I understand that they won't currently work because of lack of drivers, but are you saying they should work when they *officially* come out (along with the new mac drivers)? Or did I misunderstand?
I was looking on Dell.com and they're offering towers with equivalent specs to the Mac Pro (2.4 GHz Quad Core) for $900
Oh, and they have three times the amount of RAM as the MP.
I think a 20-30% premium for Apple products is fine, but 150% ??
"equivalent" yes in perhaps in the same way that Ferrari and Hyundai are "equivalent" with 4 wheels. A consumer might compare the two computers and see the same thing but an enthusiast should know when they're talking about a computer with a $100 motherboard (the Dell) and one with a $500 motherboard (the Mac)
Dead giveways
Dell- DDR Mac FB-DIMM
Dell -1066Ghz FSB Mac 1333Ghz
Dell- Quad Core single socket Mac Quad Core single socket with one available socket .
If you want to do an " Apples to Apples" comparison it's ideal to have two Apples.
"equivalent" yes in perhaps in the same way that Ferrari and Hyundai are "equivalent" with 4 wheels. A consumer might compare the two computers and see the same thing but an enthusiast should know when they're talking about a computer with a $100 motherboard (the Dell) and one with a $500 motherboard (the Mac)
Dead giveways
Dell- DDR Mac FB-DIMM
Dell -1066Ghz FSB Mac 1333Ghz
Dell- Quad Core single socket Mac Quad Core single socket with one available socket .
If you want to do an " Apples to Apples" comparison it's ideal to have two Apples.
The Mac Pro uses server parts (RAM, mobo, dual CPUs) that have little to no benefit in non server applications. So for Photoshop, video editing, DAWs, etc there is no advantage even though the parts do indeed cost more.
A single quad core processor is equivalent to 2 dual cores. (But without the added noise of a second CPU fan).
A dual CPU motherboard costs more, but is obviously not needed to run a single quad core processors. I know the MacPro also has a dual ethernet, but really who needs that unless you're running a server?
FB-DIMMs have no measurable performace advantage over DDR2 for most applications. FB-DIMM has higher latency and generates more heat.
So yes the MP's parts are indeed more expensive, too bad it doesn't translate to greater performance.
The Mac Pro uses server parts (RAM, mobo, dual CPUs) that have little to no benefit in non server applications. So for Photoshop, video editing, DAWs, etc there is no advantage even though the parts do indeed cost more.
A single quad core processor is equivalent to 2 dual cores. (But without the added noise of a second CPU fan).
A dual CPU motherboard costs more, but is obviously not needed to run a single quad core processors. I know the MacPro also has a dual ethernet, but really who needs that unless you're running a server?
FB-DIMMs have no measurable performace advantage over DDR2 for most applications. FB-DIMM has higher latency and generates more heat.
So yes the MP's parts are indeed more expensive, too bad it doesn't translate to greater performance.
The MacPro is based off of the Intel 5000x motherboard design. It's used in Workstations (which the Mac Pro is) and servers. SMP motherboards with FB-DIMM for high density memory manifest performance improvements across the board. There's nothing inherent in a server that changes the basic laws of computing. More processing power, bandwidth and RAM equal faster performance. Where a server comes into play is in management tools and robust high availablity design.
Yes a single Quad Core "is" equivalent if you're talking about a comparison within the same proc. But you're comparing a Quad Core Kentsfield chip with a Quad Core Wolfcrest which has 4 more MB of L2 cache and a higher FSB. Again we're not talking about "Apples to Apples"
I never said FB-DIMM did have a "measurable" performance advantage. They exist primarily for high RAM density which means the Dell you've quoted maxes out and 4GB of RAM...the MacPro maxes out at 16GB.
I don't know if you've proven "anything" that backs up your performance statement. I "know" that 12MB of L2 cache and faster FSB will manifest in increased performance. I know that having a SMP system and 16GB or more RAM is superior for many needs.
