or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple intros new Mac Pro with "Nehalem" Xeon processors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple intros new Mac Pro with "Nehalem" Xeon processors - Page 8

post #281 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

8 core in the UK gets a price hike of 500-600 pounds.

The Brits are whining in every thread - the problem is that the dollar/pound exchange rate has changed by 40% in the last year. You should feel lucky that the price has not gone up so little.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #282 of 505
Quote:
I'm really shocked about the prices. You can buy or build a faster Core i7 for half that.

I'm lying down. How are you doing?

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #283 of 505
Quote:
The Brits are whining

Have no idea why. It's not as if Apple was cheap over here in the first place. (Time to shrink the market share, Apple. Guess they got cold feet about double digit market share.)

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #284 of 505
Quote:
I just did two things I never do when a new model comes out.

Mel? Sit down? Pass out? Lay down? Pick your eyes up?

I'm still trying to find my eyes...they fell out somewhere....over...there...(*Fumbles...)

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #285 of 505
Quote:
A few things:

First, high end kit always has a fat profit margin on it. Always. I don't know why people are acting as if fat margins were introduced with this update. This is partly to compensate for low sales volume, partly because the people serious about getting the latest and greatest have never begrudged the extra money.

Second, Apple is clearly making room for the iMac to move into the professional space, as I predicted (which makes it all the more remarkable that it actually happened).

Third, for its intended market it doesn't cost that much. Used professionally, i.e. to make money, it will pay for itself in a few weeks at the latest. Used institutionally, it will be bid for (not sold at MSRP) and frequently by institutions that qualify for educational discounts, and in many cases the purchase will be paid for by depreciation accounts set up 3 or 5 years ago to pay for them. In other words, most the Mac Pro's market have been buying machines at prices that would make most people here blanche, and they will react to this update by buying them if it's time for them to buy. They may go into debt that will be repaid within the month or they may draw from reserves built up for the purchase. Either way, no big deal. This isn't new: The PowerMac 9600 was made for the same market, as were the vastly more expensive workstations from SGI and Sun and HP.

As far as the video card options go, I imagine that the hold-up is with DisplayPort compatibility. As workstation GPUs accommodate DisplayPort, Apple will add them to the options list. This seems to me a lot more likely than Apple abandoning one of their core professional markets.

This, from hmurchison, made me do a double-take:


Quote:
At this rate it appears that Apple needs a shakeup. They needs a couple bad qtrs and a rechecking of the ego.

They deserve a couple of bad quarters, a shakeup and an ego check because they're the only company in their product category that isn't watching their sales go over Niagara Falls in a barrel? They deserve to fail because they're offering a gorgeous workstation with bleeding-edge chips at a price in line with prices in its category for the last decade? What?

If your answer is that they aren't passing consumer desktops off as pro machines, I seem to recall that being the final knife through the heart of once-great SGI.

You can wish that the landscape is something other than it is, but if you step over the cliff that you have convinced yourself shouldn't be there you will still fall to your death.

Predictable. My turn to be predictable also.

He's right. Apple could do with an ego-reality-check right now. A few bad quarters of slowing sales may cause them to rethink the path they are going down. UK buyers now understand the pain of Australian and Canadian buyers. It wasn't as if Apple wasn't ripping off UK buyers in the first place. Is that the air of the 'not-invented-here' smugness I smell these days at the land of infinite price? Sorry 'loop'.

We can postulate about what Apple deserve. But if they were complaining about Mac Pro sales before this update...then they'll have to jack the prices up even more to compenstate as their market for them shrinks. Wallet and democracy go hand in hand. But I think they're missing out on the big picture.

I guess we'll see Amorph. You're right about one thing. Wishing doesn't make it so.

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #286 of 505
Quote:
If your answer is that they aren't passing consumer desktops off as pro machines, I seem to recall that being the final knife through the heart of once-great SGI.

