If I get two new Apple LED 24" displays to go with the new Mac Pro, I assume I'll have to plug one in the Mini DP port and one in the DVI (through an adaptor). By doing this, will the signal/display quality and frequency across the two displays match? Or will the one plugged in the DVI via adaptor be slightly worse?
If so, can both displays somehow (though an alternate adaptor) be plugged into the one Mini DP port?
By doing this, will the signal/display quality and frequency across the two displays match? Or will the one plugged in the DVI via adaptor be slightly worse?
DVI (as Apple uses it) and DisplayPort are both digital, so you should be able to get a "perfect" signal translation.
Yes, but just get a FW800-FW400 cable and forget about it. Just pretend that FW400 is just another kind of FW800 connector (that happens to have the FW400 speed). You already have standard FW400 and mini-FW400 connectors, so now you have standard FW800 connectors and legacy FW-connectors (aka FW400).
People have been saying FW is dead. I have arguing that it's the FW400 interface that Apple has forsaken. Seems I was correct. Though I was very very wrong most of the iMac and mac Mini changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarman
Is this really worth the five grands they are asking me? Give me a break.
Worth is the value you attribute to something so we can't really answer that. For me, I use notebooks exclusively so a Mac Pro with any configuration at any price is of no value to me (except to sell it for a profit, of course). Do you need that much computing power (from any vendor)? Can you afford such a machine without affecting your other bills?
Am I right in assuming that the new 4870 graphics card is a 15% faster card than the 8800gt I have in my 6 month old mac pro? When they update the 30" monitor to displayPort, I may upgrade - but it seems like kind of a blah upgrade, for what will probably cost $600.
You are SERIOUSLY asking this? Come on! Do the research!
Upgradable? Yes, you can add more hard drives easier than any machine out there, RAM is right in front and easily accessible. I'd say it's very EASILY upgradable.
Once again, another fool.
Did you ever think that coming to a forum loaded with uber geeks and asking a question... IS doing some research?
These forums are supposed to be an exchange of idea's and thoughts, questions, and a good resource. A community isn't just the pure elite pounding their chests in some intellectual nerd-off.
Stop being a wanker and answer the guys question if your going to spend the time to post.
Good grief, people, why are you counting megahertz? It's all about the efficiency of the data path, not the raw clock speed. Plus the Nehalem can "Turbo Boost" into about a 20% faster clock rate for single-thread calculations.
Look at a 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo versus a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 -- nearly twice the clock speed. The Core will smoke the P4 inside and out just because the architecture is that much better. A processor is all about processing, not just about raw clock speed. If more of the clock cycles are spent in no-ops waiting for instructions, then what good is all those gigahertz?
You guys really need to relax, look at the real specs on these machines, and cut Apple a freakin' break. Apple has never subscribed to the idea that raw clock speed = performance, and rightly so. There's a lot more to it.
I was wondering why they removed the 15,000 RPM drive option when they have benchmarks on Apple's MacPro site for read/write speed tests using both 15,000 and 7,200 RPM drives for those tests.
Don't they realize that people need the 15K drives for video apps?
... In short, you were never going to get a system that you drop the procs between generations this time, and it's not apple's fault.
I didn't say it was Apple's fault, but has there *ever* been a time when the processors could be upgraded? I'm just saying there is a disconnect between the perceived upgradeability of this machine and the reality. It's a tower, but it's simply not upgradeable in the same sense as any other tower. You can add a new video card and a bit of memory. You can add speciality cards too but few exist and most users don't have much of a need for that last survey I read on the subject. It's almost the case that an iMac with easy access to hard drives and memory, could fill this same spot on Apple's line-up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seek3r
... That said, the new machine is pretty damn upgradeable, more easily than my own if for no other reason than ECC DDR3 ram is easier (and cheaper!) to get than FB-DIMMs for the older gen machines.