If a $900 Kenstfield desktop offered %100 of the performance of a workstation class computer then there'd be no need for Dell or HP or IBM to sell workstations now would there?
For the sake of argument, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the points you made offer notably improved performance. But $1600 worth of improved performance? No way. And I have no doubt that the base Dell system would blow away a base Mac Pro, because of the MP's embarrassing 1 GB of RAM. (kind of a joke to call a system "Pro" with 1 GB of RAM).
As for high amounts of RAM, there are no native 64 bit apps for Leopard yet, so it's of limited use unless you have a need to run multiple memory intensive applications at once. You're still stuck at 3 GB per app.
Actually, they will probably be announced on Jan 15 because almost all Apple announcements are on a Tuesday.
let's not also forget that for bumps that are less than major updates, they usually drop the next week. i don't know how major the macpro upgrade will be. let's hope it's of the keynote-worthy variety.
For the sake of argument, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the points you made offer notably improved performance. But $1600 worth of improved performance? No way. And I have no doubt that the base Dell system would blow away a base Mac Pro, because of the MP's embarrassing 1 GB of RAM. (kind of a joke to call a system "Pro" with 1 GB of RAM).
As for high amounts of RAM, there are no native 64 bit apps for Leopard yet, so it's of limited use unless you have a need to run multiple memory intensive applications at once. You're still stuck at 3 GB per app.
No doubt. I get your point clearly too. QC performance for $900 is where Apple needs to approach. For most of us that is a damn good system and is certainly faster than what I have now. I hope Apple is agressive with their next product offerings. Penryn based CPU throughout and some better graphics options.
My next purchase is a laptop. I'd LOOOOVE a subnotebook for under $1500.
Xserve is due for an update as well... i seem to recall a MWSF a couple of years ago that they updated the Powermac and Xserve at the same time, or am i mistaken?
Xserve is due for an update as well... i seem to recall a MWSF a couple of years ago that they updated the Powermac and Xserve at the same time, or am i mistaken?
The time is right to move on up to SMP Quad Core Penryn (Harpertown procs). The interesting thing here is that Leopard Servers OS license allows for virtualizing multiple OS. I like the idea of beefy 1U Xserve running OS X virtualized.
2008 should finally bring us new Xserve RAID and XSAN software. From a Power User point of view 2008 is looking pretty good.
It's too bad Apple doesn't have a single CPU Mac Pro (or some other expandable tower). They always did with the PowerMacs and there's far less of a new for SMP now that multicore CPUs are here. I was eagerly expecting one at WWDC last year and was interested in switching from Windows but no luck. Instead, I built a Conroe desktop instead which has been working great. I plan on getting a Mac for my eventual notebook purchase and hopefully Macworld will offer me a notebook I can't refuse.
The Mac Pro uses server parts (RAM, mobo, dual CPUs) that have little to no benefit in non server applications. So for Photoshop, video editing, DAWs, etc there is no advantage even though the parts do indeed cost more.
A single quad core processor is equivalent to 2 dual cores. (But without the added noise of a second CPU fan).
A dual CPU motherboard costs more, but is obviously not needed to run a single quad core processors. I know the MacPro also has a dual ethernet, but really who needs that unless you're running a server?
FB-DIMMs have no measurable performace advantage over DDR2 for most applications. FB-DIMM has higher latency and generates more heat.
So yes the MP's parts are indeed more expensive, too bad it doesn't translate to greater performance.
I'll take issue with one thing there, the performance of 2 dual xeons (woodcrest) on a dual 1.33ghz bus to a single core2 quad (Kentsfield) on a 1066mhz bus is not the same, even at the same clock. The current c2qs (and yes, the xeons based on the same design, cloverfield - penryn idoesn't factor into this discussion) are 2 dual core chips on a single die. They actually communicate over the bus. The kentsfield chip hits major bus contention issues when you push all cores, particularly if you're doing heavy ram work too. Even on a 1.33ghz bus, 2 duals will be faster (and yes, consume more power) than the current 2-on-1 model. I should add, I actually ran into this a bit when running GAMESS on a small (96-core, 12 node), 2-way xeon 5320 based cluster of dell poweredge servers a little bit ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree
For the sake of argument, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the points you made offer notably improved performance. But $1600 worth of improved performance? No way. And I have no doubt that the base Dell system would blow away a base Mac Pro, because of the MP's embarrassing 1 GB of RAM. (kind of a joke to call a system "Pro" with 1 GB of RAM).
