Penryn Based Mac Pros Soon?

[ThunderLounge]

How are they meaningfully different?

Does a Kentsfield produce different arithmetic results from a Clovertown? No.

Is a Kentsfield slower than a Clovertown. No - often it will be a bit faster - sometimes slightly slower.

It is completely illogical to claim that you can't compare the Intel Core2 desktop chips and the Core 2 server/workstation chips. On some dimensions (the fact that the Xeons can support much more RAM) they differ significantly, on other dimensions (speed) they're virtually the same.

Um, are you that far out of it?
Oh wait! I got it! I'm going to go grab a steak and a pound of hamburger from the grocery store, and compare those. Both are meat right?

Let me go at this, one more time for you and the cheap seats.

It is NOT a logical PRICE comparison, to try and compare a Mac Pro with Xeons, to a HP with Core 2's. They are different processors.

IF you want to argue that C2 is a comparable processor, then you're missing the point I'm making all together. Completely missing it.

If you go to store A and price a DVD, then go to store B and price a different DVD, what's the point? To make a price comparison that is accurate, both parts need to be the same part. In the HP comparisons that were trying to make it look like HP had the same thing for half the price, the parts were not the same, so that is what it is not a logical PRICE comparison.

Whether or not the C2 is capable of the same or similar performance is completely irrelevant. They are different part numbers, simple as that and to compare steak to steak, or a dvd to a dvd, you have to price the same thing at the different stores.

Actually, the opposite of what you claim is true.

Since the advance of technology has led to rapidly dropping prices for given level of performance - overbuying for future expansion can be really foolish.

Today I can buy a quad core 3 GiB system for $800 or so. 3 years ago a dual system with potential capability to upgrade to quad would have been about $20K. (And if I had spent $$$ to upgrade it, I'd still have something much slower than the $800 system.)

If your needs change tomorrow - you can be sure that tomorrow's system will be muxh faster and cheaper than today's system. Spending too much today is simply stupid.

With this final quote you give, I really can see that you just don't grasp the basic concepts I'm trying to convey. You keep sticking on this 800 miracle system, that you're not going to see. If you want the HP, go buy it.

You talk about RAM, and now you're trying to get off your point with upgrading processors from dual to quad. Make up your mind.

First it was too much max RAM capacity, and now it's too much core capacity.

I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of people don't trash their computer and buy a new every year. They tend to want something that will last them for 3-4 years, and look for something with a little more power than they need today so that it will still run well towards the end of their cycle.

Getting off on a tangent about how fast technology is growing, and what a 16 or 32 core system will cost 3 or 4 years from now as compared to a Mac Pro with 8 cores today is irrelevant. Those systems aren't here today. However, if you don't need 8 cores today, whats to say you won't appreciate them being there in 2 years as programs start to eat more resources, or your needs change?

I get what you're trying to do. You're trying to drag the MP thread to your mid-tower cause, and I'm not going to fuel it any more.

So for my closing, and a final time for the cheap seats, comparing the PRICES of a HP with DIFFERENT PART SPECS against a Mac Pro is an illogical PRICE comparison.

 

[Eidorian]

It is NOT a logical PRICE comparison, to try and compare a Mac Pro with Xeons, to a HP with Core 2's. They are different processors.

Different in what sense though?

Steak is steak for Core 2.

A fast Kentsfield is a fast Clovertown.

 

[WildPalms]

Different in what sense though?

Steak is steak for Core 2.

A fast Kentsfield is a fast Clovertown.

Oh for gods sake *sigh*

 

[AidenShaw]

Hmm. HP is a bigger company then and they produce much more computers.

So when i Apple reaches the production level(if they do) of HP and dell maybe you see some changes.. But apple does have the the student discount - not much,but is something..

It's not the size of the company - you can find sub-$1000 quads from Acer and even smaller brands.

The problem is simply that Apple has a huge gap in the line between the laptop on a stand (Imac) and the huge dual socket workstation (Mac Pro).

Other companies have single socket workstations and desktops in that market segment.

 

[AidenShaw]

For midrange functionality, the Mac Pro is too expensive

So for my closing, and a final time for the cheap seats, comparing the PRICES of a HP with DIFFERENT PART SPECS against a Mac Pro is an illogical PRICE comparison.

At no point have I suggested that the price of the Mac Pro is a rip off, or that other companies have cheaper dual socket workstations. You seem to be defending the Mac Pro against an argument that I'm not making.