Exactly, so my "old" machine (hardly a year old) is using incompatible memory and processors from this "new" one. And every time this happens, someone posts to the effect of how happy they are that the new machine is so fantastically "upgradeable" when in fact we might be in the same spot talking about the same thing next year.
I understand all the reasons behind it and the technology choices, but I still have a problem with creating the impression that this is the same upgradeable "tower" type computer we are all used to when in fact it's barely upgradeable at all.
With WiFi, eSATA, and the advent of ZFS, they would be better off offering a much smaller sealed box with just the processors and memory that manages remote or connected storage and put the graphics in the monitor on a small replaceable board IMO. That way, since the processors and memory are hardly ever upgradeable separate from the motherboard, they can be bought (and tossed) as one unit.
I agree that the price is high, but the price of Mac pros is always pretty high anyway and mostly inconsequential to the purchase decision.
Every time I hear people saying the price of a Mac Pro is too high I stop and think how much money I have made with mine over the years. The thing has paid for itself hundreds of times over.
Couldn't they have done something, anything to distinguish it from it's 6 year old design?
It has one different port on the front. The last one has a FW 400 and FW 800, this one has 2 800's. So if you need to tell them apart at a glance, that's it.
Yes, but just get a FW800-FW400 cable and forget about it. Just pretend that FW400 is just another kind of FW800 connector (that happens to have the FW400 speed). You already have standard FW400 and mini-FW400 connectors, so now you have standard FW800 connectors and legacy FW-connectors (aka FW400).
Yeah!
And while you're at it, you can pretend that daisy-chaining FW400 & 800 devices won't slow all the devices down to FW400 speeds!
I think this image shows a dual processor version of the case, there's two heatsinks.
This picture from the front page only has one heatsink:
Also, the motherboard seems to be in two parts, as the lower part can slide out so you can add memory. Seems a little over-the-top seeing as it's fairly accessible anyway! Any other reason they've done it like this? Maybe the heatsinks are too heavy to support with the mobo vertical.
Incidently, the specs say you can have up to 4x nVidia GT120 cards to support up to 8 displays. I wonder if this is using 10.5.7, as the drivers for the GT120 and HD4870 weren't in 10.5.6, afaik.
You are SERIOUSLY asking this? Come on! Do the research!
Upgradable? Yes, you can add more hard drives easier than any machine out there, RAM is right in front and easily accessible. I'd say it's very EASILY upgradable.
Once again, another fool.
Okay, I should have edited that before I sent it out but calling folks "fools" is not necessary. My point was about the (again) lack of any upgradeability options on what is supposed to be a "tower" type machine.
The MacPro being what it is, could easily be designed so that a new motherboard (along with the new memory and processor architecture), could be dropped in, but yet again they haven't done that either. I'm just saying that with the almost complete lack of upgradeability from the flagship model introduced just last year, this thing might as well be a sealed box.
Disappointing overall (unless more benchmarks show phenomenal improvements), but considering the prices of Nehalem, not surprising. What *IS* surprising is why the 4-core is locked to 8GB RAM. Instead of insulting each other, could someone with a technical understanding please comment on whether the limitation is really to do with the memory controller changes. If so, why do 4 cores handle only 8GB and 8 cores can handle 32GB?
Is the 8GB limit a cynical ploy to push us up to the 8 core machines, or really the best engineering compromise possible with Nehalem?
And I know I was probably dreaming, but I'd hoped for SLI support for 2X 4870s in this generation Mac Pro in anticipation of rocket-fuelled Snow Leopard performance (or at least be competitive with PCs from last year!!!) Why oh why does a machine that is so heavily aimed at graphics professional keep lagging behind GPU-wise with cheap fugly PCs...
Exactly, so my "old" machine (hardly a year old) is using incompatible memory and processors from this "new" one. And every time this happens, someone posts to the effect of how happy they are that the new machine is so fantastically "upgradeable" when in fact we might be in the same spot talking about the same thing next year.