Puh-lease. Apple are passing off these 'workstations' as 'Workstations'. See the GPU options. Heh. I guess on price alone they qualify. What makes a workstation a workstation, then? I'd argue that the 2.66 i7 with an x2 4870 with 2 gigs of vram would have a say about that for half the price. And Overclockers.co.uk have been in business for quite a while. I wonder if have razor thin margins? Maybe they work for free to give those competitive prices. Or maybe they aint that greedy. Who knows?

They're passing the iMac off as competitive with the 'normal' PC tower market it's competing in.

They're passing the Mac Mini off as a competitive 'low end' computer. Ok. Take that back. It is a verrrrrrrrrrrry low end computer. Which doesn't come with as much as other computers for £400-£600.

Heh. Apple are passing these things off as updates... I guess it depends on what you want to believe, eh?

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #287 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

He's right. Apple could do with an ego-reality-check right now.

The price on EVERYTHING you import from the US is going to be higher, including competing Xeon 5500 servers. You will not be able to get a lower price from Dell than you are getting from Apple, most likely.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #288 of 505
Quote:
The price on EVERYTHING you import from the US is going to be higher, including competing Xeon 5500 servers. You will not be able to get a lower price from Dell than you are getting from Apple, most likely.

YEah. We know that. But that doesn't change the fact that Apple could put out a 'normal' quad tower product that doesn't START at £1850 pounds or more.

It also doesn't change the fact that quad core prices in the uk start from £400 or more.

Or that you can get access to a low end gpu or mid-range gpu without paying £1650-£1850!!!!!!!

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #289 of 505
So this was brushed on earlier, I'm interested to know the truth. I think OWC or Barefeet might figure this one out though...

Going off of apple's docs the quad vs the octo the memory slots are halved.

# 8-core: Eight memory slots (four per processor) supporting up to 32GB of main memory using 1GB, 2GB, or 4GB DIMMs
# Quad-core: Four memory slots supporting up to 8GB of main memory using 1GB or 2GB DIMMs

It makes no sense in my mind for the quad core to only take 2gb dimms... unless apple was really trying to cripple the machines on purpose.

A month back there was reports of apple being stuck between putting quads in the imacs and it cannibilizing the mac pro sales. Well when you limit to these ram limits.... it would. I think apple is trying to turn the lower end machine into a consumer tower, but with these prices they aren't getting anywhere.

If I could put 16gb of ram in the quad mac pro, I'd consider it. I think the 2.26ghz 8 core is clocked too low, and I think 4400 for a 2.66 8 core is too high. I really can't decide which to get. I bet the 2.26 8 core would work just fine for my work, but something inside of me says it wouldn't last as long as the 2.66 8 core. I'm just bitching, but I need to see benchmarks before I can decide.

 

 

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 #290 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

YEah. We know that. But that doesn't change the fact that Apple could put out a 'normal' quad tower product that doesn't START at £1850 pounds or more.

It also doesn't change the fact that quad core prices in the uk start from £400 or more.

Or that you can get access to a low end gpu or mid-range gpu without paying £1650-£1850!!!!!!!

Lemon Bon Bon.

Well, maybe that is what you need to buy instead of a Mac Pro.

I love high end speakers from France (JMLab/Focal), Holland (Kharma) and Italy (Sonus Faber) - and was able to afford them when the Euro was super low, but the exchange rate went against me and I had to put those dreams on hold for a few years - when my investments go up, and if the Euro is low again then, I will spend $50K on a set of speakers from Europe maybe, but not now.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #291 of 505
Maybe I'll buy one of those instead. Yeah. Try something original. 'We don't need your sort anymore...' etc, etc.

Please. Think of somemore.

Quote:
I had to put those dreams on hold.

Now. That I agree with. It's looking like I have no choice. AGAIN!

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #292 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

A
True. But when the price to the public is lower, it's a safe assumption that the price to Apple drops as well.

If a new chip sells publicly for less, but Apple ends up paying more than the previous generation, then they are doing something wrong.

Unless, as has been speculated by some writers, that Apple is paying more to get the chips early.

Also, the chips are just part of the cost of building the machine. do you know what Apple's cost for that has gone to?

