Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Since it seems likely that they'll still have SP in the base model, any thoughts on if they'd up the ram slots?

At the very least, if the pricing remains roughly the same (hope not) - if the base is faster than 2.66, more ram slots, audio FIX and perhaps a better graphics card. I won't (at least) be eyeing my pitchfork.
 
Since it seems likely that they'll still have SP in the base model, any thoughts on if they'd up the ram slots?

Wouldn't that result in a new motherboard design? Seems unlikely since new mb design cost money :apple: could hog on.

At the very least, if the pricing remains roughly the same (hope not) - if the base is faster than 2.66, more ram slots, audio FIX and perhaps a better graphics card. I won't (at least) be eyeing my pitchfork.

2.8 GHz, better graphics and internal hardware raid and I would be very pleased. But I still have my pitchfork only one arms lenght away!
 
Intel's single socket line at the time of the 2010 Mac Pro would be the following at the same price points Apple currently use:

W3530 - 2.80GHz x4, 45nm, 1066MHz
W3565 - 3.20GHz x4, 45nm, 1066MHz
W3680 - 3.33GHz x6, 32nm, 1066Mhz
I've been waiting for the quantity pricing before considering the faster clocked parts for the Quand core SP's. But I do think it's possible. ;)
 
Those prices are $284, $562 and $999. Same as the current parts.
:cool: I hadn't gone back and looked, as I've been waiting for the 32nm pricing (figured I'd pull the data all at once). :eek: Yeah, I was being a little lazy here. :eek: :p
 
Intel's single socket line at the time of the 2010 Mac Pro would be the following at the same price points Apple currently use:

W3530 - 2.80GHz x4, 45nm, 1066MHz

My prediction is $2500 entry level Mac Pro with the W3530. Meaning a slight speed bump. They will also increase RAM to 6 GB and disk to 1000 GB. Or not!

with Apple being how they are I think them dropping the SP line is plausible.

I hope you're wrong about Apple dropping SP machines. That would make the entry level Mac Pro very very expensive.
 
My prediction is $2500 entry level Mac Pro with the W3530. Meaning a slight speed bump. They will also increase RAM to 6 GB and disk to 1000 GB. Or not!
I think you're asking too much from Apple for $2500. :eek: The speed bump would be possible, but not RAM + HDD capacity + GPU (I realize you didn't mention this, but it's along the same lines, and would be in Apple's best interest to do so IMO). Something would have to be cut (RAM capacity and/or HDD capacity to that size).

2.8GHz Quad, 3GB RAM, 750GB HDD, and perhaps a GT130 (75W rather than 50W of the GT120) for the current base model SP price. Remember, Apple will want a low power card to fit their Green initiative. It also assumes that they'll stick with nVidia OEM graphics solutions for base systems.
 
FML.

Apple is replacing my 2007 8x3.0 under warranty…

…with a 2.26 + 4870 :(

I'm sure it'll arrive about 2 hours before they update the machines and the entry level dual-processor machine will stomp all over it :(
 
I think you're asking too much from Apple for $2500. :eek: The speed bump would be possible, but not RAM + HDD capacity + GPU (I realize you didn't mention this, but it's along the same lines, and would be in Apple's best interest to do so IMO). Something would have to be cut (RAM capacity and/or HDD capacity to that size).

2.8GHz Quad, 3GB RAM, 750GB HDD, and perhaps a GT130 (75W rather than 50W of the GT120) for the current base model SP price. Remember, Apple will want a low power card to fit their Green initiative. It also assumes that they'll stick with nVidia OEM graphics solutions for base systems.

I'm not sure what he's proposing is out of line. I suspect 1TB drives have come down a lot in the last year although I don't know exactly how much. Memory hasn't moved much so that's probably a difficult one to double without eating into margins while I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult for Apple to drop in a GT220 for what it cost them for a GT120 last year.

The big unknown is whether Apple has recovered enough of the tooling and design costs on the 2009 platform to pass some savings along in the form of lower prices on the 2010 models which will largely be a carry-over from last year. I'm expecting they can and will, based simply on other recent price cuts we've witness on some of their other products... which is why I can see a $300-$500 drop for comparable systems this year.
 