As for high amounts of RAM, there are no native 64 bit apps for Leopard yet, so it's of limited use unless you have a need to run multiple memory intensive applications at once. You're still stuck at 3 GB per app.
It's not hard to eat more than 3gb of ram with multiple apps, my virtual machines alone eat 3gb, firefox can eat a gig with lotsa tabs open, DB work eats ram for breakfast, photoshop kills 3gb easily, etc. Also, who the hell buys ram from apple anyway, I'd rather have them sell me the sys with 1gb, then I can go turn around and buy more ram to stick in it. It is, in a way, pro to sell it like that. General consumer isn't going to stick ram in their machine, a workstation sold to someone who uses their comp for more than just web browsing may, and probably will.
I understand that they won't currently work because of lack of drivers, but are you saying they should work when they *officially* come out (along with the new mac drivers)? Or did I misunderstand?
It depends on Apple. No one is making EFI cards yet. THey have their Nvidia cards made by a 3rd party. But If the cards are EFI, and the drivers are there they should will work.
I have a question for anyone who knows about current/future hardware...
What are the odds of the new Mac Pro changing its hard drive controller from SATA to a new technology?
I have pre-purchased 3 Hard Drives (Seagate Barracuda 1TB 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s) in anticipation of the new upcoming Mac Pro release - and to offset my income tax this year. My 30-days are almost up to return them and I am having some second thoughts. I do not want to be stuck with these if there is some new technology bandwagon they might jump on.
Comments
Both those lineups would be awesome. Would all of those cards work in the current Mac Pro architecture?
If they are EFI based hardware wise they should work fine, it's Apples driver support that lacks.
Both those lineups would be awesome. Would all of those cards work in the current Mac Pro architecture?
Basically NO. Not now with the cards that are currently available.
Oh, and they have three times the amount of RAM as the MP.
I think a 20-30% premium for Apple products is fine, but 150% ??
I was looking on Dell.com and they're offering towers with equivalent specs to the Mac Pro (2.4 GHz Quad Core) for $900
Oh, and they have three times the amount of RAM as the MP.
I think a 20-30% premium for Apple products is fine, but 150% ??
WTF Apple? Let's get these friggin' new Mac Pro's out already!!!
I would love to buy a Mac Pro right now but hell no I'm not gonna till they f'ing upgrade these things (yes I'm tired and cranky today).
I was looking on Dell.com and they're offering towers with equivalent specs to the Mac Pro (2.4 GHz Quad Core) for $900
Oh, and they have three times the amount of RAM as the MP.
I think a 20-30% premium for Apple products is fine, but 150% ??
"equivalent" yes in perhaps in the same way that Ferrari and Hyundai are "equivalent" with 4 wheels. A consumer might compare the two computers and see the same thing but an enthusiast should know when they're talking about a computer with a $100 motherboard (the Dell) and one with a $500 motherboard (the Mac)
Dead giveways
Dell- DDR Mac FB-DIMM
Dell -1066Ghz FSB Mac 1333Ghz
Dell- Quad Core single socket Mac Quad Core single socket with one available socket .
If you want to do an " Apples to Apples" comparison it's ideal to have two Apples.
"equivalent" yes in perhaps in the same way that Ferrari and Hyundai are "equivalent" with 4 wheels. A consumer might compare the two computers and see the same thing but an enthusiast should know when they're talking about a computer with a $100 motherboard (the Dell) and one with a $500 motherboard (the Mac)
Dead giveways
Dell- DDR Mac FB-DIMM
Dell -1066Ghz FSB Mac 1333Ghz
Dell- Quad Core single socket Mac Quad Core single socket with one available socket .
