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!
Are each of the Firewire ports on different busses, or do they all share the same bus? If you connect a FW 400 device, will it slow down all the ports?
Hm... there is new Xeon based on i7 architecture, isn't there..?
As 'murch has already said, no.
The architecture is Nehalem.
i7 is the desktop line of chips.
Xeon is the workstation and server line of chips.
And, no, despite what some may like to think, they are not exactly the same. That would be like saying that all Core 2 chips are the same when they are not.
Right on. As wonderful a company as they can be, from time to time Apple's decisions prove perplexing.
It's also all about being professional enough so that when using a monitor for professional editing purposes you take control of your environment, and make sure the lighting is correct.
Yes, I know that some must toil in a sweat shop where everything sucks, and that's too bad. For those, a different monitor would be better.
But, from what I know, Apple isn't claiming this monitor is for color professionals anyway.
The Mac Pro page no longer mentions the ability to use SAS hard drives. When configuring the Mac Pro on the Apple Store, SAS hard drives are no longer an option. The Apple RAID card still does not support external connections.
They have the fiber card. The Raid card for SATA is also a SAS card.
You can buy the drives from many other dealers with the "Apple tax".
So what's the problem?
Quote:
There is still no mention of Crossfire or SLI support on the Mac Pro. A pair of high end Nvidia Geforce cards running SLI can provide better performance and cost less than a single Quadro card. But any time someone mentions a pair of SLI cards being a better value than a single Quadro card, some Apple apologist always responds with "Quadro is for professionals". So the Mac Pro does not support SLI because "Quadro is for professionals". Exactly how does that address the issue at all? And what if those "professionals" want more power than a single Quadro card can provide? On PCs. multiple Quadro cards can be used in SLI configuration. If a single Quadro card is so "professional" then wouldn't multiple Quadro cards running SLI be even more "professional"?
I suppose SLI or Crossfire would be nice. But it's not been much of a success. More talk than action. I'm not against it though.
Quote:
But according to Apple apologists, the Mac Pro does not support Geforce SLI or even Quadro SLI because "Quadro is for professionals". Also note that an Nvidia Quadro card is no longer an option for the new Mac Pro. How "professional" is that?
That's an interesting question.
It could be that the card is simply not ready yet.
And stop calling people "apologists". There are reasons for everything, and they are not necessarily your reasons all the time.
Are each of the Firewire ports on different busses, or do they all share the same bus? If you connect a FW 400 device, will it slow down all the ports?
In the past, at least, Apple has used separate controllers.
I have two 24" Samsung Monitors which I run through DVI. I want to buy the new Mac Pro with ATI 4870 card. But it only has 1 DVI port. Will I be able to connect one monitor to DVI port and one to Mini Display Port (Mini to DVI adapter) and run both with Extended Desktop mode?
At least part of the new cost is Apple's "greening" of the unit. Not only is green everything more expensive but Apple also probably has to pay the certification group EPEAT Gold their piece of the action and Energy Star as well. Also, the easy to disassemble / recycle case likely costs more to produce.
You might as well get used to paying these "green/energy" taxes in the US. Our government is planning on this kind of tax (only mandated) for pretty much everything.
I have a tech question though... Assuming operation under Snow Leopard for a myriad of uses including games, am I better off with an Octo 2.26 setup, or a Quad 2.93?
I have two 24" Samsung Monitors which I run through DVI. I want to buy the new Mac Pro with ATI 4870 card. But it only has 1 DVI port. Will I be able to connect one monitor to DVI port and one to Mini Display Port (Mini to DVI adapter) and run both with Extended Desktop mode?
Apparently, yes to extended mode, and definately yes to running both.
You need an Apple Mini Displayport adapter for the mini port.
At least part of the new cost is Apple's "greening" of the unit. Not only is green everything more expensive but Apple also probably has to pay the certification group EPEAT Gold their piece of the action and Energy Star as well. Also, the easy to disassemble / recycle case likely costs more to produce.
You might as well get used to paying these "green/energy" taxes in the US. Our government is planning on this kind of tax (only mandated) for pretty much everything.
