Updated Mac Pro Benchmarks and Video of Internals

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/14/updated-mac-pro-benchmarks-and-video-of-internals/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/03/14/174642-benchmarks.png
Compiled by Grimace (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7255680&postcount=149)

Since more of the new Mac Pros have been delivered, it seems some of the early benchmarks (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/10/nehalem-mac-pros-arrive-unboxing-and-benchmarks/) underestimated the 2.26GHz Mac Pro's performance in single threaded tasks. The latest numbers show that the new 2.26GHz 8-Core machines appear to have both single-threaded and multi-threaded performance equal to or better than the previous generation 2.8GHz 8-Core machines. Another set of benchmarks are also compiled in this graph (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7255676&postcount=148) by Tesselator.

Meanwhile, Engadget posted (http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/14/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-unboxing-and-hands-on/) a nice video showing the internals of the Mac Pro including the new CPU and Memory drawer which can easily slide out of the chassis.



Article Link: Updated Mac Pro Benchmarks and Video of Internals (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/14/updated-mac-pro-benchmarks-and-video-of-internals/)

[darthraige]

Wow. Now I am extremely happy with my 2.8 8-Core. It was cheaper too. haha

[jayhawk11]

Isn't this how Judgement Day starts? The Mac Pro's become self aware? :D

[fluidedge]

I'm just staggered by the new breed of MPs. I've said it before, but what were Apple thinking!?

[fiercetiger224]

Wow. Now I am extremely happy with my 2.8 8-Core. It was cheaper too. haha

Haha same here. Basically a 2.26 Ghz is equivalent to the last gen 2.8 Ghz Mac Pro. Maybe slightly faster here and there between the two. So it's a toss-up...Who says I wanna pay 500 bucks more for the newer one instead of the older one? :rolleyes:

[BRLawyer]

Wow. Now I am extremely happy with my 2.8 8-Core. It was cheaper too. haha

So, any "pundits" or PC fanboys still saying that the new MPs are more expensive and less of a value than the previous ones? The new MacPros are simply the most powerful personal workstations in the world...there is simply no room for negative comments.

[RAS admin]

Now that's more like it.

[dfs]

What is most striking about these speed tests is what a large amount of computing power is largely going untapped in these computing monsters (in the Mac Pro, the performance gap between single-threading and multi-threading is getting greater all the time). We all hope that Snow Leopard will begin to turn this situation around. But the cynic in me wonders exactly how much difference Snow Leopard is really going to make. Multithreading seems largely a vision concocted by hardware manufacturers, I'm not sure how effective they are at evangelizing software developers. How many developers are going to show any eagerness to get aboard the multithreading train? I'm not holding my breath waiting for a multithreaded MS Office or Adobe CS suite. The result may be that, the better the Mac Pro gets at handling multithreading, the more of a niche product it becomes (gaming, of course, may be a different issue altogether).

[AidenShaw]

The new MacPros are simply the most powerful personal workstations in the world....

For the next week or two, that is....

[fabian9]

wow those heat exchangers are massive! I'm surprised they're passive though, but I haven't looked at any new desktop internals in 2-3 years now so have these been around for long? Less fans = less noise = good stuff. :)

[TheThirdMan]

So this proves that the 2008 entry level (8x2.8) beats the 2009 entry level (4x2.66). So why would anyone upgrade??

[DoFoT9]

quite impressive, was hoping for a bit more but you cant really complain i guess...

[BRLawyer]

So this proves that the 2008 entry level (8x2.8) beats the 2009 entry level (4x2.66). So why would anyone upgrade??

And since when the 2008 entry level was 8-core? There has always been a 4-core option...check your facts before posting, please.

[BTW]

The video of opening the Mac Pro was pretty neat. I love that the system board with the memory and processors can slide out easy. Man those were some big heat sinks.

There's an abundance of space in a Mac Pro. One would believe Apple could downside the beast, or at least offer the option for using 2.5" disks to add more than the 4.

Overall its still a good system. Just desire a smaller brother of a system (not Mac Mini).

[Doc69]

It doesn't make any sense for Apple to release a new Mac Pro model that has the same speed as last years model and is almost 20% more expensive. Because of that, there has to be plenty of advantages with the Nehalem processor that will make it much faster than the previous model when Snow Leopard is out and when other software is updated to take advantage of the Nehalems.

For this reason I'll probably buy a 2.26 over the old 2.8, even if it's $500 more. But I'm as bummed out as anyone that the clock frequency of the core model is only 2.26. If it was 2.66, everyone would probably be very happy, even with the $500 increase. My expectations for the new Mac Pros were that the clock frequencies and price would stay the same, just a new and faster generation of processors. In other words, a 2.66GHz Nehalem Mac Pro for 2799. I guess Intel screwed this one up for Apple with the Nehalem pricing.

[Tallest Skil]

One would believe Apple could downside the beast, or at least offer the option for using 2.5" disks to add more than the 4.

For crying out loud, MAKE IT BIGGER. :eek::confused:

Smaller? What, you want them to cut four more DIMM slots? Maybe take a PCIe slot or ODD out?

They couldn't even fit Tylersburg in the current case. It needs to be bigger.

[Longey Nowze]

Are the new mac pros cheaper turn by consuming less power?

[DoFoT9]

So this proves that the 2008 entry level (8x2.8) beats the 2009 entry level (4x2.66). So why would anyone upgrade??

it doesnt beat it...doesnt it??? :confused:

[twoodcc]

well, i'm glad to see that the 2.26 version isn't as bad as we thought. i would love to have one (but my 1st gen mac pro is still working fine)

[Lesser Evets]

I don't edit major video or render 3D, or play hyped up games, so my old 2.66 is quite fast enough and should be for 4 more years...

... I still lust for the newest Octo-cores.

[Tesselator]

Thanks arn !!!

And Thanks for the video Engadget!!!


Both much appreciated!

[mattcube64]

So, without any bias, what might I be better purchasing if I were to buy this week.

When it comes to the old 2x 2.8 "Octo" versus the new 1x 2.66 "Quad", which is better?

Which would you buy if they were the same price? And which would you buy if the 2.8 was a few hundred cheaper?

I really am curious, but everyone and everything says different.

[rxse7en]

My 2.66 Quaddie is three years old now and for the graphic design work I do it's still blazing. It's really the first Mac that I've owned that hasn't seemed to slow down over the years. I can't imagine the speed of this thing. Anyone else feel that with the advent of the Mac Pro that the Macs have extended their lifespans by at least two more years than they used to last?

[quagmire]

And since when the 2008 entry level was 8-core? There has always been a 4-core option...check your facts before posting, please.

In the last gen the stock MP had 8 cores standard. But, then the option to bump down to 4 cores as optional to make it cheaper.

[Eidorian]

Nice to see some more numbers on the new Mac Pro hardware.

[eeboarder]

Thanks for putting this together, Grimmace. :)

[Flavioparentiq]

2.8 octo vs 2.66 quad?

500$ more, but you have more ram, better graphic card and more hd space in a new interior design. And it is BETTER, slightly but yes, better.

[Master Chief]

I'm not surprised about the benchmark results, and yes I said that it would be fast, but wait for you to see the 3.2GHz results (4500/28500).

[amac4me]

How I'd love to replace my PowerMac G5 with one of the Mac Pro systems :rolleyes:

[m1stake]

These things still have a chance of being an early and extended April Fools joke. :rolleyes:

[hugodrax]

MY legacy 06 box (4x 2.66) shows between 94.32%-97.8% idle and 6886M free of ram.

I guess not yet time to upgrade.

[JoeDMD]

So, without any bias, what might I be better purchasing if I were to buy this week.

When it comes to the old 2x 2.8 "Octo" versus the new 1x 2.66 "Quad", which is better?

Which would you buy if they were the same price? And which would you buy if the 2.8 was a few hundred cheaper?

I really am curious, but everyone and everything says different.

I am leaning heavily toward the Quad 2.93.
I don't do a lot of heavy multi-thread work, just InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator.
Any video work I do is on the personal, consumer level.

