AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple to fire up Penryn-based Mac Pros
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple to fire up Penryn-based Mac Pros - Page 2

post #41 of 399
10/18/07 at 12:34pm
The determining factor in purchasing one of these bad boys for most is going to be graphics cards. Apple is going to have to pull out some of the stops along the way to get a better choice of cards for users not only upon release, but for future upgrades.
They also need something fresh, and I think that will not be a problem. Apple usually comes through with some great cards from Nvidia. But the 8800 GTX by January is going to be yesterdays card. I imagine we'll be seeing something next Gen. from Nvidia hopefully, and some cards from ATI's to cover the mid range, although I would prefer an all Nvidia path. If Apple just goes with the high-end Nvidia GTX card all the whining little bitches will come out and cry about price, and why can't there be a GT or some shit. Some times I hate being a Mac user. Just thinking about the whining times to come is already annoying.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #42 of 399
10/18/07 at 12:37pm
Anybody want to know why Apple is REALLY upgrading their Mac Pro's?

One guess.

NEW OS THAT HOG'S THE PROCESSOR SPEEDS AND NOW YOU NEED TO UPGRADE JUST TO USE THE BASIC, BUT BLOATED OS!

Yeah for Leapord.

haha! C'mon people... you know its true. Don't be a hater.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 399
10/18/07 at 12:42pm
Not likely Troll. The basic system requirements are from an ancient 867MHz system. Being that 90% of computer users agree that time to upgrade your system is when technology has doubled in speed over your current system. A single core 867MHz box is so freaking unbelievably slow by todays standards it's amazing that it works. I would have expected a dual 1GHz system at the least. BTW, your foot is so far down your mouth is already shot out your ass. Have a nice day.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #44 of 399
10/18/07 at 12:50pm
It seems a lot of posts are complaining about two things. 1) Apple needs a mid-size tower that is affordable 2) more and faster GPU options.

As someone with a dual G4 1.2 GHz desperate to upgrade, I couldn't agree more. For example, Gateway has a new computer with the 2.4GHz Quad core, I think it is called the Q6600. It sells for about $950. It looks like a typical PC POS, but in terms of the specs alone, it would be perfect for my needs. No one can convince me that Apple could not build something similar, even if they charge $1,400.

Apple basically has two lines of computers, workstation and portables. The iMac and Mac Mini are basically laptops in many respects. Where is a desktop with the extremely fast and inexpensive dual and quad core Conroe's? Even the top end iMac at 2.8 GHz is really slowed down by an 800MHz bus IIRC. Some newer Conroe's, or whatever they are now called, now use 1333 bus just like the Xeon and even the older ones use 1066MHz buses.

The only way we have any hope at all to change their minds and finally give us a desktop Mac is to let them know. Complaining about it here will accomplish absolutely nothing. Please take 30 seconds and send them some feedback about this. If they receive thousands of emails requesting an affordable Mac between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro, we might at least have a slim chance they will listen.

Here is the Mac Pro Feedback link
http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 399
10/18/07 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post

A $1,000 Mac, please??? Hello?

Your in the WRONG thread. The words $1000 and Mac Pro don't belong in the same thread.

Well, it's good news. We should see new Mac Pros sometime early in 2008, hopefully MacWorld or soon after.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 399
10/18/07 at 12:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEatMaKeR View Post

Anybody want to know why Apple is REALLY upgrading their Mac Pro's?

One guess.

NEW OS THAT HOG'S THE PROCESSOR SPEEDS AND NOW YOU NEED TO UPGRADE JUST TO USE THE BASIC, BUT BLOATED OS!

Yeah for Leapord.

haha! C'mon people... you know its true. Don't be a hater.

Vista using Troll that has never used MacOS in his life.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 399
10/18/07 at 1:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard View Post

Vista using Troll that has never used MacOS in his life.

He's just scared Leonard.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #48 of 399
10/18/07 at 1:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

It seems a lot of posts are complaining about two things. 1) Apple needs a mid-size tower that is affordable 2) more and faster GPU options.

As someone with a dual G4 1.2 GHz desperate to upgrade, I couldn't agree more. For example, Gateway has a new computer with the 2.4GHz Quad core, I think it is called the Q6600. It sells for about $950. It looks like a typical PC POS, but in terms of the specs alone, it would be perfect for my needs. No one can convince me that Apple could not build something similar, even if they charge $1,400.

