Just an example of why I'm so frustrated. Look at what
HP as found on dealsea is offering...
[snip]
* Intel Core 2 Quad processor Q6600 (2.4GHz), 1GB, 250GB, DVD Burner
[snip]
I'm not saying Apple should or could offer something at that same price, but come on at least give us similar specs in the $1200-$1500 range...
Note:
Core 2 Quad Processor
I've seen a few other posts that are similar, and that isn't a reflective comparison between a Mac Pro and another machine.
Yes, the chip has 4 cores, but it is far from the same underneath.
Intel's Quad Core Processor Page
You'll note on the page referenced above, that we're talking about 2 distinctly different processor lines here. Apple using the higher grade Xeon processors, of course. Along with that comes differences in motherboards and such, as well as other internals which further make it a non-issue in terms of comparison.
It would be similar to comparing a Ford 500 to a BMW or Mercedes, and saying they both have radios and produce 500hp. While true, what's under the hood? Which has the higher quality engine, and other components?
Comparing a low end desktop to a high-end workstation isn't possible, other than to say one costs less.
If it means that in theory there are processors out there that could be used in to bridge the gap, then that is true.
If one is to make a true comparison, all parts need to be of the same quality. Meaning xeon processors, etc. In doing so, as has been shown in this thread, the Pro is still spot on in terms of pricing and being competitive.
--- ---
To touch back on the "I don't need 8 core" theory a bit...
How do you know? OK, a lot of programs can't use them all together, but the OS can manage what program is on what core, and therefore run more efficiently. Anyone multi-task? Email, web, chat, and 3 or 4 other things open at the same time?
Leopard will manage their usage, assign processes to cores, etc. If I recall correctly (after reading this entire thread...), I thought I read someone question its ability to effectively use all 8 cores (if available).
Is it really possible that Apple would cut its nose when it already has the hardware out there for it? I seriously doubt it. I just can't imagine it. Inconceivable!
Also, along this line, I would "guess" that a majority of buyers for this machine would be keeping it for maybe a 4 year average? OK, let's say it's 3 for the sake of argument. If that's the case, look at the "computing world" 3 years ago. Mention 8 cores back then and people would have been awestruck. Remember the discussion when the G5 went to dual and quad cores?
While 8 cores may be a little much for a user in the lower spectrum of the MP's target market today, will it be too much in November of 2010 as that 3 year cycle winds down for the user?
As I see it, tying this into the entire line being 8 cores, I can see that being the case. In fact, it would surprise me if it wasn't. Why? Chip prices, and the fact that history shows us that the price points will (or should) pretty much stay the same while the internal hardware is updated to provide more bang for the same amount.
Over the lifespan of that product version, then the hardware cost will become lower (on their end), which in turn increases the bottom line a bit. From there, as new hardware becomes reasonably available, then a new upgrade is launched. And by reasonable, I don't mean a $2000 video card (before Apple's markup). If the latest card is $2k, is that really a viable upgrade? To me it isn't. Although, as an option or even having the capability to buy it and it be compatible would be great for those who want it.
and they produce much more computers.