Quote:
Well, one of the differences doesn't exist in shipping chips. A second one doesn't seem to exist in the 3500 series. And the other differences aren't ones that would have any effect on performance.

For the 35xx series. For the others, well it is a dual socket difference, and there will be performance differences. But ECC does matter to the companies who require that.


Aside from the ECC you mentioned and the 2 qpi (which looks like it's 55xx only, not in the 35xx), it looks like the only other difference is lower power use.[/quote]

I believe, but I'm not sure where I read it, because now I can't seem to find anything on it at all, that the Xenon's and chipsets have more lanes available.

One other difference though is that the 920 through the 950 i7's have a 4.8 GT/s QPI. The higher end, and much more expensive 965 and 975 have the faster 6.4 GT/s QPI that all the Xeons have.

So if you compare the 940 2.93 Ghz i7 it will have a slower memory transfer rate than will the more expensive chips used in the Mac Pro. Look at the difference in pricing of those chips for that reason alone.

If you don't think that memory bandwidth has anything to do with performance, then I guess that won't matter. Intel lists those chips as only needing 800 DDR 3, rather than 1066 DDR 3 for everything through the E5540. After that, 1333 is really required for optimum performance. If Apple is using 1066 RAM for the 2.66 and 2.93 machines, that can be increased to the 1333 parts. But 1066 will serve no purpose at all in the 920 through the 950, unless you have an enthusiasts board, and are willing to go through all that nonsense.

Quote:
And he listed more memory channels...which is only in a chip that apple is NOT using yet.

I said that. You don't have to repeat it as though I didn't.
post #293 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Maybe I'll buy one of those instead. Yeah. Try something original. 'We don't need your sort anymore...' etc, etc.

No - I am just pointing out that you are blaming Apple for the exchange rate. That is like blaming Toyota for a heavy snowfall when your car gets stuck. Or when the price of oil goes back up, blaming the airlines for the new higher prices.

And I also can't afford a new powerMac - since I paid a bunch of money for one 6 months ago.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #294 of 505
Quote:
So if you compare the 940 2.93 Ghz i7 it will have a slower memory transfer rate than will the more expensive chips used in the Mac Pro. Look at the difference in pricing of those chips for that reason alone.

Ok, Mel'. It'll be interesting to see the benchmarks. I'm guessing negligable but with a 100% price premium going Apple's way over a PC vendor offering the i7 consumer enthuisiast chip 2.66 vs Apple's 'Xeon' 2.66 server chip.

Awaits benches with interest...

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

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...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #295 of 505
Here is a benchmark I found while looking up turbo on these chips.

http://it.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=532

The new Xeon 5570 outperforms the "old" 5450 by 119%!!!

 

 

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 #296 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Was that you, Mel on Macdaily?

If it was, it was interesting to hear you question the pricing both here and over on their comment section. For Phil to say these updates are cheaper is...well. A lie.
:

Was that me? You mean MDN? If so, then yes.

Look, I try to be as honest as possible. That gets some people mad. I really have no agenda.

MDN is nuts. Period! They throw everything Apple's way. He knows nothing about anything. If some people here think that we have some Apple fanboys, then, wow! go over there!

But I do notice that here, we can depend on a few people to always denigrate everything Apple does, no matter what, and a few who always laud everything Apple does, no matter what.

Their comments have to be mentally filtered out. The rest of us swing both ways.

I'm not happy that prices have risen on the MP's. This affected me as well this time.

The iMacs are good deals though, even though some don't agree with that either. They are a bit cheaper than the ones I bought last year, and come with more. Are they major upgrades? Well, no. but they are a good incremental update, with much better pricing when the extras are counted in. That's some progress. The low end machines are not great though.

The Mini is a decent update, but not what I would have hoped for.
post #297 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Mel? Sit down? Pass out? Lay down? Pick your eyes up?

I'm still trying to find my eyes...they fell out somewhere....over...there...(*Fumbles...)

Lemon Bon Bon.

Oh tosh!

you read what I said.

I think that Apple is in hunker down mode for a while.

This economic meltdown has caught everyone by surprise.