I have a tech question though... Assuming operation under Snow Leopard for a myriad of uses including games, am I better off with an Octo 2.26 setup, or a Quad 2.93?
\tAkasa AK-967 Nero Direct Contact Heatpipe CPU Cooler\t\t£31.04
\tSamsung SH-S223Q/RSMN 22x DVD±RW SATA Dual Layel\t\t£22.99
\t\tSub Total t£2,657.8
My son has specced this setup, and tells can do the build.
£1800 cost difference!!!!!
The previous generation Xeon Mac Pros costed out about equal, considering dual socket boards etc, but these look over expensive to me. I need AVCHD, so an upgrade is now urgent.
\tAkasa AK-967 Nero Direct Contact Heatpipe CPU Cooler\t\t£31.04
\tSamsung SH-S223Q/RSMN 22x DVD±RW SATA Dual Layel\t\t£22.99
\t\tSub Total t£2,657.8
My son has specced this setup, and tells can do the build.
£1800 cost difference!!!!!
The previous generation Xeon Mac Pros costed out about equal, considering dual socket boards etc, but these look over expensive to me. I need AVCHD, so an upgrade is now urgent.
I may have to jump to Vista!
Or I could buy a second hand 8 core Xeon?
Am I missing something?
One reason why the Mac Pro, older models, and new ones alike, are so expensive, is because they are industrial quality machines. What your son will build is a lower grade home quality machine. It's NOT equal to a Mc Pro.
When PC companies come out with Xeon machines, they will cost about the same as a Mac Pro.
The i7 desktop chips are much cheaper than the workstation, server Xeons Apple is using.
That may be fine, or it may not.
An older machine, available at a discount is wonderful. nothing wrong with them, even the refurbished ones. But they go fast!
Do you really need the latest? If not, then why pay for it?
I think with the previous generation, Apple probably had sales to non graphics/video people - maybe developers or just people who wanted something a bit better than the iMac. With these new models, due to the price bump, I suspect it truly will be only video/graphics people who buy them.
I think with the previous generation, Apple probably had sales to non graphics/video people - maybe developers or just people who wanted something a bit better than the iMac. With these new models, due to the price bump, I suspect it truly will be only video/graphics people who buy them.
Yup ..the Mac Pro is becoming more and more of a workstation, suitable for those with workstation budgets though the Quad Mac Pro isn't a bad deal for a prosumer. It offers the same build quality yet is likely a better fit for those looking for more flexibility and performance than the iMac currently offers.
I'm not really going to blame Apple on the pricing. They seem to have drawn a line in the sand.
Mac Pro = Workstation
Workstation = Xeon
Intel's the one charging a King's ransom for their chips. Had AMD been nipping at Intel's heels the pricing would likely be more competitive but Intel knows they have no threat from AMD.
As a long time PC guy (commodore 64 ring a bell) I have been ready to make the jump to the Mac Pro for some time, but was waiting to see the new updates. Trying to stay in the $2400 to $2800 range, do I get the previous gen dual quad core 2.8 which my local store still has, or do I go for the new single quad core 2.6? I am having a terrible time with this one. My local store is now discounting the previous gen to $2499 by the way. I am not real crazy about being limited to 8gb of ram, but hey what do I know? Photography is my main useage, lightroom, photoshop, etc. Any help?
Hi Bert,
What I understand and read, extra CPU has no advantage to PS and LR. The video card is more important. If you go for the "old" dual quad make sure you get an nVidia card instead of the base model card. However if you feel partial to the "new" Nelaham, this will be faster than the old duo quad for photography at least, especially for memory access, which photoshop/CR depends main on.
I, myself thought about the top iMac, but the idea of being limited to a seal in HDD is not a good idea. When you need 2 backups of your work. So hence the Pro is ideal choice for the serious photog. For mirroring and storage capacity. These days the full frame cameras are between 21-24 mega pixels, so a days shoot is going to eat between 4 -12 Gb a pop, then add your PSD files on top of your RAW this doubles again.
Curious to know what other PS users thinks on this matter, Top end iMac or quad core Pro, is there much in the difference ?
