It's not my argument that a strawman, but yours, as you refuse to acknowledge the pricing and other performance differences between the Xeons and the i7's, even though I laid out what they are, and you can go check for yourself. You guys are the ones who keep on coming up with these cheap home computer comparisons, not me.
Apparently you misread my post, as I specifically said that I was one of the relatively few that understand such differences and think such comparison on price is crap.
While I will agree that components such as power supplies, custom motherboards, and what not can obviously increase the costs of the Mac Pro, I'm not at all convinced that that is what is responsible for the majority of the price increase. I'm sure we'll see more details soon, but I can guarantee their margins are much higher than they were on the (dual CPU) Harpertown Mac Pro.
Apple touts its new machines as PVC free, BFR free, and meets Energy Star 5 ratings. Other electronics manufacturers don't use parts that meet these standards. Then Apple is not using commodity parts.
First of all, have you even checked? I wouldn't be surprised if other OEMs met similar standards.
Regardless, I wasn't talking about case materials, I am talking about the actual functional components like CPUs, Chipsets, RAM, Graphics cards... which are exactly the same as other PC manufacturers.
You guys can continue to rationalize it all you want, but the fact is that Apple greatly increased the pricing of the dual-CPU Mac Pro when their was no proportional increase in the pricing of it's components. Do we know exact figures? No.. Is is justified to think that Apple's costs for things like CPUs, Chipsets, RAM, GPUs, etc would follow the rest of the industry? Absolutely..
On chemicals, although HP provides a timeline for eliminating polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and all brominated flame retardants (BFRs) by 2009, it is only in computing equipment – not for its entire product portfolio. HP has yet to put on the market products that are entirely free from the worst substances.
The rest of the industry is not yet using Nelahem Xeons to gain the comparison you are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan
First of all, have you even checked? I wouldn't be surprised if other OEMs met similar standards.
Regardless, I wasn't talking about case materials, I am talking about the actual functional components like CPUs, Chipsets, RAM, Graphics cards... which are exactly the same as other PC manufacturers.
You guys can continue to rationalize it all you want, but the fact is that Apple greatly increased the pricing of the dual-CPU Mac Pro when their was no proportional increase in the pricing of it's components. Do we know exact figures? No.. Is is justified to think that Apple's costs for things like CPUs, Chipsets, RAM, GPUs, etc would follow the rest of the industry? Absolutely..
Apparently you misread my post, as I specifically said that I was one of the relatively few that understand such differences and think such comparison on price is crap.
If I misread that part of your post, then I retract that part of mine. Though there are three people here making these statements, and it's becoming difficult to sort them out.
Quote:
While I will agree that components such as power supplies, custom motherboards, and what not can obviously increase the costs of the Mac Pro, I'm not at all convinced that that is what is responsible for the majority of the price increase. I'm sure we'll see more details soon, but I can guarantee their margins are much higher than they were on the (dual CPU) Harpertown Mac Pro.
The only place we really disagree here is that I'm saying that we don't know enough to say that for sure, and you say that you are sure.
There is no way we can resolve a dispute where there is no evidence either of us can dredge up to support our contention.
I therefore propose that we stop discussing this issue, as we're not getting anywhere with it.
What would be the best RAM strategy for purchasing the new 2.26 MP? Go with the standard 6GB (6 DIMM slots) or spend the extra $100 to get the 8GB (4 DIMM slots) and add 2 more DIMMs (6 slots used) for better memory speed?
It's irrelevant that there is cheaper PC hardware that can run OS X just as fast, because that's illegal. Heck, if you are ok with that, I have an even cheaper option for you: just steal an entire Mac Pro. You'll save even more money that way.
The reason why Apple's graphics boards cost so much is for the same reason. While a third party board selling to the vast PC market might sell in the hundreds of thousands, or even, for the cheaper boards, millions, Apple likely sells no more than tens of thousands of any board model. Remember that Apple makes these boards. So their costs are higher there too.
My 8800GT Mac edition looks *identical* to a PC board (down to the capacitors), Apple most certainly have not "made" it at all (though I paid $100 more for it than a PC board), the same applies to my older 7300, nor does the ATI 3870 look different to their PC parts. Apple or NVidia/ATI do need to flash some of the control chips to make them compatible, but saying Apple makes them is stretching the definition of make too far. One can buy PC 8800GTS cards which users have hand-flashed, and they work on the Mac Pro just fine.
What costs more is the driver development I assume, which Apple should not be fobbing off on hardware as displaying graphics is a core part of any operating system. Apple should be supporting its driver division as part of the OS X environment. A $150 4870 is apparently going to cost $300 for Mac users. Does flashing a chip really cost $150, the same price as a highly advanced GPU?
My 8800GT Mac edition looks *identical* to a PC board (down to the capacitors), Apple most certainly have not "made" it at all (though I paid $100 more for it than a PC board), the same applies to my older 7300, nor does the ATI 3870 look different to their PC parts. Apple or NVidia/ATI do need to flash some of the control chips to make them compatible, but saying Apple makes them is stretching the definition of make too far. One can buy PC 8800GTS cards which users have hand-flashed, and they work on the Mac Pro just fine.