Apple basically has two lines of computers, workstation and portables. The iMac and Mac Mini are basically laptops in many respects. Where is a desktop with the extremely fast and inexpensive dual and quad core Conroe's? Even the top end iMac at 2.8 GHz is really slowed down by an 800MHz bus IIRC. Some newer Conroe's, or whatever they are now called, now use 1333 bus just like the Xeon and even the older ones use 1066MHz buses.

The only way we have any hope at all to change their minds and finally give us a desktop Mac is to let them know. Complaining about it here will accomplish absolutely nothing. Please take 30 seconds and send them some feedback about this. If they receive thousands of emails requesting an affordable Mac between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro, we might at least have a slim chance they will listen.

Here is the Mac Pro Feedback link
http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html

There is a whole tread about it here

Your right though. It's time for some Mac Pro Feedback.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #49 of 399
10/18/07 at 1:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEatMaKeR View Post

Anybody want to know why Apple is REALLY upgrading their Mac Pro's?

One guess.

NEW OS THAT HOG'S THE PROCESSOR SPEEDS AND NOW YOU NEED TO UPGRADE JUST TO USE THE BASIC, BUT BLOATED OS!

Yeah for Leapord.

haha! C'mon people... you know its true. Don't be a hater.

Yes, because my 6-year-old 800MHz G4 iMac is 67MHz away from being able to run the full version of Leopard (minus the 2% of features that require an intel proc.) the OS is a resource hog. Meanwhile, my 2-year-old PC laptop is incapable of running the full version of Vista, a 1-year-old OS. How sad is that?

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #50 of 399
10/18/07 at 1:19pm
Just an FYI, My Quicksilver was originally only 733MHz, upgraded with a dual G4 1.2 GHz and Leopard runs fine. It doesn't care what your original speed was, only what the current speed is, so upgrades are supported.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 399
10/18/07 at 2:57pm
my mac pro is still shipping so apple best announce then new one right NOW.

They gave us the iPhone 6 months ahead of release, why not give me 20 days to convince the company that i really dont need a mac pro until the beginning of december and that an upgraded version will be coming out soon.

at least i didnt have to pay a cent.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 399
10/18/07 at 3:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Apple, take a hint:

The gap between iMac and Mac Pro is so huge you could fit two product lines and semi truck in there.

Really there isn't a good reason not to make an xMac/MacPro Mini/Mac Plus? (aside form your monetary greed, aparently). Intel's CPU offerings include a wide range of processors between those in the iMac and those in the Mac Pro. For prosumers, the iMac is too weak, has crappy graphics an NO EXPANDABILITY, meanwhile the MacPro is a waste for doing anything less than video-editing, 3D rendering and Photoshop filtering, simultaneously. Call it hyperbole if you want, but the main idea is still true. We aren't all either "idiot consumers" or professionals. Ergo, we need a computer that can fit our needs. Desktop-class processor, video card, a PCI slot or two, extra HDD bay, extra optical bay.

It's not too much to ask so for the love of Trogdor, just do it.

Oh yeah, "please."

-Clive

Wrong thread. Discussion of the next generation Mac Pro with high ends is definitely not the thread to request Apple deliver a barebones Core2Duo system with multiple GPU options and 8 Gig RAM with G33 chipsets onboard.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 399
10/18/07 at 3:12pm
Make it G35 with pci pci-e x16 and pci-e x4 with firewire and gig-e each over the 2 left over x1 links
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 399
10/18/07 at 4:42pm
This is great news. I'm not too fussed about the graphics card options, but faster CPU and better memory is always welcome.

Always loved the design of the G5 Powermac/Mac Pro, can't see how they can improve on it vastly, but fingers crossed eh?
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 399
10/18/07 at 7:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Wrong thread. Discussion of the next generation Mac Pro with high ends is definitely not the thread to request Apple deliver a barebones Core2Duo system with multiple GPU options and 8 Gig RAM with G33 chipsets onboard.

wow... snoot alert...

I think it's perfectly relevant. If these specifications are anywhere near true, Apple has widened the gap between iMac and MacPro with these upcoming updates that it's PC product line is beginning to look like an amputee.

"Uh...... you're.... missing something."

How isn't that gap and its consequences relevant?