Apple should really bring a midrange tower. Something with the desktop Core i7. The Mac Pro is too much with its server-grade Xeon processors.
We've been talking about this for years.
Apple just doesn't see the need.
I would have bought two if they were better than buying an iMac. But both my wife and daughter wanted the 24" iMac. They've always had Mac towers before.
They both love them.
In fact, everyone I know who bought one loves them.
What some people here forget is that they are just a very small minority. Most consumers don't buy any peripherals other than a digital camera and a printer, with an internet connection rounding out the externals.
That's two USB connections plus, possibly, an Ethernet port.
A few actually connect their camcorder, but most don't.
That rounds out the majority of the iMac (consumer) market, and Apple knows it.
What I understand and read, extra CPU has no advantage to PS and LR. The video card is more important. If you go for the "old" dual quad make sure you get an nVidia card instead of the base model card. However if you feel partial to the "new" Nehalem, this will be faster than the old duo quad for photography at least, especially for memory access, which photoshop/CR depends main on.
I, myself thought about the top iMac, but the idea of being limited to a seal in HDD is not a good idea. When you need 2 backups of your work. So hence the Pro is ideal choice for the serious photog. For mirroring and storage capacity. These days the full frame cameras are between 21-24 mega pixels, so a days shoot is going to eat between 4 -12 Gb a pop, then add your PSD files on top of your RAW this doubles again.
Curious to know what other PS users thinks on this matter, Top end iMac or quad core Pro, is there much in the difference ?
Gavin
Last test in Macworld, the 3.06 GHz iMac beat out the mid range Mac Pro in PS. That's not surprising really.
PS is currently limited to two cores (for ordinary work, there is a way to get 8 cores to work, but that's another story).
For PS, the graphics card doesn't matter, though with 10.6 that may change somewhat.
Of course, the Nehalem chips change the game. They are so much more powerful than even the Harperstown that Apple has been using in the previous Mac Pros, that they should blast past the top line iMac again.
The single cpu four core machine is fine. That's like having two cpus, considering the new memory bandwidth of the chips.
The 2.66 GHz version I ordered should be a good deal faster than the previous 2.93 GHz version, and possibly as fast as, or faster than the 3.2 GHz version.
These chips are a game changer.
Until the iMac goes Nehalem later with the mobile Nehalem chips (unless Apple changes their minds and goes lower power desktop chips, which is possible later) the iMac will trail the lower Mac Pro.
But the iMac is pretty fast, so it may not matter unless, as I mentioned before, you're working with humongous sized files, which isn't likely.
Comments
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!
Are each of the Firewire ports on different busses, or do they all share the same bus? If you connect a FW 400 device, will it slow down all the ports?
Stupid question, could someone please tell me why they did not include a 2nd on board graphics chip for OpenCL?
I am going to wait for SL to come out and get a 32 nm Westmere system.
How much more would you be willing to pay for that?
You can always put more graphics cards in, it might be cheaper, and more useful.
That's another year.
Hm... there is new Xeon based on i7 architecture, isn't there..?
As 'murch has already said, no.
The architecture is Nehalem.
i7 is the desktop line of chips.
Xeon is the workstation and server line of chips.
And, no, despite what some may like to think, they are not exactly the same. That would be like saying that all Core 2 chips are the same when they are not.
Right on. As wonderful a company as they can be, from time to time Apple's decisions prove perplexing.
It's also all about being professional enough so that when using a monitor for professional editing purposes you take control of your environment, and make sure the lighting is correct.
Yes, I know that some must toil in a sweat shop where everything sucks, and that's too bad. For those, a different monitor would be better.
But, from what I know, Apple isn't claiming this monitor is for color professionals anyway.
The Mac Pro page no longer mentions the ability to use SAS hard drives. When configuring the Mac Pro on the Apple Store, SAS hard drives are no longer an option. The Apple RAID card still does not support external connections.
They have the fiber card. The Raid card for SATA is also a SAS card.
You can buy the drives from many other dealers with the "Apple tax".
So what's the problem?
