They do have a lower TDP. i7 920 is rated at 130W with the 2.66, 2.8 and 2.93GHz 5500 series Xeons rated at 95W.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nehalem EP (Xeon) Processors 'Ridiculously fast'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They do have a lower TDP. i7 920 is rated at 130W with the 2.66, 2.8 and 2.93GHz 5500 series Xeons rated at 95W.
Intel use a "binning process" to sort out the best and worst parts as they are effectively all made in the same way. So the better ones end up in things like the 3.2GHz i7 965s or where better TDP is needed. The poorer ones will be going into the lower speed Xeons and such. Data centers are focused on power and heat right now which is the real market for the Xeon.
I would think data centers would skip right over the 5000 series and go for the 7000 series.
I would think data centers would skip right over the 5000 series and go for the 7000 series.
Both have their merits. Most server resellers are going to offer UP and DP systems. Google for instance use cheaper hardware.
Right, usually the LV models are pretty popular. Which is why they are more expensive. Which is why I am confused about listing the other units as having a lower TDP and not selling them for more (as they basically do elsewhere). I guess Intel is waiting till they get in the 50W TDP range to do that.
I often wonder if Apple only uses DP systems in their backend. It would seem like a waste of power to have two DP servers when 1 MP server could do the same job. And with Blade servers.....
Not sure I follow you here.
If you mean Xserve (rather than Apple's own hardware they run their company on) that is because it isn't a replacement for many roles that such hardware fills in the enterprise. Xserves are mainly there to run an OS X network. They offer the most versatility with Apple's ideology towards limited hardware options.
Basically Intel has a premium for low TDP server parts. Usually this lines up with how much voltage they use.
For my network we had the opportunity to use low voltage CPU's which reduce the power draw of our server, but instead opted for the normal voltage units. This came down to cost (the LV model are more expensive) and what we wanted to do (virtualize other servers). I was really just commenting on how the Xeons have a lower TDP and the corresponding i7's don't when they are pretty much the same CPU (with stuff disabled which you would think should improve the TDP).
The only reason Xeons are "better" is due to the fact that you can have more of them in the same box, along with the ECC.
So it appears we agree
A $1800 Mac Pro with a 2.93 i7 would sell well, and be more than powerful enough for most people, while adding the ability to be expandable, while the iMac is not.
Of course a $1800 i7 system would eat on high end iMac sales.
... and look silly next to a Dell which is half the price for the same parts and capabilities.
By the way - don't put that i7 motherboard into the existing huge Mac Pro case. Make something smaller!
Well now that comes back to the old "Apple is way more expensive for the same parts as a Dell/HP" which isn't true all the time anyway.
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/e...19-307907-296721-3429268-3429270-3737184.html
$1500 for a previous gen quad core from HP. $1800 would be a $300 premium for Apple quality and OS X.
Dells aren't much cheaper, if at all.
If you're talking about comparative systems, you are correct. If you don't need a workstation but have to buy one to get desktop capabilities or have to buy a Macbook Pro to get the larger screen, you're paying a great deal more than you would have if you had choices. They've gotten very adept at using the OS X monopoly to get an ever increasing sum out of the user.
Need?
OSX Monopoly? hehe - Yeah, right! Not too smart. Buy what you need. Not what you think you need. That aside though - tell me your ultimate machine - and then tell me the companies that sell computers who can't supply that ultimate machine to you for your ultimate price. Have you figured it out yet?
OSX Monopoly? hehe - Yeah, right! Not too smart. Buy what you need. Not what you think you need. That aside though - tell me your ultimate machine - and then tell me the companies that sell computers who can't supply that ultimate machine to you for your ultimate price. Have you figured it out yet?
I'm not comparing the MP to desktop systems. Neither should you. The MP is a workstation, not a desktop.
If you don't want to pay for workstation prices, buy an iMac. If you don't like the all-in-one, don't buy Apple.
I think it's interesting how people are citing TDP as though its some sort of measure of how "robust" a processor is. Just because it puts out a higher amount of heat doesn't mean it's less reliable/robust/ "worse" than the 95W Xeon. Besides, it's where the heat goes that's more important than how much it produces. As long as the heat is carried away and the processor's temprature remians low it really doesn't matter how much heat it's producing.
To use a slightly trollish car metaphor, I'll point out that historically import car engines have operated at higher tempratures than American cars. Yet which cars are known for being more reliable?
To use a slightly trollish car metaphor, I'll point out that historically import car engines have operated at higher tempratures than American cars. Yet which cars are known for being more reliable?
Think of the Xeons as being the pick of the litter for their clock speed and the lower TDP being a feature just as two QPI links/DP support is. It's all factored into the price. The TDP ratings aren't absolutes anyway.
The machine the Mac Pro replaced wasn't and a lot of PowerMac users are paying the price.
I did. I've regretted it every minute of it
And buy from who exactly? Umax and Power Computing aren't exactly around anymore. Jobs won't license OSX to anyone else. Things must be simple and black and white in your world, but not so much in reality. You don't get free licenses to transfer your software to another operating system, my iWork files and iLife files will not transfer, and windows is a pain. This conform mindlessly to whatever Jobs wants to give you or leave crap has sucked the life out of this platform.
I did buy the machines I needed from this great computer company out of California called Apple. They were called PowerMacs One day the founder went power mad and decided unilaterally that I needed to be buying something else. Not based on user needs, but because all in ones look prettier than towers and that design must be the only factor in designing a computer. Not innovative features that make your life easier, only pure aesthetics.
Oh my God, let's get into the same " lack of choice" argument that's been going on for over 10 years, shall we? I'm saying if you don't like it, buy something else not because I agree 100% with Apple's business model, but because I'm tired of hearing about it. Seriously, you're bringing up Umax in a thread in 2009?
What's next, complaining about the discontinuation of the G4 Cube? Perhaps something more fresh, like the removal of firewire from the MacBook?
What's next, complaining about the discontinuation of the G4 Cube? Perhaps something more fresh, like the removal of firewire from the MacBook?
10 years? It's only been four since Apple went completely off the deep end.
Then stop listening. I'm tired of having my productivity stifled by the whims of Jobs and Ive.
Because for a couple years at least you had other options if Apple didn't give you want you wanted it. Now its their way or the highway. Neither are very good options.
It may have been discontinued (and for good reason, it did northing that the PM G4 couldn't do better and for less), its legacy lives on in all the current form over function designs we see today. If anything, it made Jobs and Ive realize that if the customers were going to buy their types of designs, they would have to be forced upon the user with more practical options removed.
We've already lost so much functionality lately, what's a bit more? Its not like there's any musicians using firewire interfaces or Mac users who have had their hides saved by target disk mode. It looks so much better though and everybody knows all you're supposed to do with a computer is sit across the rooms and admire their elegance. The thinner the machines get, the more the things that set them apart from the common PC get erased.
+1, Insightful
Can we have the Power Mac 7300 back, Apple? Or even the 8600? It was a tower and managed to not be a beast.