I'm not sure what he's proposing is out of line. I suspect 1TB drives have come down a lot in the last year although I don't know exactly how much. Memory hasn't moved much so that's probably a difficult one to double without eating into margins while I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult for Apple to drop in a GT220 for what it cost them for a GT120 last year.
I'm figuring on ~$50 - 60USD for an HDD at most (quantity pricing). Margins on drives aren't 40% (to generate a retail drive price for comparitive purposes), which is why I don't think 1TB will be available as standard in the base models. It would be nice, but I won't expect it, so I still think it's more likely to continue to be an upgrade (though the additional cost should drop).

Also consider, if 1TB became standard in the base model, the only capacity options would be 1.5 and 2TB.

As per RAM, the newer parts don't all have the capability to run 1333MHz, so sticking with 1066MHz simplifies the parts bin. As the prices have come down, it will either allow them to obtain higher margins, or offer them the potential to pass some savings on to customers.

Graphics: Apple wants low power (can run off of the PCIe power with no additional power cables needed), and even the GT150 consumes 141W (according to nVidia's specifications). Since the slot can only provide 75W, that would be the upper limit, and the GT130 is at the max of this limit. They could chose to change here, but I don't expect this to happen. Keeping the power consumption to 75W or less, means a short list of candidates.

The big unknown is whether Apple has recovered enough of the tooling and design costs on the 2009 platform to pass some savings along in the form of lower prices on the 2010 models which will largely be a carry-over from last year. I'm expecting they can and will, based simply on other recent price cuts we've witness on some of their other products... which is why I can see a $300-$500 drop for comparable systems this year.
I'm leaning towards the idea of higher margins and lower costs will balance out into similar pricing as the '09 systems. Value could be added however, by such things as a slight increase in clock speed (i.e 2.8GHz rather than 2.66GHz for the same budget).

What you also have to keep in mind, is the sales quantity of the MP's aren't at the levels the other products are (namely the device market), and will work against price drops. The economy of scale just isn't there comparitively speaking.

I'm hopeful, but I've tempered my hopes with recent history directly related to the MP's (specifically the '07's in terms of what was offered that was different from the '06's, and the '09's in terms of pricing), not other products.
 
Graphics: Apple wants low power (can run off of the PCIe power with no additional power cables needed), and even the GT150 consumes 141W (according to nVidia's specifications). Since the slot can only provide 75W, that would be the upper limit, and the GT130 is at the max of this limit. They could chose to change here, but I don't expect this to happen. Keeping the power consumption to 75W or less, means a short list of candidates.

Quick research:
GeForce GT 220 -> 58W Maximum Graphics Card Power (W)
GeForce GT 240 -> 69W
 
:eek:!!!!

is this finally some confirmation of prices nano!!!!! ??????

*excited*

too bad i dont need/want a new MP (or any MP lol).

The prices on those SP parts have been known for ages. The 3.2GHz part has been out since October.
 
Quick research:
GeForce GT 220 -> 58W Maximum Graphics Card Power (W)
GeForce GT 240 -> 69W
I was looking at OEM solutions, and went from the bottom up. When I saw 141W for the GT150, it made me apprehensive about other possiblilities (200 series; nor did I see any OEM versions; i.e. search OEM GT120,... and you'll get a page on nVidia's site).

Looking at the GT210 and GT220, they were originally meant to be OEM only. Both are the intro/low end of the series (GT240 = mid range). Street prices on the GT220 are ~$75USD (some less with MIR's). So it could be a possiblility.

The prices on those SP parts have been known for ages. The 3.2GHz part has been out since October.
I was refering to the 32nm parts. Until recently, we didn't know how many SP 32nm parts were coming, core count, clocks, or release dates (i.e. there's only going to be the W3680 initially for an SP part, with 2 additional parts staggered over time).

I had stumbled on some information a while back (prior to the Intel leak that gave the March 16 release date) that there would be 4 core parts in the 32nm line, and figured that this might be the case for both SP and DP parts (higher efficiency is desired afterall...). The chart I found indicates otherwise for the SP line, though it is valid for the DP line.

At that point, I wanted to wait for the 32nm pricing, and hadn't gone back to check the 45nm SP parts pricing (containing the newer part numbers) out of convenience (and I figured it could cause additional confusion with even more constant changing of expected/possible pricing).
 
idle or load?

Read this on an early review.

"The maximum power that will be pulled by the GeForce GT 220 is 58 Watts."

Does anyone think that it is a possibility that they could be doing more to the line than what's being projected here? Forgive my ignorance on these matters, I'm just going by the buyers guide and the widespread disappointment in the 09s, The only other time that an update took longer than a year was for the 09s. Granted they're waiting for the gulftowns, but still???