For single thread applications, the Quad gives you the best bang for the buck. The 2.93 Quad is 26% faster than the Octo 2.26 and 12% faster than the Octo 2.66.

I understand there are other considerations for Multi-Thread processing, but I don't think that applies to me.

[cameronjpu]

There's an abundance of space in a Mac Pro. One would believe Apple could downside the beast, or at least offer the option for using 2.5" disks to add more than the 4.

Yeah, they should think about getting rid of all that wasted air space and attaching a monitor to the thing. They could call it...

:rolleyes:

[bonaldi]

So, any "pundits" or PC fanboys still saying that the new MPs are more expensive and less of a value than the previous ones? The new MacPros are simply the most powerful personal workstations in the world...there is simply no room for negative comments.

Er ... that's what *everyone* is saying. The 2.26 has performance roughly equal to the previous gen 2.8, but it costs a hell of a lot *more*. Sure, the higher-end machines put out some great specs, but the pricing is like something out of the Quadra days. The 2008 3.2 also looks like a real bargain now too -- for £2400 you can get something that is beaten in performance only by machines costing £3400 or £4700!

You can get two 2.8 2008 Mac Pros for less than the cost of one 2.66 Octo!

How do they justify that? Oh wait, right, Snow Leopard is coming, and it has Grand PixieDust X that will make these machines seem so fast they'll be worth the cost of two of the previous generation. It mysteriously won't give the 2008 models any comparable boost, and don't forget that 40% faster memory (that phrase has to be accompanied by a :D by law, btw) which will also help to compensate for the pitifully low clock speed.

In short: There is *plenty* of room for negative comments. I'm surprised that so few outlets are making them. To offer roughly the same power for more money is ballsy of Apple. It really does remind me of the Quadra days. It's as if as soon as Jobs went on leave the company promptly pretended the past 9 years had never happened. What's next, OpenDoc X?

[Tesselator]

Are the new mac pros cheaper turn by consuming less power?

There's some buzz about that but the CPUs are about the same wattage. The memory in the new ones run a little cheaper. I'm going to guess that there's VERY little difference all total depending on a host of extenuating circumstances. :)

[sneezymarble]

So, any "pundits" or PC fanboys still saying that the new MPs are more expensive and less of a value than the previous ones? The new MacPros are simply the most powerful personal workstations in the world...there is simply no room for negative comments.

I think the new Mac Pros are great. The quad core performance makes me feel better about my year and a half old quad core machine using two year old hardware that I paid $1400 for at the time; including the retail cost of two OSs. :D

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/6067/80773966.jpg

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5512/cinebencha.jpg

[illegallydead]

Isn't this how Judgement Day starts? The Mac Pro's become self aware? :D

hahahahaha :D

Yes, they become self aware, supplant Steve Jobs as CEO, and force the human race to buy new iPods EVERY WEEK! ARRGHGHHH!!!!!

[Pika]

I'm happy for purchasing a 2.26 8-Core Nehalem Mac Pro. :D

[haravikk]

But the cynic in me wonders exactly how much difference Snow Leopard is really going to make. Multithreading seems largely a vision concocted by hardware manufacturers, I'm not sure how effective they are at evangelizing software developers. How many developers are going to show any eagerness to get aboard the multithreading train?
Well the change is hardly going to happen overnight, but as I understand it Grand Central basically lets your app supply it with work-units, which it will then schedule appropriately according to the type of tasks and hardware available, and possibly hints you give it. Most applications could easily be broken up into the concept of tasks, e.g - by event (button-clicks), giving us more responsive GUIs. Web-browsers can allocate downloading and decompressing of images to their own tasks (so processing one image won't interfere with another), image processing apps can sub-dive the image into distinct tasks and so-on. While there are some apps which will be better off ignoring Grand Central because they only ever really need a single-thread for working and one for GUI maybe, there are a great many that could benefit greatly. For some it may even be as simple as just wrapping-up existing chunks of code into the constructs required by Snow Leopard.

The main issue is that there isn't really an easy way to enable Grand Central for those with Snow Leopard, and do something else for those without, unless your programming already implements some kind of threading model that could use Grand Central instead whenever it's available. So either developers will have to make a conscious decision to abandon support for Leopard, and re-write/adjust their app for Snow Leopard. Or have two-versions for a while before eventually dropping one.

[christo747]

In my opinion all apple systems are slowly going the wrong way.
MacBook, MacBook pro, Mini and iMac: more expensive - no real highlights technically. (nobody will get the "8 hour" battery to last 8 hours at home actually doing something), only glossy screens, no blue ray, imac 24 entry model 1500 bucks, no graphics card, no possibility of upgrading. Upgrade the mini and it's 1100 bucks without a keyboard!

And now the mac pro: Crippled 4-core, super expensive 8-cores and even if the 2.26 is a little faster than the octo 2.8. It should be much faster because it is much more expensive.
Everybody who says "oh, it's got more ram, better graphics" is wrong. All the parts get cheaper in one years time, so the price should not have gone up!
Apple just wants to make money.

The pity is, I have to buy a mac for reasons like software that I already own and apple knows that.

[Grimace]

quite impressive, was hoping for a bit more but you cant really complain i guess...

Great graph! :)

[Tallest Skil]

And now the mac pro: Crippled 4-core, super expensive 8-cores and even if the 2.26 is a little faster than the octo 2.8. It should be much faster because it is much more expensive.

It doesn't exactly work like that.

Everybody who says "oh, it's got more ram, better graphics" is wrong. All the parts get cheaper in one years time, so the price should not have gone up!
Apple just wants to make money.

Except that DDR3 is more expensive than DDR2.

[iBug2]

It doesn't exactly work like that.



Except that DDR3 is more expensive than DDR2.

No it's not. Only 4 GB DIMM's are very expensive for DDR3. 2 GB's are cheaper than DDR2.

[AidenShaw]

Except that DDR3 is more expensive than DDR2.

The 5400-series Mac Pro used FB-DIMMs, which is more expensive than DDR3 in the 5500-series and 3500-series for up to 16 GiB in the 5500.

[Burger Thing]

In my opinion all apple systems are slowly going the wrong way.
MacBook, MacBook pro, Mini and iMac: more expensive - no real highlights technically. (nobody will get the "8 hour" battery to last 8 hours at home actually doing something), only glossy screens, no blue ray, imac 24 entry model 1500 bucks, no graphics card, no possibility of upgrading. Upgrade the mini and it's 1100 bucks without a keyboard!

And now the mac pro: Crippled 4-core, super expensive 8-cores and even if the 2.26 is a little faster than the octo 2.8. It should be much faster because it is much more expensive.
Everybody who says "oh, it's got more ram, better graphics" is wrong. All the parts get cheaper in one years time, so the price should not have gone up!
Apple just wants to make money.

The pity is, I have to buy a mac for reasons like software that I already own and apple knows that.

Amen to that!

[numbersyx]

There have been a lot of negative comment on these updates. I was going to get the low end octa until I saw the speed/price combination. Now I'm set to wait maybe another year....

Let's see how sales go though. One thing Apple will respond to....

[Tallest Skil]

The 5400-series Mac Pro used FB-DIMMs, which is more expensive than DDR3 in the 5500-series and 3500-series.

ARE FB-DIMMs still more expensive?! :eek:

My mistake, then, I guess.

[8CoreWhore]

I'm still building a Hackintosh. :cool:

[AidenShaw]

ARE FB-DIMMs still more expensive?! :eek:

My mistake, then, I guess.

Crucial shows $65 for a 2 GiB FB-DIMM for a 5400, and $50 for a 2 GiB DDR3 for a 5500.

Not as bad as they once were, but still not as mainstream as DDR3.

[AidenShaw]

Please note that this report describes only one set of tests using one program.

Unless you are running Cinebench, and using scripts similar to those in the bench, this information may be very misleading.

It would be foolish to make purchasing decisions based on this limited report.

Look at more benchmarks, like the ones at BareFeats http://www.barefeats.com/nehal04.html.

