I am really getting a bit tired of hearing that the next model is up to 2X faster. It's getting old and not relative to anything you really do with your computer. I also think it makes Apple look bad. Every model since, who knows when, has been up to 2X faster. If that were REALLY true we would be discussing quantum physics with our HALpro 9000.
My understanding is they want memory in groups of 3 to work "best" with the controllers... so why only 8 slots? You can toss the OM RAM (3 1G sticks) and go with 3 2G sticks for a max of 6G. And THAT'S IT????
So which should I get? The base Mac Pro or the high-end iMac?
I'll use it mostly for games, Photoshop, some Final Cut and 3D...
(Which has the best price compared to it's features?)
Get the 3.06 GHz iMac. I'm assuming that you mean the single chip Mac Pro.
It will be as fast as the base Mac Pro for PS.
It could also be as fast, or faster for certain operations on FCS, but slower for 3D, as the video card limits you there as well.
While the Xeon has two threads per core, PS only uses two cores effectively. The much higher speed of the iMac would therefore limit any advantage the MP has with it's extra cores, but it will be close.
My understanding is they want memory in groups of 3 to work "best" with the controllers... so why only 8 slots? You can toss the OM RAM (3 1G sticks) and go with 3 2G sticks for a max of 6G. And THAT'S IT????
the new chips have 3 memory controllers, so they run fastest w/ the ram chips in sets of 3. It is weird that the ram slots aren't in sets of 3. On core i7 MBs, they mostly have 6 ram slots.. max 24 gigs. (if you can find the 4 gig ram chips).
These mac pros seem like huge bastards if you ask me. They don't know what they are!
And I know they're meant to be workstation class machines, but still, the prices are ridiculous. On the other hand, the new memory architecture is significantly superior to the previous mac pros.
These prices are not reasonable. 8x2.66GHz should have been $2999. Offering a $3K+ high end machine with 2.26GHz processors in this day and age is shameful. Looks like Intel is upset with Apple and is no longer providing "preferred" pricing on processors.
The sad thing is that introduction pricing sets the price of a new Apple model throughout its life cycle. Intel will drop the price of the Xeon 5500 processors several times over the next year, but Apple will not pass these savings on to Apple customers. This is probably one area where companies like HP/Dell do better than Apple, as soon as Intel drops their processor/chipset pricing, they also drop their retail prices...
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.
My biggest gripe about this machine is that if the picture is accurate, there seems to be a new motherboard, and new configuration of the entire lower half of the insides. So again, while masquerading as an "upgradeable" Mac, this machine is essentially completely different from the previous model.
I'm not really sure why they even bother to let us open the case since the odds of upgrading a Mac pro past the stuff that you generally get when you purchase it, are something like slim to none. Anyone know if the new processors would pop into the older MacPros? It sure looks like the answer is no yet again.
You are wrong here. The older Mac Pro's were upgradable with newer cpu's.
As long as the newer cpu's use the same socket, you can exchange them when they come out. The first generation 32 nm cpus will use the same socket, so any newer chips, including any 6 and 8 core models that use that socket will work in these new machines.
This is no different from the way any high end, low end, or middle PC workstation functions.
Am I missing something, or are no "pro" graphics cards offered by apple with this update? That's a major downgrade from the last release. (cards still might be avalible through nvidia)
But according to the ratings on the apple store, the DisplayPort to DVI converters suck mightily.
It shouldn't matter. The signal isn't be ing converted. It's the same signal, just the support around it is different. I would be wary of those consumer reviews. Some people are just not happy about having to pay anything for an adapter, and take it out on Apple for that by putting it down publicly.
Quote:
I don't really follow graphic card revisions and what not - but I found this:
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.
The 4870 is about the fastest gaming card out there. The updated Nvidia 295, a very slightly faster version of their top 285 card, which is slower than the 4870, is about the same speed give or take a bit.
The 8800GT is two generations older right now. ATI's cards are also faster with pro 3D apps, and do a better job with video conversions.
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?
You don't really need the 15,000 drives for video, unless you're doing uncompressed 1080p or above.
Besides, you can buy those drives anywhere, and pay less. You CAN buy Apple's SAS card for them though.
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.
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 don't understand what you're trying to say here.
The ladt Apple machines to be upgraded past the current cpu that came in the shipping machine were the G4's. The G5's weren't upgradable because it was too complex to do, esp once water cooling came out.
But the Mac Pro's are just as upgradable as any Windows PC is.
I'm sure you understand socket issues. Within a socket family, these machines are upgradable.
The apple webpage says that you can have two monitors on one card, one with dvi and one with displayport. Eight monitors max with four cards.