There is still no mention of Crossfire or SLI support on the Mac Pro. A pair of high end Nvidia Geforce cards running SLI can provide better performance and cost less than a single Quadro card. But any time someone mentions a pair of SLI cards being a better value than a single Quadro card, some Apple apologist always responds with "Quadro is for professionals". So the Mac Pro does not support SLI because "Quadro is for professionals". Exactly how does that address the issue at all? And what if those "professionals" want more power than a single Quadro card can provide? On PCs. multiple Quadro cards can be used in SLI configuration. If a single Quadro card is so "professional" then wouldn't multiple Quadro cards running SLI be even more "professional"?
I suppose SLI or Crossfire would be nice. But it's not been much of a success. More talk than action. I'm not against it though.
But according to Apple apologists, the Mac Pro does not support Geforce SLI or even Quadro SLI because "Quadro is for professionals". Also note that an Nvidia Quadro card is no longer an option for the new Mac Pro. How "professional" is that?
That's an interesting question.
It could be that the card is simply not ready yet.
And stop calling people "apologists". There are reasons for everything, and they are not necessarily your reasons all the time.
Are each of the Firewire ports on different busses, or do they all share the same bus? If you connect a FW 400 device, will it slow down all the ports?
In the past, at least, Apple has used separate controllers.
You might as well get used to paying these "green/energy" taxes in the US. Our government is planning on this kind of tax (only mandated) for pretty much everything.
I have a tech question though... Assuming operation under Snow Leopard for a myriad of uses including games, am I better off with an Octo 2.26 setup, or a Quad 2.93?
I have two 24" Samsung Monitors which I run through DVI. I want to buy the new Mac Pro with ATI 4870 card. But it only has 1 DVI port. Will I be able to connect one monitor to DVI port and one to Mini Display Port (Mini to DVI adapter) and run both with Extended Desktop mode?
Apparently, yes to extended mode, and definately yes to running both.
You need an Apple Mini Displayport adapter for the mini port.
Apple has a: Mini Displayport adapter to DVI
--------------------------------- dual link DVI
--------------------------------- VGA
At least part of the new cost is Apple's "greening" of the unit. Not only is green everything more expensive but Apple also probably has to pay the certification group EPEAT Gold their piece of the action and Energy Star as well. Also, the easy to disassemble / recycle case likely costs more to produce.
You might as well get used to paying these "green/energy" taxes in the US. Our government is planning on this kind of tax (only mandated) for pretty much everything.
I have a tech question though... Assuming operation under Snow Leopard for a myriad of uses including games, am I better off with an Octo 2.26 setup, or a Quad 2.93?
Quad 2.93
You can upgrade the Mac Pro to 32GB of memory, not 8GB.
who is saying the pro is limited to 8GB of ram? They have build to order options of up to 32gb (if you are INSANELY rich)
The quad core are limited to 8 GB, barring, experimentation...
As usual, all you people do is complain.
I know, I agree, these things are kinda wild if you as me. 16-core, virtually? That's pretty hot, not to mention turbo boost :P
Laters...
Mac Pro:
£4,426.01 incl. VAT Ships: 6-8 weeks Free Shipping
Specifications
One 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
6GB (3x2GB)
Mac Pro RAID Card
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
One 18x SuperDrive
Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel)
Apple Wireless Mighty Mouse
Apple Wireless Keyboard (British) and User's Guide (English)
Vista option:
\tDell Ultrasharp 3008WFP 30" Widescreen LCD Monitor\t\t£1115.49
\tIntel Core i7 940 2.93Ghz (Nehalem) (Socket LGA1366) - Retail\t\t£471.49
\tLian Li TYR PC-X2000 Aluminium Full-Tower - Black (No PSU)\t\t£339.24
\tAsus P6T Deluxe Intel X58 (Socket 1366) PCI-Express DDR3 Motherboard\t\t£243.79
\tCorsair 6GB DDR3 Dominator PC3-12800C8 1600MHz (3x2GB) DDR3 £172.49
\tAkasa AK-P120FG 1200W Xtreme Power Supply\t\t£166.74
\tAsus ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB "Dark Knight" \t£165.59
\tMicrosoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 64-Bit - OEM (66R-02034)\t\t£155.24
\tSeagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB SATA-II 32MB Cache - \t£114.99
\tLogitech Cordless Desktop MX 3200 Laser (967688-0120)\t\t£57.49
\tAkasa AK-967 Nero Direct Contact Heatpipe CPU Cooler\t\t£31.04
\tSamsung SH-S223Q/RSMN 22x DVD±RW SATA Dual Layel\t\t£22.99
\t\tSub Total
My son has specced this setup, and tells can do the build.
