One give-away that it's not the right stuff is that blank space in the picture of the RAM module for a ninth chip. The new Mac Pros use memory with a parity bit.
People keep using this argument...... the software is called OS X . If you are running multiple programs you are effectively running multiple cpus even if they aren't programmed for multi-processing.
8 CORES?!??? Are you kidding me? OSX can't effectively use 8 cores.
For all of the reasons you stated I hope Apple never or rarely changes the case design. Finally an American company with the balls to take the "Porche" approach to design! ie- If something works and it is well designed then don't change it simply for the sake of change. Evolve it slowly and only if it is a significant improvement on the original. Our fast food mentality no longer will allow products to become a classic or an icon. This design is still nicer than all the competition so why change it? It's also far more environmentally responsible to stick with one design . . again, for all the reasons you stated. The next step in smart design would be to have us only update the needed elements- chips, graphic cards, RAM, etc. . .
Kudo's to Apple! Keep up the good work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It isn't so much that it would look better, as much as it would be new.
If you look at eBay, you can see how the value of machines drop after certain changes are made to new machines.
When Apple comes out with a new case, which they will do at some point, all of the older case machines will have their value cut significantly.
If you buy an old machine, but it has a current case, you can pretend to yourself, and others, that it is a new machine. But when the case is changed, suddenly, it's pretty obvious that your machine is "old", even if you bought it the week before. It's like driving a new car out of the lot the end of December.
I know we don't like to think we're that unsophisticated, but it does come into it.
Screw it. I ordered one with the 8800 and no other options. I will get more RAM and a 500GB HD from OWC when they update their site with the new RAM chips.
Only downside is I have to wait until February for it to ship because of the bloody NVidia card. Oh well, I have been waiting this long, what's another month or so.
And I can always hope for an earlier shipment.
If Apple comes out with new ACDs next week I will be giving them more of my money then.
Awesome. Any site listing the applications taking advantage of the full 8 cores?
Logic does. Also is able to use more than 4 gigs of ram in some situations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647
I'm a little bummed the prices went UP instead of DOWN like they should have. But then again it is octo across the board. I'm hoping we can buy a 2.8 quad and add a 2.8 quad down the road.
The cheapest config is still the exact same price as before, $2299. The other models are at different price points but you get a ton more for your money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
More often that not, Apple products are available in the stores and online the day they are announced. At least in the standard configuration.
Yep. People have reported that these are already showing up in apple stores today.
Is there a big performance difference between 2.8 vs 3.0 and between 3.0 vs. 3.2.
I know there should be a significant performance boost between 2.8 vs. 3.2 but is it really worth 1600? or is it really worth an extra $800 for a 200Mhz bump?
I don't do anything too hardcore graphics or video but I just want the biggest and best. I have two other PCs with quad cores and 8GB of ram and barely use its potential.
I know there should be a significant performance boost between 2.8 vs. 3.2 but is it really worth 1600? or is it really worth an extra $800 for a 200Mhz bump?
Worth can only be determined by you. Some would find the $1,600 a worthwhile upgrade while some can't perceive the worth of a behemoth Mac Pro.
So the Mac Pro's have been updated to Intel's new CPU's - what about the iMacs? I'm looking at buying a new iMac but don't want to find that in a weeks time they start using the newer CPUs. I know they're not going to offer a massive speed increase, but having the newest is always the best, right?
So the Mac Pro's have been updated to Intel's new CPU's - what about the iMacs? I'm looking at buying a new iMac but don't want to find that in a weeks time they start using the newer CPUs. I know they're not going to offer a massive speed increase, but having the newest is always the best, right?
Having the newest isn't always best, but I'd personally wait a week to see if Apple updates the iMacs to the Penryn. They may also add some other things, like 2mp camera or more RAM, larger HDD for the same price.
Having the newest isn't always best, but I'd personally wait a week to see if Apple updates the iMacs to the Penryn. They may also add some other things, like 2mp camera or more RAM, larger HDD for the same price.
Welcome to AI.
I thought hanging out until MacWorld would be my best bet.
Worth can only be determined by you. Some would find the $1,600 a worthwhile upgrade while some can't perceive the worth of a behemoth Mac Pro.
Let me rephrase then...
is there a big advantage between 2.8 ghz vs 3.0 ghz and 3.0 ghz vs. 3.2 ghz in performance? That will justify if getting the faster processor worthwhile.
Is there a big performance difference between 2.8 vs 3.0 and between 3.0 vs. 3.2.
Supposing that the only difference between the 3.2 and 2.8 GHz chips is sheer clock speed -- no architectural differences, no difference in cache sizes -- the 3.2 is 14% faster than the 2.8 for any task that's purely bound to CPU speed (and the 3.0 is 7% faster, of course).
Anything you do that has elements of disk I/O speed, bus speed, RAM speed, etc. -- i.e. most things you probably do -- won't see all of that 14% increase. Only a solid set of benchmarks will tell you how much for what tasks.
I really, really do like to buy the top-of-the-line models Apple makes. I'm typing this right now on my once top-of-the-line Quad G5. But I have to admit my craving for speed is not at all justified by any real-life business justification, or even any hobbyist uses that push my computer very hard. I just like nice toys.
But even though I like to spoil myself, in this case I just couldn't see spending the extra $1600, or even $800 dollars. I settled for the basic 8x2.8, with an extra optical drive, the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 (which sadly bumps my shipping time from 3-5 days up to 3-5 weeks -- I keep thinking about canceling my order and changing that!), and a 500GB hard drive instead of 320GB. I'll add an additional 4GB of RAM myself at a much more reasonable price than Apple's price.
Comments
...still doesn't come with wireless and bluetooth as standard though!!! wtf!!! JOKERS!
