or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple introduces new Mac Pro topping out at 3.2GHz
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple introduces new Mac Pro topping out at 3.2GHz - Page 5

post #161 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I saw ECC. I thought ECC and Full Buffered were the same thing.

...off to Wikipedia I go.

It also has to meet Apple's form factor, with the heatsinks. Regular FB-DIMMS will work, but are not recommended.
post #162 of 253
...still doesn't come with wireless and bluetooth as standard though!!! wtf!!! JOKERS!
post #163 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosstheboss View Post

...still doesn't come with wireless and bluetooth as standard though!!! wtf!!! JOKERS!

How many pro's are REALLY going to use them? Really?

That's why there are TWO 1 GB Ethernet connections on the back.
post #164 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This won't work?
http://www.crucial.com/store/partspe...E=CT12872AA800

One give-away that it's not the right stuff is that blank space in the picture of the RAM module for a ninth chip. The new Mac Pros use memory with a parity bit.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #165 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

People keep using this argument...... the software is called OS X . If you are running multiple programs you are effectively running multiple cpus even if they aren't programmed for multi-processing.

8 CORES?!??? Are you kidding me? OSX can't effectively use 8 cores.
post #166 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosstheboss View Post

...still doesn't come with wireless and bluetooth as standard though!!! wtf!!! JOKERS!

Bluetooth is included in the stock machine.

WiFi standard on Mac Pro doesn't make that much sense to me.
post #167 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

8 CORES?!??? Are you kidding me? OSX can't effectively use 8 cores.

Supposedly, 10.5 has fixed the core skipping problem as well as some others that were causing problems, such as contention at the kernel level.
post #168 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco View Post

To be a cranky old man, who's full of s*it half the time?

Naw.

C'mon, he knows his stuff.
post #169 of 253
just ordered a new one;
3.2 processors
quadro fx 5600!!!!!
16gb ram, even this is probably to much
Two 1tb drives

Because i sold my old one, i can help rationalize everything. It is true that these machines dont loose much value over time.
post #170 of 253
For all of the reasons you stated I hope Apple never or rarely changes the case design. Finally an American company with the balls to take the "Porche" approach to design! ie- If something works and it is well designed then don't change it simply for the sake of change. Evolve it slowly and only if it is a significant improvement on the original. Our fast food mentality no longer will allow products to become a classic or an icon. This design is still nicer than all the competition so why change it? It's also far more environmentally responsible to stick with one design . . again, for all the reasons you stated. The next step in smart design would be to have us only update the needed elements- chips, graphic cards, RAM, etc. . .

Kudo's to Apple! Keep up the good work.


Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It isn't so much that it would look better, as much as it would be new.

If you look at eBay, you can see how the value of machines drop after certain changes are made to new machines.

When Apple comes out with a new case, which they will do at some point, all of the older case machines will have their value cut significantly.

If you buy an old machine, but it has a current case, you can pretend to yourself, and others, that it is a new machine. But when the case is changed, suddenly, it's pretty obvious that your machine is "old", even if you bought it the week before. It's like driving a new car out of the lot the end of December.

I know we don't like to think we're that unsophisticated, but it does come into it.
post #171 of 253
Sorry, but I can't see how this machine is up to 2x faster than the previous generation?

Apple's own benchmarks point to a 1.1x to 1.3x improvement - not 2x?
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #172 of 253
Screw it. I ordered one with the 8800 and no other options. I will get more RAM and a 500GB HD from OWC when they update their site with the new RAM chips.

Only downside is I have to wait until February for it to ship because of the bloody NVidia card. Oh well, I have been waiting this long, what's another month or so.

And I can always hope for an earlier shipment.

If Apple comes out with new ACDs next week I will be giving them more of my money then.
"Too much of a good thing is great." Mae West
Reply
"Too much of a good thing is great." Mae West
Reply
post #173 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

Awesome. Any site listing the applications taking advantage of the full 8 cores?

Logic does. Also is able to use more than 4 gigs of ram in some situations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

I'm a little bummed the prices went UP instead of DOWN like they should have. But then again it is octo across the board. I'm hoping we can buy a 2.8 quad and add a 2.8 quad down the road.

The cheapest config is still the exact same price as before, $2299. The other models are at different price points but you get a ton more for your money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

More often that not, Apple products are available in the stores and online the day they are announced. At least in the standard configuration.

Yep. People have reported that these are already showing up in apple stores today.
post #174 of 253
I just noticed that the new Mac Pro can accept SAS drives. Was this possible in the yesterday's Mac Pro?


Note to site admins: If you're going to disable "Quick Reply" you might as well remove the code from the page.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #175 of 253
Is there a big performance difference between 2.8 vs 3.0 and between 3.0 vs. 3.2.

I know there should be a significant performance boost between 2.8 vs. 3.2 but is it really worth 1600? or is it really worth an extra $800 for a 200Mhz bump?

I don't do anything too hardcore graphics or video but I just want the biggest and best. I have two other PCs with quad cores and 8GB of ram and barely use its potential.
post #176 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by labelexec View Post

I know there should be a significant performance boost between 2.8 vs. 3.2 but is it really worth 1600? or is it really worth an extra $800 for a 200Mhz bump?