[dmw007]

Nice to see some additional benchmarks. :)

[BWhaler]

WOW. Those are scary fast specs. I wish I needed hardware like that.

Anyone know how quiet they are? I used to own a G5 PowerMac, and it was beyond noisy.

Are the new ones silent?

[MadisonTate]

Er ... that's what *everyone* is saying. The 2.26 has performance roughly equal to the previous gen 2.8, but it costs a hell of a lot *more*. Sure, the higher-end machines put out some great specs, but the pricing is like something out of the Quadra days. The 2008 3.2 also looks like a real bargain now too -- for £2400 you can get something that is beaten in performance only by machines costing £3400 or £4700!

You can get two 2.8 2008 Mac Pros for less than the cost of one 2.66 Octo!

How do they justify that? Oh wait, right, Snow Leopard is coming, and it has Grand PixieDust X that will make these machines seem so fast they'll be worth the cost of two of the previous generation. It mysteriously won't give the 2008 models any comparable boost, and don't forget that 40% faster memory (that phrase has to be accompanied by a :D by law, btw) which will also help to compensate for the pitifully low clock speed.

In short: There is *plenty* of room for negative comments. I'm surprised that so few outlets are making them. To offer roughly the same power for more money is ballsy of Apple. It really does remind me of the Quadra days. It's as if as soon as Jobs went on leave the company promptly pretended the past 9 years had never happened. What's next, OpenDoc X?

*sigh* I'm utterly amazed. Has anyone bothered to take a look at the i7 on Windows benchmarks? Maybe, just maybe, the Windows performance will give you some idea about the Nehalem performance on OS X once Apple has released Snow Leopard. NONE of the benchmarks you're running are using the hyper-threading features of the Nehalem. That's where it shines.

How do I know that? Because IT SHOWS IN WINDOWS BENCHMARKS. ****ARRRRGHHHHHH****

[zorinlynx]

Am I the only one who thinks that second hand Mac Pros are starting to become very good deals?

With the new release, used 2006 Mac Pros are bound to come down further in price and there's now a good number of video card options for them that are faster than the original offerings.

I just can't see it being worth $2500 for entry-level. The previous entry level Mac Pro was a couple hundred dollars less. Why in the heck has the price gone *up*?

[MegaSignal]

My 2.66 Quaddie is three years old now and for the graphic design work I do it's still blazing. It's really the first Mac that I've owned that hasn't seemed to slow down over the years. I can't imagine the speed of this thing. Anyone else feel that with the advent of the Mac Pro that the Macs have extended their lifespans by at least two more years than they used to last?

I've got the same machine and agree with you - it's still just as fast as it was the day I switched it on.

[MegaSignal]

wow those heat exchangers are massive! I'm surprised they're passive though, but I haven't looked at any new desktop internals in 2-3 years now so have these been around for long? Less fans = less noise = good stuff. :)

I don't think they're passive - the fins are aligned the wrong way for passive heat removal. In addition, if you look carefully inside the case after these are removed, you'll see fans in the case itself.

Since going to the Intel chips, the machines have been considerably quieter in my experience.

[awulf]

Ran CineBench R10 on my i7 920 Hackintosh, and its about the same as the Mac Pro Quad 2.66.

Hackintosh: AU$1,773.00 including OS X Retail.
Mac Pro: AU$4,499.00.

Result:

[winterspan]

So, any "pundits" or PC fanboys still saying that the new MPs are more expensive and less of a value than the previous ones? The new MacPros are simply the most powerful personal workstations in the world...there is simply no room for negative comments.

"No room for negative comments"

Wow.. you are the type of Mac fanboy that makes everyone look bad.

Although the Mac Pro is an EXCELLENT machine, lets look at the numbers. The new Nehalem/5500 Xeons have nearly the same tray price as their older Penryn/5400 Xeon counterparts. (in fact, the 2.26 and 2.66 are CHEAPER than the older 2.8 and 3.0), yet the cost for a dual-CPU Mac Pro has greatly increased across the whole CPU range.

The idea that they are still a good value despite the price increase because the processors perform faster is ludicrous! That goes against the whole history of the PC market whereby over time costs decrease while performance increases.

[DanTheMan]

Ran CineBench R10 on my i7 920 Hackintosh, and its about the same as the Mac Pro Quad 2.66.

Hackintosh: AU$1,773.00 including OS X Retail.
Mac Pro: AU$4,499.00.

Result:

Nice, what are the specs of your Hackintosh? (Chassis, memory, video card, etc.)

[awulf]

Nice, what are the specs of your Hackintosh? (Chassis, memory, video card, etc.)

Here is the PDF of my system (prices shown in AU$):

[vvebsta]

Dang these things look amazing... I love the slideout ram.

I have a 8 Core 3.0Ghz with 6GBs ram, and my girlfriend is always complaining that its slower than her wimpy old dell. Like it takes forever to open microsoft word and powerpoint etc. Does anyone know how I could speed it up basic processes? Other than wait for snow leopard?

[Eidorian]

Dang these things look amazing... I love the slideout ram.

I have a 8 Core 3.0Ghz with 6GBs ram, and my girlfriend is always complaining that its slower than her wimpy old dell. Like it takes forever to open microsoft word and powerpoint etc. Does anyone know how I could speed it up basic processes? Other than wait for snow leopard?Which version of Office? For both operating systems as well.

Office 2000/XP is lightning over on Windows.

[junior]

Here is the PDF of my system:

How many PCIe slots have you got in there?

[awulf]

How many PCIe slots have you got in there?

Expansion Slots
1 x PCI Express x16 slot, running at x16 (PCIEX16_1) (Note 2)
2 x PCI Express x8 slots, running at x8 (PCIEX8_1, PCIEX8_2) (The PCIEX16_1, PCIEX8_1 and PCIEX8_2 slots conform to PCI Express 2.0 standard.)
1 x PCI Express x4 slot
1 x PCI Express x1 slot
2 x PCI slots

[badNameErr]

Expansion Slots
1 x PCI Express x16 slot, running at x16 (PCIEX16_1) (Note 2)
2 x PCI Express x8 slots, running at x8 (PCIEX8_1, PCIEX8_2) (The PCIEX16_1, PCIEX8_1 and PCIEX8_2 slots conform to PCI Express 2.0 standard.)
1 x PCI Express x4 slot
1 x PCI Express x1 slot
2 x PCI slots

Thanks for posting your specs.

Was there anything particularly difficult about getting OSX running on it?

I'm considering this myself.

[bilbo--baggins]

Wow - so glad I bought last year.

If I were buying today I wouldn't want the Quad and I couldn't afford the 8-core.

The Quad core model is basically the xMac people have been asking for, but in a full size casing and with an oversized price tag.

They're basically pricing the Mac Pro beyond my reach. I put 8Gb of RAM in my Mac Pro a year ago, and it's been about right (and there is still plenty of room for expansion). There is NO WAY I would buy one today with a maximum of 8GB.

[awulf]

Thanks for posting your specs.

Was there anything particularly difficult about getting OSX running on it?

I'm considering this myself.

I followed the 2nd Guide here:
http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=149505&st=160&p=1082237&#entry1082237
It did take a bit of time to get working, but everything works.

Also soon EFI-X http://www.efi-x.com/ should support this motherboard, which would make installing OS X as straight forward as installing on an Apple Mac.

[OS X Dude]

I think a refurb '08 Octo 3.2 would be the best compromise between power and price in these economic times.... the one i'd go for if i was in the market for one of these.

Then I'd stick the ATi 4870 in it :)

[PCMacUser]

Dang these things look amazing... I love the slideout ram.

I have a 8 Core 3.0Ghz with 6GBs ram, and my girlfriend is always complaining that its slower than her wimpy old dell. Like it takes forever to open microsoft word and powerpoint etc. Does anyone know how I could speed it up basic processes? Other than wait for snow leopard?

Just use bootcamp and XP instead of OS X ;)

[fabian9]

I don't think they're passive - the fins are aligned the wrong way for passive heat removal. In addition, if you look carefully inside the case after these are removed, you'll see fans in the case itself.