So how is this ANY DIFFERENT than buying a Dell? Your processor is locked in by the motherboard you have in there. If you want to upgrade to the next gen processor, you'll have to completely swap out your motherboard. If you simply want to upgrade to a faster version of the same processor, you can do that on an Apple or a Dell. They work THE EXACT SAME way.
If you want to upgrade the processors on your older Mac Pro to a faster clock speed, then go ahead! Just don't be so naive to think that everybody but Apple lets you randomly drop next gen processors into older motherboards.
Hard drives, memory, video cards, and all other accessories are also upgradable just like any other computer out there. You might as well drop the argument that the Mac Pro is "unupgradable", because that's just patently false.
Very disappointing overall, but considering the prices of Nehalem, not surprising. What *IS* surprising is why the 4-core is locked to 8GB RAM. Instead of insulting each other, could someone with a technical understanding please comment on whether the limitation is really to do with the memory controller changes. If so, why do 4 cores handle only 8GB and 8 cores can handle 32GB?
Is the 8GB limit a cynical ploy to push us up to the 8 core machines, or really the best engineering compromise possible with Nehalem?
And I know I was probably dreaming, but I'd hoped for SLI support for 2X 4870s in this generation Mac Pro in anticipation of rocket-fuelled Snow Leopard performance (or at least be competitive with PCs from last year!!!) Why oh why does a machine that is so heavily aimed at graphics professional keep lagging behind GPU-wise with cheap fugly PCs...
I would think that anyone needing more than 8G of RAM isn't going to buy the 4 core processor and Apple is probably trying to keep the costs down, since adding connectors, etc. to offer 32G of RAM is more expensive. They probably looked at the custom configurations people have been buying and maybe everyone that purchases more than 8G of RAM is always buying the more expensive 8 core version. It's probably more of a cost of production/demand situation than a technical. Personally, for anything that I would need a MacPro for, I wouldn't buy the 4 core, I would just buy 8 core and be done with it. MORE POWERRRRRRRRRRRRRRR............
Comments
If so, can both displays somehow (though an alternate adaptor) be plugged into the one Mini DP port?
Know what I mean?
By doing this, will the signal/display quality and frequency across the two displays match? Or will the one plugged in the DVI via adaptor be slightly worse?
DVI (as Apple uses it) and DisplayPort are both digital, so you should be able to get a "perfect" signal translation.
Yes, but just get a FW800-FW400 cable and forget about it. Just pretend that FW400 is just another kind of FW800 connector (that happens to have the FW400 speed). You already have standard FW400 and mini-FW400 connectors, so now you have standard FW800 connectors and legacy FW-connectors (aka FW400).
People have been saying FW is dead. I have arguing that it's the FW400 interface that Apple has forsaken. Seems I was correct. Though I was very very wrong most of the iMac and mac Mini changes.
Is this really worth the five grands they are asking me? Give me a break.
Worth is the value you attribute to something so we can't really answer that. For me, I use notebooks exclusively so a Mac Pro with any configuration at any price is of no value to me (except to sell it for a profit, of course). Do you need that much computing power (from any vendor)? Can you afford such a machine without affecting your other bills?
DVI (as Apple uses it) and DisplayPort are both digital, so you should be able to get a "perfect" signal translation.
But according to the ratings on the apple store, the DisplayPort to DVI converters suck mightily.
I don't really follow graphic card revisions and what not - but I found this:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/P...D_4830/26.html
Am I right in assuming that the new 4870 graphics card is a 15% faster card than the 8800gt I have in my 6 month old mac pro? When they update the 30" monitor to displayPort, I may upgrade - but it seems like kind of a blah upgrade, for what will probably cost $600.
Maybe this upgrade is meant to make those who already bought a MacPro feel better...
I know I do
LOL... I was thinking the exact same thing.
My 8c Dual 2.8, 14gig Ram is looking pretty sweet right now.
