SSD is better than a PCI RAM drive, mutiple mid-range GPUs are not really better than a single high-end GPU and probably draw more power at idle. Fiber channel is slower than Thunderbolt and there's an adapter if needs be:
8 lane PCIe RAM drives avoid the SATA bottlemeck. The difference is 32Gb/s for PCIe 2.x x8 vs 6Gb/s. If you need speed you go PCIe...it's pricey but for some applications worth every penny.
GPU idle draw is...well...somewhat uninteresting for a workstation class machine.
16GFC FiberChannel can now go 16Gbps. In any case you are comparing the full TB bandwidth with the full FC bandwidth assuming that the TB isn't being shared.
The 8Gb/s FC HBAs require 8 lanes for max throughput.
The TB to FC adapter is very nice and a great equalizer for the Mini and the iMac in terms of access to FC assets but pretty much you're going to want to dedicate the whole TB link to it.
And the adapter's max throughput rates are around 800MB/s.
The RocketRaid 2744 wants the x16 slot. There's simply lots of stuff around that wants more than 10Gb/s bandwidth. And remember that each PCIe 2.0 lane is only worth 5GT/s or around 4 Gbps. Sure, they'll run with less...but you're pay for a lot of performance you're leaving on the table.
Quote:
Red Rocket can be hooked up as you said via an expansion port:
Yeah, it is a bit counter-intuitive to remove the slots and then stick one on the outside but ideally you shouldn't need a special card for 4K. You might not if Apple gets native RED editing in FCPX and it saves you a few thousand dollars.
I don't think an iMac could quite do the same as it doesn't have enough PCI lanes but it's not far off. I don't see that as a bad thing. Apple should be driving more users to iMacs by allowing high-end jobs to be done on them. Right now, the high-end workflows are dictating the form factors and prices of the machines and that doesn't really have to be the case.
To match the capability of the Pro, you'd have 3 boxes at most = 6 cables. An adaptor doesn't need much power so it's just the box itself. The Red Rocket would need two cables and the AJA Riker would have one cable, same as with the PCI version. You're really only talking about PCI cards that have no special hardware. Overall, 2 additional cables and two additional boxes.
For high-end users that need no peripherals, they get smaller enclosures and cheaper prices.
They'd have the GPU in an x16 slot, the fiber channel connection can be done with an adapter (but optical Thunderbolt is better), the red rocket would be in an enclosure and the AJA Riker is a standalone box anyway with both Thunderbolt and PCI connections. The Riker box would be better with Thunderbolt as you don't have to install a PCI card.
What you're doing here is limiting cards/devices that want 8 lanes of PCIe (32Gbs) and running them at the equivalent of 2.5 lanes (10Gbps). Shared. Awesome if you want to edit 4K on your MBA since before TB you couldn't at all. Now you can. Well, Dave Helmly can anyway.
Not so awesome if you had all of this running in your Mac Pro already and now have to go this slower setup that's even more of a cable nightmare.
So for lower end pro needs, if you can get away with using a MBA, the iMac should do pretty good. At the high end where they want to max throughput you're gimped with only having access the TB.
The Riker is a box but connects to the pc via 8 lane PCIe.
See the card in the corner. If there is a TB in the back, it will, like the Red Rocket, work. Just slower.
Which high end users are you speaking of? Do you really think anyone buying a Red Rocket at $4750, a Aja Kona 3G for $2000 and a FC card for $1000 and a high end GPU is really sweating the price or size of the current Mac Pros? High end users typically aren't as price conscious as much as performance conscious.
Whoa, based on some of the posts here that describe the needs of high end users, the posters are high. An iMac will serve the needs of professionals? WTF, it doesn't even serve the needs of high end consumers! Some droid at Best Buy told me the other day that an i7 iMac had all the power my Mac Pro has, and he was right, sort of. The iMac's CPU does match the power of many Mac Pro models, but theres more to pro computing than the CPU. By the droid's resoning, Apple could drop an i7 in the Mini and call it a "Pro" machine.
PCIe slots: as illustrated in the posts above, a lot of pro hardware interfaces with the computer via PCIe cards. Thunderbolt isn't fast enough for this, nor is it a proven, reliable technology.
HDD expandability: no comparison here, the iMac buries it's HDDs so deep you need tech certification to get at them. You could plug in an external RAID array via Thunderbolt, but it wouldn't be as fast as an SAS connected RAID enclosure, and many Mac Pro users just set up internal RAID, without all the extra mess and cost of an external enclosure and cables. A previous poster suggested the iMac switch to 2.5" drives. Good idea, then the iMac can have even fewer HDD options!
Graphics card: iMac is worthless here, you're stuck with the original card. Want to upgrade it? Throw out your computer and that beautiful 27" IPS display and buy another iMac with another 27" IPS display. Need to do high end 3D work? Not happening on an iMac.
Speaking of displays, want something larger than 27"? Want a higher end IPS display with a wide color gamut? Want to drive more than two displays? Apple's iMac says to go fu[k yourself.
Upgradability: It's easy to drop a faster CPU in a Mac Pro, impossible to do so in an iMac. I've got a Mac Pro on my desk that started life as a quad core 2.66 GHz Nehalem macpro4,1 and is now a hexa core 3.33 GHz Westmere upgraded to macpro5,1 firmware, identical to the ones now selling at the Apple Store. (It's for sale if anyone wants it!). Need a new display? Throw out your iMac. Need a new computer? Throw out your iMac. Want a bigger hard drive? Either take your iMac into someone trained to install one, or buy an enclosure and deal with another thing on your desk and more cables behind it. Add a few external HDDs and that iMac doesn't look so slick anymore.
Ease of use: another are where there is no comparison. Inserting an optical disc into a Mac Pro is easy, just drop it in the tray. The iMac has a silly slot loading drive that sometimes marks your CDs. Think optical discs are dead, and flash drives are the new thang? I plug my flash drives into the front of my Mac Pro without getting out of my chair. On an iMac, I've got to get up, bend over and around the iMac, curse and turn on a light, then bend over and around again to finally locate a USB port on the back at the bottom of the iMac. Apple could just put the ports on the edge of the iMac, but then it might not look as cool...as if an iMac user looks cool all bent over and contorted to try to plug in a freakin' flash drive.
As to buying a Mac Pro now or waiting, personally I'd buy now. Ivy Bridge isn't that big of an update unless 12 cores isn't doing it for you. Nice thing about buying now is that you can save a lot buying used and get exactly the same hardware as if you bought new. The loaded hexa-core on my deskt right now would cost nearly $6000 new, used they go for about half that much.
Whoa, based on some of the posts here that describe the needs of high end users, the posters are high. An iMac will serve the needs of professionals? WTF, it doesn't even serve the needs of high end consumers! Some droid at Best Buy told me the other day that an i7 iMac had all the power my Mac Pro has, and he was right, sort of. The iMac's CPU does match the power of many Mac Pro models, but theres more to pro computing than the CPU. By the droid's resoning, Apple could drop an i7 in the Mini and call it a "Pro" machine.
Yah, I wrote that. If you can do 4K editing on a MBA then you can probably fill the needs of many pros with the iMac.
I just think that those folks that need the expansion capabilities of the Mac Pro isn't going to be able to get by with one slot and a bunch of Thunderbolt ports and there are more of those folks than Marvin believes.
If there is to be only one Mac Pro it pretty much needs to remain very similar to today or lose a lot of the Mac pro customers.
The folks that only need to max RAM and use every CPU cycle aren't all that price conscious. Better for them to pay for the expansion slots they are underutilizing than to leave the folks that need to slots out in the cold.
Quote:
Graphics card: iMac is worthless here, you're stuck with the original card. Want to upgrade it? Throw out your computer and that beautiful 27" IPS display and buy another iMac with another 27" IPS display. Need to do high end 3D work? Not happening on an iMac.
Speaking of displays, want something larger than 27"? Want a higher end IPS display with a wide color gamut? Want to drive more than two displays? Apple's iMac says to go fu[k yourself.
Upgradability: It's easy to drop a faster CPU in a Mac Pro, impossible to do so in an iMac. I've got a Mac Pro on my desk that started life as a quad core 2.66 GHz Nehalem macpro4,1 and is now a hexa core 3.33 GHz Westmere upgraded to macpro5,1 firmware, identical to the ones now selling at the Apple Store. (It's for sale if anyone wants it!). Need a new display? Throw out your iMac. Need a new computer? Throw out your iMac. Want a bigger hard drive? Either take your iMac into someone trained to install one, or buy an enclosure and deal with another thing on your desk and more cables behind it. Add a few external HDDs and that iMac doesn't look so slick anymore.
The 3.33Ghz Wetmere is $1639 on Newegg. The 3.4Ghz Quad i7 iMac with the 6970M GPU is $2300.
If I can get more than $700 more for a used 27" iMac than your 2.66 GHz Nehalem on EBay I end up with a new monitor and guts vs just a processor upgrade. Looks like the 2009 iMac 27" (3.2 Ghz 4G RAM) is running $1199 on EBay. Looks like a Xeon X5550 2.66 Ghz is running around $400.
I looked at replacing the CPUs in my old Mac Pro and decided not to bother.
Upgradability: It's easy to drop a faster CPU in a Mac Pro, impossible to do so in an iMac. I've got a Mac Pro on my desk that started life as a quad core 2.66 GHz Nehalem macpro4,1 and is now a hexa core 3.33 GHz Westmere upgraded to macpro5,1 firmware, identical to the ones now selling at the Apple Store. (It's for sale if anyone wants it!). Need a new display? Throw out your iMac. Need a new computer? Throw out your iMac. Want a bigger hard drive? Either take your iMac into someone trained to install one, or buy an enclosure and deal with another thing on your desk and more cables behind it. Add a few external HDDs and that iMac doesn't look so slick anymore.
Ease of use: another are where there is no comparison. Inserting an optical disc into a Mac Pro is easy, just drop it in the tray. The iMac has a silly slot loading drive that sometimes marks your CDs. Think optical discs are dead, and flash drives are the new thang? I plug my flash drives into the front of my Mac Pro without getting out of my chair. On an iMac, I've got to get up, bend over and around the iMac, curse and turn on a light, then bend over and around again to finally locate a USB port on the back at the bottom of the iMac. Apple could just put the ports on the edge of the iMac, but then it might not look as cool...as if an iMac user looks cool all bent over and contorted to try to plug in a freakin' flash drive.
