Kind of a short-sided vantage there, me thinks. Personally, I've been waiting for a very long time for the very next update because I intend on keeping it for at least 5-7 years so I need it to be awesome even as I considering my next purchase sometime in 2017.
...... I would be set for life and that would quiet all the Mac Pro complainers along with Winni .. I can't wait to hear that response LOL 
Something I don't understand: why are people becoming fans of things they don't like? Like on facebook you see fan pages that say "I hate waking up in the morning", if you hate waking up in the morning why are you a fan? And since when could you become a fan of an action or idea? Since when have fanpages turned into groups?
The i7 iMac is faster then the base Mac Pro. The base Mac Pro uses a quad-core 2.66 GHz Xeon CPU. The i7 iMac is a quad-core 2.8GHz i7 CPU. The reviews and benchmarks have all shown the i7 iMac is faster.
These days the Mac Pro almost feel like an afterthought from Apple. Lost and nearly forgotten in the glare of the touch generation.
How far will Apple pull out of the pro market I wonder....
First of all future proofing is nothing more than the gross expenditure of money for minimal performance gains.
and so Sandy Bridge may be released later than originally planned, but it is still scheduled for 2011.
Alright if that works for you.
Apparently, you should try Flash.
..... then ... .... ... .... ..Kind of a short-sided vantage there, me thinks. Personally, I've been waiting for a very long time for the very next update because I intend on keeping it for at least 5-7 years so I need it to awesome even as I considering my next purchase sometime in 2017.
Why? Currently, I am running a 2002 PowerMac G4 Quicksilver. I could've upgraded a few years ago and then I used funds saved for "this important thing" and I would build back up and then those would go for "another more important situation". Finally, I'm buying,... I've alerted the family that now is MY time!
First off, the Hyperthreaded cores aren't "imaginary", they're simply logical. Let's take a Nehalem-based quadcore for example. With hyperthreading enabled, it has four physical cores, but eight logical cores. This typically occurs by adding adding another set of registers (control registers, status registers, address registers, etc.), while not adding in another execution set (as this would result in a truly additional physical core). The idea behind it is that since a system is not always dependent upon 100% execution set utilization, by adding in the additional control and general purpose registers, it can execute an additional thread and take advantage of the available execution resources (if anyone has any other thoughts or wants to make make any corrections please do so, my general memory on the fine details of a hyperthreaded architecture are a bit rusty
Anyway, people often think that to take advantage of Hyperthreading that you needed specially-coded software for it, and that's simply not the case. To see any type of benefit, you simply need to be using multithreaded applications, and in that regard, there are plenty of currently-available applications that are multithreaded.
Now, there has been considerable discussion on whether hyperthreading is even worth it for dual-core systems, given the extra power consumption, thermal output and the fact with a dual, quad (or soon to be 6-core) processor you already have multiple cores available for multithreaded apps, thus negating some of the usefulness of it.
Alright if that works for you.
Intel's tock/tick approach is slowing down by a quarter or two in some instances. Intel skipped 45nm Havendale/Auburndale entirely.