Since going to the Intel chips, the machines have been considerably quieter in my experience.

surely not having a dedicated fan mounted on them is what makes them passive? :p

By the way, the most industrial heat exchangers are arranged this way, a lot of thermally conductive plates stacked with a cooling fluid (in this case air) being drawn through it.

[Tesselator]

Expansion Slots
1 x PCI Express x16 slot, running at x16 (PCIEX16_1) (Note 2)
2 x PCI Express x8 slots, running at x8 (PCIEX8_1, PCIEX8_2) (The PCIEX16_1, PCIEX8_1 and PCIEX8_2 slots conform to PCI Express 2.0 standard.)
1 x PCI Express x4 slot
1 x PCI Express x1 slot
2 x PCI slots

Nice! Here's what the Mac Pro has:

Three open full-length PCI Express 2.0 expansion slots with mechanical support for 16-lane cards; 300W combined maximum for all PCI Express slots.

1 x PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot
2 x PCI Express 2.0 x4 slots

PCI Express slots are not compatible with PCI or PCI-X expansion cards.

[123]

It did take a bit of time to get working, but everything works.


Sleep/wake up/poweroff working? I heard people were having kernel panics with the EX58-UD5 and 10.5.6.

[123]

Nice! Here's what the Mac Pro has:
1 x PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot
2 x PCI Express 2.0 x4 slots


You forgot the x16 slot for the graphics card.

[awulf]

Sleep/wake up/poweroff working? I heard people were having kernel panics with the EX58-UD5 and 10.5.6.

No problems here, it goes to sleep and wakes up instantly like on my MacBook Pro, that includes all fans turning off.

[Neodym]

Why is everyone so excited about the slide-out tray for mounting Ram? It's nothing new. Already the 1st gen MacPro had a similar system, where you could slide out two PCB's individually, each with 4 Ram slots to be filled outside the housing.

Did Apple remove that slide-out functionality in later revisions (until now)?

[haravikk]

Why is everyone so excited about the slide-out tray for mounting Ram? It's nothing new. Already the 1st gen MacPro had a similar system, where you could slide out two PCB's individually, each with 4 Ram slots to be filled outside the housing.

Did Apple remove that slide-out functionality in later revisions (until now)?
Nope, installing RAM in my Early 2008 Mac Pro was dead-easy. The tray is an interesting twist on it as I guess it might be a bit easier, but it's not exactly a revolution. I'm more interested in why they opted for such huge heatsinks, why not liquid cooling? They could have saved a ton of space for a couple more PCI slots, or another row of hard-drives (8 internal drives would have been SWEET).

On which note, anyone know if the two bonus internal SATA ports are still there? THe previous Mac Pros had four for each of the hard-drive bays, plus two tucked away behind the fan (data connections only), they still there?

[drsmithy]

Here is the PDF of my system:

You might want to explicitly note that the prices are in AU$.

US readers can probably halve them for local equivalents.

[drsmithy]

Why is everyone so excited about the slide-out tray for mounting Ram? It's nothing new. Already the 1st gen MacPro had a similar system, where you could slide out two PCB's individually, each with 4 Ram slots to be filled outside the housing.


More importantly, do you really upgrade RAM often enough for it to matter ?

[OllyW]

I'm more interested in why they opted for such huge heatsinks, why not liquid cooling? They could have saved a ton of space for a couple more PCI slots, or another row of hard-drives (8 internal drives would have been SWEET).

After all the problems with the G5 Power Macs (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/G5_coolant_leaks.html), I don't think Apple are in any rush to use liquid cooling again.

[mbene12]

While the prices are pretty steep, i have shopped the "competition" and I guess they are in line for the higher end systems. The lower end seems completely out of whack though. I cant see the iMac not being a better fit for the money.

A pretty well loaded 8x2.9 with 12gb ram Mac Pro with a 30" display is running around $8500. A similarly equipped Dell (using the older 8x3.2 config as they dont have the new xeons) runs $9400. Of course you dont get the 30" display as they dont offer one, but you can get MUCH better graphics card options.

Still I dont know how will be shelling out near $10k for these things. I had a pretty nice budget for computers at work and I still raised some eyebrows with my $6500 8x2.8 Mac Pro.

[Taipan]

On which note, anyone know if the two bonus internal SATA ports are still there? THe previous Mac Pros had four for each of the hard-drive bays, plus two tucked away behind the fan (data connections only), they still there?

Here's what WonderSausage said:
There are only 2 SATA ports remaining and they lead to the optical drive bay. if you use only one optical drive, you could connect the second port to an eSATA adapter but the port is at the very front of the case so you'll need at least an 18" cable.

[fabriciom]

Expansion Slots
1 x PCI Express x16 slot, running at x16 (PCIEX16_1) (Note 2)
2 x PCI Express x8 slots, running at x8 (PCIEX8_1, PCIEX8_2) (The PCIEX16_1, PCIEX8_1 and PCIEX8_2 slots conform to PCI Express 2.0 standard.)
1 x PCI Express x4 slot
1 x PCI Express x1 slot
2 x PCI slots

Can I stick a PCI x4 card in an x8 slot?

[drsmithy]

Can I stick a PCI x4 card in an x8 slot?

Yes.

You can even put a x8 card into a x4 slot, as long as the slot is open-ended (obviously it will only run at x4 speeds - although very few expansion cards need more than that anyway).

[Stoobs]

Looking at those results, I'm glad I plumped for the older 8x2.8 machine, not only is it cheaper by a considerable margin, it's not too far behind in benchmarks of the new 8x2.26 machine.

New 4x2.66 = £1900, New 8x2.26 = £2500

My New 8x2.8 = £1550.

I then upgraded to 8GB RAM, and an 8800GT, which only cost £250, bringing the total to £1800, as I already have a 1TB HDD to add in from my old PC.

I'll run cinebench on my system to get some performance numbers from it, but for me the new Mac Pros just don't offer good value for money. :(

I do understand that the value of sterling has dropped, but not all that much against the dollar (1.395 at the moment, and it has been down to the 1.40ish mark before..), and the component costs are actually cheaper for the new Macs (read any number of existing threads for that - I don't need to post all the numbers yet again..), so I don't understand the massive price-hike..

[TheThirdMan]

And since when the 2008 entry level was 8-core? There has always been a 4-core option...check your facts before posting, please.

Don't be silly. You know that for the same price in the 2008 range you could get an dual cpu. For the same price, you're getting less performance with the new mac pros.

[Bigdaddyguido]

So for months now, people have been saying that you wont notice a dramatic increase in speed with the new nehalem machines running old software. Its been repeated on every site, numerous times that the clock speeds wouldn't improve substantially and so initially the improvements would be lost in the woods.

However, the new cores are scalable, have a vastly better system for organizing and feeding cached memory to the processors, and finally have dropped that ******** old school style of a system bus. Snow leopard comes out in a short order, and suddenly, these core i7s are gonna look drastically different than your old santa rosa's and such.

Everyone was whining like crazy when these machines didn't come out in January, even though the chips weren't even close to existing. Now apple manages to release the computers a few weeks before the chips are available, and yet all everyone is gonna do is ignore ALL THE NEWS that has been released by respectable sites (Ars, macrumors, appleinsider, etc.) about nehalem over the last year???

Plus they added new video cards, which are substantially better, and when snow leopard hits they will be able to push a lot more than triangles.

Shut up and wait for snow leopard. Its not like these new machines fit any definition of slow (unless maybe you time traveled here from 2015).

[dmw007]

WOW. Those are scary fast specs. I wish I needed hardware like that.

Anyone know how quiet they are? I used to own a G5 PowerMac, and it was beyond noisy.

Are the new ones silent?

My new Mac Pro (8 core 2.26 GHz) is pretty quiet in my opinion. Having owned a 2.3 GHz DP Power Mac G5, a 2.5 GHz DP Power Mac G5, and a 2.5 GHz Power Mac G5 Quad, the Mac Pro seems to be the quietest machine out of the bunch. :)

The 2.3 GHz DP G5 was also fairly quiet. The liquid cooled G5's (especially the DP 2.5) sounded like a Boeing 747 at times. :D

[Flavioparentiq]

So for months now, people have been saying that you wont notice a dramatic increase in speed with the new nehalem machines running old software. Its been repeated on every site, numerous times that the clock speeds wouldn't improve substantially and so initially the improvements would be lost in the woods.