It doesn't matter what it looks like. Nvidia doesn't make boards like ATI does. There are standard board designs that Nvidia licenses out. Manufacturers are also allowed to deviate from that to a certain extent. Apple makes its own boards. That's all that does matter. And they don't make many of them.
Quote:
What costs more is the driver development I assume, which Apple should not be fobbing off on hardware as displaying graphics is a core part of any operating system. Apple should be supporting its driver division as part of the OS X environment. A $150 4870 is apparently going to cost $300 for Mac users. Does flashing a chip really cost $150, the same price as a highly advanced GPU?
Driver development also costs, naturally.
When you buy a PC board that's flashed, for examle, you will notice that not all features are enabled. There are some boards that aren't available for the Macs that you can get from some companies that sell through eBay. But those boards don't even support digital output, just VGA. Not too useful these days.
If you look at the size of the driver software coming from Nvidia and ATI recently, you'll see that it's begun to hover around 100 MB. Yes, that's 100, not 10. That shows how much work is involved.
I've also been reading that the reason why we haven't yet seen a pro board for the new models is that the Displayport output isn't yet finished.
It doesn't matter what it looks like. Nvidia doesn't make boards like ATI does. There are standard board designs that Nvidia licenses out. Manufacturers are also allowed to deviate from that to a certain extent. Apple makes its own boards. That's all that does matter. And they don't make many of them.
Apple doesn't make anything. One of Apple's many Chinese OEMs (probably Foxconn) makes the cards, on the same production line as millions of other graphics cards not sold through Apple.
Apple doesn't make anything. One of Apple's many Chinese OEMs (probably Foxconn) makes the cards, on the same production line as millions of other graphics cards not sold through Apple.
They make these cards for Apple, which is the same as saying that Apple makes them. There are differences in the ROMS, and are not likely to be made on the same assy. lines, at the same time. That means that costs are higher. Any time you have what is called a "pick out" the costs rise more than a little bit. It also means that the automated equipment that does the board testing needs slightly different software commands and sequences.
Then they have to be qualified. We don't know what the differences are there, but there will be differences.
All of this adds up.
While I'm sure that there is a bit added to the top, to account for the costs Apple needs to add in for special ordering and such, the prices are very likely in line with their costs.
I've been reading as much as possible about this topic and figured I would post a question.
I've been working on towers my entire professional career as a computer illustrator (14 years). I work mostly in Photoshop and Illustrator and a lot of my files can get rather large. Up to 2-3gb at times. I currently have a 30" Cinema Display and a 19" LCD. My tower just decided to "fry" this weekend, weird sound and then poof, shut down and a horrible smell came out from the back. So needless to say I'm in the market for a new computer ASAP!
I was all ready to order a new 8-Core Mac Pro with the 8gb of ram (and then order another 8 from an outside vendor) and the upgraded ATI video card. So at those specs we are talking $3600 before adding the additional 8gb of ram and tax. So I started thinking about an iMac. The 24" 3.06 model and upgrading to the ATI video card as well. It's considerably cheaper! But I'd only want to get the 4gb of ram since upgrading to 8 would be way too expensive. (about $700 more)
So I'm concerned that the 4gb of ram will just not be enough for the larger Photoshop files. The wait time for the iMac ATI models is 4-6 weeks and 2-3 weeks for the Mac Pros, which is a really long wait considering I need a computer now. I'm also wondering how big of a speed difference I would be able to feel between the two. I work on a 2x3ghz Dual-Core Intel Xeon Mac Tower at work right now and I don't want to feel like I'm working on a slower computer at home. I have the latest edition of Photoshop CS4 as well. I also do a little video stuff and play the occasional game but most of the time is spent in PS & Illustrator.
I've been reading as much as possible about this topic and figured I would post a question.
I've been working on towers my entire professional career as a computer illustrator (14 years). I work mostly in Photoshop and Illustrator and a lot of my files can get rather large. Up to 2-3gb at times. I currently have a 30" Cinema Display and a 19" LCD. My tower just decided to "fry" this weekend, weird sound and then poof, shut down and a horrible smell came out from the back. So needless to say I'm in the market for a new computer ASAP!
I was all ready to order a new 8-Core Mac Pro with the 8gb of ram (and then order another 8 from an outside vendor) and the upgraded ATI video card. So at those specs we are talking $3600 before adding the additional 8gb of ram and tax. So I started thinking about an iMac. The 24" 3.06 model and upgrading to the ATI video card as well. It's considerably cheaper! But I'd only want to get the 4gb of ram since upgrading to 8 would be way too expensive. (about $700 more)
So I'm concerned that the 4gb of ram will just not be enough for the larger Photoshop files. The wait time for the iMac ATI models is 4-6 weeks and 2-3 weeks for the Mac Pros, which is a really long wait considering I need a computer now. I'm also wondering how big of a speed difference I would be able to feel between the two. I work on a 2x3ghz Dual-Core Intel Xeon Mac Tower at work right now and I don't want to feel like I'm working on a slower computer at home. I have the latest edition of Photoshop CS4 as well. I also do a little video stuff and play the occasional game but most of the time is spent in PS & Illustrator.
