or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple unveils quad-core 64-bit Mac Pro desktops
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple unveils quad-core 64-bit Mac Pro desktops - Page 2

post #41 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo Fighter

Apple did indeed create a good overall value proposition with the new Mac Pro, in fact I ordered one for myself (huzzah!). But part of me is still bothered by the fact that Apple has, yet again, raised the entry barrier to its pro line. One upon a time, back in ye olden days, PowerMacs started out at around $1,500. Then the entry price jumped to $1,600. Then $1,700. Then $1,800. Lately it has topped out right at $2,000. Today that price is now $2,500.

Now I won't argue that the new Mac Pro isn't good overall value, but you cannot deny that a rather obvious gulf exists between the consumer desktop segment and Apple's Pro line. And it's a pretty damn big one. From anecdotal evidence I can tell you that a vast untapped market of PC users who want a standard non-integrated desktop exists. A $2,500 Mac Pro isn't going to lure them. Apple needs a standalone machine in the sub-grand space.

This topic has probably been beaten to death already, but I feel that it needs repeating if only to help grow Apple's market.

Which makes me think we are in for something around Conroe in at Macworld Paris or San Fran. Here's hopin' anyway. BTW, I hope to order my machine tonight. I will be begging and pleading with the wife. I haven't had a desktop machine since my Performa 6116! Here's hoping
post #42 of 124
Oops. I mistyped that. I meant to say Apple needs a standalone machine in the sub-two grand space.
post #43 of 124
Would it be possible to upgrade your mac pro to zeon quad core processors?

Not that I need that much power or have that much money, just wondering.
post #44 of 124
Theoretically, yes, Clovertown should work. It is using the same chipset, but there is no guarantee that it will work. It has a higher TDP, so cooling will be an issue.

I haven't seen anything on prices, but I can imagine it'll probally be at least $700 per processor retail.
post #45 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackbauer

Theoretically, yes, Clovertown should work. It is using the same chipset, but there is no guarantee that it will work. It has a higher TDP, so cooling will be an issue.

I haven't seen anything on prices, but I can imagine it'll probally be at least $700 per processor retail.

Will apple come out with a bios update to be able use them or will they force you to buy a new mac to get them?
post #46 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo Fighter

Apple did indeed create a good overall value proposition with the new Mac Pro, in fact I ordered one for myself (huzzah!). But part of me is still bothered by the fact that Apple has, yet again, raised the entry barrier to its pro line. One upon a time, back in ye olden days, PowerMacs started out at around $1,500. Then the entry price jumped to $1,600. Then $1,700. Then $1,800. Lately it has topped out right at $2,000. Today that price is now $2,500.

Now I won't argue that the new Mac Pro isn't good overall value, but you cannot deny that a rather obvious gulf exists between the consumer desktop segment and Apple's Pro line. And it's a pretty damn big one. From anecdotal evidence I can tell you that a vast untapped market of PC users who want a standard non-integrated desktop exists. A $2,500 Mac Pro isn't going to lure them. Apple needs a standalone machine in the sub-grand space.

This topic has probably been beaten to death already, but I feel that it needs repeating if only to help grow Apple's market.

and haveing a high end system with out SLI or CrossFire is also needed to grow Apple's market for high end gameing / video market.

I think that dell, compaq, and others as well as amd's 4x4 system will kill apple on that. Even more so if you can get more ram and 2 good video cards in a 4x4 system for the same price as a mac pro.
post #47 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac

I'm not trying to just start an argument with you, but why? Why shouldn't the iMac grow in processing power over the next year or so (until the core 2 replacement comes)? Merom will basically be unchanged over it's lifespan unless Intel changes course. It will peak at 2.3 ghz and offers little over the current core duo. Yes Santa Rosa will come and help a little but really, can you just sit still with the iMac as it is today for the next 1-2 years.

If conroe doesn't go in iMac where does it go? I guess Apple could intro a prosumer headless desktop but a lot of people are turning blue waiting for this. Apple isn't obligated to use Conroe but doesn't it make sense given that Conroe is probably the best chip for the money that Intel has?

I wasn't talking about processing power, I was talking about one machine's life span.

Merom is just the low voltage version of conroe. When one is updated, so will the other. What does conroe have that Merom doesn't? The 965 Broadwater chipset. However to get that you're going to need a system that is more power hungry and louder. It is also going to more failure prone do to the tight space involved. At the end of the day, the iMac is a family computer not a prosumer machine. They are not going to need the small bit of extra speed and something that isn't constantly blowing a fan might appeal to them. Plus, I've said this before, but putting Merom in the current iMac involves writing a new firmware patch and switching the chip supply.
post #48 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon

and haveing a high end system with out SLI or CrossFire is also needed to grow Apple's market for high end gameing / video market.

