[Eug]

BTW, in case you weren't already aware, we know for sure it's Clovertown, since Apple specifically says it is.

Originally Posted by Apple

Opt for the 8-core Mac Pro and you get the power of two Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Clovertown” processors running at 3.0GHz. Or choose a quad-core Mac Pro featuring two Dual-Core Intel Xeon “Woodcrest” processors and decide how fast they fly: 2.0GHz, 2.66GHz, or 3.0GHz. At 3.0GHz, the quad-core Mac Pro runs up to 2x faster than the Power Mac G5 Quad.

[Chuckit]

Who doubted it was Clovertown?

[shabbasuraj]

I wish prices for these machines came down a little...

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

BTW, in case you weren't already aware, we know for sure it's Clovertown, since Apple specifically says it is.

Well of course it's Clovertown! After all it is Intel's only SMP capable quad-core.

The real eye-catcher is that for all we know it's a Clovertown Intel hasn't sold to anybody else than Apple yet (which is also why Chuck couldn't configure the Dell identically).

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Who doubted it was Clovertown?

I wasn't 100% sure everyone here knew it was Clovertown.

Anyways, I couldn't find it either anywhere else, including at Dell and a few other places I looked.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by shabbasuraj 

I wish prices for these machines came down a little...

The two Clovertowns alone already cost ~ $2300.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Simon 

The two Clovertowns alone already cost ~ $2300.

I think he meant he wanted the baseline (Woodcrest) Mac Pro to go down a little. Could be wrong, but a couple of people (including me!) have said the same thing.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Simon 

The two Clovertowns alone already cost ~ $2300.

Well to be honest, I'd surprised if Apple paid over $2000 per pair. The $2344 price is in batches of 1000.

Nonetheless, I agree with you. The 8-core Mac Pros seem reasonably priced.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think he meant he wanted the baseline (Woodcrest) Mac Pro to go down a little. Could be wrong, but a couple of people (including me!) have said the same thing.

Yeah, it seems Apple usually does this. Their low end pro desktops usually are not a very good value.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Apple's losing hundreds on every Mac Pro sold?

Not really. The box costs $3997. So there's still about $1600 left for the rest of the hardware and certainly a good margin for Apple.

The $1498 upgrade price takes into account that you're upgrading from two Woodcrests which run about ~ $1380 a pair right now (of course Apple is getting a discount).

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think he meant he wanted the baseline (Woodcrest) Mac Pro to go down a little. Could be wrong, but a couple of people (including me!) have said the same thing.

I agree. Personally I was hoping the 2.0 GHz MP would become something like a $1799 Yikes-style MP for those that want a HEM. I guess that's gonna have to wait for another while. Anyway, the refurb market will be able to cater to at least some of those people.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by MarkLT1 

On a desktop machine 2 things rule- processors and video cards. Offering year+ old video cards at the prices they want is just not good.

Although people certainly bitch about Apple's video card offerings, I don't think this statement is true. The tech support I've done for Joe and Jane Computer User, both paid and as a favor to friends, has shown me that most people who buy Macs--and most people who buy computers in general--never upgrade them. They simply use them for several years and then buy a new machine. It's not uncommon for people to miss entire generations of hardware and software: I've helped people upgrade from a 233MHz G3 mini-tower to a last-generation G4 Mac Mini and from a PIII to an Athlon. I've also seen people use and use and use old hardware and be just fine, including a guy who, last I saw him, was using an 8500 with an external modem to check his AOL email once a week. These people, who are the majority of computer buyers, don't care about having the latest video card. The hardcore gamers I know are almost all console owners.

The second reason is that the market for these machines is NOT for gaming, and not for industries which need the latest video card. These machine are for people doing serious scientific number crunching, audio/video processing and other related fields. They'd rather save a few bucks on video cards so they can max out RAM and drive space.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by onlyone-jc 

It's the type of engine it is, a V-Engine. It comes from the way the pistons are aligned along the line-of-sight of the crank-shaft. It looks like a V, funnily enough! heh.

onlyone-jc.

