Mac Pro To Continue Quad-Core Tradition? Woodcrest?

[danielwsmithee]

Based on these two assumptions, an entry ProMac Tower with a single Woody might be attractive to someone building a file server or other system which was not CPU-bound.

It's probably unlikely that Apple will do this, but I wanted to point out one reasonable case where a maxi-tower with a single Woody would make sense.

So the only viable application of a single Woodcrest is one that is not CPU bound, and is instead bound by disk, or ram speed etc. Why not develop your system with a single Conroe with higher end components. You would be saving a lot of money with no performance difference by using a Conroe rather then a Woodcrest.

Just because it is a sever it does not have to use a Woodcrest. I think a lot of people are getting hung up on the fact that the Woodcrest is supposed to replace the Xeon. It is a completely new design with the same performance as Conroe.

It is a simple distinction. One socket => Conroe. Two sockets => Woodcrest. There is no reason to break this rule.

 

[BlizzardBomb]

Have you read ANY of this thread? Specifically the MANY posts explaining that single woodcrest is NO FASTER than single conroe. No advantages in the single config. Period. And it's more expensive.

Really, you might want to look back a little at the thread.

Surely it would be (slightly) faster. 1333MHz FSB vs. 1066MHz.

 

[MrCrowbar]

We've seen the transition to Intel Processors making certain (CPU-Intensive) Benchmarks 2 times faster on the iMac and 4 times faster on the Macbook Pro. I'd say even more on the Macbook since the iBooks it replaces were clocked to be under the powerbooks.

So I expect the PowerMac replacement has to be at least 2 times faster than the PowerMacs we have now. I doubt you could do that for the current quad,even with 8 cores.

I say we'll have Woodcrest along the line (remember the G5 was a server CPU when the PowerMac came out). My guess is:
base model: 2 cores
middle model: 4 cores
top model: 8 cores

I also think there will be a little price bump, just like all Macs that have gone Intel so far. Can't wait to hear Steve say (one more thing "You thought the Quad PowerMac. Well, the new MacPro Octa leaves it in the dust!". And if the top MacPro does Photoshop faster under Rosetta on the Quad, these things will sell.

 

[Macinposh]

I had this brainfart after taking a nap :




Check this out, yo:



The MacPro will feature only two different CPU options, both woodies:

One is the 2.33 5140 (2 x 470$?) version with smaller HDDs and a bit more stripped graphic card.
The second one is the loaded version with 3mhz 5160,souped up HDDs and graphics.


AND

Then you will have two of the pizzaboxes with conroe.

Slower one, 2.40 mhz E6600 (315$?) with some basic graphic card
and
Fast one , 3.33 mhz EE with a HDMI supporting card&DVR capabilities.



MacPros would be released a.s.a.p but the PizzaMac would be revealed in the WWMD in august, thus Stevie could state that the intel transition is complete.
And he could have his one more thing...just for the ***** and giggles.



This all come from the thought that apple seems to streamline it´s product lineup and making only two choices aviable per product (Mini,15.4",iMac)
Perhaps to make room for few new things, that said PizzaMac in the tabletop segement and a ultralight laptop in the mobiles?

 

[finchna]

cool--8 core or better in 2007!

 

[morespce54]

Maybe dual optical drives?

In your dream... (or in mine?)
That would be awsome...

 

[generik]

How much would you guys expect these to be?

Because no matter how well Stevo would foist it, it doesn't change the fact that a Conroe Powered Mac Pro is really no more Pro than a consumer Dell desktop computer.. what's so special about a workstation powered by a consumer class CPU? I seriously don't see it.

 

[milo]

So the only viable application of a single Woodcrest is one that is not CPU bound, and is instead bound by disk, or ram speed etc. Why not develop your system with a single Conroe with higher end components. You would be saving a lot of money with no performance difference by using a Conroe rather then a Woodcrest.

Just because it is a sever it does not have to use a Woodcrest. I think a lot of people are getting hung up on the fact that the Woodcrest is supposed to replace the Xeon. It is a completely new design with the same performance as Conroe.

It is a simple distinction. One socket => Conroe. Two sockets => Woodcrest. There is no reason to break this rule.

I think his point is that it would make sense if apple *already* had two motherboards (because of a mini tower), and having a third mobo for conroe in the "big tower" would be a pain. I think it's a bit of a stretch.

Surely it would be (slightly) faster. 1333MHz FSB vs. 1066MHz.

Is that a difference that's even going to show up on a benchmark? Is a 1066MHz bus really that much of a bottleneck for one cpu chip? We're talking about a price difference of hundreds of dollars.

