Mac Pro To Continue Quad-Core Tradition? Woodcrest?

[A is jump]

Of course not, the G5 has barely any expandability, even compared with the G4! The G4 could have three times as many internal drives! It's awful design, especially for such a giant case. It's basically a huge cooling system with minimal expandability thrown in.

Could you really fit 6 drives in a G4? I have to say, thats is a lot of drives... seems almost silly to have that many. I just put the biggest drives i could find in my g5 and partitioned them. its like having 6 drives. You sure could put a lot of memory in them. Didnt have a lot of cardslots... but enough for me.
I think the design is very sleek, almost majestic. The cooling system is large and complex, but its quiet. I am anoyied to no end everytime i use a pc, because I can hear the fan.

I dont really care what they do with the upcoming release... but the G5 was a great design.

 

[~Shard~]

So I expect a dual Woodcrest Mac Pro in the same case by the end of June. As AidenShaw said, they have no choice but to take FB_DIMMs. Which graphics cards they will be able to use is an interesting question.

No new Intel PowerMacs until WWDC. That's my prediction. We'll see who's right.

 

[it5five]

However, it would probably take away some sales from other products, so they probably won't do it.

No, I get it. That was pretty much my whole point. Also, I couldn't see them pricing this mini-tower less than an iMac like you said. So, the same chip the iMac will have, but expandable? And it costs less than the iMac? Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

 

[Hattig]

A late 2006 Workstation needs the following features:

2 full PCIe x16 slots
1 or 2 dual-core processors (depending on cost)
8 DIMM slots
2x GigE on board

What I expect & what would be nice in the Mac Pro:

4 USB2 ports on back, 2 on front
eSATA / SAS port on back
Firewire 800 & Firewire 400 (1 on back, one on front)
8 channel audio (albeit Intel Integrated)
nVidia GeForce 7x00 series graphics card (depending on price and options)
(or ATI X1600/X1800/X1900 depending on Apple's mood)
BluRay burner option

I expect that Apple will deliver half of these.

 

[ChrisA]

I think Apple's biggest goal is to get through this transition. To that end they aredoing the MINIMUM amount of work so as to be done as quickly as possable. Notice they didn't change anyhting that did not have to be changed. The Mini and imac look the same. They still have two lines of notebooks and I bet the Poswer Mac has only it's main logic board swapped out and the fans redesigned.

Later once they have converted all the products over to Intel I think they will let the engineers make other changes. For example I think they _really_ need a min range headless desktop. Possably a short tower with a 64-bit dual 2 core processor and a powerfull graphic card.

So don't expect changes in the product line except forthe processor swap-out untill mid 2007

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Good news , I voted for a all new design. G5 is going going........almost gone. Cool ! guess ill be replacing my Alienware this winter

 

[Multimedia]

2GHz Yonah MacBook Benchmarks Show Rosetta Photoshop Beats Native Windoze Photoshop

Personally, I'm a bit worried in the fact that only after the new year, many professional apps will be released in universal binary format. I understand that Apple wants to transition completely to Intel chips, but with the lack of native pro apps, the true speed of the machines, even quald cores, could be severely under rated for over six months.

Apple is trying ot boast that the passage to Intel chips gives their computers a large adavance in speed, but with the Quad Core PowerMac, being as fast as it is, it's going to be extremely hard for Apple to produce something that on ALL apps is at least 1.5x faster than the current generation.

Yeah I used to think that too. But these 2GHz Yonah MacBook Benchmarks Show Rosetta Photoshop Already Beats Native Windoze Photoshop so that will not be an issue on these much faster Mac Pros. As long as the emulation mode for PPC apps beats native Windoze versions of the same apps, nobody can complain.

When those ppc apps go UB next year, the Windoze versions will be left behind deep in dust.

 

[billyboy]

I think the design is very sleek, almost majestic. The cooling system is large and complex, but its quiet. I am anoyied to no end everytime i use a pc, because I can hear the fan.

I dont really care what they do with the upcoming release... but the G5 was a great design.

I wish i had had your g5 tower then, because the rev1 one I was using the last year was a pile of dog pooh and was no different than my experience running our work's Windows machines, ie when will it let me down next? Although quiet in operation, those fans came on after crashes and could have lifted the building as well as the tower. Obviously i had a lemon because my Powerbook is an amazing bit of kit, and I wont ever buy a new release Mac again, but it was a bad experience allround, and an embarrassment having persuaded the company to get me a bonmbproof Mac!

