Dell has that beat. Max out a Precision 690 workstation and you'd be out more than $80k. But then, they offer the ability to run 5x 15kRPM SAS drives, 64GB of RAM, hardware RAID and a few other goodies.
Sure, as do Boxx and others.
But this is a first for Apple. Isn't it?
Or was there some version of a Lisa that was even more spendy?
Actually, if you downgrade the processor to the 2.0 ghz cores and the HD down to 160 gb, the price for the Mac Pro is $2124 full retail and $1924 with education discount.. That's a smokin deal for a four core machine and pretty darn close to the $2000 space.
If you buy an IMac you get a "free screen," though....
The same iMac enclosure handled the G5 pretty well, and quietly. Going to Conroe instead of Merom would save Apple about $100 per chip.
Well I hope they can add conroe without having to redesign the iMac. Even if needed it would still be worth it. Remember quad core is right around the corner. The thought of getting along with a 2.ghz Merom iMac a year from now when quad core chips are all the rage gives me pause to buy an iMac.
Or was there some version of a Lisa that was even more spendy?
Anyway.
OMG WWDC OMG indeed.
Were you ever seriously considering a Mac Pro? As others have mentioned, these are VERY competitvely priced. Just because you don't have the need or money doesn't make them outrageous. I've no need nor budget for one but that doesn't matter because I'm not the person that machine is made for. Neither are you apparently. If you think they're overpriced go to Dell and configure one. You may be surprised.
Well Ben I take a different view I guess. The iMac in my estimation is more than just a consumer machine. It has to be that plus a little prosumer as well.
i'll chime in my support for the imac as well. we used imac g5's for broadcast motion graphics (FCP, CS, AE, lightwave) for 18 months and generally they were more than up to the task. if we needed quicker renders, we'd farm it out to a dual G5. motion was the only thing that wouldn't run well enough. if adobe had gone universal binary, i think we prob would have upgraded them to intel imacs, tho with quad g5's in their places now it means we can get thru masses of mpeg2 encoding overnight...
i'll chime in my support for the imac as well. we used imac g5's for broadcast motion graphics (FCP, CS, AE, lightwave) for 18 months and generally they were more than up to the task. if we needed quicker renders, we'd farm it out to a dual G5. motion was the only thing that wouldn't run well enough. if adobe had gone universal binary, i think we prob would have upgraded them to intel imacs, tho with quad g5's in their places now it means we can get thru masses of mpeg2 encoding overnight...
sennen
If iMacs came with 2.4 ghz conroes (doable from a cpu price standpoint) they would be very capable machines when Adobe gets Creative Suite universal. A 2.9 ghz conroe was competitve with Quad core opteron systems in a review I came across (I don't have the link handy). Conroe iMacs would make excellent prosumer machines.
What I think is going to happen is that the Conroe will go into the Mac Pro as well to bring the entry level system down in price. Dual-Core = low-end, 2 Dual-Cores = high end
I bet a 15k drive would work in a Mac Pro. Raptors work in Power Macs.
It would need to be SATA (or SATA II) or it wouldn't work in the Mac Pro's hard drive bays. The Mac Pro doesn't appear to use any drive cables, the drive connector is directly on the main board, so it isn't as if you can even try to pop in an SAS or U320 adapter and run several 15k drives internally with some cable work. You might get one such drive to work in the spare optical drive bay but I don't think it's worth the hassle.
So, in short, I guess the best hope for that is to either use external SAS/U320 drives or beg Western Digital or Seagate to offer SATA II on their 15k drives.
What I think is going to happen is that the Conroe will go into the Mac Pro as well to bring the entry level system down in price. Dual-Core = low-end, 2 Dual-Cores = high end
If so then why didn't it happen today? It ain't like Conroe isn't shipping. They could at least take orders.
The Mac Pro is a workstation, not a consumer desktop by any stretch of the imagination.
A ridiculous Geforce 7300 in a Pro workstation? The 7300 is even slower than the 6600 that came with the previous Power Mac G5. How does the 7300 compare to the ATI Radeon X1600?
Part of me feels Apple should not leave itself out of SLI and Crossfire. But I've read articles that said neither necessarily deliver 2X the performance and at certain times actually lower frame rates. Which would not make them worth the space they take up or the power they need.
I'm more interested in what SLI and Crossfire can do for Core Image operations. I've read people commenting that Aperture chokes under heavy usage even with an Nvidia Quadro card. And 2 Geforce 7900's or 2 Radeon X1900's running in dual mode would be cheaper than a single Quadro card.
A ridiculous Geforce 7300 in a Pro workstation? The 7300 is even slower than the 6600 that came with the previous Power Mac G5. How does the 7300 compare to the ATI Radeon X1600?
Not ridiculous at all. There are many pro users, specifically audio pros who don't need much graphics power, but DO need processor power. If you need graphics choices, there are six available as BTO options.
