It think the system prices there are low ( due mainly to higher GPU BOM and licensing costs ) by $200-300.
Maybe. I'll agree to disagree on this one. Apple could certainly push it up that much more, but I think they will regret it.
And that the second set of options not being another group ( unless there is something different. Like minimal GPU changing ). More like Apple's former patterns to make those all BTO options buried in the first 3. Unless something significant is change other than just the CPU it is just very limited config change. So very simply a BTO option. The web store pages don't really try to create a complex set of choices.
Well, exactly. The web store has two starting off points, the 4 core and the 10 core. BTOs follow. And I don't see why having slight spec bumbs going from the 4 to 10 is silly. For example, a 128 - 256GB SSD or GPU would be a good place to start, but not necissary. I wouldn't think they would do RAM though.
If having to go 10 also means have to go W8000 and a different minimal RAM then perhaps but again the systems prices would shift substantially higher.
True, but if you're spending $4-5K on a 10 core SP workstation, clearly you like the GPUs anyway, so that's entirely possible.
To hit the low $4k range they'd need something in the $1440 range they had picked in pervious generations. The 2650 v2 ( 8c 2.6GHz ) may make it into a BTO slot for the good/better entry. That would probably shave the 2660 v2 off the list ( 2.2 Ghz is pretty big clock gap for most folks ).
Maybe I have too much faith in people spending $5K on a computer, but hopefully they are smart enough to not fall for the .4 GHz being an issue. If you're at all considering the 8 core, you clearly need cores. However, 6x3.6 is faster than 8x2.6, despite the 2 more cores. So, it just doesn't add up. You need to get to the 10x2.2 to beat the top end 6 core. But even that is only by a small margin. This is nothing new though. The previous 6x3.33 was as fast or faster than the 8x2.4, assuming you didn't need the extra RAM. I suppose this is part of why upping the standard GPU/SSD would help. Or you give up on this price point entirely, and just offer the 10x2.8/12x2.7 as the top end better/best only (which is not uncommon in Apple's pricing, see the top iMac).
Max utility usage value on the 2600 series only happens when used in pairs.
Absolutely, this is why pricing for the 10/12-core is rather insane given what you are actually getting compaired to systems using 2x2600 as they should.
On a side note, the lack of compitition from AMD is very clear in these prices. Despite ranging up to 12 cores in 2600 v2 vs 8 in 2600 v1, the 2630 v2 is nearly identical to the 2630 v1, with only a .2GHz clock bump. Significant upgrades over v1 aren't really seen until you reach the 10 or 12 options, which are insane in price and have been increased in price relative to the same model number from v1. For example, the 2660 v2 is about $250 more than the 2660 v1, which have the same GHz spread, but the v2 comes with 2 more cores. The 2687W v2 got an extra .3GHz on the clock over v1, remained at 8 cores, but is now about $500 more expensive?
Prices on the low end are also creaping up. The 2620 v2 is about $50 more than the v1 (which is 10% for it). For not exactly huge preformance gains, intel is creeping the price up on these 2600s.
It would be a tad risky to base a whole product sku entry entirely on a CPU component being used out of max utility context. A BTO option sure.... the basic sku success is keyed off the standard configuration.
That's an artificial restraint.