£1800 cost difference!!!!!
The previous generation Xeon Mac Pros costed out about equal, considering dual socket boards etc, but these look over expensive to me. I need AVCHD, so an upgrade is now urgent.
I may have to jump to Vista!
Or I could buy a second hand 8 core Xeon?
Am I missing something?
Which to buy - I have been waiting to upgrade my dual core G5 running Premier:
Mac Pro:
£4,426.01 incl. VAT Ships: 6-8 weeks Free Shipping
Specifications
One 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
6GB (3x2GB)
Mac Pro RAID Card
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
One 18x SuperDrive
Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel)
Apple Wireless Mighty Mouse
Apple Wireless Keyboard (British) and User's Guide (English)
Vista option:
\tDell Ultrasharp 3008WFP 30" Widescreen LCD Monitor\t\t£1115.49
\tIntel Core i7 940 2.93Ghz (Nehalem) (Socket LGA1366) - Retail\t\t£471.49
\tLian Li TYR PC-X2000 Aluminium Full-Tower - Black (No PSU)\t\t£339.24
\tAsus P6T Deluxe Intel X58 (Socket 1366) PCI-Express DDR3 Motherboard\t\t£243.79
\tCorsair 6GB DDR3 Dominator PC3-12800C8 1600MHz (3x2GB) DDR3 £172.49
\tAkasa AK-P120FG 1200W Xtreme Power Supply\t\t£166.74
\tAsus ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB "Dark Knight" \t£165.59
\tMicrosoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 64-Bit - OEM (66R-02034)\t\t£155.24
\tSeagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB SATA-II 32MB Cache - \t£114.99
\tLogitech Cordless Desktop MX 3200 Laser (967688-0120)\t\t£57.49
\tAkasa AK-967 Nero Direct Contact Heatpipe CPU Cooler\t\t£31.04
\tSamsung SH-S223Q/RSMN 22x DVD±RW SATA Dual Layel\t\t£22.99
\t\tSub Total
My son has specced this setup, and tells can do the build.
£1800 cost difference!!!!!
The previous generation Xeon Mac Pros costed out about equal, considering dual socket boards etc, but these look over expensive to me. I need AVCHD, so an upgrade is now urgent.
I may have to jump to Vista!
Or I could buy a second hand 8 core Xeon?
Am I missing something?
One reason why the Mac Pro, older models, and new ones alike, are so expensive, is because they are industrial quality machines. What your son will build is a lower grade home quality machine. It's NOT equal to a Mc Pro.
When PC companies come out with Xeon machines, they will cost about the same as a Mac Pro.
The i7 desktop chips are much cheaper than the workstation, server Xeons Apple is using.
That may be fine, or it may not.
An older machine, available at a discount is wonderful. nothing wrong with them, even the refurbished ones. But they go fast!
Do you really need the latest? If not, then why pay for it?
no support.
With that laundry list of components if you start getting strange behaviour or crashes
who are you going to call? None of those vendors are going to accept responsibility unless
you can pin the issue to them without a doubt.
I think with the previous generation, Apple probably had sales to non graphics/video people - maybe developers or just people who wanted something a bit better than the iMac. With these new models, due to the price bump, I suspect it truly will be only video/graphics people who buy them.
Yup ..the Mac Pro is becoming more and more of a workstation, suitable for those with workstation budgets though the Quad Mac Pro isn't a bad deal for a prosumer. It offers the same build quality yet is likely a better fit for those looking for more flexibility and performance than the iMac currently offers.
I'm not really going to blame Apple on the pricing. They seem to have drawn a line in the sand.