However, the new cores are scalable, have a vastly better system for organizing and feeding cached memory to the processors, and finally have dropped that ******** old school style of a system bus. Snow leopard comes out in a short order, and suddenly, these core i7s are gonna look drastically different than your old santa rosa's and such.

Everyone was whining like crazy when these machines didn't come out in January, even though the chips weren't even close to existing. Now apple manages to release the computers a few weeks before the chips are available, and yet all everyone is gonna do is ignore ALL THE NEWS that has been released by respectable sites (Ars, macrumors, appleinsider, etc.) about nehalem over the last year???

Plus they added new video cards, which are substantially better, and when snow leopard hits they will be able to push a lot more than triangles.

Shut up and wait for snow leopard. Its not like these new machines fit any definition of slow (unless maybe you time traveled here from 2015).

Amen.

I totally agree with you.

It's incredible how many whiners there are. Your 2.8 octo early 2008 system is old? That's ok, every system gets old, even the new nehalem will. It's useless to force yourself thinking that the old beats the best. It doesn't, and in few month we will all understand why. The new system is expensive and yours isn't? Maybe there is a reason somewhere... And if you are happy with your system... Perfect! There is no use on blaming the other systems around or whining about apple strategy! You can change whenever you want. Try xp, vista or a linux release (ubuntu is maybe the best for ex osx users), maybe you'll be happy, or maybe you wont' and you'll be pleased to pay more bucks for an os/hardware that most of us find the best in many aspects.

At last, but not least, it's uselss to be anxious about your performances compared to newer systems. There will always be a bigger dick around. Sitck with yours and learn how to use it :D

[Glideslope]

Amen.

I totally agree with you.

It's incredible how many whiners there are. Your 2.8 octo early 2008 system is old? That's ok, every system gets old, even the new nehalem will. It's useless to force yourself thinking that the old beats the best. It doesn't, and in few month we will all understand why. The new system is expensive and yours isn't? Maybe there is a reason somewhere... And if you are happy with your system... Perfect! There is no use on blaming the other systems around or whining about apple strategy! You can change whenever you want. Try xp, vista or a linux release (ubuntu is maybe the best for ex osx users), maybe you'll be happy, or maybe you wont' and you'll be pleased to pay more bucks for an os/hardware that most of us find the best in many aspects.

At last, but not least, it's uselss to be anxious about your performances compared to newer systems. There will always be a bigger dick around. Sitck with yours and learn how to use it :D


Ah, thank you. I've be waiting for a chance to post in this jackass thread.
Everyone else, wait for Snow Leopard, and chill.

[eeboarder]

Please note that this report describes only one set of tests using one program.

Unless you are running Cinebench, and using scripts similar to those in the bench, this information may be very misleading.

It would be foolish to make purchasing decisions based on this limited report.

Look at more benchmarks, like the ones at BareFeats http://www.barefeats.com/nehal04.html.

Your statement is very true.

[xbjllb]

No Blu-ray, no sale.

:apple:

[mark88]

I know they're MEGA expensive but the internals are a work of art.

[Flavioparentiq]

No Blu-ray, no sale.

:apple:

http://www.mcetech.com/blu-ray/

[JasonUKBristol]

http://www.mcetech.com/blu-ray/

Thanks for that link. That looks interesting. I guess if apple brought out a blue ray player later on then it would be compatible with these new macs. Anyway I don't think the new mac screens are HD.

[Umbongo]

So for months now, people have been saying that you wont notice a dramatic increase in speed with the new nehalem machines running old software. Its been repeated on every site, numerous times that the clock speeds wouldn't improve substantially and so initially the improvements would be lost in the woods.

Shut up and wait for snow leopard. Its not like these new machines fit any definition of slow (unless maybe you time traveled here from 2015).

People aren't complaing because these systems are "slow. They are good, high performance systems. People are complaining because the "value" of the Mac Pro has changed.

That is because Apple have gone from a base system with two high-end Xeons to two midrange server Xeons or the option of a single socket cheap Xeon. I'm sure if Apple had gone for high pricing all along things would be different, but they didn't they went from great value for the components you got to effectivly paying a $1,000-$1500 premium for a Mac.

[cheesymogul]

So, without any bias, what might I be better purchasing if I were to buy this week.

When it comes to the old 2x 2.8 "Octo" versus the new 1x 2.66 "Quad", which is better?

Which would you buy if they were the same price? And which would you buy if the 2.8 was a few hundred cheaper?

I really am curious, but everyone and everything says different.
A graphic designer colleague of mine was in the exact same situation and asked me for advise.
A Photoshop CS3 test with my 2008 2.8 Ghz octo showed that many filters simultaneously use all 8 cores to a much higher extend than we expected.
Because she is looking for the long run and planning to use her machine for 6-8 years, she finally bought the octo with 4 GB RAM.
Although it did cost 200$ more than the new quad with 3 GB, we think it is still the better deal.
The true dealbreaker was the 8 GB memory limitation on the new quad.
Adobe CS5 and 6 probably will be needing at least 8 GB to run smoothly.

[manu chao]

Dang these things look amazing... I love the slideout ram.

I have a 8 Core 3.0Ghz with 6GBs ram, and my girlfriend is always complaining that its slower than her wimpy old dell. Like it takes forever to open microsoft word and powerpoint etc. Does anyone know how I could speed it up basic processes? Other than wait for snow leopard?
Opening applications is mainly limited to disk speed. Try a faster boot drive (or more specifically a faster drive for your applications). Either a 10000 rpm drive, a RAID (0 or other striped variants) or a SSD.

[TheThirdMan]

Shut up and wait for snow leopard. Its not like these new machines fit any definition of slow (unless maybe you time traveled here from 2015).

I don't get why people think snow leopard will be the second coming of christ. It may be good, but it won't improve performance to the degree that many people seem to think. There's not been any evidence of any software techology to increase speeds as dramatically as many people here seem to think, and i doubt apple have found some great secret and are waiting for snow leopard to uncover it to the world. And why does everyone think snow leopard is made for i7!? The performace increase should be linear for all multi core processors. I doubt i7's increase would be much more than regular core 2 processors.

[AZREOSpecialist]

There have been a lot of negative comment on these updates. I was going to get the low end octa until I saw the speed/price combination. Now I'm set to wait maybe another year....

Let's see how sales go though. One thing Apple will respond to....

Does anyone read the news? (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/11/apple_ups_mac_build_plans_on_strong_reception_to_new_desktops.html) It would appear that the newest Mac announcements have met with great success and increased sales. It appears that all of this whining is actually translating into increased sales for Apple.

These new machines are great, but if Snow Leopard isn't coming out until the summer or fall, won't we have higher clock speed Mac Pros by then? Those who are holding out that Snow Leopard will give them a big boost may wish to see what hardware is available at the time Snow Leopard is introduced instead of buying now. Just my opinion.

[Jpoon]

Snow Leapord can do whatever it wants. In the end, software developers are going to be on the line to actually make software that utilizes multi-core processors.

I have no clue why everyone believes Snow Leapord is going to fix this, unless Apple has found some way to make the OS govern how an application uses system resources.

[eeboarder]

Opening applications is mainly limited to disk speed. Try a faster boot drive (or more specifically a faster drive for your applications). Either a 10000 rpm drive, a RAID (0 or other striped variants) or a SSD.

This'll help!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136033

Especially if you put it in a striped RAID.

[Eidorian]

I don't get why people think snow leopard will be the second coming of christ. It may be good, but it won't improve performance to the degree that many people seem to think. There's not been any evidence of any software techology to increase speeds as dramatically as many people here seem to think, and i doubt apple have found some great secret and are waiting for snow leopard to uncover it to the world. And why does everyone think snow leopard is made for i7!? The performace increase should be linear for all multi core processors. I doubt i7's increase would be much more than regular core 2 processors.