So, in short, I guess the best hope for that is to either use external SAS/U320 drives or beg Western Digital or Seagate to offer SATA II on their 15k drives.
My mistake. I thought that 15k drives were just the faster version of 10k drives - I didn't realize they weren't SATA II. Any SATA II drive (or plain old SATA drive) should work. Now for my question - if it doesn't need cables, can I just use an OEM drive off newegg?
Haggar - Aperture version 1.0 stinks. And Quadros aren't for speed so much as accuracy and quality control. Overall, they're pretty similar to the gaming cards, except in those areas, at least as far as I've been told. If you check the http://"http://www.apple.com/macpro/... mac pro chart, you see that Quadros don't blow the x1900xt out of the water performance wise. Weaker bandwidth, fewer vertices, higher fillrate (but not massive differences compared to the 7300GT)
Speaking of the 7300GT - its not a horrible card. It's fine if you only use the CPUs for your work, and only need the graphics card to run OS X. Like in the Sound business, or in the Graphic Design/Layout world.
Not ridiculous at all. There are many pro users, specifically audio pros who don't need much graphics power, but DO need processor power. If you need graphics choices, there are six available as BTO options.
My point was that according to Nvidia's web site, the Geforce 7300 has lower performance specs than the 6600 that Apple previously used. So this is actually a step down from the Power Mac G5. Actually, there are only 3 different graphics cards available for this new Mac. Out of those 6 options that you mentioned, 3 of them are just for putting additional 7300 cards in the other slots. And they don't run in SLI as far as I can tell.
And Quadros aren't for speed so much as accuracy and quality control. Overall, they're pretty similar to the gaming cards, except in those areas, at least as far as I've been told. If you check the http://"http://www.apple.com/macpro/... mac pro chart, you see that Quadros don't blow the x1900xt out of the water performance wise. Weaker bandwidth, fewer vertices, higher fillrate
Does Core Image run faster on a high bandwidth and high vertex card, or does it run faster on a high fill rate card? Would Core Image take advantage of multiple GPUs?
Comments
Dell has that beat. Max out a Precision 690 workstation and you'd be out more than $80k. But then, they offer the ability to run 5x 15kRPM SAS drives, 64GB of RAM, hardware RAID and a few other goodies.
Sure, as do Boxx and others.
But this is a first for Apple. Isn't it?
Or was there some version of a Lisa that was even more spendy?
Anyway.
OMG WWDC OMG indeed.
Actually, if you downgrade the processor to the 2.0 ghz cores and the HD down to 160 gb, the price for the Mac Pro is $2124 full retail and $1924 with education discount.. That's a smokin deal for a four core machine and pretty darn close to the $2000 space.
If you buy an IMac you get a "free screen," though....
The same iMac enclosure handled the G5 pretty well, and quietly. Going to Conroe instead of Merom would save Apple about $100 per chip.
Well I hope they can add conroe without having to redesign the iMac. Even if needed it would still be worth it. Remember quad core is right around the corner. The thought of getting along with a 2.ghz Merom iMac a year from now when quad core chips are all the rage gives me pause to buy an iMac.
Sure, as do Boxx and others.
But this is a first for Apple. Isn't it?
Or was there some version of a Lisa that was even more spendy?
Anyway.
OMG WWDC OMG indeed.
Were you ever seriously considering a Mac Pro? As others have mentioned, these are VERY competitvely priced. Just because you don't have the need or money doesn't make them outrageous. I've no need nor budget for one but that doesn't matter because I'm not the person that machine is made for. Neither are you apparently. If you think they're overpriced go to Dell and configure one. You may be surprised.
Well Ben I take a different view I guess. The iMac in my estimation is more than just a consumer machine. It has to be that plus a little prosumer as well.
i'll chime in my support for the imac as well. we used imac g5's for broadcast motion graphics (FCP, CS, AE, lightwave) for 18 months and generally they were more than up to the task. if we needed quicker renders, we'd farm it out to a dual G5. motion was the only thing that wouldn't run well enough. if adobe had gone universal binary, i think we prob would have upgraded them to intel imacs, tho with quad g5's in their places now it means we can get thru masses of mpeg2 encoding overnight...
sennen
I wonder if MS is going 2 have 2 tweak XP to work with these new machines
No, because XP Pro already works fine on a 2x2 machine.
i'll chime in my support for the imac as well. we used imac g5's for broadcast motion graphics (FCP, CS, AE, lightwave) for 18 months and generally they were more than up to the task. if we needed quicker renders, we'd farm it out to a dual G5. motion was the only thing that wouldn't run well enough. if adobe had gone universal binary, i think we prob would have upgraded them to intel imacs, tho with quad g5's in their places now it means we can get thru masses of mpeg2 encoding overnight...
sennen
If iMacs came with 2.4 ghz conroes (doable from a cpu price standpoint) they would be very capable machines when Adobe gets Creative Suite universal. A 2.9 ghz conroe was competitve with Quad core opteron systems in a review I came across (I don't have the link handy). Conroe iMacs would make excellent prosumer machines.