The 24" doesn't have DVI and the cards don't have a second Mini display port. There isn't adisplay in port on the display either for daisy chaining. You can have a dvi display, a Mini-DP, two DVI displays (assuming the adapters actually work right) or a Mini-DP display and a DVI display. What you cannot have without a second card is two Mini-DP displays. You also cannot have any displayport displays because there is no Mini-DP to DP adapter.
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.
How many PC manufacturers allow upgrading the Mobo? Does Dell or Hp have that possibility? No, they do not, yet they are upgradable machines.
Very few people consider replacing a mobo as "upgrading".
How can anyone not see this as another price increase? Last year, the price went from 2500 to 2800 and this year, it's going to 3300, for the same type of machine. YES, it's faster, but systems always get faster and cheaper too. The Mac Pros are just getting more expensive. The iMac's got faster, with more features, but are getting cheaper. I'm very happy with my purchase last year. SL and a new hard drive and I'm set.
The apple webpage says that you can have two monitors on one card, one with dvi and one with displayport. Eight monitors max with four cards.
He meant two of Apple's new 24" Mini Displayport models.
While you can go from Displayport to the other configurations, right now, without some esoteric third party adapter, which may not even be available yet (it will be expensive), no card for the Mac Pro has more than one Displayport output.
My understanding is they want memory in groups of 3 to work "best" with the controllers... so why only 8 slots? You can toss the OM RAM (3 1G sticks) and go with 3 2G sticks for a max of 6G. And THAT'S IT????
Yeah, this is odd. There are up to three memory channels available. Memory should come in threes. I expected 9 memory slots.
Unless Apple is only going with two memory channels.
What's interesting is that according to testing at Anandtech and other places, three channels of memory didn't give a real performance boost.
According to Intel pricing at Xbitlabs.com, a 4-core 2.26 Nehalem Xeon (E5520) chip is $373 (in quantities of 1000). The 4-core 2.66 Nehalem Xeon (E5550) chip is $958. The Intel price difference for two chips is $1170. But Apple could be getting a much better price (like $300 or less) on the Mac Pro standard 2.26 chips since they're buying those in much larger quantities than the Mac Pro optional 2.66 chip, moving the price differential over $1300.
So yes Apple is taking a piece, but almost all of the cost difference is attributable to the Intel pricing.
-Exactly.
But:
Quote:
Originally Posted by macshark
These prices are not reasonable. 8x2.66GHz should have been $2999. Offering a $3K+ high end machine with 2.26GHz processors in this day and age is shameful. Looks like Intel is upset with Apple and is no longer providing "preferred" pricing on processors.
The sad thing is that introduction pricing sets the price of a new Apple model throughout its life cycle. Intel will drop the price of the Xeon 5500 processors several times over the next year, but Apple will not pass these savings on to Apple customers. This is probably one area where companies like HP/Dell do better than Apple, as soon as Intel drops their processor/chipset pricing, they also drop their retail prices...
-Yup, the prices are set and they aren't coming down. Perhaps the specs might go up, once i7 gets into heavy rotation and C2D starts phasing out, but MPs won't get cheaper.
=>Buzzkill of an upgrade.
+AND:
Quote:
Originally Posted by freakboy
the new chips have 3 memory controllers, so they run fastest w/ the ram chips in sets of 3. It is weird that the ram slots aren't in sets of 3. On core i7 MBs, they mostly have 6 ram slots.. max 24 gigs. (if you can find the 4 gig ram chips).
These mac pros seem like huge bastards if you ask me. They don't know what they are!
And I know they're meant to be workstation class machines, but still, the prices are ridiculous. On the other hand, the new memory architecture is significantly superior to the previous mac pros.
Definitely Agreed.
+You know that BareFeats is going to run a benchmark set that shows the machines are faster when you pull that 4th chip out and leave it as 3.
I don't get how an i7 Xeon would be different in mem channels than the consumer i7 cpu.
Time to wait for the Rev. B of this machine too, I guess.
Yeah, this is odd. There are up to three memory channels available. Memory should come in threes. I expected 9 memory slots.
Unless Apple is only going with two memory channels.
What's interesting is that according to testing at Anandtech and other places, three channels of memory didn't give a real performance boost.
We'll have to see when reports come out.
If there are 3 or 6 DIMMs (per socket), the memory controller operates in triple channel, if there are 2 or 4 DIMMs, it operates in dual channel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theBigD23
How can anyone not see this as another price increase? Last year, the price went from 2500 to 2800 and this year, it's going to 3300, for the same type of machine. YES, it's faster, but systems always get faster and cheaper too. The Mac Pros are just getting more expensive. The iMac's got faster, with more features, but are getting cheaper. I'm very happy with my purchase last year. SL and a new hard drive and I'm set.