I say we'll have Woodcrest along the line (remember the G5 was a server CPU when the PowerMac came out). My guess is:
base model: 2 cores
middle model: 4 cores
top model: 8 cores

Again, a single woodcrest makes no sense. You're paying a big price premium JUST FOR MULTIPLE CPUS, then not taking advantage it if you use one cpu. Single conroe gives you the same performance for much less $$$ (not to mention that neither single woodcrest nor single conroe will be double the speed of dual G5).

And 8 cores?? At this point, assuming it's possible, it would require four woodcrest chips. Anyone have a guess on what that would cost? $10K?

 

[johnpaul191]

The G5 design was a disaster. It looked nice, but It lacked functionality compared to similar PC workstation designs.

you never explain how the G5 case was not functional. most WinPC users i know were always impressed with the G3/G4 and G5 case.

 

[mercury26]

you never explain how the G5 case was not functional. most WinPC users i know were always impressed with the G3/G4 and G5 case.

The G5 case only holds two hard drives and 3 PCI (or PCI-E) cards. The fact that I have to add external drives and PCI expansion chassis is silly. I have a smaller Lian-Li case for my PC that holds 10 drives and 5 PCI cards and it is smaller!!!

Cheers,

:: Chuck

 

[milo]

How much would you guys expect these to be?

Because no matter how well Stevo would foist it, it doesn't change the fact that a Conroe Powered Mac Pro is really no more Pro than a consumer Dell desktop computer.. what's so special about a workstation powered by a consumer class CPU? I seriously don't see it.

Who cares? A dual G5 is really no more pro than a consumer dell. And a consumer dell is plenty good enough for lots of "pro" work.

And a single woodcrest wouldn't be any more pro than a consumer dell either, it would just be a waste of money.

I don't care if it's "special". I want to see a cheap tower that's competitive with dell's cheap towers (and that would have a conroe in it). And I want to see a high end tower that's competitive with dell's high end towers. "PRO" is just a name, they might as well call the mini the 150 and the tower the 950.

My concern isn't that the low end tower will have a conroe, my concern is that apple gets the price for it VERY low.

 

[morespce54]

the current imac is powerful but i don't think its powerful enough to run pro apps, like FCS, well

If the MacBook Pro can, chances are a same-speced iMac will work nice too...

Well, it is working nicely on mine...
But then again, I suppose it all depends on what you're working on...

 

[BlizzardBomb]

Is that a difference that's even going to show up on a benchmark? Is a 1066MHz bus really that much of a bottleneck for one cpu chip? We're talking about a price difference of hundreds of dollars.

Hundreds?

Conroe E6700 (2.67GHz, 1066MHz, 4MB) - $530
Xeon 5150 (2.67GHz, 1333MHz, 4MB) - $690

While I agree it is a fair bit more. It wouldn't look right having a Conroe, which could be found in cheap computers in what was once the "World's Most Powerful Personal Computer" (according to Apple anyway ).

 

[brianus]

How much would you guys expect these to be?

Because no matter how well Stevo would foist it, it doesn't change the fact that a Conroe Powered Mac Pro is really no more Pro than a consumer Dell desktop computer.. what's so special about a workstation powered by a consumer class CPU? I seriously don't see it.

I don't understand this comment. Everybody on this thread seems to be of the opinion that Woodcrest is not really any different from Conroe, except that it has a slightly faster FSB, can be paired and costs more. So what on earth is the difference between "consumer-class" and "workstation-class" if that's the case? Is there any substance to that anymore?

I would think "Pro" really distinguishes the relatively crippled consumer Macs from the ones with better specs and expandability (OTOH, I just heard that the MacBook's HDD can be replaced -- which, having only ever had PC laptops, I had assumed would have been true of all Apple laptops, forever -- while the MBP's can't!! Weird..)

 

[~Shard~]

No way man. However they deliver 8 cores first, I am there.

And I'm sure you won't be alone with that one... So how many cores is enough? 2? 4? 8? 32? 512?

 

[brianus]

And I'm sure you won't be alone with that one... So how many cores is enough? 2? 4? 8? 32? 512?

I'm holding out for the Kilocore Macs, personally

 

[G5power]

It wouldn't look right having a Conroe, which could be found in cheap computers in what was once the "World's Most Powerful Personal Computer" (according to Apple anyway ).[/QUOTE]


Wow the Apple marketing hype left kool-aid stains.

I agree that some sort of mid sized tower configured with a single Conroe processor could help Apple expand their market share and provide a viable option for the huge gap between the mini and the high end towers.

I have a 24" Dell hooked to my dual 867 and I sure would like to update from the G4.

 

[50548]

That sounds like a great idea, but Apple will never do it.

So you're finally giving up on the idea of a mid-range, mini-tower Mac..? Good!

We're gonna probably have a big, white/gray case to match those of the MacMini and the iMac...with a great access mechanism as easy to open as the one from the PowerMac 9600.

 

[Music_Producer]

cool--8 core or better in 2007!