What I've been saying is that if a user needs a certain level of mid-range performance, Apple forces the user to accept a lesser system (the Imac) or a system that's expensive overkill (the Mac Pro).

The Mac Pro is a decent value for a dual-socket workstation. It's not a decent value if a single-socket mini-tower workstation would fulfill your needs.

And it's not just the $800 specials. Configure a Dell PW390 (single socket Kentsfield workstation) roughly comparable to the entry Mac Pro (quad core, 1 GiB, 250 GB, Nvidia x16 PCIe graphics, 3yr warranty).

Dell - $1726 (only $1237 with a 2.0 GHz dual-core)
Apple - $2748

That's the maxi-tower tax for the mid-range pro user - about $1000. The Dell is also 2/3 the size of the Mac Pro - if space is a concern.

 

[Macinposh]

Other companies have single socket workstations and desktops in that market segment.

And how successfull are they at present in their sales effort,brand image,Q3 results and stock value?

Loosing?
Or gaining marketshare?







That´s what I tought...



Not that it is bad that we have vendors selling that kind of stuff.. It´s just as futile for you to whine about the pizzamac/MP Lite than my whining about a decent GFX card to MP. Or my whining about the MBP Nano. Apparently they wouldnt generate enough revenue for Apple,otherwise they would allready make them.

Regards, Don Quixote

 

[Eidorian]

And how successfull are they at present in their sales effort,brand image,Q3 results and stock value?

Loosing?
Or gaining marketshare?







That´s what I tought...



Not that it is bad that we have vendors selling that kind of stuff.. It´s just as futile for you to whine about the pizzamac/MP Lite than my whining about a decent GFX card to MP. Or my whining about the MBP Nano. Apparently they wouldnt generate enough revenue for Apple,otherwise they would allready make them.

Regards, Don Quixote

Apple doesn't have a single socket tower and they do?

That's what I thought...

 

[CWallace]

Oh wait! I got it! I'm going to go grab a steak and a pound of hamburger from the grocery store, and compare those. Both are meat right?

I use ground sirloin - steak - to make my hamburgers...

It is NOT a logical PRICE comparison, to try and compare a Mac Pro with Xeons, to a HP with Core 2's. They are different processors.

True, but that is because Intel controls the pricing and charges more for a Xeon because it is a Xeon. It is not because a Xeon is so physically and electrically different from a Core2. There are differences, but they are not totally different chips (like a Pentium E2160 and a Pentium D805).

Intel already outputs mobile, desktop and server processors based on the Core 2 microarchitecture from unified production lines. Whether a silicon chip will become a Xeon, Core 2 Duo or a Pentium Dual Core depends on production yields as well as on customer demand.

It is certainly true you are not just "paying for the name" with the Xeon, but a good part of that price difference is just the name itself...

 

[AidenShaw]

Another Penryn/MacPro thread

There's been a long-running discussion of the Penryn/Stoakley Mac Pros at:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/293910/

Since this article is moving off the front page, if one is interested in the Mac Pro discussion it might be useful to follow the larger thread.

 

[ThunderLounge]

Different in what sense though?

Steak is steak for Core 2.

A fast Kentsfield is a fast Clovertown.

Nothing more than comparing simple part numbers. That's all I'm getting at when comparing a $800 freak of a HP to a Mac Pro. They have different internals, and to make a fair/logical price comparison they should both have the same internal hardware. To hell with what either one can do, I'm talking straight up price comparison. Nothing more. Sheesh, am I typing in English but it's reading in Latin?

You don't call Best Buy to price a DVD, then call Target to price a different DVD, and then try to compare the 2 DVD's together as the same thing right?

At no point have I suggested that the price of the Mac Pro is a rip off, or that other companies have cheaper dual socket workstations. You seem to be defending the Mac Pro against an argument that I'm not making.

What I've been saying is that if a user needs a certain level of mid-range performance, Apple forces the user to accept a lesser system (the Imac) or a system that's expensive overkill (the Mac Pro).

The Mac Pro is a decent value for a dual-socket workstation. It's not a decent value if a single-socket mini-tower workstation would fulfill your needs.

And it's not just the $800 specials. Configure a Dell PW390 (single socket Kentsfield workstation) roughly comparable to the entry Mac Pro (quad core, 1 GiB, 250 GB, Nvidia x16 PCIe graphics, 3yr warranty).