Here is the real kicker... what are the benchmarks going to say when Snow Leopard comes out?
Talk about hitting a wall... 8 times.
You are SERIOUSLY asking this? Come on! Do the research!
Upgradable? Yes, you can add more hard drives easier than any machine out there, RAM is right in front and easily accessible. I'd say it's very EASILY upgradable.
Once again, another fool.
Did you ever think that coming to a forum loaded with uber geeks and asking a question... IS doing some research?
These forums are supposed to be an exchange of idea's and thoughts, questions, and a good resource. A community isn't just the pure elite pounding their chests in some intellectual nerd-off.
Stop being a wanker and answer the guys question if your going to spend the time to post.
Look at a 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo versus a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 -- nearly twice the clock speed. The Core will smoke the P4 inside and out just because the architecture is that much better. A processor is all about processing, not just about raw clock speed. If more of the clock cycles are spent in no-ops waiting for instructions, then what good is all those gigahertz?
You guys really need to relax, look at the real specs on these machines, and cut Apple a freakin' break. Apple has never subscribed to the idea that raw clock speed = performance, and rightly so. There's a lot more to it.
Don't they realize that people need the 15K drives for video apps?
... In short, you were never going to get a system that you drop the procs between generations this time, and it's not apple's fault.
I didn't say it was Apple's fault, but has there *ever* been a time when the processors could be upgraded? I'm just saying there is a disconnect between the perceived upgradeability of this machine and the reality. It's a tower, but it's simply not upgradeable in the same sense as any other tower. You can add a new video card and a bit of memory. You can add speciality cards too but few exist and most users don't have much of a need for that last survey I read on the subject. It's almost the case that an iMac with easy access to hard drives and memory, could fill this same spot on Apple's line-up.
... That said, the new machine is pretty damn upgradeable, more easily than my own if for no other reason than ECC DDR3 ram is easier (and cheaper!) to get than FB-DIMMs for the older gen machines.
Exactly, so my "old" machine (hardly a year old) is using incompatible memory and processors from this "new" one. And every time this happens, someone posts to the effect of how happy they are that the new machine is so fantastically "upgradeable" when in fact we might be in the same spot talking about the same thing next year.
I understand all the reasons behind it and the technology choices, but I still have a problem with creating the impression that this is the same upgradeable "tower" type computer we are all used to when in fact it's barely upgradeable at all.
With WiFi, eSATA, and the advent of ZFS, they would be better off offering a much smaller sealed box with just the processors and memory that manages remote or connected storage and put the graphics in the monitor on a small replaceable board IMO. That way, since the processors and memory are hardly ever upgradeable separate from the motherboard, they can be bought (and tossed) as one unit.
I agree that the price is high, but the price of Mac pros is always pretty high anyway and mostly inconsequential to the purchase decision.
Every time I hear people saying the price of a Mac Pro is too high I stop and think how much money I have made with mine over the years. The thing has paid for itself hundreds of times over.
Couldn't they have done something, anything to distinguish it from it's 6 year old design?
It has one different port on the front. The last one has a FW 400 and FW 800, this one has 2 800's. So if you need to tell them apart at a glance, that's it.
Yes, but just get a FW800-FW400 cable and forget about it. Just pretend that FW400 is just another kind of FW800 connector (that happens to have the FW400 speed). You already have standard FW400 and mini-FW400 connectors, so now you have standard FW800 connectors and legacy FW-connectors (aka FW400).
Yeah!
And while you're at it, you can pretend that daisy-chaining FW400 & 800 devices won't slow all the devices down to FW400 speeds!
I think this image shows a dual processor version of the case, there's two heatsinks.
This picture from the front page only has one heatsink:
Also, the motherboard seems to be in two parts, as the lower part can slide out so you can add memory. Seems a little over-the-top seeing as it's fairly accessible anyway! Any other reason they've done it like this? Maybe the heatsinks are too heavy to support with the mobo vertical.
