Yes based on what I can see the Quad Mac Pro is a $2k computer with a hefty margin appied. It's going to get ugly when the PC World rags of the world start showing the basic $1200 Core I7 pc beating the Mac pro in performance
.
Performance per dollar is a metric which Apple is now and henceforth oblivious to.
They could care less how 'bad' they look in such comparisons. They live in fantasy world with the motto "we're so thin and we run x(ten)". It even rhymes.
I'm really at a point where I cannot find an Apple desktop machine to meet my needs under $2k.
I'll look again this fall but for the first time in 4 years, I'm actually going to look at pcs with win 7 if its available. Times are tough and either Apple can provide me a machine that'll last 4-5 years or they can't and I will look elsewhere.
It sucks. I really would prefer to stay on the osx platform, but I don't get to make product development decisions at Apple.
Performance per dollar is a metric which Apple is now and henceforth oblivious to.
They could care less how 'bad' they look in such comparisons. They live in fantasy world with the motto "we're so thin and we run x(ten)". It even rhymes.
I'm really at a point where I cannot find an Apple desktop machine to meet my needs under $2k.
I'll look again this fall but for the first time in 4 years, I'm actually going to look at pcs with win 7 if its available. Times are tough and either Apple can provide me a machine that'll last 4-5 years or they can't and I will look elsewhere.
It sucks. I really would prefer to stay on the osx platform, but I don't get to make product development decisions at Apple.
It's frustrating. I want to be happy for Apple's resurgence but i'm growing weary with the return to smarmyness. I'm tired of seeing marketing retreads and excuses. I'm tired of being told "we've got great products in the pipeline" or "we're going to innovate through the recession" that gets puked out on queue.
Apple's hardware (holistically speaking) doesn't match their software. I figured we'd get the benefits of Intel IP along with some key differentiator tweaks from Apple. Well that differentiator is simply FW and a nice markup.
At this rate it appears that Apple needs a shakeup. They needs a couple bad qtrs and a rechecking of the ego. Only a company with an out of control ego would tell you that they saved you $700 by delivering a unibody Macbook because aluminum is what you really wanted. Only a company with hubris would deliver a quad core Mac Pro with a $800 premium.
I only hope that the Mac press can get some balls and stop rolling over like some subservient bitches and call Apple to court. We'll see.
It's frustrating. I want to be happy for Apple's resurgence but i'm growing weary with the return to smarmyness. I'm tired of seeing marketing retreads and excuses. I'm tired of being told "we've got great products in the pipeline" or "we're going to innovate through the recession" that gets puked out on queue.
Apple's hardware (holistically speaking) doesn't match their software. I figured we'd get the benefits of Intel IP along with some key differentiator tweaks from Apple. Well that differentiator is simply FW and a nice markup.
At this rate it appears that Apple needs a shakeup. They needs a couple bad qtrs and a rechecking of the ego. Only a company with an out of control ego would tell you that they saved you $700 by delivering a unibody Macbook because aluminum is what you really wanted. Only a company with hubris would deliver a quad core Mac Pro with a $800 premium.
I only hope that the Mac press can get some balls and stop rolling over like some subservient bitches and call Apple to court. We'll see.
I find it hard to believe that these quad core Nehalem Mac Pros are limited to only 8GB of RAM. It should be 16 (4 x 4GB) since it's not a chipset limitation at all.
For current CS3/4 probably doesn't make any difference, but Aperture heavily depends on Quartz, I'm not sure if Lightroom does. As and when SL shows his faces more stuff could be handled by the GPU but knowing Adobe they won't take advantage of it till CS5.
Thats true, but you must consider the size of the files. That's the most important factor.
If the file is 20 MB in size, any Mac product is going to be plenty fast, Quartz, Open CL, Grand Central, or whatnot.
In fact, the slowest computer Apple made a year ago is more then fast enough for file around that size. People are getting themselves tied in knots worrying about speeds.
My daughter is a senior in high school, it's a well known art/academic school here. She's going to get a four year BFA in London next year in photography. She has a 3.06 GHz iMac, bought last year when it first came out. she works on composites up to 100 MB in size, and the machine is pretty damn fast. Normal files from her Canon 40D whip by when she presses the key to do an unmask or other effect.
Most people won't see any speedup with a faster machine. The iMac also has a very good quality IPS panel, which, despite the gloss haters out there once calibrated, is excellent for photo work.
The new OS technologies Apple will be coming out with in 10.6 will only enhance that speed which is already quite fast enough.
Only if you are doing professional work that involves really large files should you worry about even faster machines. And then, I would opt for spending more for a faster two cpu machine.
The reason for that is that it will last longer. As Adobe gets PS to work with x number of cores, something they're working on, an eight core machine will get even faster, not slower, making that investment a pretty darn good one. Five years from now, you will find the machine performing better than it does today.
For those of us wanting the option of more than 8 gigs of ram, that price is up to $3299. Earlier this week, you could get that for $2499.