I didn't know they put these in computers.

[Leonard]

We're not Joe and Jane public. If we were, we'd own iMacs.

Look at some of the specs of the machines on this forum and I think you'll find alot of people have upgraded to the best video card they can for they're Mac Pro or Power Mac G5. Dozens of people here have Radeon X1900XTs on their Mac Pros or Radeon X800's on their Power Mac G5s AGPs. Heck I'd install something newer if I could find it.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Leonard 

We're not Joe and Jane public. If we were, we'd own iMacs.

Look at some of the specs of the machines on this forum and I think you'll find alot of people have upgraded to the best video card they can for they're Mac Pro or Power Mac G5. Dozens of people here have Radeon X1900XTs on their Mac Pros or Radeon X800's on their Power Mac G5s AGPs. Heck I'd install something newer if I could find it.

Don't matter: we're not the majority of computer users. We're not even a majority of Mac users. I doubt we're not even .1%. So, while I have just ordered an X800 XT for my G5, I don't imagine your average Mac user would 1) know what one was or 2) care.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Don't matter: we're not the majority of computer users. We're not even a majority of Mac users. I doubt we're not even .1%. So, while I have just ordered an X800 XT for my G5, I don't imagine your average Mac user would 1) know what one was or 2) care.

So…Apple shouldn't make the Mac Pro, since the majority of Mac users don't use one?

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So…Apple shouldn't make the Mac Pro, since the majority of Mac users don't use one?

Huh?

The quote I responded to was: On a desktop machine 2 things rule- processors and video cards. Offering year+ old video cards at the prices they want is just not good.

My experience is that, for the vast majority of computer buyers, those things are not the most important things. Most computer users buy their machines like they buy microwaves or TVs. The fact that Apple doesn't ship the latest and greatest video cards in their machines doesn't really matter to most potential buyers.

[bballe336]

Forget that. $1500 extra for the 8 cores when the prices have dropped enough that it should simply be replacing the quad option. I'd also like to thank Apple for not supporting DX10 yet. I really can't waste the money on a mac pro if it's going to be priced that ridiculously, yes I do consider paying $1500 for that a waste.

[Eriamjh]

I prefer to call them "Dual-Quads", after cars with two four-barrel carburetors.


More power!

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

I prefer to call them "Dual-Quads", after cars with two four-barrel carburetors.


More power!

There ain't no substitute for cubic inches.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

There ain't no substitute for cubic inches.

Normally the saying goes: "There's no replacement for displacement."

[tkmd]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Although people certainly bitch about Apple's video card offerings, I don't think this statement is true. The tech support I've done for Joe and Jane Computer User, both paid and as a favor to friends, has shown me that most people who buy Macs--and most people who buy computers in general--never upgrade them. They simply use them for several years and then buy a new machine. It's not uncommon for people to miss entire generations of hardware and software: I've helped people upgrade from a 233MHz G3 mini-tower to a last-generation G4 Mac Mini and from a PIII to an Athlon. I've also seen people use and use and use old hardware and be just fine, including a guy who, last I saw him, was using an 8500 with an external modem to check his AOL email once a week. These people, who are the majority of computer buyers, don't care about having the latest video card. The hardcore gamers I know are almost all console owners.

The second reason is that the market for these machines is NOT for gaming, and not for industries which need the latest video card. These machine are for people doing serious scientific number crunching, audio/video processing and other related fields. They'd rather save a few bucks on video cards so they can max out RAM and drive space.

The thing is that people who own towers are the kind (like me ) that do upgrade. I bet that everyone on this MP board that has a MP wanted power not aesthetics (iMac). Therefore we are the kind of people that power - and the speed that comes with the power - is a must and we are not afraid to take apart are rigs to upgrade a RAM/ HD or even a processor transplant. That said, the 8 cores option for me is good, not now because I could not afford it nor do I feel many apps take advantage of more than 4 cores but in the future when the 3 Ghz woodcrest comes down in price and Apple releases an OS version that is 4 + cores aware I will upgrade.