Well anyway, thanks in advance for any help!
Jamie
You know as a PS user that Adobe has the small bottom window on the image window. When efficiency is 100%, all is fine, and you don't need more memory.
Generally, PS needs at least 3 times as much RAM as the largest file you are working on. Plug-ins have their own needs. Then the computer OS takes what is needed for itself.
For a 3 GB file, and 100% efficiency, you would need, to be practical, at least 12 GB RAM.
The problem of banging on your HDD every time PS does an internal save, or change to the file, is considerable if you can't get at least two copies of that file into PS's RAM. So, a minimum of 8 GB is indicated.
Otherwise, the iMac is pretty fast. not as fast as a Nehanem Xeon with 4 cores. But, right now, PS only uses 2 cores properly. But more cores do help as it allows the OS to spend much of its time elsewhere, making the two cores available to PS, possibly speeding the program up by another 15 to 20%.
When CS5 comes out, not only will it be 64 bits, but it should be better able to use more cores. Apple's 10.6 has Grand Central, which makes parallel processing much easier to implement. It also has Open CL which makes the better graphics card another speed booster.
Unless you plan on buying another machine in 18 months or so, the Mac Pro will prove a better investment because of the additional cores and threads, along with the upgradability.
They make these cards for Apple, which is the same as saying that Apple makes them. There are differences in the ROMS, and are not likely to be made on the same assy. lines, at the same time.
Do you know this or is it a guess[1]? Flashing a ROM shouldn't require a different assembly line! and the various companies that make these cards (each with a small slice of the pie, i.e. sales much smaller than the overall market), can customise ROMs (clock frequencies and other added value) just fine keeping competitive pricing. Regarding the flashed cards, as far as I can tell, they function identically to the Apple-labelled cards:
And how does this affect the pricing of the ATI cards which are made by ATI. My prices comparison of the 4870 is actually $200 more on Mac, i.e. you could buy 2X4870s for a PC and still have $50 change. Flashing a ROM simply should not cost ATI $200 on top of a $150 card.
The simple fact is that Apple are still lagging behind the PC with GPU technology for Nehalem Mac Pros (old generation NVidia cards or ATI cards with no crossfire), and for the option we do have we get charged more than the price of the card itself in some cases for mystical customisations we can only guesstimate at. With Snow Leopard touting OpenCL so prominantly, it seemed ideal to at least try to catch up with a workstation[1] where its profit margins should allow "the best" to apply to all of its components...
----
[1] Just as for component margins I think we are all speculating here. I do think your speculation regarding graphics cards is not as parsimonious.
[2] Note: I do love my Mac Pro, and if I'm critical it is only because I care! I want the Mac Pro to be undoubtedly the best Workstation on the market for all market sectors.
Do you know this or is it a guess[1]? Flashing a ROM shouldn't require a different assembly line! and the various companies that make these cards (each with a small slice of the pie, i.e. sales much smaller than the overall market), can customise ROMs (clock frequencies and other added value) just fine keeping competitive pricing.
I know this, it's not a guess. I was a manufactures of electronics, and I know how this works. It's not a different manufacturing line. As I said, it's a "pick put". That's when one, or a batch of products, are "picked out" of a production line for special treatment, testing, packaging and whatnot. This increases cost. We also don't know if these cards are being made specifically to Apples specs. They could be in some way.
Quote:
Regarding the flashed cards, as far as I can tell, they function identically to the Apple-labelled cards:
This is amusing, because it shows that many, if not most other cards can't be flashed at all. Also, as they point out, unlike Apple's cards, these can't be used on the older models.
That should show you that they aren't the same. There are small but notable differences.
Quote:
And how does this affect the pricing of the ATI cards which are made by ATI. My prices comparison of the 4870 is actually $200 more on Mac, i.e. you could buy 2X4870s for a PC and still have $50 change. Flashing a ROM simply should not cost ATI $200 on top of a $150 card.
Made for Apple, with a different ROM, and whatever other minor differences there may be.
You know as a PS user that Adobe has the small bottom window on the image window. When efficiency is 100%, all is fine, and you don't need more memory.
Generally, PS needs at least 3 times as much RAM as the largest file you are working on. Plug-ins have their own needs. Then the computer OS takes what is needed for itself.
For a 3 GB file, and 100% efficiency, you would need, to be practical, at least 12 GB RAM.
The problem of banging on your HDD every time PS does an internal save, or change to the file, is considerable if you can't get at least two copies of that file into PS's RAM. So, a minimum of 8 GB is indicated.
Otherwise, the iMac is pretty fast. not as fast as a Nehanem Xeon with 4 cores. But, right now, PS only uses 2 cores properly. But more cores do help as it allows the OS to spend much of its time elsewhere, making the two cores available to PS, possibly speeding the program up by another 15 to 20%.