Sorry to respond to myself...
Looking at the dell website, they have i7 boxes that can handle 12 gigs of ram for $899 and 24 gigs for $1099.
I thought the MP was supposed to be a workstation? Doesn't the whole argument that xeon 3500 is so much better lose a lot of steam when the ram maxes out at less than boxes about a third the price?
I find it hard to believe that these quad core Nehalem Mac Pros are limited to only 8GB of RAM. It should be 16 (4 x 4GB) since it's not a chipset limitation at all.
I think Apple just doesn't want to sell or support the 4GB DIMMs. 16GB should work fine. Non-ECC DDR3 should work, too, but don't take my word for that.
Also, ATI Crossfire should be 100% supported by the hardware... it'll just require Windows and the appropriate driver.
Since the i7 is pretty much functionally the same as the xeon in the quad Mac Pro, seems like a totally valid comparison to me. Yes, I know there are minor differences (what besides ECC memory support?), but anything that would impact actual real world performance? Is there any reason to expect the quad MP to outperform the i7 dell?
You keep making the same mistake that others who seem to want to prove that a workstation chass machine is no better than a cheaply made home machine on all fronts.
Get over the fact that a Xeon is not an i7.
That's like calling a four cylinder engine essentially the same as an eight cylinder engine.
Sure, they are conceptually the same, but the performance is not. If it were, both sports cars and workstations would use the cheaper parts, but they don't. Workstations from every vendor will cost about the same. When Xeon machines come out from Dell, Hp, Boxx, and others, we will see, again, that Apple's machines are no more expensive, and are likely even cheaper.
For people who insist on using a home-built computer, fine, have fun with all the problems you might end up with. I built enough of them over the years.
If Apple WERE to build an i7 mini tower, it would be much less expensive also, but they don't want to.
We can argue with them about that, and you know I've been a LONG term advocate for one, but that's their choice. We have to move on from that.
If some people can't afford, or don't want to spend the money, that's up to them.
But trying to find reasons why the Mac Pro is overpriced is not helpful, because the customers for these machines, for the most part, don't care. These are very popular in scientific research. In engineering, publishing, graphics, movie editing, audio work, and esp. in Europe, where Archicad is more popular than Autocad, in architecture.
These aren't markets that can generate millions of sales a year, but it's an important market for Apple nevertheless, and they aren't constrained by price that much.
People complaining here about it isn't going to make the sightest difference to Apple, because these people aren't their customers for these machines.
My personal example comes from my older life as an electronics engineer for my own company back when. We made professional speakers and electronics for the recording industry, discos, etc. It was very expensive. But there were always some people who were willing to pay that price for the equipment to have for themselves at home. This was just before the "high end" home audio market really developed. Our products WERE expensive, really expensive, but they delivered good value for those who needed them. But we always had some people who called us up and said that they would buy our stuff if we lowered prices, or made cheaper products.
Well, we weren't about to do that, because it wasn't our market. If people were crazy enough to buy our stuff for their living room, that was up to them.
Its the same thing with the Mac Pro. It's not a home machine, and its not a machine for marginal professionals who do this part time, or who are at the edge of profitability.
When we consider where prices are relative to where they used to be years ago, even the most expensive Mac Pro now is no higher in price, and gives you vastly more. I paid $6,000 for my 950 back in the early '90's, with 8 MB RAM, a 320 MB HDD, 1 MB video memory for the onboard 2D graphics. No CD player. I bought a 2x Toshibia and machined the computer case to get it to fit (the first CD installed in a Mac here in the States, and possibly, in the world! That was another $600. The Professional keyboard was another $189.
This was early 1992. I could go on to tell you that RAM to go to 64 MB (unheard of at the time) cost over $3,000, but you would know that.
This machine was cheap when compared to low priced workstations of the time.
But now the Mac Pro IS a workstation. It has an industrial built quality. Let's leave it at that, and go on from there.
Quote:
You'll probably see the end of "apologists" when people stop calling people "whiners".
There's a difference often though. I defend what Apple does if I think they are right, and I scold them when I think they are wrong. Overall, we can't argue that their strategy is wrong, because it's not.
There are some apologists out there too who defend everything, no matter what. That's wrong also.
But Apple does do some strange things, and make some odd decisions, we can agree on that.
But a lot of the "whiners" just complain about the same things over and again. That gets tiring to read. They have no intelligent solutions to what they aren't happy about. Claiming that Apple can cut large amounts off prices as solutions to their unhappiness about pricing isn't helpful, as they know nothing about manufacturing. Complaining that Apple doesn't make this or that isn't helpful either, as it changes nothing, and we've heard it all before ad nauseam.
I like to see a well thought out argument, even if I don't agree, and like getting into that, but much of it is drivel.
Quote:
So what difference will a user see when running the same app on both machines? Slower app performance? More crashes? I'd like to know specifically.
I'm willing to bet the Mac Pro will perform better. Of course with the two different OS's, some of the problems will come from that as well.