How many pro's are REALLY going to use them? Really?
That's why there are TWO 1 GB Ethernet connections on the back.
This won't work?
? http://www.crucial.com/store/partspe...E=CT12872AA800
One give-away that it's not the right stuff is that blank space in the picture of the RAM module for a ninth chip. The new Mac Pros use memory with a parity bit.
People keep using this argument...... the software is called OS X
8 CORES?!??? Are you kidding me? OSX can't effectively use 8 cores.
...still doesn't come with wireless and bluetooth as standard though!!! wtf!!! JOKERS!
Bluetooth is included in the stock machine.
WiFi standard on Mac Pro doesn't make that much sense to me.
8 CORES?!??? Are you kidding me? OSX can't effectively use 8 cores.
Supposedly, 10.5 has fixed the core skipping problem as well as some others that were causing problems, such as contention at the kernel level.
To be a cranky old man, who's full of s*it half the time?
Naw.
C'mon, he knows his stuff.
3.2 processors
quadro fx 5600!!!!!
16gb ram, even this is probably to much
Two 1tb drives
Because i sold my old one, i can help rationalize everything. It is true that these machines dont loose much value over time.
Kudo's to Apple! Keep up the good work.
It isn't so much that it would look better, as much as it would be new.
If you look at eBay, you can see how the value of machines drop after certain changes are made to new machines.
When Apple comes out with a new case, which they will do at some point, all of the older case machines will have their value cut significantly.
If you buy an old machine, but it has a current case, you can pretend to yourself, and others, that it is a new machine. But when the case is changed, suddenly, it's pretty obvious that your machine is "old", even if you bought it the week before. It's like driving a new car out of the lot the end of December.
I know we don't like to think we're that unsophisticated, but it does come into it.
Apple's own benchmarks point to a 1.1x to 1.3x improvement - not 2x?
Only downside is I have to wait until February for it to ship because of the bloody NVidia card. Oh well, I have been waiting this long, what's another month or so.
And I can always hope for an earlier shipment.
If Apple comes out with new ACDs next week I will be giving them more of my money then.
Awesome. Any site listing the applications taking advantage of the full 8 cores?
Logic does. Also is able to use more than 4 gigs of ram in some situations.
I'm a little bummed the prices went UP instead of DOWN like they should have. But then again it is octo across the board. I'm hoping we can buy a 2.8 quad and add a 2.8 quad down the road.
The cheapest config is still the exact same price as before, $2299. The other models are at different price points but you get a ton more for your money.
More often that not, Apple products are available in the stores and online the day they are announced. At least in the standard configuration.
Yep. People have reported that these are already showing up in apple stores today.
Note to site admins: If you're going to disable "Quick Reply" you might as well remove the code from the page.
I know there should be a significant performance boost between 2.8 vs. 3.2 but is it really worth 1600? or is it really worth an extra $800 for a 200Mhz bump?
I don't do anything too hardcore graphics or video but I just want the biggest and best. I have two other PCs with quad cores and 8GB of ram and barely use its potential.
I know there should be a significant performance boost between 2.8 vs. 3.2 but is it really worth 1600? or is it really worth an extra $800 for a 200Mhz bump?
Worth can only be determined by you. Some would find the $1,600 a worthwhile upgrade while some can't perceive the worth of a behemoth Mac Pro.
So the Mac Pro's have been updated to Intel's new CPU's - what about the iMacs? I'm looking at buying a new iMac but don't want to find that in a weeks time they start using the newer CPUs. I know they're not going to offer a massive speed increase, but having the newest is always the best, right?
Having the newest isn't always best, but I'd personally wait a week to see if Apple updates the iMacs to the Penryn. They may also add some other things, like 2mp camera or more RAM, larger HDD for the same price.
Welcome to AI.
Having the newest isn't always best, but I'd personally wait a week to see if Apple updates the iMacs to the Penryn. They may also add some other things, like 2mp camera or more RAM, larger HDD for the same price.
Welcome to AI.
I thought hanging out until MacWorld would be my best bet.
Thanks for the welcome.
Worth can only be determined by you. Some would find the $1,600 a worthwhile upgrade while some can't perceive the worth of a behemoth Mac Pro.
Let me rephrase then...
is there a big advantage between 2.8 ghz vs 3.0 ghz and 3.0 ghz vs. 3.2 ghz in performance? That will justify if getting the faster processor worthwhile.
Is there a big performance difference between 2.8 vs 3.0 and between 3.0 vs. 3.2.
Supposing that the only difference between the 3.2 and 2.8 GHz chips is sheer clock speed -- no architectural differences, no difference in cache sizes -- the 3.2 is 14% faster than the 2.8 for any task that's purely bound to CPU speed (and the 3.0 is 7% faster, of course).
Anything you do that has elements of disk I/O speed, bus speed, RAM speed, etc. -- i.e. most things you probably do -- won't see all of that 14% increase. Only a solid set of benchmarks will tell you how much for what tasks.
I really, really do like to buy the top-of-the-line models Apple makes. I'm typing this right now on my once top-of-the-line Quad G5. But I have to admit my craving for speed is not at all justified by any real-life business justification, or even any hobbyist uses that push my computer very hard. I just like nice toys.
But even though I like to spoil myself, in this case I just couldn't see spending the extra $1600, or even $800 dollars. I settled for the basic 8x2.8, with an extra optical drive, the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 (which sadly bumps my shipping time from 3-5 days up to 3-5 weeks -- I keep thinking about canceling my order and changing that!), and a 500GB hard drive instead of 320GB. I'll add an additional 4GB of RAM myself at a much more reasonable price than Apple's price.