-Clive
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!
(Might I recommend the Libertarian Party as a good compromise between the equally terrible "DnR"?)
Reply
post #56 of 399
10/18/07 at 7:44pm
Quote:
Mac Pro should debut anytime after mid-November and almost certainly by Macworld Expo in January.

Which means MWSF to me. Unless they have a smaller computer to accompany it like a standard desktop. I wouldn't release a Mac Pro before the holidays. It's not priced to sell well during the holiday season knowing that most people wont get their kid a computer that costs that kind of scratch.
But January on the other hand is a much better time because of the upcoming tax returns, which is when, and why I always buy a new computer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

wow... snoot alert...

I think it's perfectly relevant. If these specifications are anywhere near true, Apple has widened the gap between iMac and MacPro with these upcoming updates that it's PC product line is beginning to look like an amputee.

"Uh...... you're.... missing something."

How isn't that gap and its consequences relevant?

-Clive

Because there is already a thread about it, and this isn't it. We don't need two discussion threads about the same topic.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #57 of 399
10/18/07 at 7:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

I think it's perfectly relevant. If these specifications are anywhere near true, Apple has widened the gap between iMac and MacPro with these upcoming updates that it's PC product line is beginning to look like an amputee.

Then you should be applauding them and praying they go even further in taking the Mac Pro upmarket.

Because until there an absolutely huge space between the iMac and Mac Pro markets, there will be no Mac solution in the middle.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #58 of 399
10/18/07 at 8:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Then you should be applauding them and praying they go even further in taking the Mac Pro upmarket.

Because until there an absolutely huge space between the iMac and Mac Pro markets, there will be no Mac solution in the middle.

Your right! It does appear they are widening the gap. I hope they keep it going an add some serious graphics cards in there to help it along.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #59 of 399
10/18/07 at 8:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Which means MWSF to me. Unless they have a smaller computer to accompany it like a standard desktop. I wouldn't release a Mac Pro before the holidays. It's not priced to sell well during the holiday season knowing that most people wont get their kid a computer that costs that kind of scratch.
But January on the other hand is a much better time because of the upcoming tax returns, which is when, and why I always buy a new computer.

I hope you are wrong on the timing. I am hoping for a more immediate Pro fix...say mid-Novemberish. But I guess we will all know soon enough. Like in 30 days or so.
"Too much of a good thing is great." Mae West
Reply
"Too much of a good thing is great." Mae West
Reply
post #60 of 399
10/19/07 at 3:28am
Right, now where are the new displays

Hope they accompany the new mac pro's, but probably not.
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 399
10/19/07 at 6:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

but in years 3 - 6, it needs a new graphics card (it needs that anyway), a new BluRay Reader / DVD burner, and a bigger HDD. Solution: throw the computer out the window and buy a new one beacuse you can't upgrade the damn thing.

You don't throw the computer out the window because you can't upgrade the damn thing you can upgrade any computer.

You throw it out the window because you realise that there's a point where it just doesn't make sense financially to upgrade it.

This true of all computers, even of the current top-of-the-range Mac Pro with 16GB of RAM and 8 processor cores will be so long-in-the-tooth some day that it will also be uneconomical to upgrade. That's the price of progress.

It has nothing to do with the iMacs' form factor. Try sourcing a decent card that will work in a 6 year old G4 tower (the most expandable machine at the time) and you'll soon realise that it's an exercise in frustration.
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #62 of 399
10/19/07 at 6:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah View Post

You don't throw the computer out the window because you can't upgrade the damn thing you can upgrade any computer.

You throw it out the window because you realise that there's a point where it just doesn't make sense financially to upgrade it.

This true of all computers, even of the current top-of-the-range Mac Pro with 16GB of RAM and 8 processor cores will be so long-in-the-tooth some day that it will also be uneconomical to upgrade. That's the price of progress.

It has nothing to do with the iMacs' form factor. Try sourcing a decent card that will work in a 6 year old G4 tower (the most expandable machine at the time) and you'll soon realise that it's an exercise in frustration.

Useless telling people. Ones desires can never be met. Logic is lost on most here.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 399
10/19/07 at 10:16am
I've had my Sawtooth for almost six years. You can usually max out a machine's upgradable components by year three or four. After that, you just work with what you have.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #64 of 399
10/19/07 at 6:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Apple, take a hint:

The gap between iMac and Mac Pro is so huge you could fit two product lines and semi truck in there.