I'm also willing to bet that there will be some incompatibilities at some point with either software drivers, or hardware with the home built PC.
How long you expect to keep your machine will also determine the value of it. If you expect to get a new one every two years or so, it won't seem to be such a good value as the Mac Pro will last far longer. With MS there's no knowing how long a machine will be viable.
Right now, Apple's determining the longevity of their older machines is due to moving from the PPC to Intel, so it's to be expected that they are finally phasing out eight year old machines, and shortly, all PPC machines. I imagine that the first generation 32 bit Intel machines will not be able to run later 64 bit OS's either. But MS has a plan of obsolescence that helps hardware manufacturers keep up their sales. This is well known in the industry, and has been reported upon extensively in publications such as Computerworld, Infoworld, and others over the years. A new machine today may very well not run that newer OS upgrade two years from now. Not so with the Mac.
Apple's new coming OS advances won't be seen, for the most part in Windows for years, if at all. Open CL, which has been accepted as a standard, and which will not only speed up games, but all heavy duty applications won't be available in Windows, because MS is just about the only company not to sign on. They will continue to promote DirectX which is primarally geared towards games, and is said to have little functionallity in professional apps.
Grand Central, another Apple technology is being said to make it much easier to parallelize software for multiple cores, also exclusive to Apple. Much software won't even need to be modified to work with it, though tweaking software will result in larger gains.
We will see a major improvement in file structure with ZFS when it arrives for client machines. MS has been trying to get Cairo into an OS since the early '90's, and hasn't been able to figure it out in all that time.
We will also get rez independence well before MS does.
Okay after a nights sleep and throwing this around I may need to recant my previous buying statement.
I'll mainly need a new machine to run FCP Studio, which of course includes Motion that needs the horsepower so-to-speak. Considering pricing would I be happier with a previous version 2.8Ghzx2 for $2698 or the current 2.66Ghzx2 for $4304. Is the $1600 difference worth it for my application. Will the new bus speed and CPU design outweigh the price difference? I'm still getting to know FCP, yet I tend to hang on to a machine for a while and don't want to feel real limited in a few years if I went with the older model.
$4304 is based on the education price of the new model:
# Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
# 6GB (6x1GB)
# 640GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
# NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB
# One 18x SuperDrive
# Apple Mighty Mouse
# Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (English) and User's Guide
# AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n
$2698 is based on Macmall and the previous model:
# Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
# 2GB (6x1GB)
# 320GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Unsure of the rpm speed
# ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT
# One 16x SuperDrive
# Apple Mighty Mouse
# AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n
In either machine:
Video cards I would swap out in 6 mos for possibly an ATI Radeon HD 4870.
I have two 1TB Seagates and two WD Velociraptor's that I would drop in, so drives aren't an issue.
And of course I'd increase RAM in 6 mos.
I don't want to go iMac, so please don't suggest it.
Thanks for any help.
According to tests done on sites such as Anandtech, a well respected site, the Nehalems are well ahead of all other Cpu's in most every category.
Another advantage is that this is the beginning of a new line from Intel. When the 32 nm versions come out, the "tick" in their schedule, you will be able to pop those new chips (possibly 8 cores! Much faster speeds) in place of the ones in there now. It might take a bit of doing, but the design of these new machines makes it look MUCH easier than the old machines where the processors were buried, and more than a bit of the machine had to be disassembled to get to them. These are right out in the open.
That's why I opted for the cheaper dual 2.66 model rather than the more expensive dual 2.93 one.
Yes based on what I can see the Quad Mac Pro is a $2k computer with a hefty margin appied. It's going to get ugly when the PC World rags of the world start showing the basic $1200 Core I7 pc beating the Mac pro in performance
I don't see that happening. Besides, I'm surprised at you. You know that the Mac Pro is not a home machine. Compare it to comparable machines when they do come out.
I look at it the other way around.
I'd grab the more affordable 2.8Ghz system. Nehalem is a great architecture but it's the Tick of the new architecture meaning that Intel's "Tick Tock" strategy is to deliver a new architecture every two years followed by a process shrink. The former 2.8Ghz Xeons were the "tock" of the last architecture. You may want to take advantage of the pricing advantage and that will easily carry you for a few years by the time you upgrade your Mac Pro you'll be looking at Sandy Bridge which will bring 4Ghz and 8-cores on a single die. You can't lose either way it's going to take a year to two years for Apple to get their apps and 3rd parties multithreading their apps properly to take advantage of these cores.[/QUOTE]
The old machines are at their peak, pretty much.
The new machines are at their beginning, and that new shiney 8 core, higher speed 32 nm chip coming off the lines in 2010 will be able to be popped into this new machine that's just come out. The old machines are what they are now. A slight increase in speed won't be a good enough reason to spend a couple thousand on new chips for them, but it will be for the Nehalem machines.
With Apple's new OS technologies right around the corner, even 16 cores in a year from now might be more than usable.