As to buying a Mac Pro now or waiting, personally I'd buy now. Ivy Bridge isn't that big of an update unless 12 cores isn't doing it for you. Nice thing about buying now is that you can save a lot buying used and get exactly the same hardware as if you bought new. The loaded hexa-core on my deskt right now would cost nearly $6000 new, used they go for about half that much.
You're missing a few things here. Ability to upgrade cpus is incidental. It voids the warranty and applecare. It's just that you can do it because they're not soldered in. In no way has Apple worked to make that possible for users. Gpus are a bit different in that Apple does retail them independently as well as cto. Your post about Ivy Bridge is also complete crap. The current mac pro uses Nehalem and Westmere, not Sandy Bridge. You're waiting for Sandy Bridge E versions. Ivy Bridge E isn't out until around this time next year. No one suggested the OP wait that long. The HDD issue and screen glare on the imac should have been solved long ago, along with a good solution for display height. Someone linked me to an ergotron arm without noting the reviews that stated how little control it adds to height and positioning adjustment. They could use a good telescopic base, but then people would complain that it's ugly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Upgradability:
The 3.33Ghz Wetmere is $1639 on Newegg. The 3.4Ghz Quad i7 iMac with the 6970M GPU is $2300.
If I can get more than $700 more for a used 27" iMac than your 2.66 GHz Nehalem on EBay I end up with a new monitor and guts vs just a processor upgrade. Looks like the 2009 iMac 27" (3.2 Ghz 4G RAM) is running $1199 on EBay. Looks like a Xeon X5550 2.66 Ghz is running around $400.
I looked at replacing the CPUs in my old Mac Pro and decided not to bother.
You're looking at the wrong components on the mac pro. You are viewing dual socket components. The ones in the single socket mac pro are completely different. The W3580 would run you around $600 for the 3.33 ghz westmere. You just can't use two of them in the same machine. A 2.66 ghz nehalem is a W3520. I disagree that slots double the price of everything. Apple sets pricing that they like. It's spaced out this way by design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Oh, regarding the mini server as a pro machine...well they make nice little renderboxes for $1200 with applecare.
You'll probably fry the poor things over time but with Applecare they'll at least replace it once or twice.
That's actually possible. Most of the thermal limits are based upon daily use not exceeding 8 hours. Recommended thermal limits are much lower if machine components are supposed to be in use closer to 24/7. Anyway there are better ways to build a render farm. You listen to Marvin too much. Sometimes he posts really good information. Other times he gets carried away, and that statement will most likely guarantee a response >=)> .
RAM drives, mid range GPUs, Fiber channel cards, Red Rocket, etc. 4 slots is very useful. Especially considering many high end gear exist only in card form and often used on both Windows and OSX.
Many people, especially those that never make use of expansion cards don't grasp this little detail.
Few will move to thunderbolt.
For many uses TB simply isn't an acceptable alternative to a plug in board. That may be due to speed, the funky nature of the connecting cord or a half dozen other reasons. The fact is PCI-Epxpress boards aren't going away at all, even if Thunderbolt becomes a roaring success the boards won't go away.
If Apple only makes one tower it best be one that can kick ass and take names. And that means being able to handle these high end use cases because everything that a 1 slot single CPU Mac Pro can handle can be done with a top end iMac. Just because you don't need/want 4 PCIe cards doesn't mean that folks don't need them or that they are "theoretical". I've seen a few high end rigs.
Well I'm not concerned with high end machines. If you follow these threads it should be very clear that I'm advocating slots in a midrange machine. That doesn't eliminate the need for a high end machine as I rather see it filling a gap.
Forcing these users to attach a slower TB PCIe expansion chassis so they can have PCIe slots would be insane. In order to see "six x4 slots" they'd have to run SIX thunderbolt cables to the chassis. If that would even work right.
Insanity is right. I suspect that people think that TB is everything a chassis with several PCI -Express slots is. That isn't the case at all. Further we have PCI Express 3 now, the difference is even more stunning.
You CAN do 4K editing, even on a MBA via a Red Rocket. But again, most of these expansion chassis ends the TB chain. Instead of a machine with the cards you need inside of it you have a rats nest of TB cables and little boxes attached to yet another mass of video cabling and fiber. WHEN it even works.
In many cases TB would make that rats nest dramatically worst. Not only do you have the TB cables but most likely each device will need its own power supply and electrical outlet. TB has its uses, and frankly I think it will be a success story for Apple, but it is not a slot replacement. If any thing TB can be thought of as a Firewire replacement.
Here's a very simple use case you can't handle in your design and fairly common for high end 4K workflows:
Current Mac Pro:
Slot 1 16x GPU (runs as 8 lane in the current Mac Pro)
Slot 2 8x 4 channel 4 Gbps Fiber Channel HBA
Slot 3 1x card or empty
Slot 4 8x AJA video capture card (the new Riker 5K, the current 4K card, etc)
What they'd WANT to run in a future Mac Pro is this:
Slot 1 16x GPU full speed
Slot 2 8x Fiber channel HBA
Slot 3 8x Red Rocket
Slot 4 8x AJA Riker
You can run the Red Rocket x4 mode but obviously it's slower. Some pros do that now.
Pros will be throwing rocks at the glass Apple stores and with good cause.
What can't you do with the top end iMac that you can do with your Mac Pro design with one CPU and 1 x16 slot? I really can't think of anything beyond "I wish I could more easily replace my internal boot drive and GPU". Not any actual jobs. Not even true high end gaming without dual GPUs. Any improvement is very incremental at the cost of completely hosing pros that need the slots of the current Mac Pro.
I suspect that the people advocating the iMac over the Pro or even the mythical XMac are grossly out of touch with reality. Or maybe they just can't grok reality outside the box they are painted into.
And the Mac Pro can still meet your needs. It just costs more. But even then $2500 isn't all that much.
And size is meaningless for most pros. Being able to rack mount the Mac Pro more easily is far more valuable than your mini-tower design. Anyone that needs a smaller desktop footprint is already sporting an iMac.
Rack mounting is an interesting concept as the current Pro isn't ideal for that. I'm also convinced that the current Mac Pro is just to big moving forward so I could see a much smaller box coming. Ideally a rectangular box 8 inches or so wide so that they could easily be mounted side by side in a rack. With todays hardware they could easily do this in a box that has at least three slots with the GPU and CPU on a small mother board. Maybe the box would be 3 to 4 U high but that really isn't a problem especially if two can be put on a shelf and tightly coupled. Either way we are talking dramatically less volume that with the current Mac Pro.
Whoa, based on some of the posts here that describe the needs of high end users, the posters are high. An iMac will serve the needs of professionals? WTF, it doesn't even serve the needs of high end consumers! Some droid at Best Buy told me the other day that an i7 iMac had all the power my Mac Pro has, and he was right, sort of. The iMac's CPU does match the power of many Mac Pro models, but theres more to pro computing than the CPU. By the droid's resoning, Apple could drop an i7 in the Mini and call it a "Pro" machine.
?Anybody that says the iMac is a Pro class machine because of the processor isn't clear at all with respect to the term. This non sense bothers me a great deal in these forums as it seems to be an attempt to creat argument where none is possible.
PCIe slots: as illustrated in the posts above, a lot of pro hardware interfaces with the computer via PCIe cards. Thunderbolt isn't fast enough for this, nor is it a proven, reliable technology.
HDD expandability: no comparison here, the iMac buries it's HDDs so deep you need tech certification to get at them. You could plug in an external RAID array via Thunderbolt, but it wouldn't be as fast as an SAS connected RAID enclosure, and many Mac Pro users just set up internal RAID, without all the extra mess and cost of an external enclosure and cables. A previous poster suggested the iMac switch to 2.5" drives. Good idea, then the iMac can have even fewer HDD options!
Graphics card: iMac is worthless here, you're stuck with the original card. Want to upgrade it? Throw out your computer and that beautiful 27" IPS display and buy another iMac with another 27" IPS display. Need to do high end 3D work? Not happening on an iMac.
Speaking of displays, want something larger than 27"? Want a higher end IPS display with a wide color gamut? Want to drive more than two displays? Apple's iMac says to go fu[k yourself.
Upgradability: It's easy to drop a faster CPU in a Mac Pro, impossible to do so in an iMac. I've got a Mac Pro on my desk that started life as a quad core 2.66 GHz Nehalem macpro4,1 and is now a hexa core 3.33 GHz Westmere upgraded to macpro5,1 firmware, identical to the ones now selling at the Apple Store. (It's for sale if anyone wants it!). Need a new display? Throw out your iMac. Need a new computer? Throw out your iMac. Want a bigger hard drive? Either take your iMac into someone trained to install one, or buy an enclosure and deal with another thing on your desk and more cables behind it. Add a few external HDDs and that iMac doesn't look so slick anymore.
Ease of use: another are where there is no comparison. Inserting an optical disc into a Mac Pro is easy, just drop it in the tray. The iMac has a silly slot loading drive that sometimes marks your CDs. Think optical discs are dead, and flash drives are the new thang? I plug my flash drives into the front of my Mac Pro without getting out of my chair. On an iMac, I've got to get up, bend over and around the iMac, curse and turn on a light, then bend over and around again to finally locate a USB port on the back at the bottom of the iMac. Apple could just put the ports on the edge of the iMac, but then it might not look as cool...as if an iMac user looks cool all bent over and contorted to try to plug in a freakin' flash drive.
As to buying a Mac Pro now or waiting, personally I'd buy now. Ivy Bridge isn't that big of an update unless 12 cores isn't doing it for you. Nice thing about buying now is that you can save a lot buying used and get exactly the same hardware as if you bought new. The loaded hexa-core on my deskt right now would cost nearly $6000 new, used they go for about half that much.
All right HOW MANY are throughly frustrated with quoting on Safari on a Mac right now? The point of forum software should be to make communications easier not more difficult.
I dislike all the extra returns I get that I not only have to delete manually… but also immediately go back and EDIT my posts because it PUTS THEM BACK IN after I've deleted them.
But other than that and the fact that the idiotic text has a BACKGROUND COLOR, I'm fine with it.
I notice that hitting quote on your post doesn't give me any content, however…
I really do appreciate all of your help. Although you all have, for the most part, gone way over my head with all this... I work with computers not on them much any more. It's been many years since I did anything other than plug and unplug a component, slip in a card or drive, memory and such. I'd have to call out my superiors to interpret all this... : -O
Calling:
Gran Senator
who represented Malastare in the Galactic Senate during the final decade of the Galactic Republic.