Snow Leapord can do whatever it wants. In the end, software developers are going to be on the line to actually make software that utilizes multi-core processors.

I have no clue why everyone believes Snow Leapord is going to fix this, unless Apple has found some way to make the OS govern how an application uses system resources.I wonder where users are getting this as well.

Every time new hardware comes out someone asks if it'll run Snow Leopard or if it'll run it better than the previous hardware. OpenCL gets tossed around as well. I haven't seen it be nothing more than a nice sticker to slap on just like CUDA/PhysX and ATI Stream.

I have hopes for the new operating system but not until it's actually shipped and tested. We've seen plenty of WWDC/MacWorld demos that never evolve beyond that or a gimmick.

[AZREOSpecialist]

"No room for negative comments"

Wow.. you are the type of Mac fanboy that makes everyone look bad.

Although the Mac Pro is an EXCELLENT machine, lets look at the numbers. The new Nehalem/5500 Xeons have nearly the same tray price as their older Penryn/5400 Xeon counterparts. (in fact, the 2.26 and 2.66 are CHEAPER than the older 2.8 and 3.0), yet the cost for a dual-CPU Mac Pro has greatly increased across the whole CPU range.

The idea that they are still a good value despite the price increase because the processors perform faster is ludicrous! That goes against the whole history of the PC market whereby over time costs decrease while performance increases.

So... we are assuming the Mac Pros are "overpriced" because today's low-end Mac Pro offers about the same performance as last year's mid-level Mac Pro for $500 more?

The only valid basis of comparison for pricing of the Mac Pro is to compare it to machines using identical processors and subsystems from folks such as Dell and HP. Only then can you assess whether the Mac Pro is "overpriced" or not. You have to compare the Mac Pro to its mainstream competition, not to previous Mac Pro price history. Obviously the Nehalem architecture has changed things a little bit in terms of pricing. We assume that we know the whole story, but we don't.

Do Dell and HP have Nehalem yet? If so, what are their prices? If not, shouldn't we wait for the competition to at least CATCH UP before condemning the Mac Pro? :)

[AZREOSpecialist]

No Blu-ray, no sale.

:apple:

You can't add a third-party Blu-Ray drive to a Mac Pro? Huh?

I just did a quick Google search and found a $449 La Cie external Blu-Ray drive. You'd rather hold off on buying a Mac Pro until there is a BTO option for Blu-Ray rather than get one now and buy a third party drive?

You make absolutely no sense my friend. You're obviously not someone who has a need for a machine like this, with that kind of attitude, so you shouldn't even be looking at a Mac Pro. Cut off your nose to spite your face.

[Macmoney]

Thanks for that link. That looks interesting. I guess if apple brought out a blue ray player later on then it would be compatible with these new macs. Anyway I don't think the new mac screens are HD.

why not just download HD content from i-tunes store

[AidenShaw]

why not just download HD content from i-tunes store

5 mbps vs 50 mbps - do the math. ;)

[VoR]

...
OpenCL gets tossed around as well. I haven't seen it be nothing more than a nice sticker to slap on just like CUDA/PhysX and ATI Stream.

Very true.
Also, I found it strange (not really ;) that the new h264 decoding improvements on newer macs/drivers are using opengl (like all those gsoc projects) and not opencl or any 'full' gpu solution. Ignoring the cpu, I'm not sure people understand that the gpu isn't another cpu and the g doesn't stand for general :) Even if it was, there's some serious drawbacks to sending data back and forth to the gpu.

[Tallest Skil]

No Blu-ray, no sale.

:apple:

Just don't buy a Mac. You'll complain with or without Blu-ray.

[pohl]

I wonder where users are getting this as well.

I'm going to hazard a guess: it comes from Apple's penchant for secrecy. Technologies like Grand Central (and, until the spec was relased, OpenCL) were painted with only the broadest of brush strokes. This created a void that fans fill with optimistic imagination. This, in turn, creates a wave of hype that benefits Apple, but for which they are not responsible. As soon as SL is released and we discover that these things don't magically parallelize serial applications, the amateur hype volunteers will do a 180 with cries of "[citation needed]" whenever an Apple detractor says that Apple promised that they would.

Lather, rinse, repeat. :p

[AZREOSpecialist]

... and don't forget that 40% faster memory (that phrase has to be accompanied by a :D by law, btw) which will also help to compensate for the pitifully low clock speed ...

All of the Mac Pros have Turbo Boost which increases clock speeds by 10-15% as dictated by workload. How does today's top-end Mac Pro at 3.3 GHz qualify as a "pitifully low clock speed" if, clock cycle for clock cycle, offers significant performance benefits over the last generation? Does the competition offer faster clock speed Nehalems? What is your basis for this assertion?

Wah wah wah

[Tallest Skil]

...optimistic... ...Apple...

If the desktop update didn't prove to them that this is the wrong course of action, they are beyond hope at this point.

[DELLsFan]

Wow ... I just pretend-configured a quad-core with one, 1 TB HD and the ATI Radeon HD 4870, no display, along with the Apple Care. That demon costs $3227 before tax!

It's such a beautiful design ... I kinda wish I hadn't pimped out my DELL XPS 1710 a while ago. :D I'd have saved money and been far happier with the Mac Pro and a Mac Book!

:apple:

BTW, sorry if this was already mentioned, but what is the difference between the ATI HD 4870 and the nVidia GT 120 - besides price?

[eeboarder]

why not just download HD content from i-tunes store

Just because it is an "HD" download doesn't mean it is even close to comparable with BD. The quality difference is big.

[Umbongo]

Wow ... I just pretend-configured a quad-core with one, 1 TB HD and the ATI Radeon HD 4870, no display, along with the Apple Care. That demon costs $3227 before tax!

It's such a beautiful design ... I kinda wish I hadn't pimped out my DELL XPS 1710 a while ago. :D I'd have saved money and been far happier with the Mac Pro and a Mac Book!

:apple:

BTW, sorry if this was already mentioned, but what is the difference between the ATI HD 4870 and the nVidia GT 120 - besides price?

The 4870 is a far more powerful card.

[pohl]

The 4870 is a far more powerful card.

...both in terms of performance and how much juice it sucks down and how much waste heat needs dissipation. As with everything: tradeoffs.

[Eidorian]

I'm going to hazard a guess: it comes from Apple's penchant for secrecy. Technologies like Grand Central (and, until the spec was relased, OpenCL) were painted with only the broadest of brush strokes. This created a void that fans fill with optimistic imagination. This, in turn, creates a wave of hype that benefits Apple, but for which they are not responsible. As soon as SL is released and we discover that these things don't magically parallelize serial applications, the amateur hype volunteers will do a 180 with cries of "[citation needed]" whenever an Apple detractor says that Apple promised that they would.

Lather, rinse, repeat. :pRight, when we're getting this much news from developer seeds and Apple is more than happy to show off their operating system at MacWorld/WWDC, etc.

Software isn't the profit maker for Apple either.

[pohl]

Right, when we're getting this much news from developer seeds and Apple is more than happy to show off their operating system at MacWorld/WWDC, etc.

[citation needed] ;) I thought the recipients of the seeds and those who saw Grand Central at WWDC were still under NDA. Since I wasn't among them, all I have is the broad brush strokes. I'd love to hear of any leaked details, though.

[Eidorian]

[citation needed] ;) I thought the recipients of the seeds and those who saw Grand Central at WWDC were still under NDA. Since I wasn't among them, all I have is the broad brush strokes. I'd love to hear of any leaked details, though.Keep in mind I did say "this much news from developer seeds".

I never said anything about NDAs being broken or that we're getting everything. Nice try though.

[mrod]

The most interesting thing about the new MacPro is the CPU tray.

It's an excellent idea, not only for Apple, which will allow them to build a standard chassis and then merely slot in the requisite CPU tray on the production line (It also allows them to change the CPU architecture without having to re-engineer the chassis).

