What would be a 'fair price' for hexacore?

[pcconvert]

I was thinking what would cost me to assemble hexacore using retail pricing (assuming Apple would get decent profit from these prices).

chip - $1000 (both i7 and W36xx has the same price)
board - $350 (e.g. gigabyte X58-ud7 class with USB3.0 SATA 3.0, 6 RAM etc)
graphics - $250 (e.g. saphire 5830)
12G memory - $360 in 6x2 PC1600 hexachannel kit
1TB HD - $100 or so
Apple case - $350? (it's really nice case u know?)
burner - $30ish
decent quiet pwr supply - $100ish?
wrls kbd+mgc mouse - $120ish?
OSX - say $200 if retail Win7 would be any indication and we like OSX don't we?

All in all $3000ish? How much would you be willing to pay for these specs and would not feel being robbed?

 

[Umbongo]

$1,500 for a 2.8GHz quad core, $2,000 for a 3.2GHz quad core and $2,500 for a 3.33GHz hexacore would be fair to good pricing, assuming basic memory, storage and graphics card.

 

[bearcatrp]

Right now, a 2.93 octo is running 5899.00. My bet is a 2010 octo based on gulftown will cost around 7 grand depending on speed of the chips used. Priced out of the consumers reach (unless your rich). Cheaper to build your own when parts are available.

 

[Nostromo]

Wouldn't a dual quad core be the better option for price and performance?

Or could the new hexacore be so much faster?

 

[Techhie]

Wouldn't a dual quad core be the better option for price and performance?

Or could the new hexacore be so much faster?

The only benefit to the extra cores would be to apps that are multithreaded, of which there are few (in OS X at least). A faster clock speed on a quad-core box would result in better performance for most users.

 

[pcconvert]

Wouldn't a dual quad core be the better option for price and performance?

Or could the new hexacore be so much faster?

I am thinking that hexa@3.33 would match or beat octo@2.93 due to higher clock speed. Most definitely in day to day life. Yet being a single processor should be simple to build, having lower pwr consumption etcetc. I am really tempted to build hackintosh using Gigabyte mobo and nvid graphics. Still, if hexa would stay in $3000ish range (based on what they would include in it) I'd prefer to buy MP. IF they're going to release it anytime soon...

 

[TheStrudel]

The only benefit to the extra cores would be to apps that are multithreaded, of which there are few (in OS X at least). A faster clock speed on a quad-core box would result in better performance for most users.

You could also run more apps and background processes in the past. Some of us like to work on things while encoding video, resizing enormous images, etc. Of course, more cores is more effective when the software can handle it better.

 

[Icaras]

$1,500 for a 2.8GHz quad core, $2,000 for a 3.2GHz quad core and $2,500 for a 3.33GHz hexacore would be fair to good pricing, assuming basic memory, storage and graphics card.

Sounds awesome for the 2.8GHz quad core, and I would nab one in a heartbeat, but I think the days of sub $2000 Pro towers from Apple are long gone, wouldn't you say?

 

[Umbongo]

Sounds awesome for the 2.8GHz quad core, and I would nab one in a heartbeat, but I think the days of sub $2000 Pro towers from Apple are long gone, wouldn't you say?

Sadly, yes. I'm expecting nothing more than a move to newer processor models and an Nvidia GT 220 or 230 as the base graphics card and the option of a 5870 at the same sort of pricing we have now.

 

[nanofrog]

Sadly, yes. I'm expecting nothing more than a move to newer processor models and an Nvidia GT 220 or 230 as the base graphics card and the option of a 5870 at the same sort of pricing we have now.

Seems realistic IMO as well.