Originally Posted by mark2005
According to Intel pricing at Xbitlabs.com, a 4-core 2.26 Nehalem Xeon (E5520) chip is $373 (in quantities of 1000). The 4-core 2.66 Nehalem Xeon (E5550) chip is $958. The Intel price difference for two chips is $1170. But Apple could be getting a much better price (like $300 or less) on the Mac Pro standard 2.26 chips since they're buying those in much larger quantities than the Mac Pro optional 2.66 chip, moving the price differential over $1300.
So yes Apple is taking a piece, but almost all of the cost difference is attributable to the Intel pricing.
Interesting. Also a thing to consider is that perhaps with the the Nehalem's, the margin between "well performing" and "average/meh performing" chips is much wider. In other words, when Intel makes chips, to my understanding they don't make fundamentally different chips for 2.26 and 2.66 clock speeds. They make one chip. Depending on how each manufactured chip performs, it either gets thrown in the 2.26 bin or the 2.66 bin. Perhaps the chips that are stable/well performing at 2.66 are less prevalent in this architecture.
Originally Posted by kim kap sol
It's a little odd that Apple has been removing pro options...however, any self-respecting person would buy the absolute base (and just play around with the processor options) and buy memory and storage from some place that isn't hell-bent on ripping its customers off.
It pains me to see what Apple is charging its customers for HD and RAM upgrades.
Agreed. Any experienced G5/Mac Pro use should be well versed in buying hard drives, ram, opticals, and PCI cards from 3rd party vendors.
Originally Posted by MotherBrain
I am really getting a bit tired of hearing that the next model is up to 2X faster. It's getting old and not relative to anything you really do with your computer. I also think it makes Apple look bad. Every model since, who knows when, has been up to 2X faster. If that were REALLY true we would be discussing quantum physics with our HALpro 9000.
I agree with this, I'd like to see a little more retrospective benchmarking, kind of how barefeats will usually throw in a setup thats 2 generations old at the bottom of their comparos.
Originally Posted by winterspan
And whats up with removing the sole Quadro card?? Apparently professional 3D modeling/animation/CAD/ users don't use the Mac Pro anymore...
They don't, and many probably never have been. I work in a shop that has all Mac Pro 3.2 Octas doing motion graphics/video production. The guys in our 3d department work on them, although they are always booted into Windows. Lately, for this huge job they've been working on, they brought in rental PCs for themselves and the additional help they brought in, because they're faster. And while I love Macs, and have always used them. I can't help but wonder why the PC I jumped on one day performed better in after effects.
Never the less, my personal machine ( Quad G5, Dec 05) will finally be replaced now. I've been waiting for quite some time.