Performance per dollar is a metric which Apple is now and henceforth oblivious to.
They could care less how 'bad' they look in such comparisons. They live in fantasy world with the motto "we're so thin and we run x(ten)". It even rhymes.
I'm really at a point where I cannot find an Apple desktop machine to meet my needs under $2k.
I'll look again this fall but for the first time in 4 years, I'm actually going to look at pcs with win 7 if its available. Times are tough and either Apple can provide me a machine that'll last 4-5 years or they can't and I will look elsewhere.
It sucks. I really would prefer to stay on the osx platform, but I don't get to make product development decisions at Apple.
That metric is only for price sensitive markets, which the workstation market is not really part of. This is a market where performance and build quality is paramount, and that where the Mac Pros excel.
Their machines DO last 4 to 5 years. Your PC won't, thats for sure, and when you go back to the trough in 2 to 2.5 years, you'll be thinking that it was a mistake to go back to PCs.
I find it hard to believe that these quad core Nehalem Mac Pros are limited to only 8GB of RAM. It should be 16 (4 x 4GB) since it's not a chipset limitation at all.
It's possible they will accept 16 GB. This isn't the first time that Apple hasn't tested larger memory sticks with lesser priced machines because they think people buying those machines won't spend the very high prices for them.
Everyone here should remember that even the first Powermac G5's were capable of taking 16 GB with 2 GB sticks even though Apple was advertising 8 GB RAM with 1 GB sticks as the max.
This goes way back to my 950 in the early '90's. Apple said that only 2 MB sticks would work, for a total of 32 MB RAM. I asked them about that, and was told they didn't test with the much more expensive 4 MB parts. I bought two, and they worked, so I replaced all, and had 64 MB (16 memory slots! Those were the days!).
Some web site will test for this shortly after they get their machines, and we will find out.
We should all wait for that before getting too antsy about it.
Mel, stop being the most tweakerish grumpy old fart imaginable.
You know what I meant, the core is based on the new Architecture.
You keep behaving the way you do, and you're not an easy person to like.
I'm sorry if you don't like me.
But say what you mean then. No one knows what you mean other than yourself. I wasn't the only one to point out your error. People point out mine as well. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't.
The problem is that we have to go by what the branding is, or it gets confusing. I don't see why that should be a problem for you or any others. Is it that i7 is easier to type than Nehalem?
If you make that mistake on Anandtech or any of the other sites I'm on, you will be jeered at. At least I'm polite about it.
If we all use the same terms, there won't be any confusion.
I think Apple just doesn't want to sell or support the 4GB DIMMs. 16GB should work fine. Non-ECC DDR3 should work, too, but don't take my word for that.
Also, ATI Crossfire should be 100% supported by the hardware... it'll just require Windows and the appropriate driver.
Crossfire might be supportable. The second slot is 16 lanes as opposed to the four each the other two slots have. It's not double spaced though. Now if it were, THAT would have been a hint!!!
It's possible they will accept 16 GB. This isn't the first time that Apple hasn't tested larger memory sticks with lesser priced machines because they think people buying those machines won't spend the very high prices for them.
Everyone here should remember that even the first Powermac G5's were capable of taking 16 GB with 2 GB sticks even though Apple was advertising 8 GB RAM with 1 GB sticks as the max.
This goes way back to my 950 in the early '90's. Apple said that only 2 MB sticks would work, for a total of 32 MB RAM. I asked them about that, and was told they didn't test with the much more expensive 4 MB parts. I bought two, and they worked, so I replaced all, and had 64 MB (16 memory slots! Those were the days!).
Some web site will test for this shortly after they get their machines, and we will find out.
We should all wait for that before getting too antsy about it.
I hope you're right because I can't in good faith recommend this machine to our creative and studio departments with that limitation. I'm sure it's an artificail limitation imposed by Apple. I would just like to see some real world confirmation from someone who has a quad core 2009 Mac Pro, who added 3x4GB or 4x4GB of memory.
I just saw the crucial price for 4GB SODIMM 870 bucks!!
They don't even list DDR-3 8GB kits. I'm positive that Apple
has artificially limited the RAM options for the QC Mac Pro because
they're hoarding the RAM for the SMP systems which makes sense to
me.
Yeah but those are So-DIMMs (what my iMac would take, or a 17" MBP). The Mac Pros take full sized DIMMS. At the most they are costing $500-600 for a 12GB kit.
Comments
Yes based on what I can see the Quad Mac Pro is a $2k computer with a hefty margin appied. It's going to get ugly when the PC World rags of the world start showing the basic $1200 Core I7 pc beating the Mac pro in performance
.
Performance per dollar is a metric which Apple is now and henceforth oblivious to.
They could care less how 'bad' they look in such comparisons. They live in fantasy world with the motto "we're so thin and we run x(ten)". It even rhymes.
I'm really at a point where I cannot find an Apple desktop machine to meet my needs under $2k.