Now about the video card- they apple has to work on that front - I mean a 7300 in this day and age for their top of the line computer is laughable - perhaps a 7600 would have been a better choice.

[MarkLT1]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Although people certainly bitch about Apple's video card offerings, I don't think this statement is true. The tech support I've done for Joe and Jane Computer User, both paid and as a favor to friends, has shown me that most people who buy Macs--and most people who buy computers in general--never upgrade them. They simply use them for several years and then buy a new machine. It's not uncommon for people to miss entire generations of hardware and software: I've helped people upgrade from a 233MHz G3 mini-tower to a last-generation G4 Mac Mini and from a PIII to an Athlon. I've also seen people use and use and use old hardware and be just fine, including a guy who, last I saw him, was using an 8500 with an external modem to check his AOL email once a week. These people, who are the majority of computer buyers, don't care about having the latest video card. The hardcore gamers I know are almost all console owners.

The second reason is that the market for these machines is NOT for gaming, and not for industries which need the latest video card. These machine are for people doing serious scientific number crunching, audio/video processing and other related fields. They'd rather save a few bucks on video cards so they can max out RAM and drive space.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree. First off, you mention that a typical computer user doesn't care about video cards. While this is true, a quad or octo processor machine is definitely not targeted towards a typical computer user. As you mention, they are target towards two main industries- 1) scientific computing, 2) audio/video processing. BOTH of these industries do benefit from the progression of video cards. The use of GPU for scientific number crunching is beginning to catch on. The new Quadro card announced by Nvidia has many on the cutting edge of scientific computing drooling- lots of power available there, not to do 3D graphics, etc.. but to crunch numbers (in fact, it is something I am looking into in my scientific research). No, this is not a major sector of the market yet, and yes, it is incredibly difficult, but it is becoming easier every day.

Now lets look at the A/V sector. Currently the top of the line card for decoding H.264 encoded content is the NV 8800 series cards. On 1080p content as found on Blu-ray disks is incredibly computationally intensive. For some disks, anything less than a Core2 Duo 6600 REQUIRES an NV 8800 to decode to watch the film without dropped frames. Sure, a quad core Xeon should be able to do this with a lesser card, but it isn't leaving much room for processing (a buddy of mine has a C2D 6600, blu ray drive, and an 8800GT card. Playing the X-Men Blu-ray disk uses close to 80% cpu on his machine. With his old 7800GT card it uses about 95% cpu). With the emerging HD content which is what people are using in the AV sector (Apple's primary market for these machines) more powerful video cards are necessary to at least somewhat future proof your machine.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Eug 

And I just do this for fun...

Pwned...

[Uncle Skeleton]

I don't get it

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by MarkLT1 

I am going to have to respectfully disagree. First off, you mention that a typical computer user doesn't care about video cards. While this is true, a quad or octo processor machine is definitely not targeted towards a typical computer user. As you mention, they are target towards two main industries- 1) scientific computing, 2) audio/video processing. BOTH of these industries do benefit from the progression of video cards. The use of GPU for scientific number crunching is beginning to catch on. The new Quadro card announced by Nvidia has many on the cutting edge of scientific computing drooling- lots of power available there, not to do 3D graphics, etc.. but to crunch numbers (in fact, it is something I am looking into in my scientific research). No, this is not a major sector of the market yet, and yes, it is incredibly difficult, but it is becoming easier every day.

Now lets look at the A/V sector. Currently the top of the line card for decoding H.264 encoded content is the NV 8800 series cards. On 1080p content as found on Blu-ray disks is incredibly computationally intensive. For some disks, anything less than a Core2 Duo 6600 REQUIRES an NV 8800 to decode to watch the film without dropped frames. Sure, a quad core Xeon should be able to do this with a lesser card, but it isn't leaving much room for processing (a buddy of mine has a C2D 6600, blu ray drive, and an 8800GT card. Playing the X-Men Blu-ray disk uses close to 80% cpu on his machine. With his old 7800GT card it uses about 95% cpu). With the emerging HD content which is what people are using in the AV sector (Apple's primary market for these machines) more powerful video cards are necessary to at least somewhat future proof your machine.