 

[DavidCar]

No new Intel PowerMacs until WWDC. That's my prediction. We'll see who's right.

My most confident predictions have failed in the past, so we'll see.


Here is a link that discusses Woodcrest benchmarks and FB-DIMMS:

http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=1

 

[neocell]

...

Why? It makes perfect sense. Going all-woodcrest would mean a HUGE increase in prices, and would be a big waste of money for single chip configs. The only real downside to using conroe is needing two seperate motherboards, and that's not that big a deal since the mobos can be based on standard intel designs. I don't know if we'll see conroe in imacs either, depends on the heat issues more than anything else. It's funny...you say it makes sense on so many levels...yet fail to list ANY of those levels.

Okay, here goes, only my somewhat educated opinions though
Portable chips for portable computers.
iMac G5 was a desktop chip, now a portable chip in the intel iMac, maybe that's the way they want to go, but I'm guessing it's because they wanted an intel machine out there fast so that lots of people would grab onto it initially and easy the transition, and it has seemed to work.
eMac is being EOL, eMac are generally the old iMac, new eMac said to be released soon so goes in line with new iMac design. Since iMac was first to make transition, would make sense that it's the first (minus the MacBook) to be upgraded and put back to a level where it should be (desktop chip, Conroe, which I believe will be cheaper than Merom, so cost effective too), there, that gets Conroe in the iMacs
MacPros: when has apple not put the maximum chip into their top of the line Pro machine? I know people will say Apple has crippled a lot of their hardware, but would they cripple a MacPro to put a Conroe in instead of a Woodcrest? Unless Conroe is pretty much exactly the same as a Woodcrest, minus the multi-chip interoperability, and it sits in the same mobo, why would Apple want to have multiple, very different MacPros? Wouldn't that be a production nightmare? I would imagine that they want to have the best pro machines possible (to really stick it to PC) so 3 models, a single Woodcrest, a double Woodcrest (slow, 2.6GHz ?), a double Woodcrest (fast, 3.16GHz ?) something along those lines.
This also clearly delineates each product into its own class, based on the chip. The only overlap being the Mini with a Yonah, but those guys are pretty much portable anyways, and not a desktop.
Since the PowerMac is the last to be updated (minus the Xservers) and Woodcrest is the first chip out, it only makes sense that they will put the more powerful, earlier to arrive, chip in their top of the line computer.

These are my opinions, shoot them down if you want, but it makes sense to me.

 

[milo]

Could you really fit 6 drives in a G4? I have to say, thats is a lot of drives... seems almost silly to have that many. I just put the biggest drives i could find in my g5 and partitioned them. its like having 6 drives. You sure could put a lot of memory in them. Didnt have a lot of cardslots... but enough for me.
I think the design is very sleek, almost majestic. The cooling system is large and complex, but its quiet. I am anoyied to no end everytime i use a pc, because I can hear the fan.

Silly? Why? If you need that much hard drive space, how else are you going to do it with fewer drives?

If you put the biggest drives available in your G5, I can still have 2.5x as much drive space in my G4. Partitioning is like having six SMALL drives.

Lots of memory slots is nice, and it is fairly quiet. But it seems like most of the reason people go so gaga over them is just because they look cool. Sorry, in a tower I want functionality, not pretty.

No, I get it. That was pretty much my whole point. Also, I couldn't see them pricing this mini-tower less than an iMac like you said. So, the same chip the iMac will have, but expandable? And it costs less than the iMac? Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

If you really got it, you wouldn't lump the imac and tower into the same product line. There's no reason they couldn't make a mini tower for less than an imac, in fact a mini tower could be the cheapest model out of their whole line - even cheaper than a mini since they'd save money by not using parts intended for portables. But they probably won't since products like the iMac make it easier for them to avoid price comparisons with pcs.

If you take an imac, leave out the screen and have a PCI slot or two, an extra drive bay and more ram slots, then YES, it would be cheaper to build than an imac, and apple could sell it for less than an imac at the same margins. You don't think Apple could sell a basic tower for under $1699? Seriously? Are you unaware that pc makers are selling exactly that for probably half that price?

What you need to understand is that building an expandable machine is cheap and easy. Cheaper than making a laptop, a mini, or even an imac.

From a consumer standpoint, there's no reason NOT to make such a machine, consumers would love them. But a mini tower looks more like a commodity, more like a PC to apple, and they'd rather sell their more exotic machines that can get away with using design as an excuse for higher prices. I hope gaining market share beats out greed and they end up doing a mini tower.