Dell - $1726 (only $1237 with a 2.0 GHz dual-core)
Apple - $2748

That's the maxi-tower tax for the mid-range pro user - about $1000. The Dell is also 2/3 the size of the Mac Pro - if space is a concern.

I'm not saying there isn't a hole. I said there was room from the beginning. All I noted was to make a fair and logical price comparison, you need to make sure you are comparing the machines as close as possible, including having the same processor make and model in each one.

I use ground sirloin - steak - to make my hamburgers...

True, but that is because Intel controls the pricing and charges more for a Xeon because it is a Xeon. It is not because a Xeon is so physically and electrically different from a Core2. There are differences, but they are not totally different chips (like a Pentium E2160 and a Pentium D805).

Intel already outputs mobile, desktop and server processors based on the Core 2 microarchitecture from unified production lines. Whether a silicon chip will become a Xeon, Core 2 Duo or a Pentium Dual Core depends on production yields as well as on customer demand.

It is certainly true you are not just "paying for the name" with the Xeon, but a good part of that price difference is just the name itself...

Which is all fine and dandy. I'm not debating a C2 chips capabilities vs a Xeon. Only stating that comparing the price of a machine with a less expensive processor and saying it's the same thing as a high end workstation isn't logical, or accurate. Why Aiden has to keep blowing it up into a mini-tower discussion is beyond me.

The only thing I wanted to do was point out that the comparison of that HP (who would want one of them things anyway?) to a MP and saying they're the same isn't accurate nor logical because they don't contain the same line of processor.

 

[Eidorian]

Nothing more than comparing simple part numbers. That's all I'm getting at when comparing a $800 freak of a HP to a Mac Pro. They have different internals, and to make a fair/logical price comparison they should both have the same internal hardware. To hell with what either one can do, I'm talking straight up price comparison. Nothing more. Sheesh, am I typing in English but it's reading in Latin?

You don't call Best Buy to price a DVD, then call Target to price a different DVD, and then try to compare the 2 DVD's together as the same thing right?

Why would you compare a single socket machine to a dual socket one?

 

[ksz]

Nothing more than comparing simple part numbers. That's all I'm getting at when comparing a $800 freak of a HP to a Mac Pro. They have different internals, and to make a fair/logical price comparison they should both have the same internal hardware. To hell with what either one can do, I'm talking straight up price comparison. Nothing more. Sheesh, am I typing in English but it's reading in Latin?

I'm gonna agree with you here. The "freak of a HP" and the MacPro are made from different component parts, and these parts have very different costs. The Q6600 in an HP is around $250 or less in volume. Two dual-core or quad-core Xeons in a MacPro have substantially higher costs. A dual-socket motherboard is also significantly costlier than a single-socket motherboard. Because the MacPro is aimed at the high end of the market, it is reasonable to say that it has higher margins. The HP competes in a dog-eat-dog segment of the market where margins are thinner.

There are fundamental design and market-segment differences that ought to rule out direct price comparisons between the HP and the MacPro.

 

[CWallace]

I'm not debating a C2 chips capabilities vs a Xeon. Only stating that comparing the price of a machine with a less expensive processor and saying it's the same thing as a high end workstation isn't logical, or accurate...

The only thing I wanted to do was point out that the comparison of that HP to a MP and saying they're the same isn't accurate nor logical because they don't contain the same line of processor.

Fair enough.

However, if a user has a set of tasks that both machines can handle in similar amount of time, then to that user, they are "equivalent machines" on a meta-level and they then have to weigh why they should spend a great deal more on one then the other.

For me, a 24" iMac and a Mac Pro with a 23" CD were "equivalent", in that both did what I wanted them to do and at equivalent performance in many cases. Yes, the Mac Pro could certainly do more, and do many things faster (though not orders of magnitude faster). But the Mac Pro was well over twice the price of the iMac, so I bought the iMac.

But I still wish I could put more then one HDD in my iMac and it would be nice to (maybe) be able to get a better GPU down the road. So I do wish Apple had something "in the middle" that was as fast as an iMac - just more expandable - while leaving the Mac Pro as "top dog" for those who can leverage that extra performance.

 

[AidenShaw]

Do a blind test.

Why would you compare a single socket machine to a dual socket one?

Why wouldn't you compare the two?