I'm not denying any of this. My response was to the claim On a desktop machine 2 things rule- processors and video cards. Offering year+ old video cards at the prices they want is just not good, which, to me, seemed overly broad and inaccurate.

[The Ancient One]

Originally Posted by MarkLT1 

I am going to have to respectfully disagree. First off, you mention that a typical computer user doesn't care about video cards. While this is true, a quad or octo processor machine is definitely not targeted towards a typical computer user. As you mention, they are target towards two main industries- 1) scientific computing, 2) audio/video processing. BOTH of these industries do benefit from the progression of video cards. The use of GPU for scientific number crunching is beginning to catch on. The new Quadro card announced by Nvidia has many on the cutting edge of scientific computing drooling- lots of power available there, not to do 3D graphics, etc.. but to crunch numbers (in fact, it is something I am looking into in my scientific research). No, this is not a major sector of the market yet, and yes, it is incredibly difficult, but it is becoming easier every day.

Now lets look at the A/V sector. Currently the top of the line card for decoding H.264 encoded content is the NV 8800 series cards. On 1080p content as found on Blu-ray disks is incredibly computationally intensive. For some disks, anything less than a Core2 Duo 6600 REQUIRES an NV 8800 to decode to watch the film without dropped frames. Sure, a quad core Xeon should be able to do this with a lesser card, but it isn't leaving much room for processing (a buddy of mine has a C2D 6600, blu ray drive, and an 8800GT card. Playing the X-Men Blu-ray disk uses close to 80% cpu on his machine. With his old 7800GT card it uses about 95% cpu). With the emerging HD content which is what people are using in the AV sector (Apple's primary market for these machines) more powerful video cards are necessary to at least somewhat future proof your machine.

I was kind of surprised that Apple didn't upgrade the video cards this time around, but I'm still happy with the X1900 XT in my 2.66 Mac Pro (which I ordered when they were announced). I'm sure a faster card will be available at a reasonable price in 2008 if I find I need it. I don't plan on adding a Blu-ray drive for a while, so I should be fine at least until then. I have a very strong hunch that a new Mac Pro is in the works and that this 8-core option is a stopgap measure only.

[Buckaroo]

V8 like this little baby.

[Eug]

This Chinese site also mentions the quad 3 GHz X5365.



TDP unknown. (The 2.66 GHz is 120 Watts per 4-core chip.)

[SMacSteve]

Sorry the RAM limit is not 16 GB! It's 32GB! There are 4 GB DIMMS, but they're expensive!

[Peabo]

Just put in my order for the 8 core Mac Pro
Added a 750 gig drive and the radeon graphics card. I left the ram at 1 gig as they charge a lot for extra ram

Any suggestions where I can get some extra ram cheap? (I'm in the UK)

[SMacSteve]

Originally Posted by SMacSteve 

Sorry the RAM limit is not 16 GB! It's 32GB! There are 4 GB DIMMS, but they're expensive!

Originally Posted by MarkLT1 

Sorry Apple, but I gotta give this one a big "Meh..."

Yeah, the 8 core setup is nice, but the entire rest of the line is starting to feel very dated, especially in terms of video cards (yay- I can choose from a totally anemic 7300GT which has no place in a high end machine, a year-old X1900 XT, or a year-old FX-4500).

Heck, even with the 8-core, you are still limited to 16GB of RAM. I can think of many cases where if I am fully utilizing 8 cores, 4GB of RAM per core would come in handy.

