Widespread Availability of Hexacore Xeon Processors for Mac Pro Not Slated Until Late June?

[AidenShaw]

Hmm, didn't even see that one. I chose the cheapest six core listed on their models page - didn't think to add the hex to a base model.

Still, $3183 for a single hex core seems expensive when one can find the i7 hex core, 9GB ram, 1GB video card, and a BD-ROM/lightscribe burner for $1849 (also from HP!):

The $3183 hex is still $500 cheaper than Apple's 3.33 quad.

It's expensive because you're paying for workstation chipsets and ECC memory.

Just a case of different markets and different marketing strategies for them. Web prices on Xeon based stuff don't mean they are the prices you have to pay to get those systems.

Unless they are Apples, of course....

 

[PeterQVenkman]

The $3183 hex is still $500 cheaper than Apple's 3.33 quad.

It's expensive because you're paying for workstation chipsets and ECC memory.

Even if it has ECC memory and could support dual processors, I find the 1334 difference between the two HPs to be a little much to stomach.

I really want to see Apple put the Core i7 family in their single procesoor machines, and the Xeons in the dual processor. If they do that, and drop the price on the lower end accordingly, I can afford to stay Apple. if they don't, well, they are catching me around an upgrade cycle where my hardware and software are aligning.

It isn't too bad to upgrade my software and move to a different platform in the process. I spend most time in the tools, not the OS.

 

[AidenShaw]

Even if it has ECC memory and could support dual processors, I find the 1334 difference between the two HPs to be a little much to stomach.

Yes, it's high, but:

• The extra CPU socket costs a couple of dollars
• The DIMM slots to support 192 GiB of ECC RAM instead of 24 GiB cost quite a few dollars
• The low volume workstation ECC chipset costs a lot more

I used to insist on ECC memory on all of my systems (and there are probably old posts from me in the archives saying that), but I'm not so concerned about it on individual systems anymore. There are several reasons for this:

• When those old posts were written, most Intel desktop chipsets supported ECC - so the added cost of ECC was just the 10% or so additional for ECC DIMMs (not 10% on the system, just 10% on the RAM).
• When laptops became popular - none of those supported ECC, and the sky didn't fall.
• The recent Intel desktop chipsets stopped supporting ECC, and the sky didn't fall.
• If you have a system that seems possessed by demons with random crashes and application failures, run memtest86 for 24 hours. It's crude, but if memtest86 doesn't have any issues then don't look at memory as the problem

I'd happily continue to pay a 10% RAM premium for ECC, but for individual workstations I can't justify a 30% *system* premium. When I set up a couple of racks with 30 dual-socket systems in each rack, however, I wouldn't consider non-ECC memory.

I really want to see Apple put the Core i7 family in their single procesoor machines, and the Xeons in the dual processor.

I agree, but also wouldn't object to a single socket ECC workstation as well. Three towers - Core i7 single socket, Xeon single socket, and Xeon dual socket. (The Xeon single socket system could be a dual-socket system with only one CPU installed.)

For some people, with dozens or hundreds of systems, the added reliability of ECC memory could be an important issue. For individual buyers, the lower cost of the Core i7 hex would be important.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

For some people, with dozens or hundreds of systems, the added reliability of ECC memory could be an important issue. For individual buyers, the lower cost of the Core i7 hex would be important.

I think you sum up my feelings quite well!

 

[AidenShaw]

I think you sum up my feelings quite well!

Thank you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_greeting