I think that dell, compaq, and others as well as amd's 4x4 system will kill apple on that. Even more so if you can get more ram and 2 good video cards in a 4x4 system for the same price as a mac pro.

The multi-GPU gaming market makes the Mac look as big as everyone around here apparently thinks it is. There are not that many of them and they tend to either build their own or go with a boutique company. Dell found that out the hard way the original XPS form factor. The single slot solution I proposed is as close as you're going to get,
post #49 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig

I wasn't talking about processing power, I was talking about one machine's life span.

Merom is just the low voltage version of conroe. When one is updated, so will the other. What does conroe have that Merom doesn't? The 965 Broadwater chipset. However to get that you're going to need a system that is more power hungry and louder. It is also going to more failure prone do to the tight space involved. At the end of the day, the iMac is a family computer not a prosumer machine. They are not going to need the small bit of extra speed and something that isn't constantly blowing a fan might appeal to them. Plus, I've said this before, but putting Merom in the current iMac involves writing a new firmware patch and switching the chip supply.

Well Ben I take a different view I guess. The iMac in my estimation is more than just a consumer machine. It has to be that plus a little prosumer as well IMO. Look at the gulf (performance wise) that now exists between the iMac and the Mac Pro. While Merom and Conroe do have much in common, Conroe clocks much higher and has a greater FSB. I think it will prove to be considerably faster than Merom. I guess I just don't want a nonportable laptop.
post #50 of 124
The problem is that Apple doesn't make such a machine and everyone has to make do with what they offer. A machine that has a single hard drive, notebook optical drive, and non-replaceable display is far from what a prosumer wants.
post #51 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig

The problem is that Apple doesn't make such a machine and everyone has to make do with what they offer. A machine that has a single hard drive, notebook optical drive, and non-replaceable display is far from what a prosumer wants.

Unfortunately that sums up our quagmire, in a nutshell. The mantra of the Mac experience seems to be..."make do with what Apple offers". In my case, that leaves me paying far more for a machine that really doesn't meet my needs simply to acquire a decent non-integrated system. I had originally expected to spend somewhere between $1,800 - $2,000 for Apple's PowerMac successor. Today I am now in the hole for more than $2,600. Thanks Apple!
post #52 of 124
Wait. Wait.

The best part.

I say, I say the best part is this:

A fully tricked out Mac Pro from the Apple Store worked out to . . .

Wait for it . . .




$17,981.81 with tax of course.


Yeah man. Apple sells an $18k computer.
In the stupefied words of Keanu Reeves:

Woah.
post #53 of 124
I have one dumb question and one...well maybe two dumb questions.

1. Does the Mac Pro include all four Hard Drive bays, even if you don't order four hard drives from Apple? With the xServe, I think you had to buy the trays separate if you didn't order it full of drives to begin with.

2. How does the stock Geforce 7300 GT fair in Apple's Motion vs the Radeon X1900 XT?

Being extremely price/performance competitive with workstations and servers is a great move on Apple's part. My understanding is that Dell sells their consumer machines at cuthroat price and try to make up for it in the higher end market. With the adoption of Intel's Xeon, Apple is in a position to kick some ass. Apple's incredibly elegant case (the interior) is just icing on the cake.
post #54 of 124
Wonder how XP runs on it with bootcamp - also how do the PPC apps run under Rosetta? Kickass machine btw.
post #55 of 124
XP has issues with going beyond two core, at least in the client Professional version. Home doesn't even see the second processor. PPC apps should be on dual-2.3 PM levels (as a Wild Ass Guess), unless it's Altivec heavy.
post #56 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Placebo

Only thing that miffs me is that the RAM is 667 versus 800 but whatever, the rest is great!

The system is not only running quad channel RAM, the memory bandwidth matches the combined bandwidth of the dual FSBs. You probably aren't going to get a lot better than that until the FSB is upped.
post #57 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac

I hope you're wrong. Yes the iMac would require a redesign but better now than later.

The same iMac enclosure handled the G5 pretty well, and quietly, Core Duo used the iSight G5 iMac case. Going to Conroe instead of Merom would save Apple about $100 per chip.
post #58 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog

Wait. Wait.
Yeah man. Apple sells an $18k computer.
In the stupefied words of Keanu Reeves:

Dell has that beat. Max out a Precision 690 workstation and you'd be out nearly $70k. But then, they offer the ability to run 5x 15kRPM SAS drives, 64GB of RAM, hardware RAID, SLI, four years on-site support and a few other goodies. The figure used to be $80k a month ago, but I think the cost of the RAM went down a bit.
post #59 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo Fighter

Oops. I mistyped that. I meant to say Apple needs a standalone machine in the sub-two grand space.