Two things are becoming apparent in my mind when it comes to apple:
1) Their focus is 99% on consumers- iPod, iPhone, iMac. High end workstations are definitely not a priority.
2) Hardware wise, if they keep playing the game like they did with Motorola (i.e.- tiny speed bumps every 12 months), they are going to have trouble justifying their hardware costs. On a desktop machine 2 things rule- processors and video cards. Offering year+ old video cards at the prices they want is just not good. I understand the issues involved with video cards on these machines, and that you cant just slap in a PC vid card, but c'mon Apple- you gotta start working with, nudging, pushing your vendors into helping out a bit. Get SLI working, offer an X1950XT or even (GASP) a NV 8800 line card, and if you are going to charge high end prices for your video cards, at least give us a high end card that is using recent technology.

I also understand that Apple has a business to run, and right now the iPod seems to be their bread and butter. But from a higher end user/consumer, it is just starting to feel a bit frustrating.

Sorry for the rant- just a bit frustrated: APPLE- are you listening? I WANT TO GIVE YOU MY MONEY. MAKE IT WORTH MY WHILE.

I think that the upgrade may be only a temporary one and that a much more substantial update will happen closer to WWDC if not at WWDC.

Also, the current RAM limit is 32 GB due to the availabiltiy of 4GB DIMMS.

[QuadG5Man]

8 cores, very nice. If Apple can ship them soon - in quantity - that would be great. I'd like to see some benchmarks in Final Cut, HandBrake, etc. I predict it will render 40% faster then the 'quad' 3.0, which is kick axx.

[MarkLT1]

Originally Posted by SMacSteve 

I think that the upgrade may be only a temporary one and that a much more substantial update will happen closer to WWDC if not at WWDC.

Also, the current RAM limit is 32 GB due to the availabiltiy of 4GB DIMMS.

Out of curiosity- has anyone verified that the 4GB DIMMS will actually work in the Mac Pros? Technically the first intel MacBook Pro should have supported 4GB I believe, but it was crippled not to. Not that I personally need 32 gigs.. just wondering...

And Don- yes, my statement was probably a bit broad.. Maybe I should rephrase it to:
On a highest end AV workstation (a category which the Mac Pro falls into) 2 things rule- processor speed and video cards

Here's to hoping that the April 15th announcement may have something to do with video card options. Not holding my breath as Apple has never announced something like just a video card option, but I can hope

[SMacSteve]

Originally Posted by SMacSteve 

Sorry the RAM limit is not 16 GB! It's 32GB! There are 4 GB DIMMS, but they're expensive!

Originally Posted by MarkLT1 

Sorry Apple, but I gotta give this one a big "Meh..."

Yeah, the 8 core setup is nice, but the entire rest of the line is starting to feel very dated, especially in terms of video cards (yay- I can choose from a totally anemic 7300GT which has no place in a high end machine, a year-old X1900 XT, or a year-old FX-4500).

Heck, even with the 8-core, you are still limited to 16GB of RAM. I can think of many cases where if I am fully utilizing 8 cores, 4GB of RAM per core would come in handy.

Two things are becoming apparent in my mind when it comes to apple:
1) Their focus is 99% on consumers- iPod, iPhone, iMac. High end workstations are definitely not a priority.
2) Hardware wise, if they keep playing the game like they did with Motorola (i.e.- tiny speed bumps every 12 months), they are going to have trouble justifying their hardware costs. On a desktop machine 2 things rule- processors and video cards. Offering year+ old video cards at the prices they want is just not good. I understand the issues involved with video cards on these machines, and that you cant just slap in a PC vid card, but c'mon Apple- you gotta start working with, nudging, pushing your vendors into helping out a bit. Get SLI working, offer an X1950XT or even (GASP) a NV 8800 line card, and if you are going to charge high end prices for your video cards, at least give us a high end card that is using recent technology.

I also understand that Apple has a business to run, and right now the iPod seems to be their bread and butter. But from a higher end user/consumer, it is just starting to feel a bit frustrating.

Sorry for the rant- just a bit frustrated: APPLE- are you listening? I WANT TO GIVE YOU MY MONEY. MAKE IT WORTH MY WHILE.