It also gives the possibility that in future Apple may sell CPU trays as an after-market upgrade.

For those disputing the cost of the memory. Remember, this is not your bog-standard DDR3 memory, it's got error correction/detection. This stuff is server grade and costs an arm and a leg.

[pohl]

Keep in mind I did say "this much news from developer seeds".

I guess I'm still not clear on how much is "this much"; I can't tell if you're expressing agreement or disagreement. For what it's worth, I confess that I'm among the optimists that I'm making fun of a few posts ago.

[diamond.g]

why not just download HD content from i-tunes store

Can only get the movies in HD if you do it from an AppleTV. AFAIK even then it is only renting, not owning.

[Scottsdale]

Amen.

I totally agree with you.

It's incredible how many whiners there are.

At last, but not least, it's uselss to be anxious about your performances compared to newer systems. There will always be a bigger dick around. Sitck with yours and learn how to use it :D

LMAO!!!

So true...

[commander.data]

So... we are assuming the Mac Pros are "overpriced" because today's low-end Mac Pro offers about the same performance as last year's mid-level Mac Pro for $500 more?

The only valid basis of comparison for pricing of the Mac Pro is to compare it to machines using identical processors and subsystems from folks such as Dell and HP. Only then can you assess whether the Mac Pro is "overpriced" or not. You have to compare the Mac Pro to its mainstream competition, not to previous Mac Pro price history. Obviously the Nehalem architecture has changed things a little bit in terms of pricing. We assume that we know the whole story, but we don't.

Do Dell and HP have Nehalem yet? If so, what are their prices? If not, shouldn't we wait for the competition to at least CATCH UP before condemning the Mac Pro? :)
Comparison between CPU pricing between generations is a perfectly valid comparison simply because that is precisely how Intel does things. Intel has fairly stable price points and when new models are released they directly replace processors in existing price points. Often older models remain at the same price point, alongside their replacements, and don't drop in price.

Case in point is the new 2.66GHz T9550 Core 2 Duo processor that Apple just introduced in the 15.4" MacBook Pro to replace the previous 2.53GHz T9400. Apple didn't put in a more expensive processor, the 2.66GHz T9550 costs $316 and directly replaces the 2.53GHz T9400, which Intel is continuing to sell at $316. So Apple gets the 2.66GHz T9550 for no additional cost and they just decided to pass that on to consumers.

Regardless of factors in performance, the raw CPU value of a system is based on what price point of CPU you choose to put in.

In the case of the Mac Pro, the previous standard configuration offered 2 x 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown Xeon at $797 each for $1594 worth of processors in a $2799 system. The new standard Mac Pro configuration offers 1 x 2.66GHz 3500 series Nehalem based Xeon, most likely the W3520 Bloomfield which costs $284. It's basically a Core i7 920 with additional verification. So before you had a $2799 system with $1594 worth of processors and now you have a $2499 system with $284 worth of processors. Apple reduced the price by $300, but they are still using $1000 cheaper processors.

Now Nehalem may be more expensive to design for, and the new Mac Pro does have layout changes, but is it worth $1000? Keep in mind that the new Nehalem processors have the memory controller bundled into the price now since it's on chip. Thermal requirements are also reduced since the old Mac Pro had to deal with 2 x 150W TDP processors, while the new ones only have to deal with 2 x 95W TDP processors. ECC DDR3 is also cooler than FB-DIMMs. The new CPU tray design is also enabled by Nehalem since the memory controller is on the CPU allowing a simple combined CPU/memory tray and would have been a lot more expensive and difficult to due before with Harpertown and an off-chip memory controller.

The previous 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown remains at the $797 price point and it's direct replacement in it's price category is the 2.53GHz E5540 Gainestown which sells for $744 and is capable of dual processor configuration unlike the 3500 series Nehalem that Apple uses in the $2499 Mac Pro. The 2.26GHz E5520 only costs $373 each. Regardless of performance, so even if the new configuration is faster, Apple is now using processors at significantly lower price points than before, without a corresponding drop in Mac Pro pricing. Granted Intel may be charging Apple more for first dibs on Nehalem, but the difference isn't 20% or even 50%, it's several fold.


The evidence:


Price for 2.80GHz E5462 on last page and remains unchanged from the original $797 launch price even after the most recent Feb 09 price adjustments:
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/INTC/581910387x0x272972/F5315E13-97C1-41EA-87F8-410F752F12EF/Feb_22_09_1ku_Price.pdf

Launch pricing for 2.66GHz W3520 at $284:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-product-roadmap-2009,6384.html

[chaosbringer]

Regarding the hardware itself, has anyone taken some pictures of the mac pro in detail? (like taking the case apart exposing the motherboard top to bottom)

that fan/bottom cage hides so much

[Umbongo]

Regarding the hardware itself, has anyone taken some pictures of the mac pro in detail? (like taking the case apart exposing the motherboard top to bottom)

that fan/bottom cage hides so much

Yes, but just watch the video in the first post and it shows a lot.

[Tesselator]

Comparison between CPU pricing between generations is a perfectly valid comparison simply because that is precisely how Intel does things. Intel has fairly stable price points and when new models are released they directly replace processors in existing price points. Often older models remain at the same price point, alongside their replacements, and don't drop in price.


I included system prices the last time I posted my graph. I want to know what the processor prices are too actually. When I find them I think I'll add those in as well.
Here's my last post of that graph:


http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7270035&postcount=179
Here's the Cinebench10 results.

http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Equipment_n_Tutorials/Cinebench10_Numbers.jpg

Here's all of the base prices including the 2009 models just released:

2006
Mac Pro Quad 2.0GHz $2,199 NEW *
Mac Pro Quad 2.66GHz $2,499 NEW *
Mac Pro Quad 3.0GHz $3,299 NEW

2007
Mac Pro Quad 2.0GHz $2,199 *
Mac Pro Quad 2.66GHz $2,499 *
Mac Pro Quad 3.0GHz $3,299
Mac Pro 8-core 3.0GHz $3,997 NEW *

2008
Mac Pro Quad 2.8GHz (2008) $2,299 NEW
Mac Pro 8-core 2.8GHz (2008) $2,799 NEW *
Mac Pro 8-core 3.0GHz (2008) $3,599 NEW
Mac Pro 8-core 3.2GHz (2008) $4,399 NEW *

2009
Mac Pro Quad 2.66GHz $2,499 NEW *
Mac Pro Quad 2.93GHz $2,999 NEW *
Mac Pro 8-core 2.26GHz $3,299 NEW *
Mac Pro 8-core 2.66GHz $4,699 NEW *
Mac Pro 8-core 2.93GHz $5,899 NEW *

* = Appears in the above benchmarks.


Anyone interested in looking up the release prices of all the chips used in the Mac Pro models listed above? :D

[Flavioparentiq]

I included system prices the last time I posted my graph. I want to know what the processor prices are too actually. When I find them I think I'll add those in as well.
Here's my last post of that graph:


http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7270035&postcount=179

If you got the money, the best buy is the octo 2.66 nehalem with the new radeon.

[Tesselator]

If you got the money, the best buy is the octo 2.66 nehalem with the new radeon.

Think about what you just said... "If you got the money..." and "best buy..." Hmm seems to be some conflict in that remark. :D

Actually the best buy for a 2.66 quad nehalem is to buy corei7 parts off the shelf and add an EFI-X (http://www.efi-x.com/) into the system. Then you'll have a mac with MUCH better specs, nearly identical CPU specs (identical but there's some question about the ECC functions which are not important at all), and it'll only cost about $1,000 ~ $1400 as apposed to the $2,500 Apple wants. :)

.

[Flavioparentiq]

Think about what you just said... "If you got the money..." and "best buy..." Hmm seems to be some conflict in that remark. :D

Actually the best buy for a 2.66 quad nehalem is to buy corei7 parts off the shelf and add an EFI-X (http://www.efi-x.com/) into the system. Then you'll have a mac with MUCH better specs, nearly identical CPU specs (identical but there's some question about the ECC functions which are not important at all), and it'll only cost about $1,000 ~ $1400 as apposed to the $2,500 Apple wants. :)

.

