Apple adds 3.33GHz quad-core Mac Pro, 2TB hard drive upgrades

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jeff66 View Post


    After doing some research, I have found out that the quad-core Xeon 3500 processor in the Mac Pro is a Bloomsfield series i7. The 2.66ghz version sells for $290 on NewEgg. The 2.8ghz Lynnfield i7 in the iMac also sells for $290 on NewEgg.



    What does this mean? Apple is completely gouging people who buy a quad-core Mac Pro. That machine should sell for at least $500 less than what its going for.



    I'm going to do some serious soul-searching in the next couple of months. Do I really want a 27" iMac or do I build a Hackintosh? Option 3 would be to build the Hackintosh and if it doesn't work, I'll throw Windows 7 on it and use that for my video and photo stuff. At least Photoshop is 64-bit on Windows.



    Good idea. Just make sure you buy the right hardware and it will work - trust me. It works for me and many thousands of hackintosh users out there.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jeff66 View Post


    I hope you are right. I want an i7-powered headless Mac.



    It's called a HackPro and you can build one for your own. Look at my guide at this thread.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


    As much as I have no desire to get a MacPro ever, and am actually considering a 27" iMac, I'm starting to get on the side of the mid-tower or i7 folks. I think having a headless option at $1500-1800 would do a lot to help the range at this point. But, for those that will do anything to save $300, you will always be stuck fighting off Hackintoshes.



    Same as above...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by B747 View Post


    That's interesting. Care to enlighten me, please?



    Wrote a Hacknitosh guide just for you! (a post in this thread).
  • Reply 42 of 78
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    PS: With the next Macs waiting may be advised to see if Apple has reversed their wonky SATA connection that is making many a 3rd-party drives not work. Who knows what they are doing but a HDD is the one piece of HW in a computer that should be truly universal.



    I haven't heard of any systematic problems, but I don't go out to other sites that often and see what's going on.



    I do have an original Mac Pro where bay 1 doesn't work with many drives. It works with original SATA drives and 3.0Gb SATA drives with a jumper that will force 1.5 speed. The other bays work just fine.
  • Reply 43 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Went to Frys and got 2x2GB Patriot RAM.



    Next time try to buy wellknown brand RAM, not lower-end one.

    Try G.SKILL, Corsair, OSZ
  • Reply 44 of 78
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nano_tube View Post


    Good idea. Just make sure you buy the right hardware and it will work - trust me. It works for me and many thousands of hackintosh users out there.



    I can attest to the ease of installation, stability, driver support and performance has increased considerably since the project started. I?ve been with it since nearly the beginning and have built many a machine. They really do make easy now. There are some tradeoffs but for tinkerers it?s not anything too encumbering.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I haven't heard of any systematic problems, but I don't go out to other sites that often and see what's going on.



    The last batch of MBPs came with a 1.5Gbps SATA connector. This is fine for HDDs in a notebook but for SSDs it can become the bottleneck. Apple released an firmware update for it but issued a silly disclaimer.

    Quote:

    About MacBook Pro EFI Firmware Update 1.7

    MacBook Pro EFI Firmware Update 1.7 addresses an issue reported by a small number of customers using drives based on the SATA 3Gbps specification with the June 2009 MacBook Pro. While this update allows drives to use transfer rates greater than 1.5Gbps, Apple has not qualified or offered these drives for Mac notebooks and their use is unsupported




    More on the issue here?
  • Reply 45 of 78
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gin_tonic View Post


    Next time try to buy wellknown brand RAM, not lower-end one.

    Try G.SKILL, Corsair, OSZ



    They are well known to me and make a good products. I?ve actually had problems with all of those companies over the years. They all had warranties and I got replacements, but the RAM was the problem. After trying 4 sticks of Patriot RAM even alongside my 2 sticks of 1GB Apple RAM in every combination possible not one of the sticks worked. This tells me it?s likely not the RAM, especially since I?ve used Patriot many times over the years.
  • Reply 46 of 78
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    The last batch of MBPs came with a 1.5Gbps SATA connector. This is fine for HDDs in a notebook but for SSDs it can become the bottleneck. Apple released an firmware update for it but issued a silly disclaimer.



    More on the issue here?



    That wasn't a connector issue, that was a driver or configuration issue.
  • Reply 47 of 78
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    That wasn't a connector issue, that was a driver or configuration issue.



    He does have an update saying it?s an issue with the logic board, but that is still a wonky issue to have with SATA. Even after the driver update the issues were still present and sometimes worse than before.