This new computer gets another name, less the Mac Pro line be no longer "all Quad".
I bet a 15k drive would work in a Mac Pro. Raptors work in Power Macs.
It would need to be SATA (or SATA II) or it wouldn't work in the Mac Pro's hard drive bays. The Mac Pro doesn't appear to use any drive cables, the drive connector is directly on the main board, so it isn't as if you can even try to pop in an SAS or U320 adapter and run several 15k drives internally with some cable work. You might get one such drive to work in the spare optical drive bay but I don't think it's worth the hassle.
So, in short, I guess the best hope for that is to either use external SAS/U320 drives or beg Western Digital or Seagate to offer SATA II on their 15k drives.
What I think is going to happen is that the Conroe will go into the Mac Pro as well to bring the entry level system down in price. Dual-Core = low-end, 2 Dual-Cores = high end
If so then why didn't it happen today? It ain't like Conroe isn't shipping. They could at least take orders.
The Mac Pro is a workstation, not a consumer desktop by any stretch of the imagination.
A ridiculous Geforce 7300 in a Pro workstation? The 7300 is even slower than the 6600 that came with the previous Power Mac G5. How does the 7300 compare to the ATI Radeon X1600?
Part of me feels Apple should not leave itself out of SLI and Crossfire. But I've read articles that said neither necessarily deliver 2X the performance and at certain times actually lower frame rates. Which would not make them worth the space they take up or the power they need.
I'm more interested in what SLI and Crossfire can do for Core Image operations. I've read people commenting that Aperture chokes under heavy usage even with an Nvidia Quadro card. And 2 Geforce 7900's or 2 Radeon X1900's running in dual mode would be cheaper than a single Quadro card.
A ridiculous Geforce 7300 in a Pro workstation? The 7300 is even slower than the 6600 that came with the previous Power Mac G5. How does the 7300 compare to the ATI Radeon X1600?
Not ridiculous at all. There are many pro users, specifically audio pros who don't need much graphics power, but DO need processor power. If you need graphics choices, there are six available as BTO options.
Front and rear fans
All PCI Express cards
Airport and Bluetooth cards
Speaker
Front panel board
Processor
Logic board
before they can replace a damn power supply? In a Quad G5 machine, removing the power supply requires removing almost 50 screws.
So, in short, I guess the best hope for that is to either use external SAS/U320 drives or beg Western Digital or Seagate to offer SATA II on their 15k drives.
My mistake. I thought that 15k drives were just the faster version of 10k drives - I didn't realize they weren't SATA II. Any SATA II drive (or plain old SATA drive) should work. Now for my question - if it doesn't need cables, can I just use an OEM drive off newegg?
Haggar - Aperture version 1.0 stinks. And Quadros aren't for speed so much as accuracy and quality control. Overall, they're pretty similar to the gaming cards, except in those areas, at least as far as I've been told. If you check the http://"http://www.apple.com/macpro/... mac pro chart, you see that Quadros don't blow the x1900xt out of the water performance wise. Weaker bandwidth, fewer vertices, higher fillrate (but not massive differences compared to the 7300GT)
Speaking of the 7300GT - its not a horrible card. It's fine if you only use the CPUs for your work, and only need the graphics card to run OS X. Like in the Sound business, or in the Graphic Design/Layout world.
Not ridiculous at all. There are many pro users, specifically audio pros who don't need much graphics power, but DO need processor power. If you need graphics choices, there are six available as BTO options.
My point was that according to Nvidia's web site, the Geforce 7300 has lower performance specs than the 6600 that Apple previously used. So this is actually a step down from the Power Mac G5. Actually, there are only 3 different graphics cards available for this new Mac. Out of those 6 options that you mentioned, 3 of them are just for putting additional 7300 cards in the other slots. And they don't run in SLI as far as I can tell.
Anyone who has little need for major graphics is fine on a 7300GT.
Anyone with any desire for graphics will go for the x1900xt.
There aren't really that many people who would have been fine with a 7600GT and not with a 7300GT.
And Quadros aren't for speed so much as accuracy and quality control. Overall, they're pretty similar to the gaming cards, except in those areas, at least as far as I've been told. If you check the http://"http://www.apple.com/macpro/... mac pro chart, you see that Quadros don't blow the x1900xt out of the water performance wise. Weaker bandwidth, fewer vertices, higher fillrate
Does Core Image run faster on a high bandwidth and high vertex card, or does it run faster on a high fill rate card? Would Core Image take advantage of multiple GPUs?