How about putting a Mac Pro inside a black box, with only the keyboard/mouse/monitor visible.

Put the $800 HP (or the $1600 Dell Kentsfield workstation) inside a black box, with only the keyboard/mouse/monitor visible.

Install XP and a common set of mid-range apps on the two (Photoshop/Premiere/compute-heavy/...).

Invite people to use the two systems, benchmark them, compare them.

Have them try to guess (without peeking) which box is 2 to 4 times more expensive than the other....
_________________________________________________

Tell me then that it's OK to spend 4x for the same performance

 

[Multimedia]

I'll Tell You It's OK To Spend 4x As Much Right Now Because the HP Doesn't Run OS X

Why wouldn't you compare the two?

How about putting a Mac Pro inside a black box, with only the keyboard/mouse/monitor visible.

Put the $800 HP (or the $1600 Dell Kentsfield workstation) inside a black box, with only the keyboard/mouse/monitor visible.

Install XP and a common set of mid-range apps on the two (Photoshop/Premiere/compute-heavy/...).

Invite people to use the two systems, benchmark them, compare them.

Have them try to guess (without peeking) which box is 2 to 4 times more expensive than the other....
_________________________________________________

Tell me then that it's OK to spend 4x for the same performance

I'll Tell You It's OK To Spend 4x As Much Right Now Because the HP Doesn't Run OS X. That difference is worth 4x as much money to me.

 

[AidenShaw]

I'll Tell You It's OK To Spend 4x As Much Right Now Because the HP Doesn't Run OS X. That difference is worth 4x as much money to me.

Sorry - the test was meant to stand in for the mythical Conroe/Kentsfield mini-tower from Apple. (And trying to counter the strange hamburger-steak line of thought that somehow a "Xeon" is inherently superior to a "Core 2"...)

I've been trying to argue the point of the big gap in the Apple product line, not trying to sell HP systems.

 

[ksz]

Fair enough.

However, if a user has a set of tasks that both machines can handle in similar amount of time, then to that user, they are "equivalent machines" on a meta-level and they then have to weigh why they should spend a great deal more on one then the other.

That's the real argument in favor of a mini-tower Mac. The Q6600 HP mini-tower offers more power and expandability than an iMac, but not as much as that of a MacPro.

Many of us would like to see an offering from Apple that compares directly with the single-socket HP quad-core model, even if it's twice the price of the HP. Heck, even at $1600, the Apple mini-tower would be priced very appealingly and, I think, would spark additional sales of Apple's Cinema Displays and other peripherals.

At $1600, will such a model undercut sales of the iMac and Mac Pro? Probably to some degree, but I don't think it will produce a net reduction of either revenue or gross margin.

 

[Multimedia]

I Couldn't Agree With You More But I See Not Point In Beating A Dead Horse

Sorry - the test was meant to stand in for the mythical Conroe/Kentsfield mini-tower from Apple. (And trying to counter the strange hamburger-steak line of thought that somehow a "Xeon" is inherently superior to a "Core 2"...)

I've been trying to argue the point of the big gap in the Apple product line, not trying to sell HP systems.

I agree with you completely but I see no point in complaining about it since Steve obviously donesn't want to get into a pissing match with those competitors so far. Maybe it will happen in future. What's the point of everyone having bad days dreaming about what is not instead of celebrating what is?

I think part of the problem is that there is a small contingency of folks here who think they are entitled to a $999 tower from Apple when it is really Apple that is entitled to NOT make one.

 

[Macinposh]

I've been trying to argue the point of the big gap in the Apple product line, not trying to sell HP systems.

Then,honestly,is there a specific reason why you adamantly deny the commercial issues why apple havent made such an unit?
I mean,this discussion has been going on for what,a bit over a year now?
You have participated in it,as well as I and the rest of the peeps.

What we still lack is a sound and solid view how apple could make such an unit without cannibalizing it´s current lineup.

Dont get me wrong,aiden,I (and I bet that We) appreciate your knowledge enormously, but I (we) havent heard a vision from you how apple could make such an unit and still continue to thrive and prosper?

Different casing (stereo type casing?)
What restrictions would the unit have (max memory 2gb,no pci slots? , no fw? ) to prevent the overlap of products?


Visions man! We need visions!

 

[netdog]

When Apple had such a small market share, it made sense not to offer too many models. Now that they are doing so well, fitting a nano-tower into the mix shouldn't be a problem. I am really starting to wonder if we will see just such a machine in January.