    I?m looking forward to getting a new Mac early next year but I will wait to see what they release and read a few reviews before making my decision.
  • Reply 48 of 78
    Quote:

    The Mac Pro needs a new set of graphics options much more than it needs new processors. It's embarrassing the way that it stands.



    Amen.



    This is a nonsense upgrade. .33 extra for $1200? Are they nuts?



    Yeesh. Just build a Hackintosh.



    Mac Pro's are rip offs.



    Take away its fancy case and you've got something that is £1000 overpriced. Ez.



    Take away the screen from the iMac (£800-£1000?) subtract it from the price of the top end iMac...and you have a...£700-900 mid-tower range.



    It's not like Apple doesn't have options. They're just margin whores. And the Mac Pro is evidence of it.



    Lemon Bon Bon.
  • Reply 49 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post


    This is a nonsense upgrade. .33 extra for $1200? Are they nuts?



    Not so easy. The default 2.66GHz costs itself about $500 and 3.33GHz costs about $1500. So the Apple's margin for the upgrade is about $200.
  • Reply 50 of 78
    mactrippermactripper Posts: 1,328member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hypoluxa View Post


    Dude... that is not going to happen. Intel's 40core chips are not going to be in any consumer machines for soime time. It would be waaaaay to $$$ to even consider it. Only the very very high govt/ scientific community will be able to use these for number crunching etc.. yes the movie community and 3d studio render farms might get them as well, but those shops tend to have capital to purchase such tech. However I could be wrong. But I do not se Apple killing the MacPro at all.



    Apple won't kill the MacPro, it's the customers who buy the MacPro for professional rendering that will kill it. Normal consumers don't need all that power, they certainly can't handle a 40, 80 or 100 core monster.



    Renderfarms, the military and scientific community will suck those 40, 80 and 100 core behemoths fast, especially since they use less power than current processors! Also unless Apple gets on board, it will run Windows, because Microsoft will see to it that it does. So there goes Apple video software business too, unless they code for Windows.



    If Apple doesn't offer a optional MacPro with these new monster processors, the market share for the MacPro is going to shrink like a sack of cold nuts.



    If Apple gets exclusive use of the new mega-cores before anyone else, they will sell quite a lot of machines. X-servers and MacPro's alike.



    A Mac might make take the top supercomputing title.
  • Reply 51 of 78
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gin_tonic View Post


    Not so easy. The default 2.66GHz costs itself about $500 and 3.33GHz costs about $1500. So the Apple's margin for the upgrade is about $200.



    Intel?s prices for 1000 units?.
    ? W3520 (8M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 2.66 GHz (130W) 4.80 GT/sec Intel® QPI 45nm) $284

    ? W3540 (8M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 2.93 GHz (130W) 4.80 GT/sec Intel® QPI 45nm) $562

    ? W3580 (8M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 3.33 GHz (130W) 6.40 GT/sec Intel® QPI 45nm) $999
    For Lemon Bon Bon, the increase in clock speed has little to do with the cot of the chip. It?s understandable if the price jump outweighs the speed bump but that doesn?t mean that Intel or Apple is price gouging. Just look at the 90nm Itaniums?
    ? 9150N (24M L3 cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.60 GHz (104W) 533/400 MHz FSB 90nm) $3,692
  • Reply 52 of 78
    nitronitro Posts: 91member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MexiChriS View Post


    Wish the MacBook Pro was more upgraded like this.



    Agree. more grunt for Macbook pro.
  • Reply 53 of 78
    mactrippermactripper Posts: 1,328member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    the 40 core CPU's are custom made for research purposes. with current technology there is no way Intel can make a 40 core CPU and sell it at a price people are willing to pay



    Not the average joe, but renderfarms, supercomputers, the military and scientifics will suck them up as they use less power than today's processors.



    Where does Apple lose here? Mostly the video rendering customers for the MacPro and X-Server who buy large amounts of these machines to service their Apple video software. Why buy 100 X-Servers at $1000 each when you can buy one 100 core Dell Server for half the price and use 1/100th of the power to boot? Will the Dell run OS X? Hell no, it's going to be Windows.



    If Apple gets exclusive use of the new mega-cores like they did with the G5's, they will get a lot of attention from all the markets just for the processors alone.



    It's also a bonus that OS X is Unix for the scientifics. Renderfarms will most likely use Linux as its light and custom. Even Pixar uses Linux for their renderfarm. The military will most likely use something so off brand that nobody knows what it is. But video rendering that uses OS X and Apple software will be left out in the cold, because Apple's limited vertical consumer product line won't carry a MacPro or x-Server with 40, 80 or 100 core processor.