Abeloth
An entity strong in the Dark Side of the Force imprisoned within the Maw that is released by Darth Caedus and later defeated by Luke Skywalker and mysterious member of the Lost Tribe of the Sith
Admiral Gail Ackbar
Commander of the Rebel fleet in their attack against the second Death Star
Mas Amedda
Vice chair of the Galactic Senate.
Darth Andeddu
The self-styled "Immortal God-King of Prakith" who reigned as Dark Lord of the Sith during the Hundred-Year Darkness. He left behind a holocron that supposedly held to secret to immortality.
Commander Appo
Clone Commander of the 501st Legion.
Attichitcuk
The father of Chewbacca one of Kashyyyk's prominent chieftains during the final years of the Galactic Republic.
B4-D4
The administrative droid that works for Czerka on Telos in the Outer Rim.
Moradmin Bast
Imperial general who served aboard the first Death Star; during the space battle above Yavin 4
Bollux
Droid that is part of Han Solo's crew
Sora Bulq
Jedi Master
C-3PO
Little smart droid
Darth Cognus
Sith Lord
Luke Skywalker
FX-7
An older model, but still a serviceable medical assistant droid; with its many arms it can assess a patient quickly with multiple tests and provide the surgeon the information it needs to assist in suitable treatment
Gonk Droid
A rectangular-cubed shaped droid that walks very slowly.
Jedi master
Luminara Unduli
Ysanne Isard
Former head of Imperial Intelligence
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Jedi Master who trains Anakin Skywalker and Luke Skywalker. A member of the Jedi Council and one of the Jedi survivors of Order 66. His master is Qui-Gon Jinn, who was killed by Darth Maul.
Lowbacca
Wookiee Jedi Knight
Mama the Hutt
Ziro the Hutt, Zorba the Hutt, Ebor the Hutt, Pazda the Hutt and Jiliac the Hutt's mother and Jabba the Hutt's grandmother.
MD-5
A medical droid serving Trioculus
General Rom Mohc
Creator of the Dark Trooper program
Astri Oddo
Friend of Obi-Wan Kenobi and ally of the Jedi Order
Let me adjust my retractor beam adjusted to see if I can hear them.... :-D
I just think that those folks that need the expansion capabilities of the Mac Pro isn't going to be able to get by with one slot and a bunch of Thunderbolt ports and there are more of those folks than Marvin believes.
Well sure, many of us could "get by" with a bunch of TB ports, a rat's nest of cables, and a desk crowded with external enclosures. We prefer the clean elegance of a Mac Pro. Many of us could get by with a single internal HDD and one or two external USB HDDs, but we prefer the four internal HDD bays in the Mac Pro.
Actually, ALL users could get by using Windows.
Quote:
Dual 30" + the 27" internal panel enough?
I didn't know the iMac could drive two displays so large, that's awesome! Still, for someone who needs a wide color gamut display, the iMac isn't a practical solution. And as an all in one, it still forces the user to buy a new computer and display when only one needs replacing or upgrading. For a smaller, cheaper display that wouldn't be such a big deal, but it's pretty stupid to tie such a gorgeous 27" IPS display to such a limited all in one design.
Quote:
Upgradability: The 3.33Ghz Wetmere is $1639 on Newegg....I looked at replacing the CPUs in my old Mac Pro and decided not to bother.
I bought aW3680 for $545 new on eBay. Provantage has them for under $600. And some of us enjoy upgrading CPUs. We like to tinker. It's not a "bother", it's a feature.
Quote:
Ability to upgrade cpus is incidental. It voids the warranty and applecare. It's just that you can do it because they're not soldered in. In no way has Apple worked to make that possible for users. Gpus are a bit different in that Apple does retail them independently as well as cto. Your post about Ivy Bridge is also complete crap. The current mac pro uses Nehalem and Westmere, not Sandy Bridge.
I never said anything about Mac Pros using Sandy Bridge. And incidental or not, many users consider it a feature to be able to upgrade CPUs. I've met a few Windows users who would switch to OS X if only they could buy a Mac with a CPU mounted in an honest socket for under $2000. Voiding warranty and applecare? Usually CPUs are upgraded after those have expired, but there's always the option of reinstalling the original CPU(s) in the event that Applecare service is needed. Personally I just buy used and upgrade components to my needs or the needs of those to whom I'm selling the computer.
It's my belief that if Apple offered a fully upgradable i7 tower, a significant portion of technically inclined Windows users and tinkerers would switch to OS X. It's a shame to see such a puissant operating system ignored by so many geeks because of Apple's limited hardware options. 10 years ago, the lack of a midrange tower was understandable since Apple needed phat margins to stay afloat. Even so, I'm not convinced a midrange tower would ever have hurt Apple's profits. How many tower buyers opt for an Apple display? How many will buy iDevices to go with their new midrange tower? How many will consider upgrading the midrange tower to a Mac Pro after having used and loved OS X?
I didn't know the iMac could drive two displays so large, that's awesome! Still, for someone who needs a wide color gamut display, the iMac isn't a practical solution. And as an all in one, it still forces the user to buy a new computer and display when only one needs replacing or upgrading. For a smaller, cheaper display that wouldn't be such a big deal, but it's pretty stupid to tie such a gorgeous 27" IPS display to such a limited all in one design.
Perhaps I'm a little too grumpy today. On the Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge thing, I was saying that the Mac Pro would most likely use Sandy Bridge E cpus which are just starting to ship in volume. My point was that they didn't actually skip that generation. It's simply fallen behind Intel's worst case scenario. You may remember last year they had problems with the initial launch of Sandy Bridge as they issued a recall. On the display thing, I need to emphasize that wide gamut is commonly misunderstood. No one really needs it. It's typically about the ability to match certain colors relative to inkjet printing, prepress, or broadcast purposes within a certain Delta E tolerance. The typical Adobe RGB wide gamut reference commonly seen today doesn't necessarily improve this. In fact crts and some of the earlier lcd displays had a lot of advantages in terms of control and fine tuning capability. I can think of several sRGB displays that were better in terms of consistency than almost anything on the market today.
Perhaps I'm a little too grumpy today. On the Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge thing, I was saying that the Mac Pro would most likely use Sandy Bridge E cpus which are just starting to ship in volume. My point was that they didn't actually skip that generation. It's simply fallen behind Intel's worst case scenario. You may remember last year they had problems with the initial launch of Sandy Bridge as they issued a recall. On the display thing, I need to emphasize that wide gamut is commonly misunderstood. No one really needs it. It's typically about the ability to match certain colors relative to inkjet printing, prepress, or broadcast purposes within a certain Delta E tolerance. The typical Adobe RGB wide gamut reference commonly seen today doesn't necessarily improve this. In fact crts and some of the earlier lcd displays had a lot of advantages in terms of control and fine tuning capability. I can think of several sRGB displays that were better in terms of consistency than almost anything on the market today.
Oh yeah, that's true, Xeons are a bit behind now.
It's also true that most people don't need wide gamut displays, but some professionals do. If Apple abandoned those professionals, it wouldn't amount to many sales directly, but those professionals set an example with their workstation choices. When people in all the other departments see the graphics department using Macs, the message is that Macs are powerful computers for serious work, and that attitude is carried with them to Best Buy.
Another thing about high gamut displays, while most users don't need them, just about any professional who needs high color accuracy ends up with one because most of the high end IPS displays use a wide color gamut. I'm looking to replace my high end CRT display, and it's pretty annoying how hard it is to find a high quality IPS display that is not wide color gamut. OS X lags behind Windows in supporting this technology. It's too bad, because while most of us do not need a wide color gamut, if we had computers that could manage that gamut properly, most of us would want a wide color gamut display. They are beautiful to behold, it's a case where you don't realize the limitations of the standard color gamut until seeing wide color gamut images. I'd actually prefer a wider color gamut display that was fully supported by OS X to a higher resolution display.
It's also true that most people don't need wide gamut displays, but some professionals do. If Apple abandoned those professionals, it wouldn't amount to many sales directly, but those professionals set an example with their workstation choices. When people in all the other departments see the graphics department using Macs, the message is that Macs are powerful computers for serious work, and that attitude is carried with them to Best Buy.
Another thing about high gamut displays, while most users don't need them, just about any professional who needs high color accuracy ends up with one because most of the high end IPS displays use a wide color gamut. I'm looking to replace my high end CRT display, and it's pretty annoying how hard it is to find a high quality IPS display that is not wide color gamut. OS X lags behind Windows in supporting this technology. It's too bad, because while most of us do not need a wide color gamut, if we had computers that could manage that gamut properly, most of us would want a wide color gamut display. They are beautiful to behold, it's a case where you don't realize the limitations of the standard color gamut until seeing wide color gamut images. I'd actually prefer a wider color gamut display that was fully supported by OS X to a higher resolution display.
Apple's marketing is pure genius, and they do make nice computers. I don't really dispute that. It's just that a good solution doesn't have to be a Mac. Okay on wide gamut displays, it's not as simple as you're suggesting. First of all Apple moved to LED backlighting. Implementing a wide gamut panel there would be somewhat problematic. LED in general historically had problems with color stability. It still has some issues today, and they're more difficult to calibrate. As to "needing" wide gamut, it doesn't guarantee you better color accuracy. Extra colors are added, but they may not mean much to you depending on your subject matter. It isn't automatically better. It does spread the color values out more, and it typically requires more aggressive dithering. I've got both types in front of me right now. The older one is an NEC2190. The newer one is a CG243W. The NEC does look different, but it's way past the point at which I'd trust it. There have been some sRGB displays that were really excellent. Like when this Eizo came out, this model was a pain in the ass to calibrate. You could use a spectrophotometer, but colorimeters at the time would leave you with greenish neutral values. The newer self calibrating ones seem to be a bit better in that regard, and a couple of the newer colorimeters do an okay job on this one.
When you say color manage it properly, I also don't think you understand what you are saying. With a good profile under Snow Leopard or later, the icons don't come out super saturated any longer. If you're referring to 10 bit displayport, I doubt we'll get that due to thunderbolt. Even with applications that could recognize it and make use of the adjusted frame buffer, you wouldn't notice a huge difference overall. As you probably know these devices are tuned approximately to gamma 2.2, much like their reference color spaces. This isn't quite as evil as some people suggest. It's a way of dealing with displaying images over a low dynamic range. If they were displayed in a linear manner over a 300:1-500:1 dynamic range, they'd look ugly, and you must understand that some of the astronomical numbers stated for some displays really aren't very accurate. Anyway the purpose of 10 bit there would be better shadow value allocation. You don't even need a 10 bit panel output. You just need math with fewer rounding errors when the values are spread so thin already.