Unfortunately there is a segment of this community who sees what Apple want them to see. As for the iMacs, the two higher ends models got better (not still not quite up to what they should be still using dual cores), but the 20 and base 24 got more consumer oriented. Mini upgrades were great besides the unbearably small 120GB hard drive in the $599 model.
Comments
So which should I get? The base Mac Pro or the high-end iMac?
I'll use it mostly for games, Photoshop, some Final Cut and 3D...
(Which has the best price compared to it's features?)
Get the 3.06 GHz iMac. I'm assuming that you mean the single chip Mac Pro.
It will be as fast as the base Mac Pro for PS.
It could also be as fast, or faster for certain operations on FCS, but slower for 3D, as the video card limits you there as well.
While the Xeon has two threads per core, PS only uses two cores effectively. The much higher speed of the iMac would therefore limit any advantage the MP has with it's extra cores, but it will be close.
Depends on what you use most.
- Two 2.26GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
- 6GB (6x1GB)
- 640GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
- 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
- ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
- One 18x SuperDrive
- Apple LED Cinema Display (24" flat panel)
- Apple Mighty Mouse
- Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (English) and User's Guide
- AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n
- AppleCare Protection Plan for Mac Pro (w/or w/o Display) - Auto-enroll
Is this really worth the five grands they are asking me? Give me a break.
Definitely not. You could build a faster, more RAM, more HD linux box for about 3K w/ better monitor.
My understanding is they want memory in groups of 3 to work "best" with the controllers... so why only 8 slots? You can toss the OM RAM (3 1G sticks) and go with 3 2G sticks for a max of 6G. And THAT'S IT????
the new chips have 3 memory controllers, so they run fastest w/ the ram chips in sets of 3. It is weird that the ram slots aren't in sets of 3. On core i7 MBs, they mostly have 6 ram slots.. max 24 gigs. (if you can find the 4 gig ram chips).
These mac pros seem like huge bastards if you ask me. They don't know what they are!
And I know they're meant to be workstation class machines, but still, the prices are ridiculous. On the other hand, the new memory architecture is significantly superior to the previous mac pros.
The sad thing is that introduction pricing sets the price of a new Apple model throughout its life cycle. Intel will drop the price of the Xeon 5500 processors several times over the next year, but Apple will not pass these savings on to Apple customers. This is probably one area where companies like HP/Dell do better than Apple, as soon as Intel drops their processor/chipset pricing, they also drop their retail prices...
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.
My biggest gripe about this machine is that if the picture is accurate, there seems to be a new motherboard, and new configuration of the entire lower half of the insides. So again, while masquerading as an "upgradeable" Mac, this machine is essentially completely different from the previous model.
I'm not really sure why they even bother to let us open the case since the odds of upgrading a Mac pro past the stuff that you generally get when you purchase it, are something like slim to none. Anyone know if the new processors would pop into the older MacPros? It sure looks like the answer is no yet again.
You are wrong here. The older Mac Pro's were upgradable with newer cpu's.
http://www.anandtech.com/Mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6
These will be as well.
As long as the newer cpu's use the same socket, you can exchange them when they come out. The first generation 32 nm cpus will use the same socket, so any newer chips, including any 6 and 8 core models that use that socket will work in these new machines.
This is no different from the way any high end, low end, or middle PC workstation functions.
***
But according to the ratings on the apple store, the DisplayPort to DVI converters suck mightily.
It shouldn't matter. The signal isn't be ing converted. It's the same signal, just the support around it is different. I would be wary of those consumer reviews. Some people are just not happy about having to pay anything for an adapter, and take it out on Apple for that by putting it down publicly.
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.
The 4870 is about the fastest gaming card out there. The updated Nvidia 295, a very slightly faster version of their top 285 card, which is slower than the 4870, is about the same speed give or take a bit.
The 8800GT is two generations older right now. ATI's cards are also faster with pro 3D apps, and do a better job with video conversions.
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?
You don't really need the 15,000 drives for video, unless you're doing uncompressed 1080p or above.
Besides, you can buy those drives anywhere, and pay less. You CAN buy Apple's SAS card for them though.
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.
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 don't understand what you're trying to say here.
The ladt Apple machines to be upgraded past the current cpu that came in the shipping machine were the G4's. The G5's weren't upgradable because it was too complex to do, esp once water cooling came out.
But the Mac Pro's are just as upgradable as any Windows PC is.
I'm sure you understand socket issues. Within a socket family, these machines are upgradable.
The apple webpage says that you can have two monitors on one card, one with dvi and one with displayport. Eight monitors max with four cards.
The 24" doesn't have DVI and the cards don't have a second Mini display port. There isn't adisplay in port on the display either for daisy chaining. You can have a dvi display, a Mini-DP, two DVI displays (assuming the adapters actually work right) or a Mini-DP display and a DVI display. What you cannot have without a second card is two Mini-DP displays. You also cannot have any displayport displays because there is no Mini-DP to DP adapter.