When CS5 comes out, not only will it be 64 bits, but it should be better able to use more cores. Apple's 10.6 has Grand Central, which makes parallel processing much easier to implement. It also has Open CL which makes the better graphics card another speed booster.
Unless you plan on buying another machine in 18 months or so, the Mac Pro will prove a better investment because of the additional cores and threads, along with the upgradability.
Thanks for all of the GREAT information! I think I have decided to go with the tower. I've always had them and I just can't see using an iMac for what I do. I was also very concerned about the amount of Ram. I think that was the final straw that sold me on the tower.
So I decided I'm gonna fork over the money and go for the 8 core 2.66. After looking at the benchmarks on Macrumors today, I realized the 2.26 sucks... especially when it can't be last year's 2.8 which was the lowest 8 core you could get. And it sucks even harder on single threaded apps. I work off of my macs and make a living off of my computers, so this is something I need. Just so hard to justify that extra 1200 difference between the 2.26 and 2.66. Also the 2.8 from amazon (2600) is out because I need virtualization. All in all I think I'll be very happy with the 2.66 and the 4870. Now to get an IPS panel 24" so I can run dual 24" lcds. Ugh... so much $.
You know as a PS user that Adobe has the small bottom window on the image window. When efficiency is 100%, all is fine, and you don't need more memory.
Generally, PS needs at least 3 times as much RAM as the largest file you are working on. Plug-ins have their own needs. Then the computer OS takes what is needed for itself.
For a 3 GB file, and 100% efficiency, you would need, to be practical, at least 12 GB RAM.
The problem of banging on your HDD every time PS does an internal save, or change to the file, is considerable if you can't get at least two copies of that file into PS's RAM. So, a minimum of 8 GB is indicated.
Otherwise, the iMac is pretty fast. not as fast as a Nehanem Xeon with 4 cores. But, right now, PS only uses 2 cores properly. But more cores do help as it allows the OS to spend much of its time elsewhere, making the two cores available to PS, possibly speeding the program up by another 15 to 20%.
When CS5 comes out, not only will it be 64 bits, but it should be better able to use more cores. Apple's 10.6 has Grand Central, which makes parallel processing much easier to implement. It also has Open CL which makes the better graphics card another speed booster.
Unless you plan on buying another machine in 18 months or so, the Mac Pro will prove a better investment because of the additional cores and threads, along with the upgradability.
It's clear to see now, in hindsight, that the 1st and 2nd generation Mac Pros were exceptional value for money. In both cases, you were able to purchase a standard configuration which could be upgraded without any false limitations being imposed.
Apple have obviously seen a lot of people purchasing the base configuration and upgrading it with cheaper third party components. As a result, they have reverted to their old ways of crippling the entry level machine and reserving core features for the 'upper' start configuration. I guess Apple want to make their cut up-front.
It reminds me of the stunts that they pulled with the Power Mac G5.
In the next few years, there are going to be a lot of pro users who require 8GB+ of RAM. With the 1st and 2nd generation of Mac Pros, you were looking at £1,749 for a suitable platform. Today you are looking at £2,499. That's a £750 price hike for a feature that should be a given in a professional Mac.
Are there any technical reasons why Apple couldn't have simply left the second processor socket empty and retained the 32GB ceiling in the entry level machine? If not, I fear the good days are over. I fear that 'Sneaky Apple' is back.
It's clear to see now, in hindsight, that the 1st and 2nd generation Mac Pros were exceptional value for money. In both cases, you were able to purchase a standard configuration which could be upgraded without any false limitations being imposed.
Apple have obviously seen a lot of people purchasing the base configuration and upgrading it with cheaper third party components. As a result, they have reverted to their old ways of crippling the entry level machine and reserving core features for the 'upper' start configuration. I guess Apple want to make their cut up-front.
It reminds me of the stunts that they pulled with the Power Mac G5.
In the next few years, there are going to be a lot of pro users who require 8GB+ of RAM. With the 1st and 2nd generation of Mac Pros, you were looking at £1,749 for a suitable platform. Today you are looking at £2,499. That's a £750 price hike for a feature that should be a given in a professional Mac.
Are there any technical reasons why Apple couldn't have simply left the second processor socket empty and retained the 32GB ceiling in the entry level machine? If not, I fear the good days are over. I fear that 'Sneaky Apple' is back.
Personally, I think the 8gb limit should be 16gb from a technical point of view. I think apple intentionally crippled that part. However, I think there is a 16gb limit per chip. Keep in mind the memory controller is built into these cpus now. And I believe the limit of the memory controller is 16gb, though I couldn't find any urls to back that up. However, it does make sense if you think that running dual quad cores and each quad core has 1 memory controller.... 2x16 = 32gb.
I'm thinking that the new quad mac pros have a real expansion of 16gb, but apple isn't selling the 4gb modules with this machine. It wouldn't be the first time apple said the ram limit is xx while the real limit was something else. OWC is famous for finding and selling ram that will go beyond apple's listed "limit".