Apple's marketing is pure genius, and they do make nice computers. I don't really dispute that. It's just that a good solution doesn't have to be a Mac. Okay on wide gamut displays, it's not as simple as you're suggesting. First of all Apple moved to LED backlighting. Implementing a wide gamut panel there would be somewhat problematic. LED in general historically had problems with color stability. It still has some issues today, and they're more difficult to calibrate. As to "needing" wide gamut, it doesn't guarantee you better color accuracy. Extra colors are added, but they may not mean much to you depending on your subject matter. It isn't automatically better. It does spread the color values out more, and it typically requires more aggressive dithering. I've got both types in front of me right now. The older one is an NEC2190. The newer one is a CG243W. The NEC does look different, but it's way past the point at which I'd trust it. There have been some sRGB displays that were really excellent. Like when this Eizo came out, this model was a pain in the ass to calibrate. You could use a spectrophotometer, but colorimeters at the time would leave you with greenish neutral values. The newer self calibrating ones seem to be a bit better in that regard, and a couple of the newer colorimeters do an okay job on this one.
When you say color manage it properly, I also don't think you understand what you are saying. With a good profile under Snow Leopard or later, the icons don't come out super saturated any longer. If you're referring to 10 bit displayport, I doubt we'll get that due to thunderbolt. Even with applications that could recognize it and make use of the adjusted frame buffer, you wouldn't notice a huge difference overall. As you probably know these devices are tuned approximately to gamma 2.2, much like their reference color spaces. This isn't quite as evil as some people suggest. It's a way of dealing with displaying images over a low dynamic range. If they were displayed in a linear manner over a 300:1-500:1 dynamic range, they'd look ugly, and you must understand that some of the astronomical numbers stated for some displays really aren't very accurate. Anyway the purpose of 10 bit there would be better shadow value allocation. You don't even need a 10 bit panel output. You just need math with fewer rounding errors when the values are spread so thin already.
You seem to have a way of interpreting the polar opposite of what I've written.
For one, I never suggested Apple move to a wide gamut LED iMac. Would I like to see the whole computer industry adopt a wider color gamut that the current standard RGB gamut? Hell yes, I think consumers would be more impressed by that than by what higher resolutions can do at this point. Do I think it will happen? Hell no. Take the difficulty Apple had with the transition from PPC to Intel, and multiply that by 100, and the resulting clusterfu[k would resemble the situation if the computer industry tried to move to a wider gamut.
I never said wide color gamut guarantees better color accuracy. I said that it's hard to find a high end IPS display without a wide color gamut. I also never said that a wider color gamut is "automatically better," I said the opposite, or least that was my point. Without applications and images/graphics that can use the wider color space, the wide gamut display is going to look worse.
All that aside, the main point is simply that to capture hobbyist/enthusiast computer users, Apple needs to be expanding user options, not restricting them, which exactly what an all in one design does. In raw numbers these "powerusers" are a small portion of the market, but their influence is hard to overestimate. They're the ones all the other users go to for buying advice. They tell all their friends and relatives what to buy, and then help support these friends and relatives when they run into problems. Apple should be going after these powerusers, they've got a powerful OS already, and a large enough marketshare in gadgets to be known first hand to many consumers. But no self-respecting poweruser geek is going to buy an all in one, and most of them cannot afford a Mac Pro.
Well sure, many of us could "get by" with a bunch of TB ports, a rat's nest of cables, and a desk crowded with external enclosures. We prefer the clean elegance of a Mac Pro. Many of us could get by with a single internal HDD and one or two external USB HDDs, but we prefer the four internal HDD bays in the Mac Pro.
It's my belief that if Apple offered a fully upgradable i7 tower, a significant portion of technically inclined Windows users and tinkerers would switch to OS X. It's a shame to see such a puissant operating system ignored by so many geeks because of Apple's limited hardware options. 10 years ago, the lack of a midrange tower was understandable since Apple needed phat margins to stay afloat. Even so, I'm not convinced a midrange tower would ever have hurt Apple's profits. How many tower buyers opt for an Apple display? How many will buy iDevices to go with their new midrange tower? How many will consider upgrading the midrange tower to a Mac Pro after having used and loved OS X?
Junkyard states it very well. Apple seems a little bi polar. Design great looking personal computers. But totally ignores that user that needs some expansion. So then we have to clutter up that great looking Mac with cables and external drives. Why did Apple spend the money making them look good?
Yes I could buy a Mac Pro but I don't need that much computer. What's wrong with an easy to open mid range desktop with some expansion?
I have used Macs for 20 years. I do not own any of Apple's iDevices. Why? It's not that I don't like them. It's not that I wouldn't use them. It's not that I don't want to own them. But none of them are items that I would use on a daily basis. I'm a sit down use my computer type of guy. And I just will not support Apple through buying products I don't really need when the product I do really need and would use isn't available.
I don't need to carry my music around all the time. I don't talk on the phone much. A tablet isn't going to cut it for me without the desktop computer to do everything else that the iPad can't.
i know someone selling a new not used mac pro 2010 model they say its still got 1 year warranty the specs are
Introduction Date:
July 27, 2010*
Discontinued Date:
N/A
Details:
The "Introduction Date" refers to the date a model was introduced via press release. The "Discontinued Date" refers to the date a model either was replaced by a subsequent system or production otherwise ended.
*On August 9, 2010, Apple began accepting orders for this model.
*Via custom configuration, this model also can be equipped with a single 3.2 GHz Quad Core "Nehalem" Xeon (W3565) processor for an additional US$400 or a single 3.33 GHz Six Core "Westmere" Xeon (W3680) processor for an additional US$1200.
As requested by readers, EveryMac.com also has documented these custom configurations as their own models.
Processor Upgrade:
LGA 1366 Socket
FPU:
Integrated
Details:
Also see: How do you upgrade the processors in the "Mid-2010" Mac Pro models? How are the processors mounted?
System Bus Speed:
4.8 GT/s*
Cache Bus Speed:
2.8 GHz (Built-in)
ROM/Firmware Type:
EFI
EFI Architecture:
64-Bit
L1 Cache:
32k/32k x4
L2/L3 Cache:
256k (x4), 8 MB*
RAM Type:
PC3-8500 DDR3 ECC
Min. RAM Speed:
1066 MHz
Standard RAM:
3 GB
Maximum RAM:
48 GB*
Motherboard RAM:
None
RAM Slots:
4*
Video Card:
Radeon HD 5770
VRAM Type:
GDDR5 SDRAM
Standard VRAM:
1 GB
Maximum VRAM:
1 GB
Display Support:
Up to 6 Displays*
Resolution Support:
2560x1600*
2nd Display Support:
Dual/Mirroring
2nd Max. Resolution:
2560x1600
Standard Hard Drive:
1 TB (7200 RPM)
Int. HD Interface:
Serial ATA (3 Gb/s)
Standard Optical:
18X DL "SuperDrive"
Standard Disk:
None
Standard Modem:
None
Standard Ethernet:
Gigabit (x2)
Standard AirPort:
802.11a/b/g/n
Standard Bluetooth:
2.1+EDR
USB Ports:
5 (2.0)
Firewire Ports:
4 (800)
Expansion Slots:
4 PCIe 2.0*
Expansion Bays:
4 3.5", 2 5.25"
Incl. Keyboard:
Apple Aluminum KB
Incl. Input:
Magic Mouse
Case Type:
Tower
Form Factor:
Mac Pro
Apple Order No:
MC250LL/A*
Apple Subfamily:
Mac Pro Mid-2010
Apple Model No:
A1289 (EMC 2314)
Model ID:
MacPro5,1
Battery Type:
N/A
Battery Life:
N/A
Pre-Installed MacOS:
X 10.6.4 (10F2521)
Maximum MacOS:
Current
Minimum Windows:
XP SP2 (32-Bit)*
Maximum Windows:
7 (64-Bit)**
MacOS 9 Support:
None
Windows Support:
Boot/Virtualization
Dimensions:
20.1 x 8.1 x 18.7
Avg. Weight:
39.9 lbs. (18.1 kg)
Original Price (US):
US$2499
Est. Current Retail:
US$2499
they want to sell it for £1300 and this would be my first mac im going to use it for maschine traktor scratch pro 2 and ableton vst s plugins etc i needed to know if this would be a good buy for me or not if u coulld all please help tell me the pros and cons
if possible answer as quick as u can as if it is a good buy i need to get it today or tommorw as he might find someone else to sell to
i know someone selling a new not used mac pro 2010 model they say its still got 1 year warranty the specs are
they want to sell it for £1300 and this would be my first mac im going to use it for maschine traktor scratch pro 2 and ableton vst s plugins etc i needed to know if this would be a good buy for me or not if u coulld all please help tell me the pros and cons
if possible answer as quick as u can as if it is a good buy i need to get it today or tommorw as he might find someone else to sell to
Yeah, that's a decent price for the 2010 model. It's actually the latest one as the Mac Pro hasn't been updated in 2 years so it's not really any different from buying the entry 2.8GHz model on Apple's Store with a 1 year warranty.
They are possibly selling it with the expectation that a new one will be coming in June. It pretty much has to be or it will be discontinued.
The CPU performance is around the same as the Mac Mini Server and slightly less than the i7 iMacs. The Mac Pro 5770 GPU is a fair bit slower than the iMac's 6970M but slightly faster than the 6770M.
For the task you need it for, it should be sufficient and the price they are asking for is good. Even if Apple update it in 3 weeks, they will likely still start at over £2000. It also shouldn't depreciate your machine by much when it's released as it will use last year's CPUs, it's just a year late.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
SSD is better than a PCI RAM drive, mutiple mid-range GPUs are not really better than a single high-end GPU and probably draw more power at idle. Fiber channel is slower than Thunderbolt and there's an adapter if needs be:
http://www.promise.com/storage/raid_series.aspx?region=en-global&m=192&rsn1=40&rsn3=49
8 lane PCIe RAM drives avoid the SATA bottlemeck. The difference is 32Gb/s for PCIe 2.x x8 vs 6Gb/s. If you need speed you go PCIe...it's pricey but for some applications worth every penny.