I think chances are slim for a minitower release along with the big towers...but hopefully it will be a later addition in coming months.

 

[danielwsmithee]

Math Lesson

... As of now, if Apple keeps the same pricing for the Mac Pro, there is only a $300 difference between the high end iMac and the low end Powermac.

Let me take you through the math.

PowerMac $1999
20" Cinema $799
Total $2798

20" iMac $1699

Difference $1099

Apple could easily come out with a single processor desktop in the $999-$1599 price range that would be very popular. Two hard drive bays, a upgradeable video card, and a few spare PCIE slots around a Conroe.

I don't expect Apple to update the displays, but they will drop the prices. Competitors LCD prices have gotten much cheeper. The same 20" Cinema display LCD can be purchased for $450.

 

[JoeG4]

Don't expect the holes to go away - those Core Duos run F'ing hot.

Why do so many people expect Apple to dell the Mac Proo? Just because other companies sell a lousy little desktop that is less powerful than the iMac in the same price range doesn't mean Apple has to. I hope they don't trash the PowerMac moniker with second class machines haha

 

[nagromme]

"Confirmed" sounds too strong, but I want a quad-Core 2 bad so keep these reports coming!

A new case would be nice too, just for a change. One "easy" change:

Apple could use the EXACT form factor of today, but remove the handles and use clear-over-white sides---just like a big Mac Mini on its side (plus cooling holes). Apple's pro displays already have the white trim on the sides anyway. And this way, the case would be "smaller" (though I know the handles are nice).

Re minitower: YES there's a need for MID-range headless. But I almost think it's not worth Apple's money to design the thing. Instead, they might meet the same need simply with a lower-spec'd full tower, at a lower price-point than Power Macs hit.

 

[Willis]

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!

What about the Macbook? thats a redesign.

 

[sigamy]

Another vote for a redesigned case. I really can't stand the current case. Way too big and bulky for my tastes. Wasn't a big reason the G5 tower was so big due to heat issues? You would think they could shrink the case a bit if Intel's chips run cooler.

Apple also needs to get their video card situation fixed. There are a bunch of people having issues with iMovie 6 because their second video card not supporting Quartz Extreme and/or Core Image. This is after they went and purchased cards that Apple support told them to purchase, later to find out they weren't supported.

 

[danielwsmithee]

Shot Down

MacPros: when has apple not put the maximum chip into their top of the line Pro machine? I know people will say Apple has crippled a lot of their hardware, but would they cripple a MacPro to put a Conroe in instead of a Woodcrest? Unless Conroe is pretty much exactly the same as a Woodcrest, minus the multi-chip interoperability ...

Yes Conroe is exactly the same as Woodcrest minus the multi-chip configuration!!! That is why it is completely pointless and a waste of money to use a single Woodcrest!

 

[CaptainCaveMann]

acd = apple cinema display

I liked the G3/4 cases, but they are terribly outdated. The current design shows power, but it wasn't designed with looks, but efficiency in mind. The reason it has holes all down the front and back of it is to increase airflow to keep those hot hot chips cool.

When the quad-core chips come out, i reckon we may be expecting an oct-core PM/MP... can't wait for the technology of tomorrow...

Please dont ever say reckon again. On that note, im really excited about these new powermacs. I think the quad design is needed to keep up with the market. Id like to see a new form factor, maybe a lighter case?

 

[brianus]

Why does everyone seem to equate "Mac Pro redesign" with "changed aesthetics"? They can easily get a much smaller, more convenient form factor without changing the aesthetics so much that they'd clash with the ACD's (which seem to go perfectly well with the Mac mini and MacBook Pro). Even a very significant aesthetic change to the case, as long as it was still in line with the "look" of the other models in Apple's lineup, would not require changing the Cinema Displays.

And btw, the current ACD's weren't released until late summer 2004 -- more than a year after the introduction of the PowerMac G5.

 

[scottlinux]

What do you think the price will be on the new MacPro?

$3,000?
$4,000?

or rather:
$2,999
$3,999

?