If you want to do an " Apples to Apples" comparison it's ideal to have two Apples.
The Mac Pro uses server parts (RAM, mobo, dual CPUs) that have little to no benefit in non server applications. So for Photoshop, video editing, DAWs, etc there is no advantage even though the parts do indeed cost more.
A single quad core processor is equivalent to 2 dual cores. (But without the added noise of a second CPU fan).
A dual CPU motherboard costs more, but is obviously not needed to run a single quad core processors. I know the MacPro also has a dual ethernet, but really who needs that unless you're running a server?
FB-DIMMs have no measurable performace advantage over DDR2 for most applications. FB-DIMM has higher latency and generates more heat.
So yes the MP's parts are indeed more expensive, too bad it doesn't translate to greater performance.
The Mac Pro uses server parts (RAM, mobo, dual CPUs) that have little to no benefit in non server applications. So for Photoshop, video editing, DAWs, etc there is no advantage even though the parts do indeed cost more.
A single quad core processor is equivalent to 2 dual cores. (But without the added noise of a second CPU fan).
A dual CPU motherboard costs more, but is obviously not needed to run a single quad core processors. I know the MacPro also has a dual ethernet, but really who needs that unless you're running a server?
FB-DIMMs have no measurable performace advantage over DDR2 for most applications. FB-DIMM has higher latency and generates more heat.
So yes the MP's parts are indeed more expensive, too bad it doesn't translate to greater performance.
The MacPro is based off of the Intel 5000x motherboard design. It's used in Workstations (which the Mac Pro is) and servers. SMP motherboards with FB-DIMM for high density memory manifest performance improvements across the board. There's nothing inherent in a server that changes the basic laws of computing. More processing power, bandwidth and RAM equal faster performance. Where a server comes into play is in management tools and robust high availablity design.
Yes a single Quad Core "is" equivalent if you're talking about a comparison within the same proc. But you're comparing a Quad Core Kentsfield chip with a Quad Core Wolfcrest which has 4 more MB of L2 cache and a higher FSB. Again we're not talking about "Apples to Apples"
I never said FB-DIMM did have a "measurable" performance advantage. They exist primarily for high RAM density which means the Dell you've quoted maxes out and 4GB of RAM...the MacPro maxes out at 16GB.
I don't know if you've proven "anything" that backs up your performance statement. I "know" that 12MB of L2 cache and faster FSB will manifest in increased performance. I know that having a SMP system and 16GB or more RAM is superior for many needs.
If a $900 Kenstfield desktop offered %100 of the performance of a workstation class computer then there'd be no need for Dell or HP or IBM to sell workstations now would there?
As for high amounts of RAM, there are no native 64 bit apps for Leopard yet, so it's of limited use unless you have a need to run multiple memory intensive applications at once. You're still stuck at 3 GB per app.
Actually, they will probably be announced on Jan 15 because almost all Apple announcements are on a Tuesday.
let's not also forget that for bumps that are less than major updates, they usually drop the next week. i don't know how major the macpro upgrade will be. let's hope it's of the keynote-worthy variety.
For the sake of argument, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the points you made offer notably improved performance. But $1600 worth of improved performance? No way. And I have no doubt that the base Dell system would blow away a base Mac Pro, because of the MP's embarrassing 1 GB of RAM. (kind of a joke to call a system "Pro" with 1 GB of RAM).
As for high amounts of RAM, there are no native 64 bit apps for Leopard yet, so it's of limited use unless you have a need to run multiple memory intensive applications at once. You're still stuck at 3 GB per app.
No doubt. I get your point clearly too. QC performance for $900 is where Apple needs to approach. For most of us that is a damn good system and is certainly faster than what I have now. I hope Apple is agressive with their next product offerings. Penryn based CPU throughout and some better graphics options.
My next purchase is a laptop. I'd LOOOOVE a subnotebook for under $1500.