Originally Posted by MarkLT1 

Out of curiosity- has anyone verified that the 4GB DIMMS will actually work in the Mac Pros? Technically the first intel MacBook Pro should have supported 4GB I believe, but it was crippled not to. Not that I personally need 32 gigs.. just wondering...

And Don- yes, my statement was probably a bit broad.. Maybe I should rephrase it to:
On a highest end AV workstation (a category which the Mac Pro falls into) 2 things rule- processor speed and video cards

Here's to hoping that the April 15th announcement may have something to do with video card options. Not holding my breath as Apple has never announced something like just a video card option, but I can hope

Ram Jet sells a matched 4 of 4GB DIMMS and guarantee's it's support to the MacPro. All for $4699 for 16 GB's! If you want the full 32 GB you'll have to pony up twice that!

[shabbasuraj]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think he meant he wanted the baseline (Woodcrest) Mac Pro to go down a little. Could be wrong, but a couple of people (including me!) have said the same thing.

Ya I was referring to the base model.

I wish to believe that their will be a price adjustment in the near future.

Apple has done this in the past, so I think it might be a possibility.

....perhaps not.

[SierraDragon]

Folks should not be too concerned about the limited nature of this upgrade. As is it is a huge upgrade for those of us who need it. And NAB is not for another month yet. Expect additional major announcement(s) (e.g. multi-card graphics capability) at that time if not sooner. Personally I will wait until then before upgrading my tower because I think we will have a new value equation in tower graphics hardware then.

-Allen Wicks

[WJMoore]

Originally Posted by sahara 

Well this is really lame. Here I am waiting so long for the refreshed Mac Pro line before I upgrade this old Quicksilver, only to find out I could have bought a 2.66ghz Mac Pro at any time.

Exactly the same situation here (except its a 1.8DP Power Mac awaiting replacement). 7 months and no price drop or feature bump in the existing models. Lame.

[brokenjago]

Originally Posted by bballe336

I'd also like to thank Apple for not supporting DX10 yet.

I agree. It's so important that Apple support a brand new Microsoft technology that benefits people who use Mac OS X in no tangible way!

And NAB is not for another month yet.

I thought NAB started April 16th?

[Amdahl]

I think this machine was held back in November because they knew they needed a new kernel to make it run right. The current kernel does not prevent a single thread from bouncing around all 8 cores. This means cache thrashing and heavy load on the memory bus. A corrected kernel in Leopard was going to be Apple's solution.

Apple expected Leopard to be shipping by now; it isn't, but the 8-cores had to roll out anyway.

Expect the deficiency in 10.4 to explain the poor benchmarks compared to the quad-core. When Leopard comes out, these machines will run better.

[idyll]

^ sometimes I wonder if apple's own employees post on these forums all undercover like

[brokenjago]

Well, I would imagine that he could easily be a software developer.

[Chuckit]

A software developer with pretty detailed knowledge of the kernel's threading architecture, assuming he's not talking out of his ass. (I honestly don't know!)

[Ado]

Why didnt Apple upgrade their whole range to Quads?

Intel does have 2.16 quads available as well as 2.6's...

Who the hell but PIXAR can afford this new quad?

[hmurchison2001]

Originally Posted by brokenjago 

I agree. It's so important that Apple support a brand new Microsoft technology that benefits people who use Mac OS X in no tangible way! I thought NAB started April 16th?

Yup..April 16th brings us the most amazing Final Cut Pro version we've ever seen. I can't wait. Methinks that Apple's 2007 Pro apps will indeed fix the very issues that Amdahl speaks of.

Why didnt Apple upgrade their whole range to Quads?

Intel does have 2.16 quads available as well as 2.6's...

Who the hell but PIXAR can afford this new quad?

Price. There have been price cuts but since AMD doesn't have Barcelona (Quad core) out yet Intel doesn't have to cut too much. Apple's not going to deliver a cheap 2.16 Quad that cuts their margin on the 2.67.