It can take a year to come up with a really new lineup. These updates were likely planned 6 months ago as well. I don't think Apple, or most other companies can simply scrap their plans. You can do that with software, but with hardware, it's much more expensive.

But, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is working on newer models that will better reflect the realities of the current marketplace with at least a few machines. But it could take a while before they hit the market. You can't just snap your fingers, and three months later new models appear.
post #298 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Predictable. My turn to be predictable also.

He's right. Apple could do with an ego-reality-check right now. A few bad quarters of slowing sales may cause them to rethink the path they are going down. UK buyers now understand the pain of Australian and Canadian buyers. It wasn't as if Apple wasn't ripping off UK buyers in the first place. Is that the air of the 'not-invented-here' smugness I smell these days at the land of infinite price? Sorry 'loop'.

We can postulate about what Apple deserve. But if they were complaining about Mac Pro sales before this update...then they'll have to jack the prices up even more to compenstate as their market for them shrinks. Wallet and democracy go hand in hand. But I think they're missing out on the big picture.

I guess we'll see Amorph. You're right about one thing. Wishing doesn't make it so.

Lemon Bon Bon.

I happen to agree with him.

But you must look to see what slowing sales means. No matter what Apple does, sales will slow.

We need to compare Apple's sales with the sales of other companies. So Dells sales fell much more than did Apple's. Hp's sales fell more than Apple's, but Hp is into much more stuff, so overall, they weren't hurt as much.

If Apple's sales fall, let's just say, 5%, and everyone else's sales fall 10%, then Apple would be doing well.

But there are many factors. School systems are buying much less right now, and that's a big part of Apple's Macbook and iMac sales. Schools buy these computers because they do get good prices, and they work better for them. Cheaper machines might not be wanted. It's complex.
post #299 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

So this was brushed on earlier, I'm interested to know the truth. I think OWC or Barefeet might figure this one out though...

Here's a little bit of analysis from Barefeats. Not a review yet, and he's talking about performance, not memory slots.

http://www.barefeats.com/nehal01.html

By the way, what no one here mentioned is the turbo mode of Nehalem. This does also help a "slower" machine to equal, or pass a much faster machine at times.

While the older chips have turbo mode, it's much better in the new chips.

For those who don't know, this is where one or more cores can actually speed up if not all cores are working, and the total dissipated power level isn't being reached.

Actually, all cores can speed up a bit if the power levels aren't being reached, but it's much more functional with one or two cores. for example, a 2.66 GHz core can get to 2.93 GHz if only one or two are working. A 2.93 GHz core can get to about 3.2 GHz.

This is why, for programs that can only use one or two cores, a 2.26 GHz machine might perform as well as an older 2.8 GHz machine. Combining the speedup from Nehalem and the turbo mode, some programs will go much faster.

This won't work as well for everything, but it will for a bunch.
post #300 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

Here is a benchmark I found while looking up turbo on these chips.

http://it.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=532

The new Xeon 5570 outperforms the "old" 5450 by 119%!!!

Screw! I didn't get to your post, and didn't see this. I wrote about turbo mode in mine too.

Yeah. I read that a while ago. Good article.
post #301 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

He's right. Apple could do with an ego-reality-check right now.

Why? Give me one material reason why. The industry trend is away from internal expansion cards; away from desktops; away from large machines. Laptops are now capable professional machines for many jobs that used to require top-end desktops. which means iMacs are, which means that the market for a machine that actually requires a large case is shrinking inexorably. As a product's market shrink, the profit per unit has to go up to justify continued production. But the cost of production has come down, so you can get a Mac Pro for much less in 2009 dollars than a PowerMac 9600 cost, or a PowerMac 8600, or for that matter a Mac IIfx.

If you want them to be punished for not making your cheap, headless Mac then you are going to be yelling at clouds for the next while. Right now I dare you to point to one actual metric the executives can look at and measure against industry trends that should cause them to put on sackcloth and ashes and repent their sins to Lemon Bon Bon. Because I honestly don't see any.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

A few bad quarters of slowing sales may cause them to rethink the path they are going down.