Really there isn't a good reason not to make an xMac/MacPro Mini/Mac Plus? (aside form your monetary greed, aparently). Intel's CPU offerings include a wide range of processors between those in the iMac and those in the Mac Pro. For prosumers, the iMac is too weak, has crappy graphics an NO EXPANDABILITY, meanwhile the MacPro is a waste for doing anything less than video-editing, 3D rendering and Photoshop filtering, simultaneously. Call it hyperbole if you want, but the main idea is still true. We aren't all either "idiot consumers" or professionals. Ergo, we need a computer that can fit our needs. Desktop-class processor, video card, a PCI slot or two, extra HDD bay, extra optical bay.

It's not too much to ask so for the love of Trogdor, just do it.

Oh yeah, "please."

-Clive

As a Mac Pro user myself I will be the first to say the system is so out of sync. They load up the machine heavy on the CPU end and the rest is really a joke unless you upgrade just about everything.

I mean 999.00 for a raid card? Thats insanity. Something that is just about standard on every pc motherboard over 150.00.

A pro machine with 1gig of Ram standard and a 128bit 7300 video card. Just a bit more salt in the wound is the need for ECC ram.

Unless your working for Pixar there has never been a need for this machine to be so heavy loaded on the CPU end.

If you don't upgrade the system its like having a corvette engine in a 1970 pinto.

I have never understood why Apple has such a hard time understanding that the CPU, Ram and GPU need to compliment each other.


Same goes for the Macbook, even fully loaded the GPU can not perform some basic function using iLIfe applications because they refuse to upgread the GPU. The Macbook to me is nothing more than Apples version of an Emachine.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 399
10/19/07 at 8:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

As a Mac Pro user myself I will be the first to say the system is so out of sync. They load up the machine heavy on the CPU end and the rest is really a joke unless you upgrade just about everything.

I mean 999.00 for a raid card? Thats insanity. Something that is just about standard on every pc motherboard over 150.00.

A pro machine with 1gig of Ram standard and a 128bit 7300 video card. Just a bit more salt in the wound is the need for ECC ram.

Unless your working for Pixar there has never been a need for this machine to be so heavy loaded on the CPU end.

If you don't upgrade the system its like having a corvette engine in a 1970 pinto.

I have never understood why Apple has such a hard time understanding that the CPU, Ram and GPU need to compliment each other.


Same goes for the Macbook, even fully loaded the GPU can not perform some basic function using iLIfe applications because they refuse to upgread the GPU. The Macbook to me is nothing more than Apples version of an Emachine.

Beautifully stated. I don't think there is a better way to describe the current Apple lineup. That said it all.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #66 of 399
10/19/07 at 8:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Beautifully stated. I don't think there is a better way to describe the current Apple lineup. That said it all.

Damn someone agreed......
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 399
10/19/07 at 9:06pm
I agree as well. I think it's insane apple ships the octo mac pro stock with a 7300 128 bit $50 card. OH yah... i forgot... you have some much cpu... who needs a gpu. Screw it. Dont' even include a card. A $50 128bit card is such a slap in the face when spending 2.5k+

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #68 of 399
10/19/07 at 10:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

I agree as well. I think it's insane apple ships the octo mac pro stock with a 7300 128 bit $50 card. OH yah... i forgot... you have some much cpu... who needs a gpu. Screw it. Dont' even include a card. A $50 128bit card is such a slap in the face when spending 2.5k+


Not for audio pros. I could care less about the GPU and have never upgraded what comes with the tower..
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 399
10/20/07 at 6:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by solsun View Post

Not for audio pros. I could care less about the GPU and have never upgraded what comes with the tower..

So for that situation it's perfect, and that's why we think the minimalist card should still be an option but there should be some better options for others with different ambitions, desires, or needs.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #70 of 399
10/20/07 at 7:37am
Quote:
I agree as well. I think it's insane apple ships the octo mac pro stock with a 7300 128 bit $50 card. OH yah... i forgot... you have some much cpu... who needs a gpu. Screw it. Dont' even include a card. A $50 128bit card is such a slap in the face when spending 2.5k+

Yeh. No kidding...

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #71 of 399
10/20/07 at 9:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by solsun View Post

Not for audio pros. I could care less about the GPU and have never upgraded what comes with the tower..