Just about any business that needs Workstation power can afford this Mac Pro. The difference is they get to write off the depreciation for tax purposes and they can justify the expenditure because a Octo core nets them more productivity/profits.

The problem that Apple has created and IMO this is Steve Jobs biggest gaffe...is trying to tell consumers they need iMacs instead of Mac Pros. I love the iMac but it's not an affordable enthusiast computer.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Ado 

Why didnt Apple upgrade their whole range to Quads?

Intel does have 2.16 quads available as well as 2.6's...

There is no 2.0 or 2.16 GHz Clovertown. Maybe you were thinking of the Xeon X3210 running at 2.13 GHz. But since that's just a rebadged Kentsfield it runs on a 1066 MHz FSB and it's not SMP capable, so definitely a no-go. A 2.0 GHz Clovertown (Xeon E5335, $316) is expected in July though.

This is the 2.66 GHz ballpark:
• Woodcrest X5150, 2.66 GHz - $690
• Clovertown X5355, 2.66 GHz - $1172 (in July this one will be relaunched as Xeon E5335 for $744)

Savings per MP: $964 (and yes, of course Apple gets a discount on the 1k prices). So at least until July there's a simple economic reason for not going dual quad-core also on the 2.66 GHz MP.

That said, Apple could still consider replacing a dual-CPU quad-core model with a single-CPU quad-core Clovertown or even Kentsfield. The latter would allow a less expensive 'Yikes'-style MP. It would however require a LB redesign and come at the expense of having a slower FSB (albeit with cheaper RAM).

[hmurchison2001]

Thanks Simon. I was frankly too lazy to look up the available clockspeeds for Clovertown. I'm a bit surprised that people actually expected 8 core Mac Pros to be affordable. Huh????? 3 years ago people were begging for dual core PPC 970 3Ghz computers. Now you have that 4x..but it isn't free.

I'm not too sure that Penryn/Stoakley is going to be all the affordable either. A new die shrink and LB chipset to break in certainly isn't for the faint of heart. I'm sure the snoop filter and 1.6Ghz FSB will help but will we see a %10 avg speed increase?

The missing Nvidia stuff can be added later. HD optical drives can be added later. Right now 8 core Mac Pro is a tested configuration that works. Methinks people have gotten a bit too comfy with daydreaming about hardware/software perfection.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by hmurchison2001 

There have been price cuts but since AMD doesn't have Barcelona (Quad core) out yet Intel doesn't have to cut too much.

Intel will cut prices, just not right now.

This is what's expected to happen in July with Clovertown:
Xeon E5310, $455 -> $209
Xeon E5320, $690 -> $256
Xeon E5345, $851 -> $455
Xeon X5355, $1,172 -> E5355 @ $744

Of course Woodcrests will see price cuts too as well as Allendale/Conroe and Kentsfield (already by April 22 IIRC).

BTW, compare those reduced Clovertown prices to the prices Apple's paying for Woodcrests currently and you can easily see where the MP is going:
Xeon 5130, $316
Xeon 5150, $690
Xeon 5160, $851

[WJMoore]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

A software developer with pretty detailed knowledge of the kernel's threading architecture, assuming he's not talking out of his ass. (I honestly don't know!)

That's the beauty of running a system with an open source kernel. If you so desire you can find out how threading and process allocation works in it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by WJMoore 

That's the beauty of running a system with an open source kernel. If you so desire you can find out how threading and process allocation works in it.

Yeah, but the number of people who so desire must be in the single digits.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by MarkLT1 

OuTechnically the first intel MacBook Pro should have supported 4GB I believe, but it was crippled not to.

Technically, if you put 4 GB of memory in a MacBook Pro the chipset would have taken 750 MB of it for addressing and your computer would tell you that you had 3.25 GB in your system. People (who couldn't care less about the chipset limitations) would have screamed bloody murder.

So Apple limited it to 3 GB, and they will continue to do so until the Santa Rosa chipset is out that removes that limitation.