Incidently, the specs say you can have up to 4x nVidia GT120 cards to support up to 8 displays. I wonder if this is using 10.5.7, as the drivers for the GT120 and HD4870 weren't in 10.5.6, afaik.
Boo.
You are SERIOUSLY asking this? Come on! Do the research!
Upgradable? Yes, you can add more hard drives easier than any machine out there, RAM is right in front and easily accessible. I'd say it's very EASILY upgradable.
Once again, another fool.
Okay, I should have edited that before I sent it out but calling folks "fools" is not necessary. My point was about the (again) lack of any upgradeability options on what is supposed to be a "tower" type machine.
The MacPro being what it is, could easily be designed so that a new motherboard (along with the new memory and processor architecture), could be dropped in, but yet again they haven't done that either. I'm just saying that with the almost complete lack of upgradeability from the flagship model introduced just last year, this thing might as well be a sealed box.
Is the 8GB limit a cynical ploy to push us up to the 8 core machines, or really the best engineering compromise possible with Nehalem?
And I know I was probably dreaming, but I'd hoped for SLI support for 2X 4870s in this generation Mac Pro in anticipation of rocket-fuelled Snow Leopard performance (or at least be competitive with PCs from last year!!!) Why oh why does a machine that is so heavily aimed at graphics professional keep lagging behind GPU-wise with cheap fugly PCs...
And while you're at it, you can pretend that daisy-chaining FW400 & 800 devices won't slow all the devices down to FW400 speeds!
How many firewire busses does the new Mac Pro have? It should just slow down one of the busses, right?
Exactly, so my "old" machine (hardly a year old) is using incompatible memory and processors from this "new" one. And every time this happens, someone posts to the effect of how happy they are that the new machine is so fantastically "upgradeable" when in fact we might be in the same spot talking about the same thing next year.
So how is this ANY DIFFERENT than buying a Dell? Your processor is locked in by the motherboard you have in there. If you want to upgrade to the next gen processor, you'll have to completely swap out your motherboard. If you simply want to upgrade to a faster version of the same processor, you can do that on an Apple or a Dell. They work THE EXACT SAME way.
If you want to upgrade the processors on your older Mac Pro to a faster clock speed, then go ahead! Just don't be so naive to think that everybody but Apple lets you randomly drop next gen processors into older motherboards.
Hard drives, memory, video cards, and all other accessories are also upgradable just like any other computer out there. You might as well drop the argument that the Mac Pro is "unupgradable", because that's just patently false.
Very disappointing overall, but considering the prices of Nehalem, not surprising. What *IS* surprising is why the 4-core is locked to 8GB RAM. Instead of insulting each other, could someone with a technical understanding please comment on whether the limitation is really to do with the memory controller changes. If so, why do 4 cores handle only 8GB and 8 cores can handle 32GB?
Is the 8GB limit a cynical ploy to push us up to the 8 core machines, or really the best engineering compromise possible with Nehalem?
And I know I was probably dreaming, but I'd hoped for SLI support for 2X 4870s in this generation Mac Pro in anticipation of rocket-fuelled Snow Leopard performance (or at least be competitive with PCs from last year!!!) Why oh why does a machine that is so heavily aimed at graphics professional keep lagging behind GPU-wise with cheap fugly PCs...
I would think that anyone needing more than 8G of RAM isn't going to buy the 4 core processor and Apple is probably trying to keep the costs down, since adding connectors, etc. to offer 32G of RAM is more expensive. They probably looked at the custom configurations people have been buying and maybe everyone that purchases more than 8G of RAM is always buying the more expensive 8 core version. It's probably more of a cost of production/demand situation than a technical. Personally, for anything that I would need a MacPro for, I wouldn't buy the 4 core, I would just buy 8 core and be done with it. MORE POWERRRRRRRRRRRRRRR............