I really don't see what was so upgradable on the 1st and 2nd gen mac pros. Sure you could upgrade the cpu's, but it cost an arm and a leg. You'd be better off buying a new machine. Not to mention it is a complete pain in the ass to do so. So I suppose you could put more ram in them. Bigger hard drives. The 1st gen gets burned on getting upgraded GPUs, even though NVidia FINALLY came out with a 1st gen 8800gt. Just doesn't seem that upgradable to me. Not like back in the day with the G4's. You could upgrade anything in those. Great machines for great prices then.
With that cinebench image earlier, I'm definitely getting the 2.66 8 core. It just makes sense. Look how poorly that 2.26 does in comparison to machines 2 revs earlier on a single core render.
I'm reading too many different threads..... here's the image i was referring to.
Comments
It's not my argument that a strawman, but yours, as you refuse to acknowledge the pricing and other performance differences between the Xeons and the i7's, even though I laid out what they are, and you can go check for yourself. You guys are the ones who keep on coming up with these cheap home computer comparisons, not me.
Apparently you misread my post, as I specifically said that I was one of the relatively few that understand such differences and think such comparison on price is crap.
While I will agree that components such as power supplies, custom motherboards, and what not can obviously increase the costs of the Mac Pro, I'm not at all convinced that that is what is responsible for the majority of the price increase. I'm sure we'll see more details soon, but I can guarantee their margins are much higher than they were on the (dual CPU) Harpertown Mac Pro.
Apple touts its new machines as PVC free, BFR free, and meets Energy Star 5 ratings. Other electronics manufacturers don't use parts that meet these standards. Then Apple is not using commodity parts.
First of all, have you even checked? I wouldn't be surprised if other OEMs met similar standards.
Regardless, I wasn't talking about case materials, I am talking about the actual functional components like CPUs, Chipsets, RAM, Graphics cards... which are exactly the same as other PC manufacturers.
You guys can continue to rationalize it all you want, but the fact is that Apple greatly increased the pricing of the dual-CPU Mac Pro when their was no proportional increase in the pricing of it's components. Do we know exact figures? No.. Is is justified to think that Apple's costs for things like CPUs, Chipsets, RAM, GPUs, etc would follow the rest of the industry? Absolutely..
Dell loses points for withdrawing from its commitment to eliminate all PVC plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) by the end of 2009.
Greener Electronics Dell Ranking
On chemicals, although HP provides a timeline for eliminating polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and all brominated flame retardants (BFRs) by 2009, it is only in computing equipment – not for its entire product portfolio. HP has yet to put on the market products that are entirely free from the worst substances.
Greener Electronics HP Ranking
The rest of the industry is not yet using Nelahem Xeons to gain the comparison you are talking about.
First of all, have you even checked? I wouldn't be surprised if other OEMs met similar standards.
Regardless, I wasn't talking about case materials, I am talking about the actual functional components like CPUs, Chipsets, RAM, Graphics cards... which are exactly the same as other PC manufacturers.
You guys can continue to rationalize it all you want, but the fact is that Apple greatly increased the pricing of the dual-CPU Mac Pro when their was no proportional increase in the pricing of it's components. Do we know exact figures? No.. Is is justified to think that Apple's costs for things like CPUs, Chipsets, RAM, GPUs, etc would follow the rest of the industry? Absolutely..
Apparently you misread my post, as I specifically said that I was one of the relatively few that understand such differences and think such comparison on price is crap.
If I misread that part of your post, then I retract that part of mine. Though there are three people here making these statements, and it's becoming difficult to sort them out.
While I will agree that components such as power supplies, custom motherboards, and what not can obviously increase the costs of the Mac Pro, I'm not at all convinced that that is what is responsible for the majority of the price increase. I'm sure we'll see more details soon, but I can guarantee their margins are much higher than they were on the (dual CPU) Harpertown Mac Pro.
The only place we really disagree here is that I'm saying that we don't know enough to say that for sure, and you say that you are sure.
There is no way we can resolve a dispute where there is no evidence either of us can dredge up to support our contention.
I therefore propose that we stop discussing this issue, as we're not getting anywhere with it.
As usual, all you people do is complain.
I'm tired of people bitching about trivial features that aren't up to there standards. Commpare this to a Dell desktop and then complain.
The reason why Apple's graphics boards cost so much is for the same reason. While a third party board selling to the vast PC market might sell in the hundreds of thousands, or even, for the cheaper boards, millions, Apple likely sells no more than tens of thousands of any board model. Remember that Apple makes these boards. So their costs are higher there too.
My 8800GT Mac edition looks *identical* to a PC board (down to the capacitors), Apple most certainly have not "made" it at all (though I paid $100 more for it than a PC board), the same applies to my older 7300, nor does the ATI 3870 look different to their PC parts. Apple or NVidia/ATI do need to flash some of the control chips to make them compatible, but saying Apple makes them is stretching the definition of make too far. One can buy PC 8800GTS cards which users have hand-flashed, and they work on the Mac Pro just fine.
What costs more is the driver development I assume, which Apple should not be fobbing off on hardware as displaying graphics is a core part of any operating system. Apple should be supporting its driver division as part of the OS X environment. A $150 4870 is apparently going to cost $300 for Mac users. Does flashing a chip really cost $150, the same price as a highly advanced GPU?