I'll look again this fall but for the first time in 4 years, I'm actually going to look at pcs with win 7 if its available. Times are tough and either Apple can provide me a machine that'll last 4-5 years or they can't and I will look elsewhere.
It sucks. I really would prefer to stay on the osx platform, but I don't get to make product development decisions at Apple.
I'm really at a point where I cannot find an Apple desktop machine to meet my needs under $2k.
For those of us wanting the option of more than 8 gigs of ram, that price is up to $3299. Earlier this week, you could get that for $2499.
Performance per dollar is a metric which Apple is now and henceforth oblivious to.
They could care less how 'bad' they look in such comparisons. They live in fantasy world with the motto "we're so thin and we run x(ten)". It even rhymes.
I'm really at a point where I cannot find an Apple desktop machine to meet my needs under $2k.
I'll look again this fall but for the first time in 4 years, I'm actually going to look at pcs with win 7 if its available. Times are tough and either Apple can provide me a machine that'll last 4-5 years or they can't and I will look elsewhere.
It sucks. I really would prefer to stay on the osx platform, but I don't get to make product development decisions at Apple.
It's frustrating. I want to be happy for Apple's resurgence but i'm growing weary with the return to smarmyness. I'm tired of seeing marketing retreads and excuses. I'm tired of being told "we've got great products in the pipeline" or "we're going to innovate through the recession" that gets puked out on queue.
Apple's hardware (holistically speaking) doesn't match their software. I figured we'd get the benefits of Intel IP along with some key differentiator tweaks from Apple. Well that differentiator is simply FW and a nice markup.
At this rate it appears that Apple needs a shakeup. They needs a couple bad qtrs and a rechecking of the ego. Only a company with an out of control ego would tell you that they saved you $700 by delivering a unibody Macbook because aluminum is what you really wanted. Only a company with hubris would deliver a quad core Mac Pro with a $800 premium.
I only hope that the Mac press can get some balls and stop rolling over like some subservient bitches and call Apple to court. We'll see.
It's frustrating. I want to be happy for Apple's resurgence but i'm growing weary with the return to smarmyness. I'm tired of seeing marketing retreads and excuses. I'm tired of being told "we've got great products in the pipeline" or "we're going to innovate through the recession" that gets puked out on queue.
Apple's hardware (holistically speaking) doesn't match their software. I figured we'd get the benefits of Intel IP along with some key differentiator tweaks from Apple. Well that differentiator is simply FW and a nice markup.
At this rate it appears that Apple needs a shakeup. They needs a couple bad qtrs and a rechecking of the ego. Only a company with an out of control ego would tell you that they saved you $700 by delivering a unibody Macbook because aluminum is what you really wanted. Only a company with hubris would deliver a quad core Mac Pro with a $800 premium.
I only hope that the Mac press can get some balls and stop rolling over like some subservient bitches and call Apple to court. We'll see.
The shroud of the dark side has fallen.
Lemon Bon Bon.
For current CS3/4 probably doesn't make any difference, but Aperture heavily depends on Quartz, I'm not sure if Lightroom does. As and when SL shows his faces more stuff could be handled by the GPU but knowing Adobe they won't take advantage of it till CS5.
Thats true, but you must consider the size of the files. That's the most important factor.
If the file is 20 MB in size, any Mac product is going to be plenty fast, Quartz, Open CL, Grand Central, or whatnot.
In fact, the slowest computer Apple made a year ago is more then fast enough for file around that size. People are getting themselves tied in knots worrying about speeds.
My daughter is a senior in high school, it's a well known art/academic school here. She's going to get a four year BFA in London next year in photography. She has a 3.06 GHz iMac, bought last year when it first came out. she works on composites up to 100 MB in size, and the machine is pretty damn fast. Normal files from her Canon 40D whip by when she presses the key to do an unmask or other effect.
Most people won't see any speedup with a faster machine. The iMac also has a very good quality IPS panel, which, despite the gloss haters out there once calibrated, is excellent for photo work.
The new OS technologies Apple will be coming out with in 10.6 will only enhance that speed which is already quite fast enough.
Only if you are doing professional work that involves really large files should you worry about even faster machines. And then, I would opt for spending more for a faster two cpu machine.
The reason for that is that it will last longer. As Adobe gets PS to work with x number of cores, something they're working on, an eight core machine will get even faster, not slower, making that investment a pretty darn good one. Five years from now, you will find the machine performing better than it does today.
For those of us wanting the option of more than 8 gigs of ram, that price is up to $3299. Earlier this week, you could get that for $2499.
Sorry to respond to myself...
Looking at the dell website, they have i7 boxes that can handle 12 gigs of ram for $899 and 24 gigs for $1099.
I thought the MP was supposed to be a workstation? Doesn't the whole argument that xeon 3500 is so much better lose a lot of steam when the ram maxes out at less than boxes about a third the price?
I know it's seems like a minor point, but a lot of people are making the error, and it leads to confusion.