Worth can only be determined by you. Some would find the $1,600 a worthwhile upgrade while some can't perceive the worth of a behemoth Mac Pro.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #177 of 253
So the Mac Pro's have been updated to Intel's new CPU's - what about the iMacs? I'm looking at buying a new iMac but don't want to find that in a weeks time they start using the newer CPUs. I know they're not going to offer a massive speed increase, but having the newest is always the best, right?
post #178 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvid View Post

So the Mac Pro's have been updated to Intel's new CPU's - what about the iMacs? I'm looking at buying a new iMac but don't want to find that in a weeks time they start using the newer CPUs. I know they're not going to offer a massive speed increase, but having the newest is always the best, right?

Having the newest isn't always best, but I'd personally wait a week to see if Apple updates the iMacs to the Penryn. They may also add some other things, like 2mp camera or more RAM, larger HDD for the same price.

Welcome to AI.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #179 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Having the newest isn't always best, but I'd personally wait a week to see if Apple updates the iMacs to the Penryn. They may also add some other things, like 2mp camera or more RAM, larger HDD for the same price.

Welcome to AI.

I thought hanging out until MacWorld would be my best bet.

Thanks for the welcome.
post #180 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Worth can only be determined by you. Some would find the $1,600 a worthwhile upgrade while some can't perceive the worth of a behemoth Mac Pro.

Let me rephrase then...

is there a big advantage between 2.8 ghz vs 3.0 ghz and 3.0 ghz vs. 3.2 ghz in performance? That will justify if getting the faster processor worthwhile.
post #181 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by labelexec View Post

Is there a big performance difference between 2.8 vs 3.0 and between 3.0 vs. 3.2.

Supposing that the only difference between the 3.2 and 2.8 GHz chips is sheer clock speed -- no architectural differences, no difference in cache sizes -- the 3.2 is 14% faster than the 2.8 for any task that's purely bound to CPU speed (and the 3.0 is 7% faster, of course).

Anything you do that has elements of disk I/O speed, bus speed, RAM speed, etc. -- i.e. most things you probably do -- won't see all of that 14% increase. Only a solid set of benchmarks will tell you how much for what tasks.

I really, really do like to buy the top-of-the-line models Apple makes. I'm typing this right now on my once top-of-the-line Quad G5. But I have to admit my craving for speed is not at all justified by any real-life business justification, or even any hobbyist uses that push my computer very hard. I just like nice toys.

But even though I like to spoil myself, in this case I just couldn't see spending the extra $1600, or even $800 dollars. I settled for the basic 8x2.8, with an extra optical drive, the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 (which sadly bumps my shipping time from 3-5 days up to 3-5 weeks -- I keep thinking about canceling my order and changing that!), and a 500GB hard drive instead of 320GB. I'll add an additional 4GB of RAM myself at a much more reasonable price than Apple's price.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #182 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by labelexec View Post

Let me rephrase then...

is there a big advantage between 2.8 ghz vs 3.0 ghz and 3.0 ghz vs. 3.2 ghz in performance? That will justify if getting the faster processor worthwhile.

I don't think it's worth the extra money. If you absolutely had to have the most powerful machine, then it might be worth it. Some people might not even notice the speedup.

I would wait until there's confirmation that there's an open socket if you buy the one chip version, if that's so, then I think it's worth considering that version and adding the second chip several years from now.
post #183 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't think it's worth the extra money. If you absolutely had to have the most powerful machine, then it might be worth it. Some people might not even notice the speedup.

I would wait until there's confirmation that there's an open socket if you buy the one chip version, if that's so, then I think it's worth considering that version and adding the second chip several years from now.

I'm just going to get the base model with the 8800 graphics card - I doubt that I need 8 cores ever.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #184 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's certainly possible. But with Apple it's also not.

Most likely what Apple has done is not soldered on the sockets for the second CPU and RAM riser card. That would allow them to use the same motherboard, while making it impossible to upgrade with a second processor.
post #185 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

Most likely what Apple has done is not soldered on the sockets for the second CPU and RAM riser card. That would allow them to use the same motherboard, while making it impossible to upgrade with a second processor.

Not that I wouldn't put it past Apple, but I really hope they didn't do that.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #186 of 253
damn, melgross. why can't you shove your nose up my butt crack, and whiff a scent of sweet freedom.
post #187 of 253
On my PowerMac G5 Dual 2.5 GHz (June 2004 model) with 6.5 GB RAM I run HandBrake 0.9.1 to rip a home DVD. I then use same HandBrake program on my MacBook Core 2 Duo with 2 GB RAM to rip the same DVD and it completes in 1/2 the time it took on the PowerMac.

If I now run this same HandBrake to rip the same DVD on the new Mac Pro 2.8 Dual Quad Xeon with say the same RAM footprint of 6.5 GB, how much faster than the MacBook would you expect this Mac Pro to be ? Would you expect any difference in the HandBrake's wall time on this Mac Pro using 2 GB vs. 6.5 GB ?
Regards
Reply
Regards
Reply
post #188 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

Most likely what Apple has done is not soldered on the sockets for the second CPU and RAM riser card. That would allow them to use the same motherboard, while making it impossible to upgrade with a second processor.