GPU idle draw is...well...somewhat uninteresting for a workstation class machine.
16GFC FiberChannel can now go 16Gbps. In any case you are comparing the full TB bandwidth with the full FC bandwidth assuming that the TB isn't being shared.
The 8Gb/s FC HBAs require 8 lanes for max throughput.
The TB to FC adapter is very nice and a great equalizer for the Mini and the iMac in terms of access to FC assets but pretty much you're going to want to dedicate the whole TB link to it.
And the adapter's max throughput rates are around 800MB/s.
http://www.promise.com/media_bank/Download Bank/Datasheet/SANLink_Series_DS_v1.02.pdf
In comparison the PCIe throughput rates are as high as 1600MB/s.
http://www.attotech.com/products/product.php?cat=1&scat=1&sku=CTFC-84EN-000
The RocketRaid 2744 wants the x16 slot. There's simply lots of stuff around that wants more than 10Gb/s bandwidth. And remember that each PCIe 2.0 lane is only worth 5GT/s or around 4 Gbps. Sure, they'll run with less...but you're pay for a lot of performance you're leaving on the table.
Quote:
Red Rocket can be hooked up as you said via an expansion port:
Yeah, it is a bit counter-intuitive to remove the slots and then stick one on the outside but ideally you shouldn't need a special card for 4K. You might not if Apple gets native RED editing in FCPX and it saves you a few thousand dollars.
I don't think an iMac could quite do the same as it doesn't have enough PCI lanes but it's not far off. I don't see that as a bad thing. Apple should be driving more users to iMacs by allowing high-end jobs to be done on them. Right now, the high-end workflows are dictating the form factors and prices of the machines and that doesn't really have to be the case.
To match the capability of the Pro, you'd have 3 boxes at most = 6 cables. An adaptor doesn't need much power so it's just the box itself. The Red Rocket would need two cables and the AJA Riker would have one cable, same as with the PCI version. You're really only talking about PCI cards that have no special hardware. Overall, 2 additional cables and two additional boxes.
For high-end users that need no peripherals, they get smaller enclosures and cheaper prices.
They'd have the GPU in an x16 slot, the fiber channel connection can be done with an adapter (but optical Thunderbolt is better), the red rocket would be in an enclosure and the AJA Riker is a standalone box anyway with both Thunderbolt and PCI connections. The Riker box would be better with Thunderbolt as you don't have to install a PCI card.
What you're doing here is limiting cards/devices that want 8 lanes of PCIe (32Gbs) and running them at the equivalent of 2.5 lanes (10Gbps). Shared. Awesome if you want to edit 4K on your MBA since before TB you couldn't at all. Now you can. Well, Dave Helmly can anyway.
Not so awesome if you had all of this running in your Mac Pro already and now have to go this slower setup that's even more of a cable nightmare.
So for lower end pro needs, if you can get away with using a MBA, the iMac should do pretty good. At the high end where they want to max throughput you're gimped with only having access the TB.
The Riker is a box but connects to the pc via 8 lane PCIe.
See the card in the corner. If there is a TB in the back, it will, like the Red Rocket, work. Just slower.
Which high end users are you speaking of? Do you really think anyone buying a Red Rocket at $4750, a Aja Kona 3G for $2000 and a FC card for $1000 and a high end GPU is really sweating the price or size of the current Mac Pros? High end users typically aren't as price conscious as much as performance conscious.
Whoa, based on some of the posts here that describe the needs of high end users, the posters are high. An iMac will serve the needs of professionals? WTF, it doesn't even serve the needs of high end consumers! Some droid at Best Buy told me the other day that an i7 iMac had all the power my Mac Pro has, and he was right, sort of. The iMac's CPU does match the power of many Mac Pro models, but theres more to pro computing than the CPU. By the droid's resoning, Apple could drop an i7 in the Mini and call it a "Pro" machine.
PCIe slots: as illustrated in the posts above, a lot of pro hardware interfaces with the computer via PCIe cards. Thunderbolt isn't fast enough for this, nor is it a proven, reliable technology.
HDD expandability: no comparison here, the iMac buries it's HDDs so deep you need tech certification to get at them. You could plug in an external RAID array via Thunderbolt, but it wouldn't be as fast as an SAS connected RAID enclosure, and many Mac Pro users just set up internal RAID, without all the extra mess and cost of an external enclosure and cables. A previous poster suggested the iMac switch to 2.5" drives. Good idea, then the iMac can have even fewer HDD options!
Graphics card: iMac is worthless here, you're stuck with the original card. Want to upgrade it? Throw out your computer and that beautiful 27" IPS display and buy another iMac with another 27" IPS display. Need to do high end 3D work? Not happening on an iMac.
Speaking of displays, want something larger than 27"? Want a higher end IPS display with a wide color gamut? Want to drive more than two displays? Apple's iMac says to go fu[k yourself.
Upgradability: It's easy to drop a faster CPU in a Mac Pro, impossible to do so in an iMac. I've got a Mac Pro on my desk that started life as a quad core 2.66 GHz Nehalem macpro4,1 and is now a hexa core 3.33 GHz Westmere upgraded to macpro5,1 firmware, identical to the ones now selling at the Apple Store. (It's for sale if anyone wants it!). Need a new display? Throw out your iMac. Need a new computer? Throw out your iMac. Want a bigger hard drive? Either take your iMac into someone trained to install one, or buy an enclosure and deal with another thing on your desk and more cables behind it. Add a few external HDDs and that iMac doesn't look so slick anymore.
Ease of use: another are where there is no comparison. Inserting an optical disc into a Mac Pro is easy, just drop it in the tray. The iMac has a silly slot loading drive that sometimes marks your CDs. Think optical discs are dead, and flash drives are the new thang? I plug my flash drives into the front of my Mac Pro without getting out of my chair. On an iMac, I've got to get up, bend over and around the iMac, curse and turn on a light, then bend over and around again to finally locate a USB port on the back at the bottom of the iMac. Apple could just put the ports on the edge of the iMac, but then it might not look as cool...as if an iMac user looks cool all bent over and contorted to try to plug in a freakin' flash drive.
As to buying a Mac Pro now or waiting, personally I'd buy now. Ivy Bridge isn't that big of an update unless 12 cores isn't doing it for you. Nice thing about buying now is that you can save a lot buying used and get exactly the same hardware as if you bought new. The loaded hexa-core on my deskt right now would cost nearly $6000 new, used they go for about half that much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Whoa, based on some of the posts here that describe the needs of high end users, the posters are high. An iMac will serve the needs of professionals? WTF, it doesn't even serve the needs of high end consumers! Some droid at Best Buy told me the other day that an i7 iMac had all the power my Mac Pro has, and he was right, sort of. The iMac's CPU does match the power of many Mac Pro models, but theres more to pro computing than the CPU. By the droid's resoning, Apple could drop an i7 in the Mini and call it a "Pro" machine.
Yah, I wrote that. If you can do 4K editing on a MBA then you can probably fill the needs of many pros with the iMac.
I just think that those folks that need the expansion capabilities of the Mac Pro isn't going to be able to get by with one slot and a bunch of Thunderbolt ports and there are more of those folks than Marvin believes.
If there is to be only one Mac Pro it pretty much needs to remain very similar to today or lose a lot of the Mac pro customers.
The folks that only need to max RAM and use every CPU cycle aren't all that price conscious. Better for them to pay for the expansion slots they are underutilizing than to leave the folks that need to slots out in the cold.
Quote:
Graphics card: iMac is worthless here, you're stuck with the original card. Want to upgrade it? Throw out your computer and that beautiful 27" IPS display and buy another iMac with another 27" IPS display. Need to do high end 3D work? Not happening on an iMac.
Speaking of displays, want something larger than 27"? Want a higher end IPS display with a wide color gamut? Want to drive more than two displays? Apple's iMac says to go fu[k yourself.
Upgradability: It's easy to drop a faster CPU in a Mac Pro, impossible to do so in an iMac. I've got a Mac Pro on my desk that started life as a quad core 2.66 GHz Nehalem macpro4,1 and is now a hexa core 3.33 GHz Westmere upgraded to macpro5,1 firmware, identical to the ones now selling at the Apple Store. (It's for sale if anyone wants it!). Need a new display? Throw out your iMac. Need a new computer? Throw out your iMac. Want a bigger hard drive? Either take your iMac into someone trained to install one, or buy an enclosure and deal with another thing on your desk and more cables behind it. Add a few external HDDs and that iMac doesn't look so slick anymore.
Displays:
Dual 30" + the 27" internal panel enough?
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/03/apple-imac-hands-on-with-dual-30-inch-displays-video/
Upgradability:
The 3.33Ghz Wetmere is $1639 on Newegg. The 3.4Ghz Quad i7 iMac with the 6970M GPU is $2300.
If I can get more than $700 more for a used 27" iMac than your 2.66 GHz Nehalem on EBay I end up with a new monitor and guts vs just a processor upgrade. Looks like the 2009 iMac 27" (3.2 Ghz 4G RAM) is running $1199 on EBay. Looks like a Xeon X5550 2.66 Ghz is running around $400.
I looked at replacing the CPUs in my old Mac Pro and decided not to bother.
Oh, regarding the mini server as a pro machine...well they make nice little renderboxes for $1200 with applecare.
You'll probably fry the poor things over time but with Applecare they'll at least replace it once or twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Upgradability: It's easy to drop a faster CPU in a Mac Pro, impossible to do so in an iMac. I've got a Mac Pro on my desk that started life as a quad core 2.66 GHz Nehalem macpro4,1 and is now a hexa core 3.33 GHz Westmere upgraded to macpro5,1 firmware, identical to the ones now selling at the Apple Store. (It's for sale if anyone wants it!). Need a new display? Throw out your iMac. Need a new computer? Throw out your iMac. Want a bigger hard drive? Either take your iMac into someone trained to install one, or buy an enclosure and deal with another thing on your desk and more cables behind it. Add a few external HDDs and that iMac doesn't look so slick anymore.
Ease of use: another are where there is no comparison. Inserting an optical disc into a Mac Pro is easy, just drop it in the tray. The iMac has a silly slot loading drive that sometimes marks your CDs. Think optical discs are dead, and flash drives are the new thang? I plug my flash drives into the front of my Mac Pro without getting out of my chair. On an iMac, I've got to get up, bend over and around the iMac, curse and turn on a light, then bend over and around again to finally locate a USB port on the back at the bottom of the iMac. Apple could just put the ports on the edge of the iMac, but then it might not look as cool...as if an iMac user looks cool all bent over and contorted to try to plug in a freakin' flash drive.