The i7 is Intel's brand for desktop chips.
The Xeon is intel's brand for workstation and server chips.
There is no i7 Xeon.
Mel, stop being the most tweakerish grumpy old fart imaginable.
You know what I meant, the core is based on the new Architecture.
You keep behaving the way you do, and you're not an easy person to like.
I find it hard to believe that these quad core Nehalem Mac Pros are limited to only 8GB of RAM. It should be 16 (4 x 4GB) since it's not a chipset limitation at all.
I think Apple just doesn't want to sell or support the 4GB DIMMs. 16GB should work fine. Non-ECC DDR3 should work, too, but don't take my word for that.
Also, ATI Crossfire should be 100% supported by the hardware... it'll just require Windows and the appropriate driver.
Since the i7 is pretty much functionally the same as the xeon in the quad Mac Pro, seems like a totally valid comparison to me. Yes, I know there are minor differences (what besides ECC memory support?), but anything that would impact actual real world performance? Is there any reason to expect the quad MP to outperform the i7 dell?
You keep making the same mistake that others who seem to want to prove that a workstation chass machine is no better than a cheaply made home machine on all fronts.
Get over the fact that a Xeon is not an i7.
That's like calling a four cylinder engine essentially the same as an eight cylinder engine.
Sure, they are conceptually the same, but the performance is not. If it were, both sports cars and workstations would use the cheaper parts, but they don't. Workstations from every vendor will cost about the same. When Xeon machines come out from Dell, Hp, Boxx, and others, we will see, again, that Apple's machines are no more expensive, and are likely even cheaper.
For people who insist on using a home-built computer, fine, have fun with all the problems you might end up with. I built enough of them over the years.
If Apple WERE to build an i7 mini tower, it would be much less expensive also, but they don't want to.
We can argue with them about that, and you know I've been a LONG term advocate for one, but that's their choice. We have to move on from that.
If some people can't afford, or don't want to spend the money, that's up to them.
But trying to find reasons why the Mac Pro is overpriced is not helpful, because the customers for these machines, for the most part, don't care. These are very popular in scientific research. In engineering, publishing, graphics, movie editing, audio work, and esp. in Europe, where Archicad is more popular than Autocad, in architecture.
These aren't markets that can generate millions of sales a year, but it's an important market for Apple nevertheless, and they aren't constrained by price that much.
People complaining here about it isn't going to make the sightest difference to Apple, because these people aren't their customers for these machines.
My personal example comes from my older life as an electronics engineer for my own company back when. We made professional speakers and electronics for the recording industry, discos, etc. It was very expensive. But there were always some people who were willing to pay that price for the equipment to have for themselves at home. This was just before the "high end" home audio market really developed. Our products WERE expensive, really expensive, but they delivered good value for those who needed them. But we always had some people who called us up and said that they would buy our stuff if we lowered prices, or made cheaper products.
Well, we weren't about to do that, because it wasn't our market. If people were crazy enough to buy our stuff for their living room, that was up to them.
Its the same thing with the Mac Pro. It's not a home machine, and its not a machine for marginal professionals who do this part time, or who are at the edge of profitability.
When we consider where prices are relative to where they used to be years ago, even the most expensive Mac Pro now is no higher in price, and gives you vastly more. I paid $6,000 for my 950 back in the early '90's, with 8 MB RAM, a 320 MB HDD, 1 MB video memory for the onboard 2D graphics. No CD player. I bought a 2x Toshibia and machined the computer case to get it to fit (the first CD installed in a Mac here in the States, and possibly, in the world! That was another $600. The Professional keyboard was another $189.
This was early 1992. I could go on to tell you that RAM to go to 64 MB (unheard of at the time) cost over $3,000, but you would know that.
This machine was cheap when compared to low priced workstations of the time.
But now the Mac Pro IS a workstation. It has an industrial built quality. Let's leave it at that, and go on from there.
You'll probably see the end of "apologists" when people stop calling people "whiners".
There's a difference often though. I defend what Apple does if I think they are right, and I scold them when I think they are wrong. Overall, we can't argue that their strategy is wrong, because it's not.
There are some apologists out there too who defend everything, no matter what. That's wrong also.
But Apple does do some strange things, and make some odd decisions, we can agree on that.
But a lot of the "whiners" just complain about the same things over and again. That gets tiring to read. They have no intelligent solutions to what they aren't happy about. Claiming that Apple can cut large amounts off prices as solutions to their unhappiness about pricing isn't helpful, as they know nothing about manufacturing. Complaining that Apple doesn't make this or that isn't helpful either, as it changes nothing, and we've heard it all before ad nauseam.
I like to see a well thought out argument, even if I don't agree, and like getting into that, but much of it is drivel.
So what difference will a user see when running the same app on both machines? Slower app performance? More crashes? I'd like to know specifically.
I'm willing to bet the Mac Pro will perform better. Of course with the two different OS's, some of the problems will come from that as well.