They will deserve a few bad quarters of slowing sales when they actually earn them.

By corollary, the relatively good quarters that they have actually been enjoying may cause them to affirm their current course (although I hope they're checking to make sure that there are sound and sustainable reasons for those good quarters unlike the idiots on Wall Street, but that's for another forum).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

We can postulate about what Apple deserve. But if they were complaining about Mac Pro sales before this update...then they'll have to jack the prices up even more to compenstate as their market for them shrinks.

Actually, I'm not postulating about what they "deserve." I'm looking at where they actually are (profitable, thriving, sitting on a mountain of cash), how they're doing relative to the industry (very well and improving), and concluding from there that they feel pretty comfortable with their position and feel no need to do anything radical. It's a matter of observation, not judgment.

I agree that the price for the Mac Pro will go up as the market shrinks. I agree that the market for the Mac Pro is shrinking. Apple have already solved that problem: They're shipping the machines that an increasing number of people would rather have, and people have responded by buying them in record (for Apple) quantities, even through a recession.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #302 of 505
It's really going to come down to

Mac Pro Quad w/Xeon 3500 pricing

compared to


HP, Dell and other Tier1 Workstations with similar configs. I'm not too sure they're going to be at 2499 for a similar config.

Apple's used the same case for 5 years and the mobo doesn't appear to have a lot of customization.

We'll see if their pricing cuts muster or not.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #303 of 505
Directly spoken: I want Apple to fail to prove that I am right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
A few bad quarters of slowing sales may cause them to rethink the path they are going down.
post #304 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

Keep in mind these new cpu's have hyperthreading. So if you get a 2.26 you are getting 16 virtual cores. If I were you, I'd go with the new 8 core 2.26... it is going to last you much longer with snow leopard's GCD and OpenCL. Also the new cpu's offer virtualization... so better compatibility with VMWare running windows if that is a factor to you. It is to me because I have to test ie6 against web apps.

Did you retract this recommendation? 2.26, 2.66, 2.8 are the options on the table. 2.8 is too pricey right now. 2.66 represents a little increase and 2.26 is a 1K savings. What is the practical difference in performance and are there any long term (oxymoron I know) considerations for shelf life.

Thanks!
post #305 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by McPHEE View Post

Did you retract this recommendation? 2.26, 2.66, 2.8 are the options on the table. 2.8 is too pricey right now. 2.66 represents a little increase and 2.26 is a 1K savings. What is the practical difference in performance and are there any long term (oxymoron I know) considerations for shelf life.

Thanks!

2.66 single cpu vs dual for the others?
post #306 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

2.66 single cpu vs dual for the others?

Can you expound? Your question leaves me questioning...
post #307 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Directly spoken: I want Apple to fail to prove that I am right.

You really think that the Mac Pro is such a big seller that they will get worried about low sales? The last generation had low sales as well.

Most people who buy the Mac Pro for business reasons, which is the bulk of the people who buy the Mac Pro, probably want Apple to go even further into the high end with the product - with SLI graphics cards, huge numbers of memory slots, faster/more expensive processors (like the xeon 5580), etc.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #308 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by McPHEE View Post

Can you expound? Your question leaves me questioning...

I followed some of the line of your questions, but I don't remember exactly right now.

Are you comparing a dual cpu 2.26 machine, and a dual cpu 2.8 machine (old), to a single cpu 2.66 machine?

Or am I missing something here?
post #309 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I followed some of the line of your questions, but I don't remember exactly right now.

Are you comparing a dual cpu 2.26 machine, and a dual cpu 2.8 machine (old), to a single cpu 2.66 machine?

Or am I missing something here?

I currently have on order a 8-Core Mac Pro with two 3.0GHZ Quad-Core Intel Xeon and this is not available if I go with the state of the art. If I upgrade to 2.66 it increases my price by about $400 or if I go with the 2.26 I save $1K. Graphics card in my order is NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512 and this is no longer available if I upgrade. Everything else is a plus (memory drive speed, etc.) (eventually I will run 2 monitors.)