 

[milo]

Okay, here goes, only my somewhat educated opinions though
Portable chips for portable computers.
iMac G5 was a desktop chip, now a portable chip in the intel iMac, maybe that's the way they want to go, but I'm guessing it's because they wanted an intel machine out there fast so that lots of people would grab onto it initially and easy the transition, and it has seemed to work.
eMac is being EOL, eMac are generally the old iMac, new eMac said to be released soon so goes in line with new iMac design. Since iMac was first to make transition, would make sense that it's the first (minus the MacBook) to be upgraded and put back to a level where it should be (desktop chip, Conroe, which I believe will be cheaper than Merom, so cost effective too), there, that gets Conroe in the iMacs
MacPros: when has apple not put the maximum chip into their top of the line Pro machine? I know people will say Apple has crippled a lot of their hardware, but would they cripple a MacPro to put a Conroe in instead of a Woodcrest? Unless Conroe is pretty much exactly the same as a Woodcrest, minus the multi-chip interoperability, and it sits in the same mobo, why would Apple want to have multiple, very different MacPros? Wouldn't that be a production nightmare? I would imagine that they want to have the best pro machines possible (to really stick it to PC) so 3 models, a single Woodcrest, a double Woodcrest (slow, 2.6GHz ?), a double Woodcrest (fast, 3.16GHz ?) something along those lines.
This also clearly delineates each product into its own class, based on the chip. The only overlap being the Mini with a Yonah, but those guys are pretty much portable anyways, and not a desktop.
Since the PowerMac is the last to be updated (minus the Xservers) and Woodcrest is the first chip out, it only makes sense that they will put the more powerful, earlier to arrive, chip in their top of the line computer.

These are my opinions, shoot them down if you want, but it makes sense to me.

Since the iMac has such constrained size, the design may be more similar to a portable than to a desktop. Heat issues may require a portable chip, we won't really know until the line is updated. We never saw a dual G5 in one, did we? I doubt it would have been possible based on cooling.

Apple already ships towers without the latest chip. Right now they have dual models instead of all quad, and in the past they've had single instead of all dual. I don't see having single conroe/dual woodcrest as much different. It's not crippling a machine, it's offering a choice of different speeds at different prices. Some people want the expandability but don't need the highest speeds, it's the whole reason for having more than one tower model.

And Conroe IS pretty much exactly the same as a Woodcrest, minus the multi-chip interoperability. Single conroe performs about the same as single woodcrest, for a much lower price.

They do use different motherboards, which is additional cost savings since the conroe mobo is much cheaper. And apple already has had multiple motherboards in the towers, the single/dual/quad configs have different ones, not to mention different cooling systems. It's even easier now with intel chipsets since they have reference boards to start with instead of having to design them all themselves from scratch.

Answer me this, what would be the point of a single woodcrest mac that doesn't outperform a single conroe PC, but costs vastly more?

 

[savar]

What the h is an ACD?

I thought I was the only person who used "what the h" in conversations

 

[neocell]

Yes Conroe is exactly the same as Woodcrest minus the multi-chip configuration!!! That is why it is completely pointless and a waste of money to use a single Woodcrest!

What is the price difference between the two chips?
Would intel really make a chip that was exactly the same except for the above mention difference?
I really don't know. If this really is true, it seems very silly. All the effort of making two chips, testing, marketing etc. and the only difference is one can play nicely together and the other can't? That seems like a waste of money to me.

 

[Multimedia]

Supply & Impact Are Why August 7 Is Mac Pro Launch Day

I think WWDC was delayed before Woodcrest was speeded up. I don't see an advantage in waiting for a big event, allowing others to announce dual Woodcrest machines first if Apple can put out a dual Woodcrest machine now as well. Especially if no new case design is planned. Any small form factor Conroe Mac Mini Pro can wait until WWDC.

So I expect a dual Woodcrest Mac Pro in the same case by the end of June. As AidenShaw said, they have no choice but to take FB_DIMMs. Which graphics cards they will be able to use is an interesting question.

David, they probably need until August 7th to build up a decent quantity of the Mac Pros so they can deliver what they announce on the same day. If they start trickling out in July, it will just be a case of mass frustration since most buyers will be posting complaints about their shipping dates sliding ad nausium.

Put yourself in Steve's shoes. You think he doesn't want to be the largest owner of Disney stepping onto the stage in a room full of developers to declare transition victory with enough Mac Pro Quads in the pipeline so they can all have one waiting for them when they get home?

Sales will still exceed supply August 7 no matter how soon they "could" ship them. It makes no sense for anything to happen before then - especially in light of the fact that Intel doesn't start making Conroes until July.

 

[Silentwave]

What can I say...

...but I told you so....