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.
How many PC manufacturers allow upgrading the Mobo? Does Dell or Hp have that possibility? No, they do not, yet they are upgradable machines.
Very few people consider replacing a mobo as "upgrading".
Beautiful Systems as always.
NO SLI: No Tesla, No massive OpenCL.
What the hell?
Give me this beautiful system with 3 Full-size PCI-Express 2.0 slots.
No SLI, yes, but the rest?
How do you come to that conclusion?
Though I don't seem to know what Tesla is suppose to be.
The apple webpage says that you can have two monitors on one card, one with dvi and one with displayport. Eight monitors max with four cards.
He meant two of Apple's new 24" Mini Displayport models.
While you can go from Displayport to the other configurations, right now, without some esoteric third party adapter, which may not even be available yet (it will be expensive), no card for the Mac Pro has more than one Displayport output.
My understanding is they want memory in groups of 3 to work "best" with the controllers... so why only 8 slots? You can toss the OM RAM (3 1G sticks) and go with 3 2G sticks for a max of 6G. And THAT'S IT????
Yeah, this is odd. There are up to three memory channels available. Memory should come in threes. I expected 9 memory slots.
Unless Apple is only going with two memory channels.
What's interesting is that according to testing at Anandtech and other places, three channels of memory didn't give a real performance boost.
We'll have to see when reports come out.
According to Intel pricing at Xbitlabs.com, a 4-core 2.26 Nehalem Xeon (E5520) chip is $373 (in quantities of 1000). The 4-core 2.66 Nehalem Xeon (E5550) chip is $958. The Intel price difference for two chips is $1170. But Apple could be getting a much better price (like $300 or less) on the Mac Pro standard 2.26 chips since they're buying those in much larger quantities than the Mac Pro optional 2.66 chip, moving the price differential over $1300.
So yes Apple is taking a piece, but almost all of the cost difference is attributable to the Intel pricing.
-Exactly.
But:
These prices are not reasonable. 8x2.66GHz should have been $2999. Offering a $3K+ high end machine with 2.26GHz processors in this day and age is shameful. Looks like Intel is upset with Apple and is no longer providing "preferred" pricing on processors.
The sad thing is that introduction pricing sets the price of a new Apple model throughout its life cycle. Intel will drop the price of the Xeon 5500 processors several times over the next year, but Apple will not pass these savings on to Apple customers. This is probably one area where companies like HP/Dell do better than Apple, as soon as Intel drops their processor/chipset pricing, they also drop their retail prices...
-Yup, the prices are set and they aren't coming down. Perhaps the specs might go up, once i7 gets into heavy rotation and C2D starts phasing out, but MPs won't get cheaper.
=>Buzzkill of an upgrade.
+AND:
the new chips have 3 memory controllers, so they run fastest w/ the ram chips in sets of 3. It is weird that the ram slots aren't in sets of 3. On core i7 MBs, they mostly have 6 ram slots.. max 24 gigs. (if you can find the 4 gig ram chips).
These mac pros seem like huge bastards if you ask me. They don't know what they are!
And I know they're meant to be workstation class machines, but still, the prices are ridiculous. On the other hand, the new memory architecture is significantly superior to the previous mac pros.
Definitely Agreed.
+You know that BareFeats is going to run a benchmark set that shows the machines are faster when you pull that 4th chip out and leave it as 3.
I don't get how an i7 Xeon would be different in mem channels than the consumer i7 cpu.
Time to wait for the Rev. B of this machine too, I guess.
I don't get how an i7 Xeon would be different in mem channels than the consumer i7 cpu.
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.
Yeah, this is odd. There are up to three memory channels available. Memory should come in threes. I expected 9 memory slots.
Unless Apple is only going with two memory channels.
What's interesting is that according to testing at Anandtech and other places, three channels of memory didn't give a real performance boost.
We'll have to see when reports come out.
If there are 3 or 6 DIMMs (per socket), the memory controller operates in triple channel, if there are 2 or 4 DIMMs, it operates in dual channel.
How can anyone not see this as another price increase? Last year, the price went from 2500 to 2800 and this year, it's going to 3300, for the same type of machine. YES, it's faster, but systems always get faster and cheaper too. The Mac Pros are just getting more expensive. The iMac's got faster, with more features, but are getting cheaper. I'm very happy with my purchase last year. SL and a new hard drive and I'm set.
Unfortunately there is a segment of this community who sees what Apple want them to see. As for the iMacs, the two higher ends models got better (not still not quite up to what they should be still using dual cores), but the 20 and base 24 got more consumer oriented. Mini upgrades were great besides the unbearably small 120GB hard drive in the $599 model.