Add to that those of us who work with 2D apps like Illustrator and PhotoShop, both of which do not take advantage of the GPU, instead using the CPU and RAM.

Although if Acorn and Pixelmator start to make some inroads into the image editing/manipulation marketplace, maybe then Adobe will start to address GPUs. But for now, your GPU is not that important.

I wouldn't say that I could care less about the GPU, but I don't need the uber-card that many here seem to be clamoring for.
"Too much of a good thing is great." Mae West
Reply
"Too much of a good thing is great." Mae West
Reply
post #72 of 399
10/20/07 at 9:32am
I disagree with you solsun.

GPU is still used. Doesn't mean you need a crazy high end card, but Leo and future OS X updates will push graphics higher and igher for use JUST in the OS and other applications. A laptop comes with a better card. The iMac comes with a better card. You find that acceptable? At least throw in a 7600gt. It's still ~100 dollar card.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #73 of 399
10/20/07 at 10:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Unless your [sic] working for Pixar there has never been a need for this machine to be so heavy loaded on the CPU end.

Remember, Steve Jobs owns Pixar, so he is catering more specifically to them then to anyone else.
17" i7 Macbook Pro (Mid 2010), Mac Mini (early 2006), G3 B&W, G3 Beige Tower, 3 G3 iMacs (original, bondi, snow), Power Mac 7600/132, Power Mac 7100/100, Power Mac 6100/60, Performa 5280, Performa...
Reply
17" i7 Macbook Pro (Mid 2010), Mac Mini (early 2006), G3 B&W, G3 Beige Tower, 3 G3 iMacs (original, bondi, snow), Power Mac 7600/132, Power Mac 7100/100, Power Mac 6100/60, Performa 5280, Performa...
Reply
post #74 of 399
10/20/07 at 11:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

As a Mac Pro user myself I will be the first to say the system is so out of sync. They load up the machine heavy on the CPU end and the rest is really a joke unless you upgrade just about everything.

I mean 999.00 for a raid card? Thats insanity. Something that is just about standard on every pc motherboard over 150.00.

Don't confuse CPU-heavy consumer RAID 0 and 1 capability with true dedicated hardware-based RAID 0, 1 and 5 capabilities. This confusion on your part reduces the credibility of your argument. OS X already offers RAID 0 & 1 built-in.

Quote:
A pro machine with 1gig of Ram standard and a 128bit 7300 video card. Just a bit more salt in the wound is the need for ECC ram.

Unless your working for Pixar there has never been a need for this machine to be so heavy loaded on the CPU end.

It's basically a workstation. Most computers marketed as workstations of that are only available with ECC memory. For example, you can't buy an Opteron-based HP xw9400 without ECC RAM. The same machine's base model only offers 1GB of RAM, another one of your objections.

The base model of most workstations include cards intended for 2D use. The same xw9400's stock card is roughly comparable to the 7300, you have to pay more to get something intended for heavy 3D use.

In short, you are knocking Apple for something that is pretty much common in that particular market. Not all workstations need heavy-duty 3D graphics. 2D image & video work, audio, computational simulations are all tasks that don't necessarily need super powerful 3D. It makes sense to offer something for them. If you want them to make the base model 2GB & the better card standard, the standard model would be $3000 and not $2500.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 399
10/20/07 at 12:25pm
Apple is not "catering to Pixar", they are offering a workstation configuration that has the cheapest GPU available. If you want more GPU, you pay for it. If you don't, then you don't pay for it. What all these GPU whiners are saying is that Apple shouldn't have its lowest end model, but then a whole other crowd will start whining about how they have to pay for this GPU they don't want and need.

And stop talking about the 7300 like its a useless piece of junk. Its not. Compared to the high end cards of 5 years ago it is a stunningly powerful piece of graphics technology. Keep a little perspective, folks.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #76 of 399
10/20/07 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer View Post

Apple is not "catering to Pixar", they are offering a workstation configuration that has the cheapest GPU available. If you want more GPU, you pay for it. If you don't, then you don't pay for it. What all these GPU whiners are saying is that Apple shouldn't have its lowest end model, but then a whole other crowd will start whining about how they have to pay for this GPU they don't want and need.

