Dell's Enterprise stuff is great, however their consumer stuff, not so much.
Except for those dumb covers they put on the front of the servers. It blocks all the lights.
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.
The new Mac Pro pricing is preposterous!
- Thread starter Doc69
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Except for those dumb covers they put on the front of the servers. It blocks all the lights.
I think I'm starting to get your angle now. You're looking SOLELY at the high end. I realize that the Mac Pro is a HIGH END computer and the likely target consumer is the "PRO" user. What happened to the Pro's pricing is there are no less than FIVE price points today.
Of course, I can look back 5 years too. Back in 2004, there were basically 3 processor options and that was it. 1.8, 2.0, 2.5 PPC's priced at 2000/2500/3000 respectively. I bought a 2.0Ghz G5 (June 2004) for $2,499 for my wife's home design work.
Well, that computer became my hand-me-down for home video editing and regular video transcoding. Not pro-stuff mind you. HOME use. Well, it's getting long-in-the-tooth for a variety of reasons, so I bought the low end Quad for $2,499. Pretty familiar price point.
So, when you compare the low end of Powermacs/Mac Pros, they are only off by about $500. Back then you couldn't stick more than 4GB of memory in a 1.8 or 8GB in a 2.0/2.5 (and VERY expensive memory too). So, I guess the real question is if you're the type of guy who MUST buy the fastest processor, is that still true today? Perhaps the top end Mac Pro's are priced ridiculously high. The market will tell Apple that. Perhaps 2006's high end user is today's LOW Octo user. Those guys with 2008's are pretty darn pleased and they should be. Their rigs didn't get eclipsed overnight (at least at a price point) and they can be happy for a while longer.
The question is what price point are you? ...and at that price, will you gain performance for what you NEED to do?
-fate
That's what I'm thinking. That might also be the reason why there are no 3.2 GHz options.
And yes, Nehalem is SUPPOSED to be faster. So even if the new Mac Pro is faster than the old one, the new one could still be relatively slower.
Probably more likely that the deal Apple made to switch to Intel had 2 years of discount on Xeon processors or something.
Which brings us full circle and back to my original point. Intel tax not Apple tax.
It's based on thermal conditions and electrical conditions, not number of threads...
It would be a really cool thing to be able to read the contracts that go back and forth between two companies as sizable as these. It would be great to know what provisions of the contracts affect which price points, option restrictions, etc.
Too bad that all we're able to do is speculate. (Some of it highly informed/well-researched speculation, but speculation nonetheless).
Definatly. I'd love to see even things like how many Mac Pros they sell. I wouldn't be suprised if it was under 10,000 a month, but it may be really high for all we know.
Interesting. That could explain the sudden jump in margins. Like others have said, it's tough to know for sure, but makes sense nonetheless.
I have no idea why some people always say it is Apple, don't talk price, just buy it or just go for cheaper options. Most of us want to buy items that are worth the money. Before Intel processors were used, we couldn't really compare. Now we can. 06 and 08 Mac Pro were pretty good bang for the buck, even iMac, MB and MBP. The current quad core price is really a shame. They are single socket machines. Do you guys still remember the price of single socket Power Mac G5? They were started from $1499.
The facility located in Costa Rica is the only fully operational 45nm semi fab Intel has right now. I would imagine most of the production is directed at the chipsets and desktop components, so limited supply of the workstation/server parts might be driving up the costs.
I find that highly unlikely. Apple paid a premium to launch before everybody else did, which it gladly passes on to it's grateful customers that they know would rather die than buy anything else.
I'm referring to the rise and fall of SGI (Silicon Graphics). When Silicon Graphics switched from MIPS architecture to Intel to finally catch up on speed and technology many replaced their intergraph and sun workstations and returned to mothership. Before Intel times SGI had the most outrageous sales catalogue in whole industry - they would for example sell $600 worth of PC100 memory as 256Mb kit for a hundred bucks bill short of $9000, so it was a relief to see the workstations priced semi-reasonably for what they were. Unfortunately soon after fist year of 320 and 540 workstations selling in larger numbers SGI returned to their ugly ways and starter screwing their customer base - for example while Dell was already paving way for 700 and 900Mhz Pentium III the SGI salesmen would try to flog you "top of the line" 550Mhz P3 upgrade for $1115. At the time any PC shop would sell the same chips below $399 in retail box. Another example would be $25 basic ATI Rage 128 graphics card being sold as "OpenGL"rendering card for $200.
Wherever there was opportunity to take micky, you would find Silicon Graphics sales team in front row. Wherever in industry there was outcry of ripoff and being screwed, you would find SGI sales team with their screw drivers still warm on location.
Needless to say 2 winters down the line SGI as workstation manufacturer was dead as a dodo. Been there, done it, got the t-shirt (for way over the odds price too)
I'm referring to the rise and fall of SGI (Silicon Graphics). When Silicon Graphics switched from MIPS architecture to Intel to finally catch up on speed and technology many replaced their intergraph and sun workstations and returned to mothership. Before Intel times SGI had the most outrageous sales catalogue in whole industry - they would for example sell $600 worth of PC100 memory as 256Mb kit for a hundred bucks bill short of $9000, so it was a relief to see the workstations priced semi-reasonably for what they were. Unfortunately soon after fist year of 320 and 540 workstations selling in larger numbers SGI returned to their ugly ways and starter screwing their customer base - for example while Dell was already paving way for 700 and 900Mhz Pentium III the SGI salesmen would try to flog you "top of the line" 550Mhz P3 upgrade for $1115. At the time any PC shop would sell the same chips below $399 in retail box. Another example would be $25 basic ATI Rage 128 graphics card being sold as "OpenGL"rendering card for $200.
Wherever there was opportunity to take micky, you would find Silicon Graphics sales team in front row. Wherever in industry there was outcry of ripoff and being screwed, you would find SGI sales team with their screw drivers still warm on location.
Needless to say 2 winters down the line SGI as workstation manufacturer was dead as a dodo. Been there, done it, got the t-shirt (for way over the odds price too)
Sounds like Apple is on the same path. You can't expect people to be suckers when the exact hardware is being sold for significantly less.
We've had diminishing value per dollar on the hardware since about late 2006.
Let us not drag the late PowerPC tower era into this at this point.
Cost vs performance
In my humble opinion the main issues regarding the new mac pros are 1. they are faster in a measured sense but is it meaningful to a given user 2. what is the speed advantage when balanced against their price points. To me the older 2008 models are a better value given my needs particularly after consideration of the hefty discounts available. The monoprocessor new models can in a sense be regarded as the often discussed midtower and in that sense 8 mg of ram are likely to be enough but in that context ought to be significantly less to be appealing.
In my humble opinion the main issues regarding the new mac pros are 1. they are faster in a measured sense but is it meaningful to a given user 2. what is the speed advantage when balanced against their price points. To me the older 2008 models are a better value given my needs particularly after consideration of the hefty discounts available. The monoprocessor new models can in a sense be regarded as the often discussed midtower and in that sense 8 mg of ram are likely to be enough but in that context ought to be significantly less to be appealing.
IIRC, they're both 65nm. I do recall that Intel had plans to convert the Hillsborough, OR plant to 45nm, but haven't seen anything past that. Only the Vietnam location being spun up.
Intel even had job listings for it in CareerBuilder, but pulled them at the same time they made an announcement of closures & downsizing (layoffs) at a few of the older plants. I presume the open jobs were offered to some of the affected personel, and it very well may have delayed any changes to existing plants (retrofits).