My 8800GT Mac edition looks *identical* to a PC board (down to the capacitors), Apple most certainly have not "made" it at all (though I paid $100 more for it than a PC board), the same applies to my older 7300, nor does the ATI 3870 look different to their PC parts. Apple or NVidia/ATI do need to flash some of the control chips to make them compatible, but saying Apple makes them is stretching the definition of make too far. One can buy PC 8800GTS cards which users have hand-flashed, and they work on the Mac Pro just fine.
It doesn't matter what it looks like. Nvidia doesn't make boards like ATI does. There are standard board designs that Nvidia licenses out. Manufacturers are also allowed to deviate from that to a certain extent. Apple makes its own boards. That's all that does matter. And they don't make many of them.
What costs more is the driver development I assume, which Apple should not be fobbing off on hardware as displaying graphics is a core part of any operating system. Apple should be supporting its driver division as part of the OS X environment. A $150 4870 is apparently going to cost $300 for Mac users. Does flashing a chip really cost $150, the same price as a highly advanced GPU?
Driver development also costs, naturally.
When you buy a PC board that's flashed, for examle, you will notice that not all features are enabled. There are some boards that aren't available for the Macs that you can get from some companies that sell through eBay. But those boards don't even support digital output, just VGA. Not too useful these days.
If you look at the size of the driver software coming from Nvidia and ATI recently, you'll see that it's begun to hover around 100 MB. Yes, that's 100, not 10. That shows how much work is involved.
I've also been reading that the reason why we haven't yet seen a pro board for the new models is that the Displayport output isn't yet finished.
It doesn't matter what it looks like. Nvidia doesn't make boards like ATI does. There are standard board designs that Nvidia licenses out. Manufacturers are also allowed to deviate from that to a certain extent. Apple makes its own boards. That's all that does matter. And they don't make many of them.
Apple doesn't make anything. One of Apple's many Chinese OEMs (probably Foxconn) makes the cards, on the same production line as millions of other graphics cards not sold through Apple.
Apple doesn't make anything. One of Apple's many Chinese OEMs (probably Foxconn) makes the cards, on the same production line as millions of other graphics cards not sold through Apple.
They make these cards for Apple, which is the same as saying that Apple makes them. There are differences in the ROMS, and are not likely to be made on the same assy. lines, at the same time. That means that costs are higher. Any time you have what is called a "pick out" the costs rise more than a little bit. It also means that the automated equipment that does the board testing needs slightly different software commands and sequences.
Then they have to be qualified. We don't know what the differences are there, but there will be differences.
All of this adds up.
While I'm sure that there is a bit added to the top, to account for the costs Apple needs to add in for special ordering and such, the prices are very likely in line with their costs.
I've been working on towers my entire professional career as a computer illustrator (14 years). I work mostly in Photoshop and Illustrator and a lot of my files can get rather large. Up to 2-3gb at times. I currently have a 30" Cinema Display and a 19" LCD. My tower just decided to "fry"
I was all ready to order a new 8-Core Mac Pro with the 8gb of ram (and then order another 8 from an outside vendor) and the upgraded ATI video card. So at those specs we are talking $3600 before adding the additional 8gb of ram and tax. So I started thinking about an iMac. The 24" 3.06 model and upgrading to the ATI video card as well. It's considerably cheaper! But I'd only want to get the 4gb of ram since upgrading to 8 would be way too expensive. (about $700 more)
So I'm concerned that the 4gb of ram will just not be enough for the larger Photoshop files. The wait time for the iMac ATI models is 4-6 weeks and 2-3 weeks for the Mac Pros, which is a really long wait considering I need a computer now. I'm also wondering how big of a speed difference I would be able to feel between the two. I work on a 2x3ghz Dual-Core Intel Xeon Mac Tower at work right now and I don't want to feel like I'm working on a slower computer at home. I have the latest edition of Photoshop CS4 as well. I also do a little video stuff and play the occasional game but most of the time is spent in PS & Illustrator.
Well anyway, thanks in advance for any help!
Jamie
I've been reading as much as possible about this topic and figured I would post a question.
I've been working on towers my entire professional career as a computer illustrator (14 years). I work mostly in Photoshop and Illustrator and a lot of my files can get rather large. Up to 2-3gb at times. I currently have a 30" Cinema Display and a 19" LCD. My tower just decided to "fry"
I was all ready to order a new 8-Core Mac Pro with the 8gb of ram (and then order another 8 from an outside vendor) and the upgraded ATI video card. So at those specs we are talking $3600 before adding the additional 8gb of ram and tax. So I started thinking about an iMac. The 24" 3.06 model and upgrading to the ATI video card as well. It's considerably cheaper! But I'd only want to get the 4gb of ram since upgrading to 8 would be way too expensive. (about $700 more)
So I'm concerned that the 4gb of ram will just not be enough for the larger Photoshop files. The wait time for the iMac ATI models is 4-6 weeks and 2-3 weeks for the Mac Pros, which is a really long wait considering I need a computer now. I'm also wondering how big of a speed difference I would be able to feel between the two. I work on a 2x3ghz Dual-Core Intel Xeon Mac Tower at work right now and I don't want to feel like I'm working on a slower computer at home. I have the latest edition of Photoshop CS4 as well. I also do a little video stuff and play the occasional game but most of the time is spent in PS & Illustrator.