*Sigh* I could so use an 8 core machine right now (16 gb max ram, fill it up with 8 gb) Not for the "My machine is the fastest" reason, but with all the virtual software instruments nowadays, its a necessity.

 

[slackpacker]

Ya I really need something to run Motion at the speed it was designed to run at. Apple has a chance to come out with a truly powerful machine.

I just want a really kicking mac.

 

[THX1139]

The G5 design was a disaster. It looked nice, but It lacked functionality compared to similar PC workstation designs.

WTF?!!

 

[heisetax]

More than 1 optical drive

Not too bad of an idea

I just don't get why people want more optical drives? for what?

Some people like to read from one & write to another drive. Some people do not want to use their best drive just to read a CD for program installation. Maybe it may just be personal choice. Maybe just for no good reason. In any case everyone that uses a computer do not have the same needs, wants & desires.

I have 2 optical drives in my MDD PowerMac G4 & like it better that way. I'm sure that I would have trouble justifying it. The same goes for the 3-4 internal hard drives. I also have 4-6 external drives hooked up at all times. I generally use only 1 or 2 of them at a time, but I have have had them all running many times. In fact at the present time I'm using a 60 GB, 7200 rpm, 2.5" drive to boot from & a 500 GB SATA drive to store my data including my mirror of my 60GB iPod & a partition with OS 10.4.6 on it. Both of the above mentioned drives are connected to my MDD PowerMac by FW800 connections.

Multiple external accessable drives are very nice & very necessary for many. I'm in the process of placing my harddrives into trays. That way they can easilly be changed between computers without the added cost of all of those cases.

Bill the TaxMan

 

[sigamy]

I don't agree that it's impossible for apple to double their marketshare. In fact, I think adding a model like a midtower is something that would help. Delivering niche products is great, and works well for apple, to a degree. But if that's all they do, they're giving up. They're avoiding the possibility of increasing their marketshare.

As for the all-in-one widget, apple is already shipping exceptions to this. If this was their whole philosophy, then why wouldn't they just stop selling towers at all? And why are they shipping the mini (which people insisted would NEVER happen...in posts very similar to yours)?

OK, this is getting well off topic but...

Market share does not equal PROFITS. Everyone is so worried about Apple's market share in the PC market. Guess what, there were two computer manufacturers that were profitable in 2004 and 2005. Dell and Apple. All those other PC makers with a larger market share than Apple--HP, IBM, etc. None of them could make a profit from selling PCs.

Jobs has said it many times--why is no one question BMW on there market share?

You either need to squeeze every dollar through manufacturing process and supply chain (Dell) or you need to charge a premium for something different (Apple).

Apple answers to it's shareholders. It needs to turn a profit for them. Apple doesn't answer to its fans who want to move ahead of 3% or 5% market share for bragging rights.

And as for the mini....you made my point exactly. Its a computer that you take out of a small box , plug in 3 or 4 cables and go. Can you swap the video card, add a hard drive? No. Again, Steve and Apple have decided that this is the machine that you should have. If you are a mini customer, you are to trust Apple that this is all you need. Heck, now it comes with bluetooth and AE built in. It's a toaster--it's the farthest thing from a mini tower with expansion.

 

[hdasmith]

I think this article is probably accurate, as Apple doesn't really have much choice in the matter. Intel is the future, PPC is "old".

I'm sorry, but WHAT??? The whole idea behind the PPC is years newer than the x86 Intel architecture!!!!

The reason for the PPC, and why Apple chose it instead of Intel's platform when they moved away from the M68k's is because it is MUCH more efficient than the x86 architecture. A programmer when programming endian code may need a few extra lines to do the same task, but the system will get through them faster than doing the same command in x86!

I still think Apple would have done better looking for another manufacturer to make a G6... The PPC is just a much better architecture!

 

[THX1139]

Absolutely – that’s the whole point of delaying WWDC into August. Apple is definitely releasing the new PowerMacs at this event, and since this lines up nicely with the Conroe and Woodcrest release dates, I would not be surprised at all to see both chips introduced into the line as this news item speculates.

You're missing part of the equation. After Apple moved the date of WWDC, Intel announced that they were going to be releasing ahead of schedule. So that means Apple has a choice of holding off until WWDC or releasing at the end of the month along with everyone else. If Apple chooses to sit on the release, they risk losing out on a couple months of sales just to make an impression. They will also be "late" to the party and that's worse than doing a silent release.

I think they would be better off getting something out there to stay competitive. I'm thinking they will release 3 models end of June to replace what is currently shipping. All with Woodcrest but the top end is Quad. I think they will continue to sell PPC Quad until Adobe goes UB, unless Steve decides to snub Adobe. After Apple releases in June, they can do a complete Macpro refresh in 6-7 months when the new chip line comes out. Probably at MacworldSF.