It doesn't look like they got rid of the second RAM card, the CTO lets me chose single processor and 32GB RAM. The processor socket is a different question, we'll have to see.
post #189 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah View Post

Sorry, but I can't see how this machine is up to 2x faster than the previous generation?

Apple's own benchmarks point to a 1.1x to 1.3x improvement - not 2x?

https://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #190 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah View Post

Sorry, but I can't see how this machine is up to 2x faster than the previous generation?

Apple's own benchmarks point to a 1.1x to 1.3x improvement - not 2x?

8 core vs 4 cores for the mid line models.

Faster bus, faster memory, faster cpu's etc.

It's all theoretical.

We'll find out when they land in the sites hands and we see tests.
post #191 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I just noticed that the new Mac Pro can accept SAS drives. Was this possible in the yesterday's Mac Pro?


Note to site admins: If you're going to disable "Quick Reply" you might as well remove the code from the page.

It does, but you need the card as well.
post #192 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by labelexec View Post

Is there a big performance difference between 2.8 vs 3.0 and between 3.0 vs. 3.2.

I know there should be a significant performance boost between 2.8 vs. 3.2 but is it really worth 1600? or is it really worth an extra $800 for a 200Mhz bump?

I don't do anything too hardcore graphics or video but I just want the biggest and best. I have two other PCs with quad cores and 8GB of ram and barely use its potential.

Not too much.

But if you are doing something that takes time, it might make a difference.

If a render takes the 2.8 ten hours, then a 3 GHz machine will finish in nine and a quarter, and a 3.2 GHz machine will finish in about eight and three quarters.

That might make the difference between seeing it today, if you started first thing in the morning, and seeing it tomorrow.
post #193 of 253
The standard configuration uses the Radeon HD2600XT? That's such a horrible mismatch for Intel's mighty 8 cores @ 2.8Ghz @ 1600FSB!!!!!....You will be crawling at the 30 inch resolution for anything 3d. I don't know if iTunes can use the visualization at that resolution.

I am surprised that the Geforce 8800GT 512MB wasn't the default standard configuration. On the other hand, the 200 dollar upgrade for 8800GT isn't that bad. It costs $275 retail to buy a 8800GT. Considering the retarded 2600XT costs 80 bux, it's almost trivial to upgrade to the 8800GT.
post #194 of 253
If it keeps the cost down I'm glad the 2600xt is the default card. Not everyone uses a 30". I'm on a 24" and I think the 2600xt would be fine for most things besides any semi-serious gaming. They could have done worse... Like they did with the last rev... 7300gt as default card? LOL ... they could have put a x2300pro or 8300gt as default 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 #195 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

Yeah, but what software is going to use more than 4 processors effectively? Most of the benchmarks are comparing the new machines to the Quad G5s, and comparisons to other Mac Pros just seem to show the difference in clock speed.

Having worked on efficient coding of multiprocessor software for my PhD about a decade back (look for it at http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~philip/Publications/), I wouldn't be too surprised if the problem is that too few people understand the performance issues. If you don't have a good grounding in computer architecture with some understanding of OS and other hardware-software interactions, it's hard to get decent speedups. This is especially true as the speed gap between DRAM and processors grows. There's been a bit of a stall in clock speed increases the last few years, but DRAM hasn't been improving that dramatically either -- transfer rates have been going up but total time to start a new random access is still pretty slow compared with CPU cycle times. To look at some numbers, if you get a DDR3 SDRAM from Micron with a 1.5ns cycle time, it has an overhead of at least 24ns before any data starts to move. If your shiny new 8 core 3.2GHz machine is only trying to deliver a conservative 1 instruction per clock per core, it can execute over 600 instructions in the time it takes this kind of DRAM to heave into life. The DDR2 stuff the Mac uses is not far off this sort of speed.

But anyway, the point is that any code that uses all the cores has to avoid touching DRAM as much as possible, otherwise memory accesses become a serious bottleneck.

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply
post #196 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I just noticed that the new Mac Pro can accept SAS drives. Was this possible in the yesterday's Mac Pro?


Note to site admins: If you're going to disable "Quick Reply" you might as well remove the code from the page.

Quick reply isn't disabled.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #197 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiopollution View Post

Quick reply isn't disabled.

Gotcha. I have to click a user's quick reply button first before that field becomes active. Of all teh vBulletin boards I frequent this is the only one setup that way. At least I know why that field is down there. Thanks.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #198 of 253
Ahhh i love these machines.

Well done Apple!
post #199 of 253
I bit on the 8-Core base model + GeForce 8800 GT. It's like $1000 over my budget, but I've got 0% APR for the rest of the year on this card so what the hell.
post #200 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mcfaceplant View Post

Kodo's to Apple!

I think you mean "kudos"

back on topic:

I was a bit surprised to still see FB-DIMMS. I thought Intel was going to phase out the use of FB because of the extra latency, power consumption and cost?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple introduces new Mac Pro topping out at 3.2GHz