Since I've transfered and backed up to bigger, faster HDs, ordered a new monitor and completely reorganized my office while waiting for it, I hope it's more than a speed bump for the SP.
 
Like I said above, I could see a 1TB drive, possibly 6GB of RAM (but that's a stretch) and a GT220 in the standard config.

Given the new CPU's are drop-in replacements for the old, I can't imagine any other changes to the main-board or chassis as they would all incur unnecessary added expense on Apple's part.

It would be nice to see some new display options accompany the 2010 Mac Pros?!?!

As for the lingering wait... In doing some reading today about Apple's discontent with Intel's lack of support for 3rd party chipsets (eg. Nvidia) with the mobile i5/i7 line, it may be the case that the reason we haven't heard anything yet about the Gulftown Mac Pro's is because Intel and Apple are no longer on best of terms and thus no 30-day head start for Apple this time around with the new Xeons. Apple may be in the same boat as everyone else and unable to launch products based on the new chips until March 16th (the rumored GA date for Gulftown).
 
As for the lingering wait... In doing some reading today about Apple's discontent with Intel's lack of support for 3rd party chipsets (eg. Nvidia) with the mobile i5/i7 line, it may be the case that the reason we haven't heard anything yet about the Gulftown Mac Pro's is because Intel and Apple are no longer on best of terms and thus no 30-day head start for Apple this time around with the new Xeons.

Great, Apple is just going to pick a fight with everyone. :rolleyes:

Nokia, HTC! On guard! Our lawyers will be in touch!

Adobe! So 20th century, and they just produce piss poor products don't they?

Internets! Better without Flash!

Intel! Who needs CPUs! We are APPLE!

Apple needs to be on guard. Even their most loyal customers would acknowledge a love hate relationship with the company, which mean, it could tilt in hate's favor if they are not careful.
 
Great, Apple is just going to pick a fight with everyone. :rolleyes:

Nokia, HTC! On guard! Our lawyers will be in touch!

Adobe! So 20th century, and they just produce piss poor products don't they?

Internets! Better without Flash!

Intel! Who needs CPUs! We are APPLE!

Apple needs to be on guard. Even their most loyal customers would acknowledge a love hate relationship with the company, which mean, it could tilt in hate's favor if they are not careful.

LOL! :D Thanks for that!

However, in this case, Apple does have some support in taking exception to Intel's latest ploy to force their under performing integrated GPU's on everyone. By not granting companies like Nvidia QPI licenses, they are forcing Apple and other's back to the dark days of the GMA950 which was probably the worst GPU ever made.

More here... https://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/07/apple-to-skip-intel-arrandale-demands-alternative-chip/
 
LOL! :D Thanks for that!

However, in this case, Apple does have some support in taking exception to Intel's latest ploy to force their under performing integrated GPU's on everyone. By not granting companies like Nvidia QPI licenses, they are forcing Apple and other's back to the dark days of the GMA950 which was probably the worst GPU ever made.

More here... https://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/07/apple-to-skip-intel-arrandale-demands-alternative-chip/

Curious too about how the "2010 release" of USB 3.0 and even Intel's LightWire might be playing in what is released, when, to who, etc. also.
 
However, in this case, Apple does have some support in taking exception to Intel's latest ploy to force their under performing integrated GPU's on everyone. By not granting companies like Nvidia QPI licenses, they are forcing Apple and other's back to the dark days of the GMA950 which was probably the worst GPU ever made.

I agree, it's low down and dirty.

Except, it's not stopping Apple from using whatever video card they want, and what do people really expect from integrated graphics anyhow? My gf just bought a Dell laptop with an i5 and integrated graphics only. Handles all HD video and audio pretty well. She'll never game or model in 3d with it, so she's cool with it.

Now if it stops Apple from using Nvidia's Optimus, then that is extra stinky. Can Apple bypass the Intel integrated graphics? I know the chipset is a different story.

Of course, Apple did not like being beholden to Motorola and IBM and the PPC consortium, so, when they switch to x86 do they throw AMD a bone? No, they get in bed with Intel and then get mad when they find themselves without options or leverage. Let's look at Intel's history? Oh, less than spotless, eh?

There is no question that Intel CPUs are boss right now, but AMD has ATi and no doubt AMD would have benefitted if Apple would have been willing to put AMD chips in a few things like the base MacBook and the Mac Mini at least.

Apple gave the monopolistic Intel a monopoly and got monopolized.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.