As to buying a Mac Pro now or waiting, personally I'd buy now. Ivy Bridge isn't that big of an update unless 12 cores isn't doing it for you. Nice thing about buying now is that you can save a lot buying used and get exactly the same hardware as if you bought new. The loaded hexa-core on my deskt right now would cost nearly $6000 new, used they go for about half that much.
You're missing a few things here. Ability to upgrade cpus is incidental. It voids the warranty and applecare. It's just that you can do it because they're not soldered in. In no way has Apple worked to make that possible for users. Gpus are a bit different in that Apple does retail them independently as well as cto. Your post about Ivy Bridge is also complete crap. The current mac pro uses Nehalem and Westmere, not Sandy Bridge. You're waiting for Sandy Bridge E versions. Ivy Bridge E isn't out until around this time next year. No one suggested the OP wait that long. The HDD issue and screen glare on the imac should have been solved long ago, along with a good solution for display height. Someone linked me to an ergotron arm without noting the reviews that stated how little control it adds to height and positioning adjustment. They could use a good telescopic base, but then people would complain that it's ugly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Upgradability:
The 3.33Ghz Wetmere is $1639 on Newegg. The 3.4Ghz Quad i7 iMac with the 6970M GPU is $2300.
If I can get more than $700 more for a used 27" iMac than your 2.66 GHz Nehalem on EBay I end up with a new monitor and guts vs just a processor upgrade. Looks like the 2009 iMac 27" (3.2 Ghz 4G RAM) is running $1199 on EBay. Looks like a Xeon X5550 2.66 Ghz is running around $400.
I looked at replacing the CPUs in my old Mac Pro and decided not to bother.
You're looking at the wrong components on the mac pro. You are viewing dual socket components. The ones in the single socket mac pro are completely different. The W3580 would run you around $600 for the 3.33 ghz westmere. You just can't use two of them in the same machine. A 2.66 ghz nehalem is a W3520. I disagree that slots double the price of everything. Apple sets pricing that they like. It's spaced out this way by design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Oh, regarding the mini server as a pro machine...well they make nice little renderboxes for $1200 with applecare.
You'll probably fry the poor things over time but with Applecare they'll at least replace it once or twice.
That's actually possible. Most of the thermal limits are based upon daily use not exceeding 8 hours. Recommended thermal limits are much lower if machine components are supposed to be in use closer to 24/7. Anyway there are better ways to build a render farm. You listen to Marvin too much. Sometimes he posts really good information. Other times he gets carried away, and that statement will most likely guarantee a response >=)> .
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
RAM drives, mid range GPUs, Fiber channel cards, Red Rocket, etc. 4 slots is very useful. Especially considering many high end gear exist only in card form and often used on both Windows and OSX.
Many people, especially those that never make use of expansion cards don't grasp this little detail.
Few will move to thunderbolt.
For many uses TB simply isn't an acceptable alternative to a plug in board. That may be due to speed, the funky nature of the connecting cord or a half dozen other reasons. The fact is PCI-Epxpress boards aren't going away at all, even if Thunderbolt becomes a roaring success the boards won't go away.
If Apple only makes one tower it best be one that can kick ass and take names. And that means being able to handle these high end use cases because everything that a 1 slot single CPU Mac Pro can handle can be done with a top end iMac. Just because you don't need/want 4 PCIe cards doesn't mean that folks don't need them or that they are "theoretical". I've seen a few high end rigs.
Well I'm not concerned with high end machines. If you follow these threads it should be very clear that I'm advocating slots in a midrange machine. That doesn't eliminate the need for a high end machine as I rather see it filling a gap.
Forcing these users to attach a slower TB PCIe expansion chassis so they can have PCIe slots would be insane. In order to see "six x4 slots" they'd have to run SIX thunderbolt cables to the chassis. If that would even work right.
Insanity is right. I suspect that people think that TB is everything a chassis with several PCI -Express slots is. That isn't the case at all. Further we have PCI Express 3 now, the difference is even more stunning.
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/decklinkhdextreme/
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/decklink4k/
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/decklinkquad/
All of these take 4 lanes. Low end Pro/Prosumer gear like what you posted does HD. Pro gear does 2K and 4K.
There is a thunderbolt version of the 3D extreme but it terminates the TB chain:
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/ultrastudio3d/
You CAN do 4K editing, even on a MBA via a Red Rocket. But again, most of these expansion chassis ends the TB chain. Instead of a machine with the cards you need inside of it you have a rats nest of TB cables and little boxes attached to yet another mass of video cabling and fiber. WHEN it even works.
Here's a very simple use case you can't handle in your design and fairly common for high end 4K workflows:
Current Mac Pro:
Slot 1 16x GPU (runs as 8 lane in the current Mac Pro)
Slot 2 8x 4 channel 4 Gbps Fiber Channel HBA
Slot 3 1x card or empty
Slot 4 8x AJA video capture card (the new Riker 5K, the current 4K card, etc)
What they'd WANT to run in a future Mac Pro is this:
Slot 1 16x GPU full speed
Slot 2 8x Fiber channel HBA
Slot 3 8x Red Rocket
Slot 4 8x AJA Riker
You can run the Red Rocket x4 mode but obviously it's slower. Some pros do that now.
Pros will be throwing rocks at the glass Apple stores and with good cause.
What can't you do with the top end iMac that you can do with your Mac Pro design with one CPU and 1 x16 slot? I really can't think of anything beyond "I wish I could more easily replace my internal boot drive and GPU". Not any actual jobs. Not even true high end gaming without dual GPUs. Any improvement is very incremental at the cost of completely hosing pros that need the slots of the current Mac Pro.
I suspect that the people advocating the iMac over the Pro or even the mythical XMac are grossly out of touch with reality. Or maybe they just can't grok reality outside the box they are painted into.
And the Mac Pro can still meet your needs. It just costs more. But even then $2500 isn't all that much.
And size is meaningless for most pros. Being able to rack mount the Mac Pro more easily is far more valuable than your mini-tower design. Anyone that needs a smaller desktop footprint is already sporting an iMac.
Rack mounting is an interesting concept as the current Pro isn't ideal for that. I'm also convinced that the current Mac Pro is just to big moving forward so I could see a much smaller box coming. Ideally a rectangular box 8 inches or so wide so that they could easily be mounted side by side in a rack. With todays hardware they could easily do this in a box that has at least three slots with the GPU and CPU on a small mother board. Maybe the box would be 3 to 4 U high but that really isn't a problem especially if two can be put on a shelf and tightly coupled. Either way we are talking dramatically less volume that with the current Mac Pro.
Quote:Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Whoa, based on some of the posts here that describe the needs of high end users, the posters are high. An iMac will serve the needs of professionals? WTF, it doesn't even serve the needs of high end consumers! Some droid at Best Buy told me the other day that an i7 iMac had all the power my Mac Pro has, and he was right, sort of. The iMac's CPU does match the power of many Mac Pro models, but theres more to pro computing than the CPU. By the droid's resoning, Apple could drop an i7 in the Mini and call it a "Pro" machine.
PCIe slots: as illustrated in the posts above, a lot of pro hardware interfaces with the computer via PCIe cards. Thunderbolt isn't fast enough for this, nor is it a proven, reliable technology.
HDD expandability: no comparison here, the iMac buries it's HDDs so deep you need tech certification to get at them. You could plug in an external RAID array via Thunderbolt, but it wouldn't be as fast as an SAS connected RAID enclosure, and many Mac Pro users just set up internal RAID, without all the extra mess and cost of an external enclosure and cables. A previous poster suggested the iMac switch to 2.5" drives. Good idea, then the iMac can have even fewer HDD options!
Graphics card: iMac is worthless here, you're stuck with the original card. Want to upgrade it? Throw out your computer and that beautiful 27" IPS display and buy another iMac with another 27" IPS display. Need to do high end 3D work? Not happening on an iMac.
Speaking of displays, want something larger than 27"? Want a higher end IPS display with a wide color gamut? Want to drive more than two displays? Apple's iMac says to go fu[k yourself.
Upgradability: It's easy to drop a faster CPU in a Mac Pro, impossible to do so in an iMac. I've got a Mac Pro on my desk that started life as a quad core 2.66 GHz Nehalem macpro4,1 and is now a hexa core 3.33 GHz Westmere upgraded to macpro5,1 firmware, identical to the ones now selling at the Apple Store. (It's for sale if anyone wants it!). Need a new display? Throw out your iMac. Need a new computer? Throw out your iMac. Want a bigger hard drive? Either take your iMac into someone trained to install one, or buy an enclosure and deal with another thing on your desk and more cables behind it. Add a few external HDDs and that iMac doesn't look so slick anymore.
Ease of use: another are where there is no comparison. Inserting an optical disc into a Mac Pro is easy, just drop it in the tray. The iMac has a silly slot loading drive that sometimes marks your CDs. Think optical discs are dead, and flash drives are the new thang? I plug my flash drives into the front of my Mac Pro without getting out of my chair. On an iMac, I've got to get up, bend over and around the iMac, curse and turn on a light, then bend over and around again to finally locate a USB port on the back at the bottom of the iMac. Apple could just put the ports on the edge of the iMac, but then it might not look as cool...as if an iMac user looks cool all bent over and contorted to try to plug in a freakin' flash drive.
As to buying a Mac Pro now or waiting, personally I'd buy now. Ivy Bridge isn't that big of an update unless 12 cores isn't doing it for you. Nice thing about buying now is that you can save a lot buying used and get exactly the same hardware as if you bought new. The loaded hexa-core on my deskt right now would cost nearly $6000 new, used they go for about half that much.
All right HOW MANY are throughly frustrated with quoting on Safari on a Mac right now? The point of forum software should be to make communications easier not more difficult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I dislike all the extra returns I get that I not only have to delete manually… but also immediately go back and EDIT my posts because it PUTS THEM BACK IN after I've deleted them.
But other than that and the fact that the idiotic text has a BACKGROUND COLOR, I'm fine with it.
I notice that hitting quote on your post doesn't give me any content, however…
I really do appreciate all of your help. Although you all have, for the most part, gone way over my head with all this... I work with computers not on them much any more. It's been many years since I did anything other than plug and unplug a component, slip in a card or drive, memory and such. I'd have to call out my superiors to interpret all this... : -O
Calling:
Gran Senator
who represented Malastare in the Galactic Senate during the final decade of the Galactic Republic.