I'm also willing to bet that there will be some incompatibilities at some point with either software drivers, or hardware with the home built PC.
How long you expect to keep your machine will also determine the value of it. If you expect to get a new one every two years or so, it won't seem to be such a good value as the Mac Pro will last far longer. With MS there's no knowing how long a machine will be viable.
Right now, Apple's determining the longevity of their older machines is due to moving from the PPC to Intel, so it's to be expected that they are finally phasing out eight year old machines, and shortly, all PPC machines. I imagine that the first generation 32 bit Intel machines will not be able to run later 64 bit OS's either. But MS has a plan of obsolescence that helps hardware manufacturers keep up their sales. This is well known in the industry, and has been reported upon extensively in publications such as Computerworld, Infoworld, and others over the years. A new machine today may very well not run that newer OS upgrade two years from now. Not so with the Mac.
Apple's new coming OS advances won't be seen, for the most part in Windows for years, if at all. Open CL, which has been accepted as a standard, and which will not only speed up games, but all heavy duty applications won't be available in Windows, because MS is just about the only company not to sign on. They will continue to promote DirectX which is primarally geared towards games, and is said to have little functionallity in professional apps.
Grand Central, another Apple technology is being said to make it much easier to parallelize software for multiple cores, also exclusive to Apple. Much software won't even need to be modified to work with it, though tweaking software will result in larger gains.
We will see a major improvement in file structure with ZFS when it arrives for client machines. MS has been trying to get Cairo into an OS since the early '90's, and hasn't been able to figure it out in all that time.
We will also get rez independence well before MS does.
I could go on, but I hope you get the point.
Wait a couple weeks?
How about a month or more?
Okay after a nights sleep and throwing this around I may need to recant my previous buying statement.
I'll mainly need a new machine to run FCP Studio, which of course includes Motion that needs the horsepower so-to-speak. Considering pricing would I be happier with a previous version 2.8Ghzx2 for $2698 or the current 2.66Ghzx2 for $4304. Is the $1600 difference worth it for my application. Will the new bus speed and CPU design outweigh the price difference? I'm still getting to know FCP, yet I tend to hang on to a machine for a while and don't want to feel real limited in a few years if I went with the older model.
$4304 is based on the education price of the new model:
# Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
# 6GB (6x1GB)
# 640GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
# NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB
# One 18x SuperDrive
# Apple Mighty Mouse
# Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (English) and User's Guide
# AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n
$2698 is based on Macmall and the previous model:
# Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
# 2GB (6x1GB)
# 320GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Unsure of the rpm speed
# ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT
# One 16x SuperDrive
# Apple Mighty Mouse
# AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n
In either machine:
Video cards I would swap out in 6 mos for possibly an ATI Radeon HD 4870.
I have two 1TB Seagates and two WD Velociraptor's that I would drop in, so drives aren't an issue.
And of course I'd increase RAM in 6 mos.
I don't want to go iMac, so please don't suggest it.
Thanks for any help.
According to tests done on sites such as Anandtech, a well respected site, the Nehalems are well ahead of all other Cpu's in most every category.
Another advantage is that this is the beginning of a new line from Intel. When the 32 nm versions come out, the "tick" in their schedule, you will be able to pop those new chips (possibly 8 cores! Much faster speeds) in place of the ones in there now. It might take a bit of doing, but the design of these new machines makes it look MUCH easier than the old machines where the processors were buried, and more than a bit of the machine had to be disassembled to get to them. These are right out in the open.
That's why I opted for the cheaper dual 2.66 model rather than the more expensive dual 2.93 one.
Once you buy the DP to DVI adapter from Apple... for 99 bucks (plus tax, thus over 100 bucks)!
The standard DP to DVI adapter is $29.00.
The DP to dual link adapter is $99.
You should check prices before telling people. It's easy to find.
Yes based on what I can see the Quad Mac Pro is a $2k computer with a hefty margin appied. It's going to get ugly when the PC World rags of the world start showing the basic $1200 Core I7 pc beating the Mac pro in performance
I don't see that happening. Besides, I'm surprised at you. You know that the Mac Pro is not a home machine. Compare it to comparable machines when they do come out.
I look at it the other way around.
I'd grab the more affordable 2.8Ghz system. Nehalem is a great architecture but it's the Tick of the new architecture meaning that Intel's "Tick Tock" strategy is to deliver a new architecture every two years followed by a process shrink. The former 2.8Ghz Xeons were the "tock" of the last architecture. You may want to take advantage of the pricing advantage and that will easily carry you for a few years by the time you upgrade your Mac Pro you'll be looking at Sandy Bridge which will bring 4Ghz and 8-cores on a single die. You can't lose either way it's going to take a year to two years for Apple to get their apps and 3rd parties multithreading their apps properly to take advantage of these cores.[/QUOTE]
The old machines are at their peak, pretty much.
