Comment buried. Show
1. mitchcohen

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2005

   0
   04/04, 09:20am | report spam | close reply

   Ouch!

   $1500? Why did they only use the 3GHz chips as options? Quad-core Xeons are available in slower configurations.
   
   The next question - how many apps can take advantage of eight cores...

Comment buried. Show
1. Guest

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 1999

   0
   04/04, 09:27am | report spam | close reply

   next question

   Next question, if you have to ask why do you care?

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Forum Regular

   Joined: Aug 2001

   +1
   04/04, 09:51am | report spam | close reply

   Way to go apple!

   Whew! I was fearful, with the new chip options, that Apple would be forced to drop their prices on these machines. Luckily for all of us, Apple has managed to keep prices right there at the $2500 mark ($2200 on the 'low' end).
   
   Woohoo! Apple has again saved many a users from purchasing a cheap apple tower and having to deal with all those options that tower owners are stuck with. Way to go apple!

Comment buried. Show
1. Macrat

   Forum Regular

   Joined: Oct 2000

   0
   04/04, 09:53am | report spam | close reply

   took their time...

   They could have done this back in December if this is the only update...

Comment buried. Show
1. mitchcohen

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2005

   0
   04/04, 11:42am | report spam | close reply

   Multicore-happy apps

   The question of app support is very important. Many apps and Mac functions only take advantage of one, two, or four cores based on how their threads interact. I'll be very curious to see benchmarks of FCP, Compressor, Quicktime exports, iDVD render... (all Quicktime-based). I don't care about games, but I know others will.
   
   For apps that can't take advantage of eight cores, the "spare" cores will be available for other functions, which for some users will be nice. Personally I'm looking for really, really fast MPEG-2 and H.264 encoding, and secondarily faster FCP renders while editing (better real-time performance etc).
   
   I'll bet we'll hear more about this at NAB with FCP 6.

Comment buried. Show
1. dom2cool

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Nov 2006

   0
   04/04, 12:17pm | report spam | close reply

   YAY

   Maybe a better video card is a good option next. The nvidia 8800 has been around a couple of month allready now. Put one of those in next please : )

Comment buried. Show
1. rtbarry

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2001

   -1
   04/04, 01:29pm | report spam | close reply

   testudo...

   ...you don't need, want or have the means to get one. others do. so keep your incoherent and pointless ramblings to yourself.
   
   apple does, however, need to step up with the video card options. in lieu of that, would be nice if drivers came available for 3rd party cards more quickly. guess we'll need to see more volume for that to happen.

Comment buried. Show
1. testudo

   Forum Regular

   Joined: Aug 2001

   0
   04/04, 03:00pm | report spam | close reply

   Re: testudo

   ...you don't need, want or have the means to get one. others do. so keep your incoherent and pointless ramblings to yourself.
   
   Of course I don't need one. Its hard as a consumer to justify spending $2500 on a computer just so you can have some configurability in the thing (you know, so when some new features come about, or your harddisk space requriements grow, your computer can grow with you). Esp. since my G5 tower is only two years old (after having to deal with a Beige G3).
   
   And I'm sorry my satire was to off-the-wall for you to understand that I was again bemoaning the fact that Apple is unwilling to sell an upgradable computer for less than $2000. I guess you have no problem with that, but a lot of Apple fans (and people who'd like to buy an apple computer if their offerings were more palatable, cost wise) do. (Then again, you also can't get a 15" mac laptop for less than $2000, but, I know, if you need something as large as 15", you should easily be willing to fork over $2000 to get it!).
   
   BTW, while you may not have any apps that can take advantage of all 8 cores, it does give you the ability to really do more than one thing on your computer without slowing down your large tasks.

Comment buried. Show
1. misterdna

   Junior Member

   Joined: Aug 2004

   0
   04/04, 03:49pm | report spam | close reply

   Still waiting...

   I was assuming the next new desktop would be the 8-core, but I hoped it would include OS 10.5 and major updates to the overall system I wonder if Apple will come out with a "real" new desktop system in June? As much as I thought I would buy the 8-core when introduced (along with CS3), I think I will wait because it would suck to sink my money into this computer only to have a much updated system introduced soon after...

Comment buried. Show
1. rtbarry

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Aug 2001

   0
   04/04, 06:03pm | report spam | close reply

   your satire...

   ...wasn't difficult to grasp, just tired.
   
   you like hearing yourself talk, and it gets old for everyone else.

Comment buried. Show
1. JohnnyFive

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Feb 2003

   0
   04/04, 06:32pm | report spam | close reply

   re: testudo

   macpros were never meant to be consumer machines. hence the "pro" moniker.
   
   and show me these so-called "apple fans" who would buy an apple if they only lowered their prices. right. guess what? they banned smoking in bars in my city. and those non-smokers who said they'd go to bars more often if it weren't for the fumes? they're nowhere to be found.