Current Apple base price offering below:
8-core Mac Pro ($3,299):

two 2.26 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5500 series processors with 8MB of shared L3 cache
6GB of 1066 MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM memory, expandable up to 32GB
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 graphics with 512MB of GDDR3 memory
640GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive running at 7200 rpm
18x SuperDrive with double-layer support (DVD+/-R DL/DVD+/-RW/CD-RW)
Mini DisplayPort and DVI (dual-link) for video output (adapters sold separately)
four PCI Express 2.0 slots
five USB 2.0 ports and four FireWire 800 ports
Bluetooth 2.1+EDR
Ships with Apple Keyboard with numerical keypad and Mighty Mouse
post #310 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by McPHEE View Post

I currently have on order a 8-Core Mac Pro with two 3.0GHZ Quad-Core Intel Xeon and this is not available if I go with the state of the art. If I upgrade to 2.66 it increases my price by about $400 or if I go with the 2.26 I save $1K. Graphics card in my order is NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512 and this is no longer available if I upgrade. Everything else is a plus (memory drive speed, etc.) (eventually I will run 2 monitors.)

Current Apple base price offering below:
8-core Mac Pro ($3,299):

two 2.26 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5500 series processors with 8MB of shared L3 cache
6GB of 1066 MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM memory, expandable up to 32GB
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 graphics with 512MB of GDDR3 memory
640GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive running at 7200 rpm
18x SuperDrive with double-layer support (DVD+/-R DL/DVD+/-RW/CD-RW)
Mini DisplayPort and DVI (dual-link) for video output (adapters sold separately)
four PCI Express 2.0 slots
five USB 2.0 ports and four FireWire 800 ports
Bluetooth 2.1+EDR
Ships with Apple Keyboard with numerical keypad and Mighty Mouse

Ok. I get it now.

For me, the sweet spot is the dual 2.66 model with the 4870 card, which is a pretty damn good card, and much better than the 8800 series from Nvidia, which is why I ordered that.

I don't know what you're doing with the machine, so it's difficult to know what's most important to you.

If you're not doing much 3D graphics work on big models, then the 120 card will be fine. Of course, OS 10.6 will leverage that graphics card more than ever before, so the best card will get you more processing power. A slower machine may even, on certain apps, be more powerful than a faster machine, because those apps may better leverage that faster board in 10.6 and beyond. he older 3.0 GHz machine could also use that 4870 board. It would then help its performance later on. You can add this board later, and still use the 120 in another slot.

My feeling though is that Nehalem offers much upside as time goes on.

One area that's interesting is that being at the very beginning of the curve, the chips, which likely will be replaceable, as they are in the older machines, are the slowest that Intel will be offering during the current "Tock". When 32 nm arrives next year, they can be popped out (more easily hopefully, than in the older machines, as it appears), and newer, faster 6 core (and possibly 8 core as some hints from Intel lately have been giving us (no, not Becton) chips can be put in.

Also, the older machines have two Express bus 2 slots and two Express 1 slots. The new machine has four Express 2 slots. Two of those are 16 electrical lanes. The older only had one 16 lane slot.

Hyperthreading, for well threaded apps, has been shown to give a 10 to 30% boost in processing.

Money can be tight right now, so it's a tough decision I know.
post #311 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

For me, the sweet spot is the dual 2.66 model with the 4870 card, which is a pretty damn good card, and much better than the 8800 series from Nvidia, which is why I ordered that.

I ordered the 4870 upgrade card for my last-gen mac pro. I think it will be quite nice - do you know if the 8800 and 4870 can both be in there at the same time?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #312 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

It's really going to come down to

Mac Pro Quad w/Xeon 3500 pricing

compared to


HP, Dell and other Tier1 Workstations with similar configs. I'm not too sure they're going to be at 2499 for a similar config.

Apple's used the same case for 5 years and the mobo doesn't appear to have a lot of customization.

We'll see if their pricing cuts muster or not.

Current single CPU workstations from HP and Dell based around a core 2 duo and the x38/48 aren't priced much higher than desktop systems, so I would expect the Quad core Mac Pro to be significantly more expensive than the competition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

You really think that the Mac Pro is such a big seller that they will get worried about low sales? The last generation had low sales as well.