    Sure some hack can be done that Linux will run on the farm and send the results back to OS X, but that's not a tight integration of Apple video software and hardware, certainly no money for Apple or it's stockholders.
  • Reply 54 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Intel’s prices for 1000 units….
    — W3520 (8M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 2.66 GHz (130W) 4.80 GT/sec Intel® QPI 45nm) $284

    — W3540 (8M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 2.93 GHz (130W) 4.80 GT/sec Intel® QPI 45nm) $562

    — W3580 (8M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 3.33 GHz (130W) 6.40 GT/sec Intel® QPI 45nm) $999



    I just took retail prices. If look at the wholesale prices, when Apple's margin is about $500. Really not bad Half grand from air
  • Reply 55 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    Why buy 100 X-Servers at $1000 each when you can buy one 100 core Dell Server for half the price and use 1/100th of the power to boot? Will the Dell run OS X? Hell no, it's going to be Windows.



    May be they should buy Sony PS3 ? USAF did that.
  • Reply 56 of 78
    mactrippermactripper Posts: 1,328member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gin_tonic View Post


    May be they should buy Sony PS3 ? USAF did that.



    Especially since the PS3 can run Linux. (it's a hot S.O.B. though)



    But video rendering, that's Apple prime software sales, they need to get on the Intel mega core power wagon, especially exclusive first use.



    Expect Apple stock to jump high the next quarter after release if it occurs.
  • Reply 57 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gin_tonic View Post


    Not so easy. The default 2.66GHz costs itself about $500 and 3.33GHz costs about $1500. So the Apple's margin for the upgrade is about $200.



    but there is no way the rest of the system can cost any where near $2000 with a carp video card like it has and only 3gb of ram.
  • Reply 58 of 78
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe The Dragon View Post


    but there is no way the rest of the system can cost any where near $2000 with a carp video card like it has and only 3gb of ram.



    If you spec it out with the cheap off the shelf products from online vendors, of course not, but this isn?t designed for gaming or for hobbyists to put together and tweak. It?s a professional workstation. Go to any major PC vendors site and you?ll see lower-end products and higher-end products with the same offering in the CPU, but they are not the same systems by any stretch and the price tag backs that up.



    The Mac Pro is simply not designed for the average user. If you are even considering building your own tower then you should go for it.
  • Reply 59 of 78
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,003member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wraithofwonder View Post


    Seriously, a five day wait and perhaps ten seconds of reading headlines. Given a fair amount of updates, we're looking at two or three minutes of work for the life of the machine.



    And reading up about how to actually do the workaround, then taking the time to do it.



    The one other thing I've mentioned in this forum before is that, if a component in your Hackintosh fails, then you'll need to deal with the tech support for the manufacturer directly, file an RMA case, ship the component back on your own dime, then wait 4-8 weeks for a replacement. As compared to taking your Mac down to your local Apple Store and having the component replaced for you on the spot in most cases. Again, another issue where the bit of extra money you spend at the beginning saves you a fair amount of hassle in the long run.



    And yes, my time is worth that much to me. In addition to working on/managing 2 or 3 software projects at the same time, I have a very young son who demands a lot of care and a household to maintain. So spare time is a luxury which I don't have much of these days. The days when I lived at home, had everything taken care of for me, and had nothing else to do but fiddle around with a computer are long gone...
  • Reply 60 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nano_tube View Post


    You are welcome.

    However, you can have a Mac Pro and a pretty good one.



    Consider this: a Core i7 920, 12 GB of RAM, 1TB HD (or more), and a Geforce 9800GTX 512MB or a Radeon 4890 1GB (+ all the other stuff required: nice case, whisper quite power supply and fans, DVD-RW, etc). Install a RETAIL Mac OS X SL and run it NATIVELY so you can update directly from Apple (no hacks).



    Cost? about $1,500US.



    That is a far more powerful system than the entry Quad Mac Pro and costs $1,000US less.



    You will be breaking Apple User License by installing Mac OS X on a non-apple PC, *BUT* you will not be stealing/pirating if you are buying a *retail* install DVD of SL.



    I am running a Hackintosh and it works like a dream. I am using it because like you, I did not had enough money to replace my aging G5 PowerMac with a new Mac Pro.



    If you are interested I can show you where to start and believe me, it is faaaaar easier than you might think.





    I specd out the same machine as the base Mac Pro. Xeon processor, ram, everything to a T. Came out around 1200 total. It was sad to see the 1000 dollar price difference for it being a Mac, when all the parts were identical but the software. Running a Quad Core hackintosh that cost me 500 bucks at the moment, its really fast and stable!
Sign In or Register to comment.