The new machines are at their beginning, and that new shiney 8 core, higher speed 32 nm chip coming off the lines in 2010 will be able to be popped into this new machine that's just come out. The old machines are what they are now. A slight increase in speed won't be a good enough reason to spend a couple thousand on new chips for them, but it will be for the Nehalem machines.
With Apple's new OS technologies right around the corner, even 16 cores in a year from now might be more than usable.
Performance per dollar is a metric which Apple is now and henceforth oblivious to.
They could care less how 'bad' they look in such comparisons. They live in fantasy world with the motto "we're so thin and we run x(ten)". It even rhymes.
I'm really at a point where I cannot find an Apple desktop machine to meet my needs under $2k.
I'll look again this fall but for the first time in 4 years, I'm actually going to look at pcs with win 7 if its available. Times are tough and either Apple can provide me a machine that'll last 4-5 years or they can't and I will look elsewhere.
It sucks. I really would prefer to stay on the osx platform, but I don't get to make product development decisions at Apple.
That metric is only for price sensitive markets, which the workstation market is not really part of. This is a market where performance and build quality is paramount, and that where the Mac Pros excel.
Their machines DO last 4 to 5 years. Your PC won't, thats for sure, and when you go back to the trough in 2 to 2.5 years, you'll be thinking that it was a mistake to go back to PCs.
I find it hard to believe that these quad core Nehalem Mac Pros are limited to only 8GB of RAM. It should be 16 (4 x 4GB) since it's not a chipset limitation at all.
It's possible they will accept 16 GB. This isn't the first time that Apple hasn't tested larger memory sticks with lesser priced machines because they think people buying those machines won't spend the very high prices for them.
Everyone here should remember that even the first Powermac G5's were capable of taking 16 GB with 2 GB sticks even though Apple was advertising 8 GB RAM with 1 GB sticks as the max.
This goes way back to my 950 in the early '90's. Apple said that only 2 MB sticks would work, for a total of 32 MB RAM. I asked them about that, and was told they didn't test with the much more expensive 4 MB parts. I bought two, and they worked, so I replaced all, and had 64 MB (16 memory slots! Those were the days!).
Some web site will test for this shortly after they get their machines, and we will find out.
We should all wait for that before getting too antsy about it.
Mel, stop being the most tweakerish grumpy old fart imaginable.
You know what I meant, the core is based on the new Architecture.
You keep behaving the way you do, and you're not an easy person to like.
I'm sorry if you don't like me.
But say what you mean then. No one knows what you mean other than yourself. I wasn't the only one to point out your error. People point out mine as well. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't.
The problem is that we have to go by what the branding is, or it gets confusing. I don't see why that should be a problem for you or any others. Is it that i7 is easier to type than Nehalem?
If you make that mistake on Anandtech or any of the other sites I'm on, you will be jeered at. At least I'm polite about it.
If we all use the same terms, there won't be any confusion.
I think Apple just doesn't want to sell or support the 4GB DIMMs. 16GB should work fine. Non-ECC DDR3 should work, too, but don't take my word for that.
Also, ATI Crossfire should be 100% supported by the hardware... it'll just require Windows and the appropriate driver.
Crossfire might be supportable. The second slot is 16 lanes as opposed to the four each the other two slots have. It's not double spaced though. Now if it were, THAT would have been a hint!!!
They don't even list DDR-3 8GB kits. I'm positive that Apple
has artificially limited the RAM options for the QC Mac Pro because
they're hoarding the RAM for the SMP systems which makes sense to
me.
It's possible they will accept 16 GB. This isn't the first time that Apple hasn't tested larger memory sticks with lesser priced machines because they think people buying those machines won't spend the very high prices for them.
Everyone here should remember that even the first Powermac G5's were capable of taking 16 GB with 2 GB sticks even though Apple was advertising 8 GB RAM with 1 GB sticks as the max.
This goes way back to my 950 in the early '90's. Apple said that only 2 MB sticks would work, for a total of 32 MB RAM. I asked them about that, and was told they didn't test with the much more expensive 4 MB parts. I bought two, and they worked, so I replaced all, and had 64 MB (16 memory slots! Those were the days!).
Some web site will test for this shortly after they get their machines, and we will find out.
We should all wait for that before getting too antsy about it.
I hope you're right because I can't in good faith recommend this machine to our creative and studio departments with that limitation. I'm sure it's an artificail limitation imposed by Apple. I would just like to see some real world confirmation from someone who has a quad core 2009 Mac Pro, who added 3x4GB or 4x4GB of memory.
I just saw the crucial price for 4GB SODIMM 870 bucks!!
They don't even list DDR-3 8GB kits. I'm positive that Apple
has artificially limited the RAM options for the QC Mac Pro because
they're hoarding the RAM for the SMP systems which makes sense to
me.
Yeah but those are So-DIMMs (what my iMac would take, or a 17" MBP). The Mac Pros take full sized DIMMS. At the most they are costing $500-600 for a 12GB kit.
http://www.crucial.com/store/partspe...KIT51272BB1339