Actually, if you downgrade the processor to the 2.0 ghz cores and the HD down to 160 gb, the price for the Mac Pro is $2124 full retail and $1924 with education discount.. That's a smokin deal for a four core machine and pretty darn close to the $2000 space.
post #60 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski

XP has issues with going beyond two core, at least in the client Professional version. Home doesn't even see the second processor. PPC apps should be on dual-2.3 PM levels (as a Wild Ass Guess), unless it's Altivec heavy.

I wonder if MS is going 2 have 2 tweak XP to work with these new machines . I guess thats why they don't want to further develop Virtual PC.
post #61 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog

Wait. Wait.

The best part.

I say, I say the best part is this:

A fully tricked out Mac Pro from the Apple Store worked out to . . .

Wait for it . . .




$17,981.81 with tax of course.


Yeah man. Apple sells an $18k computer.
In the stupefied words of Keanu Reeves:

Woah.

Is that with or without the afterburner? Now that we have Time Machine, I sure hope it enables Sliding....
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
post #62 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

Dell has that beat. Max out a Precision 690 workstation and you'd be out more than $80k. But then, they offer the ability to run 5x 15kRPM SAS drives, 64GB of RAM, hardware RAID and a few other goodies.


Sure, as do Boxx and others.

But this is a first for Apple. Isn't it?

Or was there some version of a Lisa that was even more spendy?

Anyway.

OMG WWDC OMG indeed.
post #63 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by solsun

Actually, if you downgrade the processor to the 2.0 ghz cores and the HD down to 160 gb, the price for the Mac Pro is $2124 full retail and $1924 with education discount.. That's a smokin deal for a four core machine and pretty darn close to the $2000 space.


If you buy an IMac you get a "free screen," though....
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
post #64 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

The same iMac enclosure handled the G5 pretty well, and quietly. Going to Conroe instead of Merom would save Apple about $100 per chip.

Well I hope they can add conroe without having to redesign the iMac. Even if needed it would still be worth it. Remember quad core is right around the corner. The thought of getting along with a 2.ghz Merom iMac a year from now when quad core chips are all the rage gives me pause to buy an iMac.
post #65 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog

Sure, as do Boxx and others.

But this is a first for Apple. Isn't it?

Or was there some version of a Lisa that was even more spendy?

Anyway.

OMG WWDC OMG indeed.

Were you ever seriously considering a Mac Pro? As others have mentioned, these are VERY competitvely priced. Just because you don't have the need or money doesn't make them outrageous. I've no need nor budget for one but that doesn't matter because I'm not the person that machine is made for. Neither are you apparently. If you think they're overpriced go to Dell and configure one. You may be surprised.
post #66 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac

Well Ben I take a different view I guess. The iMac in my estimation is more than just a consumer machine. It has to be that plus a little prosumer as well.

i'll chime in my support for the imac as well. we used imac g5's for broadcast motion graphics (FCP, CS, AE, lightwave) for 18 months and generally they were more than up to the task. if we needed quicker renders, we'd farm it out to a dual G5. motion was the only thing that wouldn't run well enough. if adobe had gone universal binary, i think we prob would have upgraded them to intel imacs, tho with quad g5's in their places now it means we can get thru masses of mpeg2 encoding overnight...

sennen
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #67 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhunter

I wonder if MS is going 2 have 2 tweak XP to work with these new machines . I guess thats why they don't want to further develop Virtual PC.

No, because XP Pro already works fine on a 2x2 machine.
post #68 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen

i'll chime in my support for the imac as well. we used imac g5's for broadcast motion graphics (FCP, CS, AE, lightwave) for 18 months and generally they were more than up to the task. if we needed quicker renders, we'd farm it out to a dual G5. motion was the only thing that wouldn't run well enough. if adobe had gone universal binary, i think we prob would have upgraded them to intel imacs, tho with quad g5's in their places now it means we can get thru masses of mpeg2 encoding overnight...

sennen

If iMacs came with 2.4 ghz conroes (doable from a cpu price standpoint) they would be very capable machines when Adobe gets Creative Suite universal. A 2.9 ghz conroe was competitve with Quad core opteron systems in a review I came across (I don't have the link handy). Conroe iMacs would make excellent prosumer machines.
post #69 of 124
I bet a 15k drive would work in a Mac Pro. Raptors work in Power Macs.
post #70 of 124
What I think is going to happen is that the Conroe will go into the Mac Pro as well to bring the entry level system down in price. Dual-Core = low-end, 2 Dual-Cores = high end
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
post #71 of 124
I don't see it being called a Mac Pro though. Apple has moved to the idea that there is one Mac Pro with maybe options, and it's all Quad-core.

