When will the Mac Pros be of good value.

[myca]

So I was just checking out the new iMacs, and the 27" looks a beast, but I'm not a fan of all in ones, which is why my last computer was a hackintosh, and a dual G5 before that.

One thing that struck me though with the top spec iMac is the amazing disparity of pricing compared to the base Mac Pro, not that the top of the range iMac is cheap. But in comparison to the base Mac Pro for £150 less you get;

A quicker Nehelem processor
More Ram
A better GPU
A bigger HD
The new mouse
Wi-Fi as standard
A 27" monitor

Now I thought on release of the Nehelem Mac Pros that the base model was over the odds, which is why I built a hackintosh as I was not happy (nor could I stretch the funds) at paying near £2000 for what is a basically a Core i7 920 in a glorious case.

But with the new iMacs I can't see how they can keep charging this silly price, or not bump the specs up to dual processors in each model (and maybe even ram slots in multiples of 3). So does anyone else expect a bump, or price drop soon, as paying less for more (minus the expandability) within the companies own line up seems out of whack?

 

[UAofE]

Mac Pro is due for an update, a spec bump. Probably eliminate the low-end choices and put 3.2GHz at the top end. 2.26ghz was a ridiculous decision from the start, even if it is 8 cores.

 

[thegoldenmackid]

Mac Pro is due for an update, a spec bump. Probably eliminate the low-end choices and put 3.2GHz at the top end. 2.26ghz was a ridiculous decision from the start, even if it is 8 cores.

GHz ≠ Speed. Just take a look at some benchmarks.


Most people upgrade the ram and hard drives separately. With that said, the Mac Pro isn't really the most competitive computer in the Apple lineup in comparison to other computers.

 

[Umbongo]

No changes until they revise them with new processors next year. The difference between building your own system and what Apple charge for similar hardware isn't that different on the iMac or Mac Pro. Both are expensive items. The Mac Pro still has plenty of selling points.

 

[UAofE]

No changes until they revise them with new processors next year.

3.2ghz is the "new" processor. It wasn't available when the MP was released.

 

[thegoldenmackid]

3.2ghz is the "new" processor. It wasn't available when the MP was released.

It's irrelevant, the 2.26GHz made sense given the circumstances.

 

[Umbongo]

3.2ghz is the "new" processor. It wasn't available when the MP was released.

They were, Apple chose not to use them for some reason.

 

[nanofrog]

Mac Pro is due for an update, a spec bump. Probably eliminate the low-end choices and put 3.2GHz at the top end. 2.26ghz was a ridiculous decision from the start, even if it is 8 cores.

The Quads and Octads use different CPU families (35xx & 55xx respectively), so the pricing isn't the same for the clockspeeds. Hence the Octads starting with a lower clock in the base model.

Apple wasn't willing to lower their margins, so they chose parts that worked with the margins they expected. Otherwise, they could have upped the clocks in the base models.

The margins are also the likely reason they didn't offer higher clocks as options either. Figure in the profit, and it would have been too expensive to attract enough business. There's another aspect as well. Fewer parts also allows them greater purchasing power with Intel, that can translate into lower cost per unit pricing (they could be getting parts at lower than the publicly released quantity pricing due to a contract; x parts in y time frame).