 

[CWallace]

What we still lack is a sound and solid view how apple could make such an unit without cannibalizing it´s current lineup.

They could do it like every other PC maker does?

• Use a less-robust chipset that allows less total CPUs and RAM.
• Use less-powerful CPUs and RAM types (DDR2 instead of FB-DIMM).
• Runs them at slower FSB/memory speeds.
• Use a smaller case that cannot take as many HDDs (say 2) or optical drives (say 1).
• Limit the number and type of expansion slots for cards (One x16 and two x8 PCI slots).
• Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

[AidenShaw]

It's not a zero sum game

What we still lack is a sound and solid view how apple could make such an unit without cannibalizing it´s current lineup.

OK, say that the mini-tower "cannibalizes" 100,000 Imac sales and 50,000 Mac Pro sales.

If there are 300,000 mini-towers sold, then Apple sells 150,000 more computers than before.

If a third of the mini-towers are sold with Apple monitors, then the Imac "loss" is more or less balanced with added monitor sales.

Don't assume that each mini-tower would mean the "loss" of an Imac or maxi-tower sale...

Anyway, Apple are arrogant and aren't going to listen to the cries for a mini-tower or media centre system. MM is right about the horse, I'm afraid.

 

[AidenShaw]

Use a less-robust chipset that allows less total CPUs and RAM.

By definition, a single-socket chipset supports fewer sockets than a dual-socket chipset - so this one is easy.

Most of the Conroe chipsets are limited to a max of 4 DIMM slots, so that's currently an 8 GiB limit. The new X38 single-socket chipset should support 16 GiB max once 4 GiB DIMMs are out.

Use less-powerful CPUs and RAM types (DDR2 instead of FB-DIMM).

This one isn't so easy...

Typically the fastest dual-socket (Xeon) and single socket (Conroe/Kentsfield) CPUs are about the same speed - and sometimes the "Extreme" versions of the single socket chips are faster. Apple could deign to not offer the faster chips, but since these boards are usually socketed one could simply buy them at Newegg and rock.

Also, the FB-DIMM memory in the Xeons is higher latency than some of the DDR2/DDR3 DIMMs - so some programs will be faster on the cheaper machines. The FB-DIMMs are good for server-workstation apps with lots of parallel activity, but on many simpler benchmarks the cheaper memory wins.

Use a smaller case that cannot take as many HDDs (say 2) or optical drives (say 1).

Yes, please use a smaller case.

 

[machatch]

It's not the size of the company - you can find sub-$1000 quads from Acer and even smaller brands.

The problem is simply that Apple has a huge gap in the line between the laptop on a stand (Imac) and the huge dual socket workstation (Mac Pro).

Other companies have single socket workstations and desktops in that market segment.

yeahh.But compare to apple and dell they arent huge..even though apple are a big company.But apple is a high brand..he talked about discounts and why not apple would give huge discounts,simply beacuse apple don't really give big discounts..so the customers who bought them before dont "loose money"..
Ore they sell so good they dont need a discount..yeah theres a gap.. but then again you have the apple mini, and imac...And the death of mini is coming soon?dont think so..you will never see a mid-tower,low price mac..not gonna hapend...
If it does hapend it must have something to do wit apple's/steve jobs desire to be "green" policy and maybe aid som poor schoolkids in the third world..that would shurly be a nice thing to do..

 

[AidenShaw]

yeahh.But compare to apple and dell they arent huge..even though apple are a big company.But apple is a high brand..he talked about discounts and why not apple would give huge discounts,simply beacuse apple don't really give big discounts..so the customers who bought them before dont "loose money"...

I don't think that anyone would think that Apple would sell a quad core mini-tower for less than the price of a MiniMac - but Apple could make a nice mini-tower and sell it for its usual margins.

You should look at the Dell Precision Workstation 390 as an example of what Apple could do. A quad 390 is about $1000 less than a similarly configured entry Mac Pro.

It's a quality built, very quiet system. It has a lot of BTO options (SATA/SAS/15K RPM disk/graphics...).

If it does hapend it must have something to do wit apple's/steve jobs desire to be "green" policy and maybe aid som poor schoolkids in the third world..that would shurly be a nice thing to do..

You have your tech titans confused, Bill Gates is the one who is doing something to help the third world.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org