Comment buried. Show
1. Paul Huang

   Dedicated MacNNer

   Joined: Sep 1999

   0
   04/04, 08:53pm | report spam | close reply

   4 dual-core

   The entire product line could easily turn into Clovertown-only to maintain the price tiers rather than face a price erosion, which would result in margin erosion.

Comment buried. Show
1. Paul Huang

   Dedicated MacNNer

   Joined: Sep 1999

   0
   04/04, 08:57pm | report spam | close reply

   2 quad-core

   Whatever combination, the processor variety in the product line that has been around for half year is likely going to fade away to make way for the new ones as Intel cut prices.

Comment buried. Show
1. Amdahl

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Apr 2007

   0
   04/04, 11:46pm | report spam | close reply

   Leopard is needed here

   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.

Comment buried. Show
1. chaaalie

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Sep 2002

   0
   04/05, 08:59am | report spam | close reply

   Pro = video only

   Wow ... as a graphic designer (print and web) I really thought I was a "pro" user ... but my first look at the 8-core seems like it really is aimed at video pros. Much more horsepower than I need regularly. I'm sure it would be nice to have that much speed in photoshop, but $2,500 is a huge price to pay when I really need the drive bays and card slots more than that much processor power. (I'd upgrade today if there was a $1,500 tower ... but if I'm going to spend $2,500 I want a product that matches my needs.)
   
   I'm shocked that the 4-cores dried up comletely ... because I kinda thought that this was an opportunity to create a more affordable entry into that segment.

Comment buried. Show
1. Terrin

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Jan 2006

   0
   04/05, 09:17am | report spam | close reply

   Testudo

   I agree with Testudo. Apple has steadily been increasing the cost of entry to buy a so called "professional" machine. The problem with that is that most PC manufacturers make low cost non-professional machines that you can open up and expand. Apple does not.
   
   It used to be you could buy a "professional" entry level tower for around $1799. For instance, I bought my G4 Dual 500 tower (not the entry level model) for $1599, and it came with a free Apple 17" CRT monitor. Granted the monitor was a special deal meant to move inventory, but the computer itself was only marketed down a couple a few hundred dollars. At the time, Apple sold a single G4 tower for around $1500 (without discounts). Even as recently as the G5 towers, an entry level model could be had for under 2 grant.
   
   It is sad you have to cough up big bucks even by Apple standards just to get expandability. Again, that is a given in the PC world. So the fact that it is a 'professional" machine really isn't relevant to why Apple doesn't offer a cheaper model that allows more expandability.
   
   Moreover, the issue is not cost. The iMac costs substantially less the Towers, and it comes with a monitor. Apple could pack a similar chip into the Tower, and charge significantly less for an entry level tower. I have not bought a new Mac desktop in years for the reason Testudo brings up.

Comment buried. Show
1. pimpmymac

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Sep 2006

   0
   04/06, 01:08am | report spam | close reply

   $1500 + $2500

   Just for clarification, the new Octo-core unit starts at $4k. In some of the comments this appears unclear.

Comment buried. Show
1. tonton

   Senior User

   Joined: Mar 2001

   0
   04/06, 04:13am | report spam | close reply

   This site is going...

   This site is going in the toilet...
   
   Why the h*** is this story on Electronista and not MacNN?

Comment buried. Show
1. buh

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Apr 2007

   0
   04/09, 08:47am | report spam | close reply

   more cores = more threads

   More cores means more threads able to do work.
   
   If you open Activity Monitor and watch your programs run while you're using Aperture or iDVD or Safari you'll see there are several threads running inside each application. Not all the threads are actually doing work but it's safe to say that the more complex a program is the more threads will be doing work. More cores make it possible for these threads to do their work at the same time instead of getting a small percentage of the CPU for each thread to run a little and then shuffle to another thread and then come back to the first, etc. etc. etc.
   
   Don't ever think that you don't need more cores...

Comment buried. Show
1. buh

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Apr 2007

   0
   04/09, 08:50am | report spam | close reply

   cores / threads

   not enough room in subject line -
   
   more cores = more threads able to work
   
   that's what I wanted to put there...
   
   Anyway - count up all the threads running on your machine while you're using it - my guess is there will be at least 300 or more. An 8-core machine is only barely scratching the surface of the number of cores that could be utilized...
   
   5 years from now I hope 64-core systems are available... preferably 128-core!

Comment buried. Show
1. Amdahl

   Fresh-Faced Recruit

   Joined: Apr 2007

   0
   04/09, 08:55pm | report spam | close reply

   You don't need more cores

   in response to Buh.
   
   Amdahl's Law says that you can have enough cores. At some point, increasing cores any further is a waste of effort.
   
   Even with 300 threads, very few are ready to run in any given instant. That's why a dual core machine sits at idle most of the time. Only very specialized apps can make good use of an 8-core machine for any length of time.