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.
Why wouldn't Apple offer other CPU speeds in single core option?
- Thread starter davewolfs
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I believe Apple want a "clean" product line.
I think it is why the didn't offer an 8 core 2.66GHz system before as they had the quad 3GHz. Why the downgrade option is a single processor rather than an 8 core system at 1333FSB system. 8x2.66GHz is only $900 in processors vs $1600 for 2x2.8GHz offering better value, but it would mean offering different memory speeds and you'd then have the iMac besting the Mac Pro on some tasks.
I think it is why the didn't offer an 8 core 2.66GHz system before as they had the quad 3GHz. Why the downgrade option is a single processor rather than an 8 core system at 1333FSB system. 8x2.66GHz is only $900 in processors vs $1600 for 2x2.8GHz offering better value, but it would mean offering different memory speeds and you'd then have the iMac besting the Mac Pro on some tasks.
I doubt it. People who want the best of the best will go for the octo setups. Why settle for best of the worst when you can have best of the best?
I understand what you're saying, but people aren't necessarily rational about computer purchases. They'll say, "when the technology catches up to 8-cores, my computer will be ready." In reality they'll be first in line for the new 32-core models.
For most things there's isn't going to be a great difference between a single 2.8 and a single 3.2. If you need more than a single 2.8 then you get the dual 2.8 and so on.
Logic will use all 8 cores and people running big sessions will benefit from the new upgrades (though, many pulugins don't spread the load well).
Within the lifetime of this current Mac Pro and maybe by the middle of the year there will be 4 core iMacs. I suspect part of Apple's thinking is to keep clear blue water between the iMac and the Mac Pro.
The single CPU 2.8GHz is somewhat of a sop to the folks who are clamoring for a cheap single CPU tower that they can turn into a gaming machine.
So putting in a 3.0GHz or (especially) 3.2GHz CPU would raise that price and eliminate much of the $500 savings the single 2.8GHz unit gives.
As is, the Mac Pro with a single 2.8GHz CPU is within $100 of the 2.8GHz 24" iMac (both having 2GB of RAM, a 500GB HDD, a SuperDrive, and an ATI 2600-series GPU).
So putting in a 3.0GHz or (especially) 3.2GHz CPU would raise that price and eliminate much of the $500 savings the single 2.8GHz unit gives.
As is, the Mac Pro with a single 2.8GHz CPU is within $100 of the 2.8GHz 24" iMac (both having 2GB of RAM, a 500GB HDD, a SuperDrive, and an ATI 2600-series GPU).
Except for those that want a Mac they can game on the iMac is crap vs. a Mac Pro with an 8800GT. The screen is also nowhere near good enough(I can't stand glossy for photo editing either) and for people like me who already have a monitor they are happy with there is no reason to spend money on an iMac.
But yeah, I am planning on buying a single chip MP with an 8800GT in the next month or two. I want it for Photoshop and Dreamweaver with very light video editing and some gaming. The 8 Core would be complete overkill yet is still tempting because of long term viability with gaming in the next 3 years as thats about how long i'll have to keep it to justify it to my wife.
My guess is they don't want to diversify by having several different chips/speeds meaning they will need to make many bulk purchases across different chip speeds (Intel provides tier pricing on bulk purchases on the wholesale). This results in higher costs and keeping inventory impacting their financial statement. It's a business decision and it makes perfect sense.
There would have been an option for Apple to introduce a very potent tower machine using the desktop penryns (I know they are not out yet) and standard ddr2 RAM on a desktop mobo. Such a quadcore machine would easily be feasible for 14-1500 USD. Why Apple chooses to eschew such a configuration is a question that only the product portfolio people or marketing can answer for sure.
And it also happens to align with Apple's very carefully designed product pricing and lineup.
Very few people give Apple credit for what they have been doing very well for many years now. With every model, there's just a small step in terms of dollars to the next great option or feature. It's designed to encourage people to spend just a bit more than they had planned. If a person starts out at the top of the Mini range, spending just a little more gets them a much better iMac. At the top of the iMac range, the Mac Pro can start to look pretty attractive.
Auto makers have done this well for a long time. No other computer company does it nearly as well as Apple. Enough options to move people up, but not so many models and choices that people can't digest them all.
If Apple had offered a quad-core 3.2 GHz machine I'd have bought it, for sure. Since they don't offer it, I sucked it up and bought the eight core 3.2 GHz configuration.
And that, right there, is precisely why Apple don't offer a quad-core 3.2.
And that, right there, is precisely why Apple don't offer a quad-core 3.2.
Simple answer is that 2.8, 3.0, and 3.2 are the only speed 1.6 GHz FSB Xeon processors intel has delivered in production quantities, so far. Others use the slower 1.33 GHz FSB, which could be used but would have no performance increse over the older machines.