Abeloth
An entity strong in the Dark Side of the Force imprisoned within the Maw that is released by Darth Caedus and later defeated by Luke Skywalker and mysterious member of the Lost Tribe of the Sith
Admiral Gail Ackbar
Commander of the Rebel fleet in their attack against the second Death Star
Mas Amedda
Vice chair of the Galactic Senate.
Darth Andeddu
The self-styled "Immortal God-King of Prakith" who reigned as Dark Lord of the Sith during the Hundred-Year Darkness. He left behind a holocron that supposedly held to secret to immortality.
Commander Appo
Clone Commander of the 501st Legion.
Attichitcuk
The father of Chewbacca one of Kashyyyk's prominent chieftains during the final years of the Galactic Republic.
B4-D4
The administrative droid that works for Czerka on Telos in the Outer Rim.
Moradmin Bast
Imperial general who served aboard the first Death Star; during the space battle above Yavin 4
Bollux
Droid that is part of Han Solo's crew
Sora Bulq
Jedi Master
C-3PO
Little smart droid
Darth Cognus
Sith Lord
Luke Skywalker
FX-7
An older model, but still a serviceable medical assistant droid; with its many arms it can assess a patient quickly with multiple tests and provide the surgeon the information it needs to assist in suitable treatment
Gonk Droid
A rectangular-cubed shaped droid that walks very slowly.
Jedi master
Luminara Unduli
Ysanne Isard
Former head of Imperial Intelligence
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Jedi Master who trains Anakin Skywalker and Luke Skywalker. A member of the Jedi Council and one of the Jedi survivors of Order 66. His master is Qui-Gon Jinn, who was killed by Darth Maul.
Lowbacca
Wookiee Jedi Knight
Mama the Hutt
Ziro the Hutt, Zorba the Hutt, Ebor the Hutt, Pazda the Hutt and Jiliac the Hutt's mother and Jabba the Hutt's grandmother.
MD-5
A medical droid serving Trioculus
General Rom Mohc
Creator of the Dark Trooper program
Astri Oddo
Friend of Obi-Wan Kenobi and ally of the Jedi Order
Let me adjust my retractor beam adjusted to see if I can hear them.... :-D
Quote:
I just think that those folks that need the expansion capabilities of the Mac Pro isn't going to be able to get by with one slot and a bunch of Thunderbolt ports and there are more of those folks than Marvin believes.
Well sure, many of us could "get by" with a bunch of TB ports, a rat's nest of cables, and a desk crowded with external enclosures. We prefer the clean elegance of a Mac Pro. Many of us could get by with a single internal HDD and one or two external USB HDDs, but we prefer the four internal HDD bays in the Mac Pro.
Actually, ALL users could get by using Windows.
Quote:
Dual 30" + the 27" internal panel enough?
I didn't know the iMac could drive two displays so large, that's awesome! Still, for someone who needs a wide color gamut display, the iMac isn't a practical solution. And as an all in one, it still forces the user to buy a new computer and display when only one needs replacing or upgrading. For a smaller, cheaper display that wouldn't be such a big deal, but it's pretty stupid to tie such a gorgeous 27" IPS display to such a limited all in one design.
Quote:
Upgradability: The 3.33Ghz Wetmere is $1639 on Newegg....I looked at replacing the CPUs in my old Mac Pro and decided not to bother.
I bought aW3680 for $545 new on eBay. Provantage has them for under $600. And some of us enjoy upgrading CPUs. We like to tinker. It's not a "bother", it's a feature.
Quote:
Ability to upgrade cpus is incidental. It voids the warranty and applecare. It's just that you can do it because they're not soldered in. In no way has Apple worked to make that possible for users. Gpus are a bit different in that Apple does retail them independently as well as cto. Your post about Ivy Bridge is also complete crap. The current mac pro uses Nehalem and Westmere, not Sandy Bridge.
I never said anything about Mac Pros using Sandy Bridge. And incidental or not, many users consider it a feature to be able to upgrade CPUs. I've met a few Windows users who would switch to OS X if only they could buy a Mac with a CPU mounted in an honest socket for under $2000. Voiding warranty and applecare? Usually CPUs are upgraded after those have expired, but there's always the option of reinstalling the original CPU(s) in the event that Applecare service is needed. Personally I just buy used and upgrade components to my needs or the needs of those to whom I'm selling the computer.
It's my belief that if Apple offered a fully upgradable i7 tower, a significant portion of technically inclined Windows users and tinkerers would switch to OS X. It's a shame to see such a puissant operating system ignored by so many geeks because of Apple's limited hardware options. 10 years ago, the lack of a midrange tower was understandable since Apple needed phat margins to stay afloat. Even so, I'm not convinced a midrange tower would ever have hurt Apple's profits. How many tower buyers opt for an Apple display? How many will buy iDevices to go with their new midrange tower? How many will consider upgrading the midrange tower to a Mac Pro after having used and loved OS X?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
I didn't know the iMac could drive two displays so large, that's awesome! Still, for someone who needs a wide color gamut display, the iMac isn't a practical solution. And as an all in one, it still forces the user to buy a new computer and display when only one needs replacing or upgrading. For a smaller, cheaper display that wouldn't be such a big deal, but it's pretty stupid to tie such a gorgeous 27" IPS display to such a limited all in one design.
Perhaps I'm a little too grumpy today. On the Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge thing, I was saying that the Mac Pro would most likely use Sandy Bridge E cpus which are just starting to ship in volume. My point was that they didn't actually skip that generation. It's simply fallen behind Intel's worst case scenario. You may remember last year they had problems with the initial launch of Sandy Bridge as they issued a recall. On the display thing, I need to emphasize that wide gamut is commonly misunderstood. No one really needs it. It's typically about the ability to match certain colors relative to inkjet printing, prepress, or broadcast purposes within a certain Delta E tolerance. The typical Adobe RGB wide gamut reference commonly seen today doesn't necessarily improve this. In fact crts and some of the earlier lcd displays had a lot of advantages in terms of control and fine tuning capability. I can think of several sRGB displays that were better in terms of consistency than almost anything on the market today.
My bad for using the wrong Xeon chip. $600 isn't so bad.
Yes, quoting sucks now. Lots of stuff about the new forum sucks on Safari (Mac and iOS).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Perhaps I'm a little too grumpy today. On the Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge thing, I was saying that the Mac Pro would most likely use Sandy Bridge E cpus which are just starting to ship in volume. My point was that they didn't actually skip that generation. It's simply fallen behind Intel's worst case scenario. You may remember last year they had problems with the initial launch of Sandy Bridge as they issued a recall. On the display thing, I need to emphasize that wide gamut is commonly misunderstood. No one really needs it. It's typically about the ability to match certain colors relative to inkjet printing, prepress, or broadcast purposes within a certain Delta E tolerance. The typical Adobe RGB wide gamut reference commonly seen today doesn't necessarily improve this. In fact crts and some of the earlier lcd displays had a lot of advantages in terms of control and fine tuning capability. I can think of several sRGB displays that were better in terms of consistency than almost anything on the market today.
Oh yeah, that's true, Xeons are a bit behind now.
It's also true that most people don't need wide gamut displays, but some professionals do. If Apple abandoned those professionals, it wouldn't amount to many sales directly, but those professionals set an example with their workstation choices. When people in all the other departments see the graphics department using Macs, the message is that Macs are powerful computers for serious work, and that attitude is carried with them to Best Buy.
Another thing about high gamut displays, while most users don't need them, just about any professional who needs high color accuracy ends up with one because most of the high end IPS displays use a wide color gamut. I'm looking to replace my high end CRT display, and it's pretty annoying how hard it is to find a high quality IPS display that is not wide color gamut. OS X lags behind Windows in supporting this technology. It's too bad, because while most of us do not need a wide color gamut, if we had computers that could manage that gamut properly, most of us would want a wide color gamut display. They are beautiful to behold, it's a case where you don't realize the limitations of the standard color gamut until seeing wide color gamut images. I'd actually prefer a wider color gamut display that was fully supported by OS X to a higher resolution display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Oh yeah, that's true, Xeons are a bit behind now.
It's also true that most people don't need wide gamut displays, but some professionals do. If Apple abandoned those professionals, it wouldn't amount to many sales directly, but those professionals set an example with their workstation choices. When people in all the other departments see the graphics department using Macs, the message is that Macs are powerful computers for serious work, and that attitude is carried with them to Best Buy.
Another thing about high gamut displays, while most users don't need them, just about any professional who needs high color accuracy ends up with one because most of the high end IPS displays use a wide color gamut. I'm looking to replace my high end CRT display, and it's pretty annoying how hard it is to find a high quality IPS display that is not wide color gamut. OS X lags behind Windows in supporting this technology. It's too bad, because while most of us do not need a wide color gamut, if we had computers that could manage that gamut properly, most of us would want a wide color gamut display. They are beautiful to behold, it's a case where you don't realize the limitations of the standard color gamut until seeing wide color gamut images. I'd actually prefer a wider color gamut display that was fully supported by OS X to a higher resolution display.
Apple's marketing is pure genius, and they do make nice computers. I don't really dispute that. It's just that a good solution doesn't have to be a Mac. Okay on wide gamut displays, it's not as simple as you're suggesting. First of all Apple moved to LED backlighting. Implementing a wide gamut panel there would be somewhat problematic. LED in general historically had problems with color stability. It still has some issues today, and they're more difficult to calibrate. As to "needing" wide gamut, it doesn't guarantee you better color accuracy. Extra colors are added, but they may not mean much to you depending on your subject matter. It isn't automatically better. It does spread the color values out more, and it typically requires more aggressive dithering. I've got both types in front of me right now. The older one is an NEC2190. The newer one is a CG243W. The NEC does look different, but it's way past the point at which I'd trust it. There have been some sRGB displays that were really excellent. Like when this Eizo came out, this model was a pain in the ass to calibrate. You could use a spectrophotometer, but colorimeters at the time would leave you with greenish neutral values. The newer self calibrating ones seem to be a bit better in that regard, and a couple of the newer colorimeters do an okay job on this one.