This new computer gets another name, less the Mac Pro line be no longer "all Quad".
post #72 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski

I bet a 15k drive would work in a Mac Pro. Raptors work in Power Macs.

It would need to be SATA (or SATA II) or it wouldn't work in the Mac Pro's hard drive bays. The Mac Pro doesn't appear to use any drive cables, the drive connector is directly on the main board, so it isn't as if you can even try to pop in an SAS or U320 adapter and run several 15k drives internally with some cable work. You might get one such drive to work in the spare optical drive bay but I don't think it's worth the hassle.

So, in short, I guess the best hope for that is to either use external SAS/U320 drives or beg Western Digital or Seagate to offer SATA II on their 15k drives.
post #73 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHagan4755

What I think is going to happen is that the Conroe will go into the Mac Pro as well to bring the entry level system down in price. Dual-Core = low-end, 2 Dual-Cores = high end

If so then why didn't it happen today? It ain't like Conroe isn't shipping. They could at least take orders.
post #74 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig

The Mac Pro is a workstation, not a consumer desktop by any stretch of the imagination.

A ridiculous Geforce 7300 in a Pro workstation? The 7300 is even slower than the 6600 that came with the previous Power Mac G5. How does the 7300 compare to the ATI Radeon X1600?
post #75 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

Part of me feels Apple should not leave itself out of SLI and Crossfire. But I've read articles that said neither necessarily deliver 2X the performance and at certain times actually lower frame rates. Which would not make them worth the space they take up or the power they need.

I'm more interested in what SLI and Crossfire can do for Core Image operations. I've read people commenting that Aperture chokes under heavy usage even with an Nvidia Quadro card. And 2 Geforce 7900's or 2 Radeon X1900's running in dual mode would be cheaper than a single Quadro card.
post #76 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar

A ridiculous Geforce 7300 in a Pro workstation? The 7300 is even slower than the 6600 that came with the previous Power Mac G5. How does the 7300 compare to the ATI Radeon X1600?

Not ridiculous at all. There are many pro users, specifically audio pros who don't need much graphics power, but DO need processor power. If you need graphics choices, there are six available as BTO options.
post #77 of 124
Do technicians still have to remove:

Front and rear fans
All PCI Express cards
Airport and Bluetooth cards
Speaker
Front panel board
Processor
Logic board

before they can replace a damn power supply? In a Quad G5 machine, removing the power supply requires removing almost 50 screws.
post #78 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

So, in short, I guess the best hope for that is to either use external SAS/U320 drives or beg Western Digital or Seagate to offer SATA II on their 15k drives.

My mistake. I thought that 15k drives were just the faster version of 10k drives - I didn't realize they weren't SATA II. Any SATA II drive (or plain old SATA drive) should work. Now for my question - if it doesn't need cables, can I just use an OEM drive off newegg?

Haggar - Aperture version 1.0 stinks. And Quadros aren't for speed so much as accuracy and quality control. Overall, they're pretty similar to the gaming cards, except in those areas, at least as far as I've been told. If you check the http://"http://www.apple.com/macpro/... mac pro chart, you see that Quadros don't blow the x1900xt out of the water performance wise. Weaker bandwidth, fewer vertices, higher fillrate (but not massive differences compared to the 7300GT)

Speaking of the 7300GT - its not a horrible card. It's fine if you only use the CPUs for your work, and only need the graphics card to run OS X. Like in the Sound business, or in the Graphic Design/Layout world.
post #79 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by solsun

Not ridiculous at all. There are many pro users, specifically audio pros who don't need much graphics power, but DO need processor power. If you need graphics choices, there are six available as BTO options.

My point was that according to Nvidia's web site, the Geforce 7300 has lower performance specs than the 6600 that Apple previously used. So this is actually a step down from the Power Mac G5. Actually, there are only 3 different graphics cards available for this new Mac. Out of those 6 options that you mentioned, 3 of them are just for putting additional 7300 cards in the other slots. And they don't run in SLI as far as I can tell.
post #80 of 124
I agree that I would have preferred a 7600GS or 7600GT, but given what we got, it's not a huge problem.

Anyone who has little need for major graphics is fine on a 7300GT.
Anyone with any desire for graphics will go for the x1900xt.
There aren't really that many people who would have been fine with a 7600GT and not with a 7300GT.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple unveils quad-core 64-bit Mac Pro desktops