Not too long ago the PowerMac was one of Apple's better selling models. Then again, you could afford one without a Hollywood budget.
post #313 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Current single CPU workstations from HP and Dell based around a core 2 duo and the x38/48 aren't priced much higher than desktop systems, so I would expect the Quad core Mac Pro to be significantly more expensive than the competition.

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...c=MLB141&s=biz

are you looking at some different page than I am? These last-gen xeon prices look higher than Apple's last-gen Mac Pro prices.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #314 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I ordered the 4870 upgrade card for my last-gen mac pro. I think it will be quite nice - do you know if the 8800 and 4870 can both be in there at the same time?

If the card is from the 2008 model, I don't see why not. Earlier models, likely not, but maybe. Yeah, I know, that's not me, being so equivocal and all.
post #315 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If the card is from the 2008 model, I don't see why not. Earlier models, likely not, but maybe. Yeah, I know, that's not me, being so equivocal and all.

Yeah - my machine/card is the same as the one McPhee is ordering - the 8x3GHz from last summer.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #316 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...c=MLB141&s=biz

are you looking at some different page than I am? These last-gen xeon prices look higher than Apple's last-gen Mac Pro prices.

Those are the 5000-series dual socket machines, the same class as the 8-core. Price the Precision T3400.
post #317 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Ok. I get it now.

For me, the sweet spot is the dual 2.66 model with the 4870 card, which is a pretty damn good card, and much better than the 8800 series from Nvidia, which is why I ordered that.

I don't know what you're doing with the machine, so it's difficult to know what's most important to you.

If you're not doing much 3D graphics work on big models, then the 120 card will be fine. Of course, OS 10.6 will leverage that graphics card more than ever before, so the best card will get you more processing power. A slower machine may even, on certain apps, be more powerful than a faster machine, because those apps may better leverage that faster board in 10.6 and beyond. he older 3.0 GHz machine could also use that 4870 board. It would then help its performance later on. You can add this board later, and still use the 120 in another slot.

Thank you for your perspective. I talked with the Apple store rep that helped me spec the machine. He does the same kind of work I do so his perspective on the contrast of systems was valuable to me. Given the cost savings ($1000) I went with the 2.26 processor confident it will outperform the one I had on order. I will be doing a ton of Photoshop, Flash, AfterEffects Final Cut, InDesign, etc. and some 3D sculpting/character development but not likely fully rendered modeling. I up my graphics card to 4870 and will be up my ram to 8G after it arrives. Everything else is a plus and I saved $700 on my original order. This should be a better foundation than the one I first ordered.

Thanks again!
post #318 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Yeah - my machine/card is the same as the one McPhee is ordering - the 8x3GHz from last summer.

Then it should be fine.
post #319 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Those are the 5000-series dual socket machines, the same class as the 8-core. Price the Precision T3400.

The Precision T3400 is a Core2Duo machine. Why do you care that it is less expensive than a Xeon machine? If Apple made a machine like the T3400, it would also be cheaper than the Mac Pro.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #320 of 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by McPHEE View Post

Thank you for your perspective. I talked with the Apple store rep that helped me spec the machine. He does the same kind of work I do so his perspective on the contrast of systems was valuable to me. Given the cost savings ($1000) I went with the 2.26 processor confident it will outperform the one I had on order. I will be doing a ton of Photoshop, Flash, AfterEffects Final Cut, InDesign, etc. and some 3D sculpting/character development but not likely fully rendered modeling. I up my graphics card to 4870 and will be up my ram to 8G after it arrives. Everything else is a plus and I saved $700 on my original order. This should be a better foundation than the one I first ordered.

Thanks again!

OWC charges $149.95 for four 2 GB sticks of RAM, and will give you some cash back from your older Ram.

You can also drool, I mean look, at the 32 GB package price.

http://eshop.macsales.com/MyOWC/Upgr...=Show+Upgrades
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple intros new Mac Pro with "Nehalem" Xeon processors