Mac Pro = Workstation
Workstation = Xeon
Intel's the one charging a King's ransom for their chips. Had AMD been nipping at Intel's heels the pricing would likely be more competitive but Intel knows they have no threat from AMD.
As a long time PC guy (commodore 64 ring a bell) I have been ready to make the jump to the Mac Pro for some time, but was waiting to see the new updates. Trying to stay in the $2400 to $2800 range, do I get the previous gen dual quad core 2.8 which my local store still has, or do I go for the new single quad core 2.6? I am having a terrible time with this one. My local store is now discounting the previous gen to $2499 by the way. I am not real crazy about being limited to 8gb of ram, but hey what do I know? Photography is my main useage, lightroom, photoshop, etc. Any help?
Hi Bert,
What I understand and read, extra CPU has no advantage to PS and LR. The video card is more important. If you go for the "old" dual quad make sure you get an nVidia card instead of the base model card. However if you feel partial to the "new" Nelaham, this will be faster than the old duo quad for photography at least, especially for memory access, which photoshop/CR depends main on.
I, myself thought about the top iMac, but the idea of being limited to a seal in HDD is not a good idea. When you need 2 backups of your work. So hence the Pro is ideal choice for the serious photog. For mirroring and storage capacity. These days the full frame cameras are between 21-24 mega pixels, so a days shoot is going to eat between 4 -12 Gb a pop, then add your PSD files on top of your RAW this doubles again.
Curious to know what other PS users thinks on this matter, Top end iMac or quad core Pro, is there much in the difference ?
Gavin
Apple should really bring a midrange tower. Something with the desktop Core i7. The Mac Pro is too much with its server-grade Xeon processors.
We've been talking about this for years.
Apple just doesn't see the need.
I would have bought two if they were better than buying an iMac. But both my wife and daughter wanted the 24" iMac. They've always had Mac towers before.
They both love them.
In fact, everyone I know who bought one loves them.
What some people here forget is that they are just a very small minority. Most consumers don't buy any peripherals other than a digital camera and a printer, with an internet connection rounding out the externals.
That's two USB connections plus, possibly, an Ethernet port.
A few actually connect their camcorder, but most don't.
That rounds out the majority of the iMac (consumer) market, and Apple knows it.
The rest buy a Mini, or a laptop Macbook.
Hi Bert,
What I understand and read, extra CPU has no advantage to PS and LR. The video card is more important. If you go for the "old" dual quad make sure you get an nVidia card instead of the base model card. However if you feel partial to the "new" Nehalem, this will be faster than the old duo quad for photography at least, especially for memory access, which photoshop/CR depends main on.
I, myself thought about the top iMac, but the idea of being limited to a seal in HDD is not a good idea. When you need 2 backups of your work. So hence the Pro is ideal choice for the serious photog. For mirroring and storage capacity. These days the full frame cameras are between 21-24 mega pixels, so a days shoot is going to eat between 4 -12 Gb a pop, then add your PSD files on top of your RAW this doubles again.
Curious to know what other PS users thinks on this matter, Top end iMac or quad core Pro, is there much in the difference ?
Gavin
Last test in Macworld, the 3.06 GHz iMac beat out the mid range Mac Pro in PS. That's not surprising really.
PS is currently limited to two cores (for ordinary work, there is a way to get 8 cores to work, but that's another story).
For PS, the graphics card doesn't matter, though with 10.6 that may change somewhat.
Of course, the Nehalem chips change the game. They are so much more powerful than even the Harperstown that Apple has been using in the previous Mac Pros, that they should blast past the top line iMac again.
The single cpu four core machine is fine. That's like having two cpus, considering the new memory bandwidth of the chips.
The 2.66 GHz version I ordered should be a good deal faster than the previous 2.93 GHz version, and possibly as fast as, or faster than the 3.2 GHz version.
These chips are a game changer.
Until the iMac goes Nehalem later with the mobile Nehalem chips (unless Apple changes their minds and goes lower power desktop chips, which is possible later) the iMac will trail the lower Mac Pro.
But the iMac is pretty fast, so it may not matter unless, as I mentioned before, you're working with humongous sized files, which isn't likely.