Well anyway, thanks in advance for any help!
Jamie
You know as a PS user that Adobe has the small bottom window on the image window. When efficiency is 100%, all is fine, and you don't need more memory.
Generally, PS needs at least 3 times as much RAM as the largest file you are working on. Plug-ins have their own needs. Then the computer OS takes what is needed for itself.
For a 3 GB file, and 100% efficiency, you would need, to be practical, at least 12 GB RAM.
The problem of banging on your HDD every time PS does an internal save, or change to the file, is considerable if you can't get at least two copies of that file into PS's RAM. So, a minimum of 8 GB is indicated.
Otherwise, the iMac is pretty fast. not as fast as a Nehanem Xeon with 4 cores. But, right now, PS only uses 2 cores properly. But more cores do help as it allows the OS to spend much of its time elsewhere, making the two cores available to PS, possibly speeding the program up by another 15 to 20%.
When CS5 comes out, not only will it be 64 bits, but it should be better able to use more cores. Apple's 10.6 has Grand Central, which makes parallel processing much easier to implement. It also has Open CL which makes the better graphics card another speed booster.
Unless you plan on buying another machine in 18 months or so, the Mac Pro will prove a better investment because of the additional cores and threads, along with the upgradability.
They make these cards for Apple, which is the same as saying that Apple makes them. There are differences in the ROMS, and are not likely to be made on the same assy. lines, at the same time.
Do you know this or is it a guess[1]? Flashing a ROM shouldn't require a different assembly line! and the various companies that make these cards (each with a small slice of the pie, i.e. sales much smaller than the overall market), can customise ROMs (clock frequencies and other added value) just fine keeping competitive pricing. Regarding the flashed cards, as far as I can tell, they function identically to the Apple-labelled cards:
http://www.hardmac.com/articles/78/
And how does this affect the pricing of the ATI cards which are made by ATI. My prices comparison of the 4870 is actually $200 more on Mac, i.e. you could buy 2X4870s for a PC and still have $50 change. Flashing a ROM simply should not cost ATI $200 on top of a $150 card.
The simple fact is that Apple are still lagging behind the PC with GPU technology for Nehalem Mac Pros (old generation NVidia cards or ATI cards with no crossfire), and for the option we do have we get charged more than the price of the card itself in some cases for mystical customisations we can only guesstimate at. With Snow Leopard touting OpenCL so prominantly, it seemed ideal to at least try to catch up with a workstation[1] where its profit margins should allow "the best" to apply to all of its components...
----
[1] Just as for component margins I think we are all speculating here. I do think your speculation regarding graphics cards is not as parsimonious.
[2] Note: I do love my Mac Pro, and if I'm critical it is only because I care!
Do you know this or is it a guess[1]? Flashing a ROM shouldn't require a different assembly line! and the various companies that make these cards (each with a small slice of the pie, i.e. sales much smaller than the overall market), can customise ROMs (clock frequencies and other added value) just fine keeping competitive pricing.
I know this, it's not a guess. I was a manufactures of electronics, and I know how this works. It's not a different manufacturing line. As I said, it's a "pick put". That's when one, or a batch of products, are "picked out" of a production line for special treatment, testing, packaging and whatnot. This increases cost. We also don't know if these cards are being made specifically to Apples specs. They could be in some way.
Regarding the flashed cards, as far as I can tell, they function identically to the Apple-labelled cards:
http://www.hardmac.com/articles/78/
This is amusing, because it shows that many, if not most other cards can't be flashed at all. Also, as they point out, unlike Apple's cards, these can't be used on the older models.
That should show you that they aren't the same. There are small but notable differences.
And how does this affect the pricing of the ATI cards which are made by ATI. My prices comparison of the 4870 is actually $200 more on Mac, i.e. you could buy 2X4870s for a PC and still have $50 change. Flashing a ROM simply should not cost ATI $200 on top of a $150 card.
Made for Apple, with a different ROM, and whatever other minor differences there may be.
You know as a PS user that Adobe has the small bottom window on the image window. When efficiency is 100%, all is fine, and you don't need more memory.
Generally, PS needs at least 3 times as much RAM as the largest file you are working on. Plug-ins have their own needs. Then the computer OS takes what is needed for itself.
For a 3 GB file, and 100% efficiency, you would need, to be practical, at least 12 GB RAM.
The problem of banging on your HDD every time PS does an internal save, or change to the file, is considerable if you can't get at least two copies of that file into PS's RAM. So, a minimum of 8 GB is indicated.
Otherwise, the iMac is pretty fast. not as fast as a Nehanem Xeon with 4 cores. But, right now, PS only uses 2 cores properly. But more cores do help as it allows the OS to spend much of its time elsewhere, making the two cores available to PS, possibly speeding the program up by another 15 to 20%.