When you say color manage it properly, I also don't think you understand what you are saying. With a good profile under Snow Leopard or later, the icons don't come out super saturated any longer. If you're referring to 10 bit displayport, I doubt we'll get that due to thunderbolt. Even with applications that could recognize it and make use of the adjusted frame buffer, you wouldn't notice a huge difference overall. As you probably know these devices are tuned approximately to gamma 2.2, much like their reference color spaces. This isn't quite as evil as some people suggest. It's a way of dealing with displaying images over a low dynamic range. If they were displayed in a linear manner over a 300:1-500:1 dynamic range, they'd look ugly, and you must understand that some of the astronomical numbers stated for some displays really aren't very accurate. Anyway the purpose of 10 bit there would be better shadow value allocation. You don't even need a 10 bit panel output. You just need math with fewer rounding errors when the values are spread so thin already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Apple's marketing is pure genius, and they do make nice computers. I don't really dispute that. It's just that a good solution doesn't have to be a Mac. Okay on wide gamut displays, it's not as simple as you're suggesting. First of all Apple moved to LED backlighting. Implementing a wide gamut panel there would be somewhat problematic. LED in general historically had problems with color stability. It still has some issues today, and they're more difficult to calibrate. As to "needing" wide gamut, it doesn't guarantee you better color accuracy. Extra colors are added, but they may not mean much to you depending on your subject matter. It isn't automatically better. It does spread the color values out more, and it typically requires more aggressive dithering. I've got both types in front of me right now. The older one is an NEC2190. The newer one is a CG243W. The NEC does look different, but it's way past the point at which I'd trust it. There have been some sRGB displays that were really excellent. Like when this Eizo came out, this model was a pain in the ass to calibrate. You could use a spectrophotometer, but colorimeters at the time would leave you with greenish neutral values. The newer self calibrating ones seem to be a bit better in that regard, and a couple of the newer colorimeters do an okay job on this one.
When you say color manage it properly, I also don't think you understand what you are saying. With a good profile under Snow Leopard or later, the icons don't come out super saturated any longer. If you're referring to 10 bit displayport, I doubt we'll get that due to thunderbolt. Even with applications that could recognize it and make use of the adjusted frame buffer, you wouldn't notice a huge difference overall. As you probably know these devices are tuned approximately to gamma 2.2, much like their reference color spaces. This isn't quite as evil as some people suggest. It's a way of dealing with displaying images over a low dynamic range. If they were displayed in a linear manner over a 300:1-500:1 dynamic range, they'd look ugly, and you must understand that some of the astronomical numbers stated for some displays really aren't very accurate. Anyway the purpose of 10 bit there would be better shadow value allocation. You don't even need a 10 bit panel output. You just need math with fewer rounding errors when the values are spread so thin already.
You seem to have a way of interpreting the polar opposite of what I've written.
For one, I never suggested Apple move to a wide gamut LED iMac. Would I like to see the whole computer industry adopt a wider color gamut that the current standard RGB gamut? Hell yes, I think consumers would be more impressed by that than by what higher resolutions can do at this point. Do I think it will happen? Hell no. Take the difficulty Apple had with the transition from PPC to Intel, and multiply that by 100, and the resulting clusterfu[k would resemble the situation if the computer industry tried to move to a wider gamut.
I never said wide color gamut guarantees better color accuracy. I said that it's hard to find a high end IPS display without a wide color gamut. I also never said that a wider color gamut is "automatically better," I said the opposite, or least that was my point. Without applications and images/graphics that can use the wider color space, the wide gamut display is going to look worse.
All that aside, the main point is simply that to capture hobbyist/enthusiast computer users, Apple needs to be expanding user options, not restricting them, which exactly what an all in one design does. In raw numbers these "powerusers" are a small portion of the market, but their influence is hard to overestimate. They're the ones all the other users go to for buying advice. They tell all their friends and relatives what to buy, and then help support these friends and relatives when they run into problems. Apple should be going after these powerusers, they've got a powerful OS already, and a large enough marketshare in gadgets to be known first hand to many consumers. But no self-respecting poweruser geek is going to buy an all in one, and most of them cannot afford a Mac Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Well sure, many of us could "get by" with a bunch of TB ports, a rat's nest of cables, and a desk crowded with external enclosures. We prefer the clean elegance of a Mac Pro. Many of us could get by with a single internal HDD and one or two external USB HDDs, but we prefer the four internal HDD bays in the Mac Pro.
It's my belief that if Apple offered a fully upgradable i7 tower, a significant portion of technically inclined Windows users and tinkerers would switch to OS X. It's a shame to see such a puissant operating system ignored by so many geeks because of Apple's limited hardware options. 10 years ago, the lack of a midrange tower was understandable since Apple needed phat margins to stay afloat. Even so, I'm not convinced a midrange tower would ever have hurt Apple's profits. How many tower buyers opt for an Apple display? How many will buy iDevices to go with their new midrange tower? How many will consider upgrading the midrange tower to a Mac Pro after having used and loved OS X?
Junkyard states it very well. Apple seems a little bi polar. Design great looking personal computers. But totally ignores that user that needs some expansion. So then we have to clutter up that great looking Mac with cables and external drives. Why did Apple spend the money making them look good?
Yes I could buy a Mac Pro but I don't need that much computer. What's wrong with an easy to open mid range desktop with some expansion?
I have used Macs for 20 years. I do not own any of Apple's iDevices. Why? It's not that I don't like them. It's not that I wouldn't use them. It's not that I don't want to own them. But none of them are items that I would use on a daily basis. I'm a sit down use my computer type of guy. And I just will not support Apple through buying products I don't really need when the product I do really need and would use isn't available.
I don't need to carry my music around all the time. I don't talk on the phone much. A tablet isn't going to cut it for me without the desktop computer to do everything else that the iPad can't.
i know someone selling a new not used mac pro 2010 model they say its still got 1 year warranty the specs are
Introduction Date:
July 27, 2010*
Discontinued Date:
N/A
Details:
The "Introduction Date" refers to the date a model was introduced via press release. The "Discontinued Date" refers to the date a model either was replaced by a subsequent system or production otherwise ended.
*On August 9, 2010, Apple began accepting orders for this model.Also see: All Macs introduced in 2010.
Processors:
1 (4 Cores)
Geekbench:
8673/9715*
Processor Speed:
2.8 GHz
Processor Type:
Q. Core Xeon W3530
Custom Speeds:
3.2 (4), 3.33 GHz (6)*
Architecture:
64-Bit
Details:
*Via custom configuration, this model also can be equipped with a single 3.2 GHz Quad Core "Nehalem" Xeon (W3565) processor for an additional US$400 or a single 3.33 GHz Six Core "Westmere" Xeon (W3680) processor for an additional US$1200.
As requested by readers, EveryMac.com also has documented these custom configurations as their own models.Processor Upgrade:
LGA 1366 Socket
FPU:
Integrated
Details:
Also see: How do you upgrade the processors in the "Mid-2010" Mac Pro models? How are the processors mounted?
System Bus Speed:
4.8 GT/s*
Cache Bus Speed:
2.8 GHz (Built-in)
ROM/Firmware Type:
EFI
EFI Architecture:
64-Bit
L1 Cache:
32k/32k x4
L2/L3 Cache:
256k (x4), 8 MB*
RAM Type:
PC3-8500 DDR3 ECC
Min. RAM Speed:
1066 MHz
Standard RAM:
3 GB
Maximum RAM:
48 GB*
Motherboard RAM:
None
RAM Slots:
4*
Video Card:
Radeon HD 5770
VRAM Type:
GDDR5 SDRAM
Standard VRAM:
1 GB
Maximum VRAM:
1 GB
Display Support:
Up to 6 Displays*
Resolution Support:
2560x1600*
2nd Display Support:
Dual/Mirroring
2nd Max. Resolution:
2560x1600
Standard Hard Drive:
1 TB (7200 RPM)
Int. HD Interface:
Serial ATA (3 Gb/s)
Standard Optical:
18X DL "SuperDrive"
Standard Disk:
None
Standard Modem:
None
Standard Ethernet:
Gigabit (x2)
Standard AirPort:
802.11a/b/g/n
Standard Bluetooth:
2.1+EDR
USB Ports:
5 (2.0)
Firewire Ports:
4 (800)
Expansion Slots:
4 PCIe 2.0*
Expansion Bays:
4 3.5", 2 5.25"
Incl. Keyboard:
Apple Aluminum KB
Incl. Input:
Magic Mouse
Case Type:
Tower
Form Factor:
Mac Pro
Apple Order No:
MC250LL/A*
Apple Subfamily:
Mac Pro Mid-2010
Apple Model No:
A1289 (EMC 2314)
Model ID:
MacPro5,1
Battery Type:
N/A
Battery Life:
N/A
Pre-Installed MacOS:
X 10.6.4 (10F2521)
Maximum MacOS:
Current
Minimum Windows:
XP SP2 (32-Bit)*
Maximum Windows:
7 (64-Bit)**
MacOS 9 Support:
None
Windows Support:
Boot/Virtualization
Dimensions:
20.1 x 8.1 x 18.7
Avg. Weight:
39.9 lbs. (18.1 kg)
Original Price (US):
US$2499
Est. Current Retail:
US$2499
they want to sell it for £1300 and this would be my first mac im going to use it for maschine traktor scratch pro 2 and ableton vst s plugins etc i needed to know if this would be a good buy for me or not if u coulld all please help tell me the pros and cons
if possible answer as quick as u can as if it is a good buy i need to get it today or tommorw as he might find someone else to sell to
thanks
Mac Pro, Mac OS X (10.7)
Yeah, that's a decent price for the 2010 model. It's actually the latest one as the Mac Pro hasn't been updated in 2 years so it's not really any different from buying the entry 2.8GHz model on Apple's Store with a 1 year warranty.
They are possibly selling it with the expectation that a new one will be coming in June. It pretty much has to be or it will be discontinued.
The CPU performance is around the same as the Mac Mini Server and slightly less than the i7 iMacs. The Mac Pro 5770 GPU is a fair bit slower than the iMac's 6970M but slightly faster than the 6770M.
For the task you need it for, it should be sufficient and the price they are asking for is good. Even if Apple update it in 3 weeks, they will likely still start at over £2000. It also shouldn't depreciate your machine by much when it's released as it will use last year's CPUs, it's just a year late.
Saw this on Gizmodo: https://www.facebook.com/MacProsPlease
Ugh, social networking. AND Gizmodo.
Throw in a DigiTimes rumor and that would be the worst post ever, in my mind.