And stop talking about the 7300 like its a useless piece of junk. Its not. Compared to the high end cards of 5 years ago it is a stunningly powerful piece of graphics technology. Keep a little perspective, folks.

Here are your only options on the Mac Pro if you don't want anything to do with the 7300 card(s):

ATI Radeon X1900 XT $249.00
If youre working in motion graphics, animation, or 3D design and visualization, the powerful ATI Radeon X1900 XT with 512MB of dedicated GDDR3 memory may suit your needs perfectly. It offers two dual-link DVI ports that can simultaneously support two 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Displays for an incredibly large widescreen workspace.

NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 $1649.00
If industrial-strength 3D design work, stereo 3D visualization, or using two large 30-inch displays are on your list of requirements, configure your Mac Pro with the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500. One of the most advanced graphics cards available, it has an integrated stereo 3D port, so you can use stereo goggles for stereo-in-a-window visualization applications. With two dual-link DVI ports, you can connect two 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Displays. The Quadro FX 4500 boasts 512MB of ultrafast GDDR3 SDRAM.
2009 Quad 2.66 Mac Pro, 12 GB OWC RAM, ATI 4870, Wi-Fi Card 802.11n, AppleCare, 4 WD Caviar Black 1TB HD's, 2 SuperDrives, 24" Apple LED Display.
Reply
2009 Quad 2.66 Mac Pro, 12 GB OWC RAM, ATI 4870, Wi-Fi Card 802.11n, AppleCare, 4 WD Caviar Black 1TB HD's, 2 SuperDrives, 24" Apple LED Display.
Reply
post #77 of 399
10/20/07 at 3:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royboy View Post

NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 $1649.00
If industrial-strength 3D design work, stereo 3D visualization, or using two large 30-inch displays are on your list of requirements, configure your Mac Pro with the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500. One of the most advanced graphics cards available, it has an integrated stereo 3D port, so you can use stereo goggles for stereo-in-a-window visualization applications. With two dual-link DVI ports, you can connect two 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Displays. The Quadro FX 4500 boasts 512MB of ultrafast GDDR3 SDRAM.

I don't know anything about the upper end cards like this one, but is the only problem with it the price? All the people who want a GPU card for gaming, would this suffice... except for price? I looked for comparisons online, but couldn't find much. Honest question. Is this card behind the times? Underpowered?
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
post #78 of 399
10/20/07 at 3:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzaslove View Post

I don't know anything about the upper end cards like this one, but is the only problem with it the price? All the people who want a GPU card for gaming, would this suffice... except for price? I looked for comparisons online, but couldn't find much. Honest question. Is this card behind the times? Underpowered?

I think It's been superseded.

It's basically an engineering card, not a gaming card, even if it uses the same silicon as some gaming cards. Usually with workstation cards, they enable a couple relatively minor features, usually unimportant for gaming, and at least the Windows drivers have more of a bias towards OpenGL rather than DirectX, compared to the game counterpart. Last I played with such a card, I think it offers a way to use different drivers and settings for different programs, so you can pick the driver version and settings that's "supported" by certain high-end apps.

Basically, you only have one viable GPU choice for high-end gaming on a Mac, and I think that was the point.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 399
10/20/07 at 3:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It's basically an engineering card, not a gaming card, even if it uses the same silicon as some gaming cards. Usually with workstation cards, they enable a couple relatively minor features, usually unimportant for gaming, and at least the Windows drivers have more of a bias towards OpenGL rather than DirectX, compared to the game counterpart. Last I played with such a card, I think it offers a way to use different drivers and settings for different programs, so you can pick the driver version and settings that's "supported" by certain high-end apps.

Basically, you only have one viable GPU choice for high-end gaming on a Mac, and I think that was the point.

Thanks. I seriously didn't know if we were talking choice because there aren't "any," or choice because there were low-end (price-wise) and only one high-end. Now I have a better feel for it.
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
post #80 of 399
10/20/07 at 5:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard View Post

Your in the WRONG thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Your right though. It's time for some Mac Pro Feedback.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Your right! It does appear they are widening the gap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Unless your working for Pixar there has never been a need for this machine to be so heavy loaded on the CPU end.

I'm just curious, are there any Mac users who know how to spell "you're" correctly? I've been thinking about getting a Mac for a little while, but if this is how uneducated the community really is... ouch.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple to fire up Penryn-based Mac Pros