Xserve is due for an update as well... i seem to recall a MWSF a couple of years ago that they updated the Powermac and Xserve at the same time, or am i mistaken?
Yeah the Xserve was last updated
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Xserve
Product\tXserve
Recommendation
Last Release\tAugust 07, 2006
Days Since Update\t497 (Avg = 309)
The time is right to move on up to SMP Quad Core Penryn (Harpertown procs). The interesting thing here is that Leopard Servers OS license allows for virtualizing multiple OS. I like the idea of beefy 1U Xserve running OS X virtualized.
2008 should finally bring us new Xserve RAID and XSAN software. From a Power User point of view 2008 is looking pretty good.
Yeah the Xserve was last updated
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Xserve.
yes... the company i work for is looking to get one and i've passed on the buying advice from there...
The Mac Pro uses server parts (RAM, mobo, dual CPUs) that have little to no benefit in non server applications. So for Photoshop, video editing, DAWs, etc there is no advantage even though the parts do indeed cost more.
A single quad core processor is equivalent to 2 dual cores. (But without the added noise of a second CPU fan).
A dual CPU motherboard costs more, but is obviously not needed to run a single quad core processors. I know the MacPro also has a dual ethernet, but really who needs that unless you're running a server?
FB-DIMMs have no measurable performace advantage over DDR2 for most applications. FB-DIMM has higher latency and generates more heat.
So yes the MP's parts are indeed more expensive, too bad it doesn't translate to greater performance.
I'll take issue with one thing there, the performance of 2 dual xeons (woodcrest) on a dual 1.33ghz bus to a single core2 quad (Kentsfield) on a 1066mhz bus is not the same, even at the same clock. The current c2qs (and yes, the xeons based on the same design, cloverfield - penryn idoesn't factor into this discussion) are 2 dual core chips on a single die. They actually communicate over the bus. The kentsfield chip hits major bus contention issues when you push all cores, particularly if you're doing heavy ram work too. Even on a 1.33ghz bus, 2 duals will be faster (and yes, consume more power) than the current 2-on-1 model. I should add, I actually ran into this a bit when running GAMESS on a small (96-core, 12 node), 2-way xeon 5320 based cluster of dell poweredge servers a little bit ago.
For the sake of argument, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the points you made offer notably improved performance. But $1600 worth of improved performance? No way. And I have no doubt that the base Dell system would blow away a base Mac Pro, because of the MP's embarrassing 1 GB of RAM. (kind of a joke to call a system "Pro" with 1 GB of RAM).
As for high amounts of RAM, there are no native 64 bit apps for Leopard yet, so it's of limited use unless you have a need to run multiple memory intensive applications at once. You're still stuck at 3 GB per app.
It's not hard to eat more than 3gb of ram with multiple apps, my virtual machines alone eat 3gb, firefox can eat a gig with lotsa tabs open, DB work eats ram for breakfast, photoshop kills 3gb easily, etc. Also, who the hell buys ram from apple anyway, I'd rather have them sell me the sys with 1gb, then I can go turn around and buy more ram to stick in it. It is, in a way, pro to sell it like that. General consumer isn't going to stick ram in their machine, a workstation sold to someone who uses their comp for more than just web browsing may, and probably will.
I understand that they won't currently work because of lack of drivers, but are you saying they should work when they *officially* come out (along with the new mac drivers)? Or did I misunderstand?
It depends on Apple. No one is making EFI cards yet. THey have their Nvidia cards made by a 3rd party. But If the cards are EFI, and the drivers are there they should will work.
What are the odds of the new Mac Pro changing its hard drive controller from SATA to a new technology?
I have pre-purchased 3 Hard Drives (Seagate Barracuda 1TB 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s) in anticipation of the new upcoming Mac Pro release - and to offset my income tax this year. My 30-days are almost up to return them and I am having some second thoughts. I do not want to be stuck with these if there is some new technology bandwagon they might jump on.
Any advice would be appreciated!