who could use *some* expandability but don't want to spend the large sum of money currently needed for a tower. Right now, the only options are "way too much" or "none".

 

[AidenShaw]

What did you use to get those readings Aiden? I'd like to get some numbers on my rig.

From an earlier post:

I simply used PC Wizard 2006 from http://www.cpuid.com/. It's a sweet little tool and I fully appreciate it ain't industry standard. Would be delighted to here your Woodie results with this tool. Go to the benchmark tab and run the Processor benchmark. The Dhrystone result is the one I've been looking at.

 

[zac4mac]

OT- Aiden, what kind of cat is your avatar again?
I have one that looks identical - his name is Floyd.

Z

 

[sam10685]

i think all future mac computers should come with a reduced price.

 

[Miguey]

hey my old junior high school name was woodcrest...rofl...quad core seems 1337...ill like any design...

 

[AidenShaw]

"Maine Coon"

OT- Aiden, what kind of cat is your avatar again?
I have one that looks identical - his name is Floyd.

Z

http://www.moggies.co.uk/breeds/maine.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Coon

 

[SPUY767]

My PC Wizard

Nifty, my $137.00 PD beat out a chip that costs three times as much! Yipee!. BTW this is not a reading on my server rig, it's running linux. This is a reading ona gaming PC that I built.

 

[mozmac]

I like everything I hear, except the name.

 

[~Shard~]

I like everything I hear, except the name.

Which name, "Mac Pro" or "Woodcrest"? "Mac Pro" is nice and simple, yet I can see why some people may not like it - it doesn't have the same flair as PowerMac. As for "Woodcrest", come on, who doesn't like a Woody?

 

[mozmac]

Which name, "Mac Pro" or "Woodcrest"? "Mac Pro" is nice and simple, yet I can see why some people may not like it - it doesn't have the same flair as PowerMac. As for "Woodcrest", come on, who doesn't like a Woody?

Maybe Apple can call it the "PowerWoody" or "MacWoody" or "WoodyPro"

All would be better than "Mac Pro"

 

[~Shard~]

Maybe Apple can call it the "PowerWoody" or "MacWoody" or "WoodyPro"

All would be better than "Mac Pro"

Unfortunately I fear a couple of those names might already be taken by products in a completely different industry...

 

[Multimedia]

I'm Gonna Call Mine A "Woody Quad"

Maybe Apple can call it the "PowerWoody" or "MacWoody" or "WoodyPro"

All would be better than "Mac Pro"

I'm gonna call mine a "Woody Quad".

 

[blufire]

Yeah, I don't see anything really wrong with the current design, other than the fact that the towers are fairly large, and there is a lot of unused space in it. I'm all for avoiding clutter and being minimal, but only to a degree.

Plus, Apple hasn't redesigned any of their machines for the Intel transition, so I see no need to now. But you never know - Apple is always full of surprises!

I feel like they did this on purpose. By largely maintaining the same enclosures (though with some revisions to the PowerBook design and the new MacBook design), I think Apple is trying to further bridge the gap between PowerPC and Intel-based Macs, and therefore provide more continuity (make the transition seem that much more seamless).

 

[DrGruv1]

would you woody? lol

 

[THX1139]

would you woody? lol

Another thread gone to hell...

 

[SPUY767]

Another thread gone to hell...

Well It's certainly a good thing then that we have your derisive banter. . . see above. . . to save the day.

SGI chief Dennis McKenna is stated as saying in an interview with GB's The Register, "I believe that Intel's Woodcrest will take Opteron to the woodshed." This can't be bad news because if anyone knows performance, at least before the the foolish tyranny of Rick Beluzo, it's SGI.

 

[50548]

Actually, I've recruited a whole team to help argue for a New Form-Factor 64-bit Dual-Core Conroe Mini-Tower™ - just read this thread.

I am surprised that so many people are turning against the big aluminum maxi-tower - two-thirds of the people in the poll have voted to replace it. Even many of the people who like the maxi-tower are asking for more internal and external drive slots, realizing that for all that size you really don't get much expandability.

Apple is like General Motors - trying to sell a big expensive SUV of a case when the customers are looking for something more practical.

Unfort. I can't really read the whole thread these days...but as I said before, your mini-tower might show up in the form of a 30th ann. Mac...just wait and see...

As for the turn "against the G5 tower", this doesn't surprise me at all, especially considering the way the poll was formulated...you have one alternative for "old", one for "current" and another for "new"...it's more than obvious that all Apple fans would go for the latter.

The G5 tower form factor is easily explainable by the need for an extensive (and well distributed) cooling system, along with the large sinks used by the dual G5...

I am pretty sure that Apple, either with Woodcrest or Conroe, will be able to squeeze a lot more space for an extra drive bay or ports in the new MacPros...time will tell anyway.

 

[SPUY767]

Hate to break this to you, but all computers are already commodities. The main selling point of Apple is the OS and the exclusive software, regardless of how cool the boxes are. Apple has no choice but to compete with dell, and keeping prices down and offering more choices to the consumer can only help apple. Like it or not, people already do head to head comparisons with dell. Apple might as well do a basic budget model in addition to the fancy ones they can get away with marking up more.

I certainly hope that you are neither an economist, nor a businessperson. Something that is commoditized comes from something being good enough, or more than good enough, so much so that the entire market of competitors can put out equipment at the same level and therefore no one can ask a premium for their product.

When competing in a commodity market, the only way that a company can hope to generate more profits is to streamline the supply-chain. Dell has done that brilliantly, and Apple cannot hope to compete in that market. Apple's driving force is its fanatical obsession with design perfection. When's the last time you got "Happy-in-the-Pants" looking at a boring dell case. . . Never. Every time I look at my G5 tower, even today, I marvel at its stunning design and quality. What other computer do you know with a build and materials quality even close to that?

::Crickets::

The above point is exactly the reason why Macs are not, and will never be commodity items. Even Falcons and Alienwares are a far-cry from the quality of Apple's machines. Apple's machines are no faster, than a PC, and there's not a whole lot that you can't do on a PC that you can do on a Mac. The simple fact is that wuality and design place Apple a couple tiers above the commodity market. Apple have earned themselves a nice corner of the market and they will remain quite successful there as long as they don't release a commodity item to cannibalize their other products.

 

[milo]

When competing in a commodity market, the only way that a company can hope to generate more profits is to streamline the supply-chain. Dell has done that brilliantly, and Apple cannot hope to compete in that market. Apple's driving force is its fanatical obsession with design perfection. When's the last time you got "Happy-in-the-Pants" looking at a boring dell case. . . Never. Every time I look at my G5 tower, even today, I marvel at its stunning design and quality.

I don't agree with the idea that apple's driving force is design, at least for their computers. The driving force is the operating system, which isn't available elsewhere, and is what sets apple apart from pc's.

If apple's sole advantage is a prettier case, no wonder market share is so horrible. Personally, I couldn't care less about build quality (beyond it not falling apart or breaking down), materials, or design. I care about performance, features, and price, all of which are beat by various pc's (especially the dual G5's.

If apple insists on only selling hardware that is "special" instead of machines that are competitive, they have nobody but themselves to blame for their market share ghetto. I'd like to finally see a real budget box that runs OSX, especially one with a little expandability.