When CS5 comes out, not only will it be 64 bits, but it should be better able to use more cores. Apple's 10.6 has Grand Central, which makes parallel processing much easier to implement. It also has Open CL which makes the better graphics card another speed booster.
Unless you plan on buying another machine in 18 months or so, the Mac Pro will prove a better investment because of the additional cores and threads, along with the upgradability.
Thanks for all of the GREAT information! I think I have decided to go with the tower. I've always had them and I just can't see using an iMac for what I do. I was also very concerned about the amount of Ram. I think that was the final straw that sold me on the tower.
Thanks again for your help!
You know as a PS user that Adobe has the small bottom window on the image window. When efficiency is 100%, all is fine, and you don't need more memory.
Generally, PS needs at least 3 times as much RAM as the largest file you are working on. Plug-ins have their own needs. Then the computer OS takes what is needed for itself.
For a 3 GB file, and 100% efficiency, you would need, to be practical, at least 12 GB RAM.
The problem of banging on your HDD every time PS does an internal save, or change to the file, is considerable if you can't get at least two copies of that file into PS's RAM. So, a minimum of 8 GB is indicated.
Otherwise, the iMac is pretty fast. not as fast as a Nehanem Xeon with 4 cores. But, right now, PS only uses 2 cores properly. But more cores do help as it allows the OS to spend much of its time elsewhere, making the two cores available to PS, possibly speeding the program up by another 15 to 20%.
When CS5 comes out, not only will it be 64 bits, but it should be better able to use more cores. Apple's 10.6 has Grand Central, which makes parallel processing much easier to implement. It also has Open CL which makes the better graphics card another speed booster.
Unless you plan on buying another machine in 18 months or so, the Mac Pro will prove a better investment because of the additional cores and threads, along with the upgradability.
Good post!
Thanks for the info...
Apple have obviously seen a lot of people purchasing the base configuration and upgrading it with cheaper third party components. As a result, they have reverted to their old ways of crippling the entry level machine and reserving core features for the 'upper' start configuration. I guess Apple want to make their cut up-front.
It reminds me of the stunts that they pulled with the Power Mac G5.
In the next few years, there are going to be a lot of pro users who require 8GB+ of RAM. With the 1st and 2nd generation of Mac Pros, you were looking at £1,749 for a suitable platform. Today you are looking at £2,499. That's a £750 price hike for a feature that should be a given in a professional Mac.
Are there any technical reasons why Apple couldn't have simply left the second processor socket empty and retained the 32GB ceiling in the entry level machine? If not, I fear the good days are over. I fear that 'Sneaky Apple' is back.
It's clear to see now, in hindsight, that the 1st and 2nd generation Mac Pros were exceptional value for money. In both cases, you were able to purchase a standard configuration which could be upgraded without any false limitations being imposed.
Apple have obviously seen a lot of people purchasing the base configuration and upgrading it with cheaper third party components. As a result, they have reverted to their old ways of crippling the entry level machine and reserving core features for the 'upper' start configuration. I guess Apple want to make their cut up-front.
It reminds me of the stunts that they pulled with the Power Mac G5.
In the next few years, there are going to be a lot of pro users who require 8GB+ of RAM. With the 1st and 2nd generation of Mac Pros, you were looking at £1,749 for a suitable platform. Today you are looking at £2,499. That's a £750 price hike for a feature that should be a given in a professional Mac.
Are there any technical reasons why Apple couldn't have simply left the second processor socket empty and retained the 32GB ceiling in the entry level machine? If not, I fear the good days are over. I fear that 'Sneaky Apple' is back.
Personally, I think the 8gb limit should be 16gb from a technical point of view. I think apple intentionally crippled that part. However, I think there is a 16gb limit per chip. Keep in mind the memory controller is built into these cpus now. And I believe the limit of the memory controller is 16gb, though I couldn't find any urls to back that up. However, it does make sense if you think that running dual quad cores and each quad core has 1 memory controller.... 2x16 = 32gb.
I'm thinking that the new quad mac pros have a real expansion of 16gb, but apple isn't selling the 4gb modules with this machine. It wouldn't be the first time apple said the ram limit is xx while the real limit was something else. OWC is famous for finding and selling ram that will go beyond apple's listed "limit".
I really don't see what was so upgradable on the 1st and 2nd gen mac pros. Sure you could upgrade the cpu's, but it cost an arm and a leg. You'd be better off buying a new machine. Not to mention it is a complete pain in the ass to do so. So I suppose you could put more ram in them. Bigger hard drives. The 1st gen gets burned on getting upgraded GPUs, even though NVidia FINALLY came out with a 1st gen 8800gt. Just doesn't seem that upgradable to me. Not like back in the day with the G4's. You could upgrade anything in those. Great machines for great prices then.
With that cinebench image earlier, I'm definitely getting the 2.66 8 core. It just makes sense. Look how poorly that 2.26 does in comparison to machines 2 revs earlier on a single core render.
I'm reading too many different threads..... here's the image i was referring to.