Sure, but then you don't have apple care, you risk to loose the efi boot when snow leopard comes out, and your system isn't stable enough for a professional workstation... not supported drivers/hardware and oh yeah, it's illegal. Let's say the best buy isn't the nehalem, just a powerful i7 core and a 1gb geforce so you play crysis, and surf the net. If it's what you want to do.

PS: I was pointing the OCTO 2.66, not the quad :)

[Tesselator]

Sure, but then you don't have apple care,
All I can say is LOL! Besides it's more like $2,800 is you want Apple Care. :(

you risk to loose the efi boot when snow leopard comes out, and your system isn't stable enough for a professional workstation... not supported drivers/hardware and oh yeah, it's illegal.

EFI-X takes care of all of that and it is NOT illegal!


PS: I was pointing the OCTO 2.66, not the quad :)

Oh, the octad.. hehehe My bad. :D But I guess 3rd party 5500 series systems will be available at far less than Apple wants relatively soon. A month or two? And.. it's NOT illegal! :D Apple really is going overboard on the 2009 price structure. It's nothing short of crazy.

[commander.data]

I included system prices the last time I posted my graph. I want to know what the processor prices are too actually. When I find them I think I'll add those in as well.
Here's my last post of that graph:


http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7270035&postcount=179


Anyone interested in looking up the release prices of all the chips used in the Mac Pro models listed above? :D
I included links to Intel's price lists with my last post.

I'll break them out here so it's easier to see. I'm only going to do the current 2009 and the previous 2008 Mac Pros.

2008 Models:
1 x 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown: $797 ($2299 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown: $797 x 2 = $1594 ($2699 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 3.00GHz X5472 Harptertown: $958 x 2 = $1914 ($3599 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 3.20GHz X5482 Harpertown: $1279 x 2 = $2558 ($4399 overall Mac Pro price)

2009 Models:
1 x 2.66GHz W3520 Bloomfield: $284 ($2499 overall Mac Pro price)
1 x 2.93GHz W3540 Bloomfield: $562 ($2999 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.26GHz E5520 Gainestown: $373 x 2 = $746 ($3299 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.66GHz X5550 Gainestown: $958 x 2 = $1916 ($4699 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.93GHz X5570 Gainestown: $1386 x 2 = $2772 ($5899 overall Mac Pro price)

Once again, the 2009 base 1 x 2.66GHz Mac Pro at $2499 only contains $284 worth of processors compared to $1594 worth of processors in the previous 2 x 2.80GHz $2799 2008 Mac Pro. The cost of 2 x 2.26GHz processors in the $3299 2009 Mac Pro is less than that of a single 2.80GHz processor in the 2008 Mac Pro. Even if Nehalem is faster, Apple is choosing significantly cheaper processors without corresponding changes in overall model pricing. In other words, there is a lot more performance to be had at the same processor price points as the old Mac Pro, that Apple is converting to profit instead. (Which may well be smart considering the economy). For example, 2 x 2.53GHz E5540 Nehalem based Xeons has a launch price of $744 each ($1488 total) which is actually less than the $797 each ($1594 total) of the old 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertowns.

Intel's price lists:

Nehalem based Xeon launch pricing:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-product-roadmap-2009,6384.html

Pricing for all other Intel processors:
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/INTC/581910387x0x272972/F5315E13-97C1-41EA-87F8-410F752F12EF/Feb_22_09_1ku_Price.pdf

Edited to add in overall Mac Pro pricing beside raw CPU pricing for better comparison.

[Tesselator]

I'll break them out here so it's easier to see. I'm only going to do the current 2009 and the previous 2008 Mac Pros.

2008 Models:
1 x 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown: $797
2 x 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown: $797 x 2 = $1594
2 x 3.00GHz X5472 Harptertown: $958 x 2 = $1914
2 x 3.20GHz X5482 Harpertown: $1279 x 2 = $2558

2009 Models:
1 x 2.66GHz W3520 Bloomfield: $284
1 x 2.93GHz W3540 Bloomfield: $562
2 x 2.26GHz E5520 Gainestown: $373 x 2 = $746
2 x 2.66GHz X5550 Gainestown: $958 x 2 = $1916
2 x 2.93GHz X5570 Gainestown: $1386 x 2 = $2772



Awesome! Thank you. Yeah, I skim sometimes when the post is long. :D

PS: Apple DID actually change the pricing structure! They ADDED $1000 to $2000 to every Mac Pro model while as you point out, using cheaper parts at the same time. :(

.

[Flavioparentiq]

All I can say is LOL! Besides it's more like $2,800 is you want Apple Care. :(



EFI-X takes care of all of that and it is NOT illegal!




Oh, the octad.. hehehe My bad. :D But I guess 3rd party 5500 series systems will be available at far less than Apple wants relatively soon. A month or two? And.. it's NOT illegal! :D Apple really is going overboard on the 2009 price structure. It's nothing short of crazy.

what part of "your system isn't stable enough for a professional workstation... not supported drivers/hardware" don't you understand? This systems are for pro... can't play, kiddo

[Tesselator]

what part of "your system isn't stable enough for a professional workstation... not supported drivers/hardware" don't you understand? This systems are for pro... can't play, kiddo

That's completely untrue and so can be safely ignored!!!


.

[Scottsdale]

I included links to Intel's price lists with my last post.

I'll break them out here so it's easier to see. I'm only going to do the current 2009 and the previous 2008 Mac Pros.

2008 Models:
1 x 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown: $797 ($2299 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown: $797 x 2 = $1594 ($2699 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 3.00GHz X5472 Harptertown: $958 x 2 = $1914 ($3599 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 3.20GHz X5482 Harpertown: $1279 x 2 = $2558 ($4399 overall Mac Pro price)

2009 Models:
1 x 2.66GHz W3520 Bloomfield: $284 ($2499 overall Mac Pro price)
1 x 2.93GHz W3540 Bloomfield: $562 ($2999 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.26GHz E5520 Gainestown: $373 x 2 = $746 ($3299 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.66GHz X5550 Gainestown: $958 x 2 = $1916 ($4699 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.93GHz X5570 Gainestown: $1386 x 2 = $2772 ($5899 overall Mac Pro price)

Once again, the 2009 base 1 x 2.66GHz Mac Pro at $2499 only contains $284 worth of processors compared to $1594 worth of processors in the previous 2 x 2.80GHz $2799 2008 Mac Pro. The cost of 2 x 2.26GHz processors in the $3299 2009 Mac Pro is less than that of a single 2.80GHz processor in the 2008 Mac Pro. Even if Nehalem is faster, Apple is choosing significantly cheaper processors without corresponding changes in overall model pricing. In other words, there is a lot more performance to be had at the same processor price points as the old Mac Pro, that Apple is converting to profit instead. (Which may well be smart considering the economy). For example, 2 x 2.53GHz E5540 Nehalem based Xeons has a launch price of $744 each ($1488 total) which is actually less than the $797 each ($1594 total) of the old 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertowns.

Intel's price lists:

Nehalem based Xeon launch pricing:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-product-roadmap-2009,6384.html

Pricing for all other Intel processors:
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/INTC/581910387x0x272972/F5315E13-97C1-41EA-87F8-410F752F12EF/Feb_22_09_1ku_Price.pdf

Edited to add in overall Mac Pro pricing beside raw CPU pricing for better comparison.

EXCELLENT post. I have noticed along ALL of Apple's current Mac products, that Apple is using lower cost CPUs or "same" technology CPUs and charging the same pricing... OR, with the Mac Pro, when Apple does truly UPGRADE/UPDATE the components, it is absolutely charging a MUCH higher price for the update. Time for most Apple products is not yielding significantly faster Macs. For the Mac Pro, the "option" is there to truly upgrade.

It appears that the iPhone and iPod have shown Apple that it can yield much higher margins and profit ratios per cost of dollar spent on the consumer products that are NOT Macs. So, it is using that modeling on the Macs and what we are seeing is disappointing as Mac computer users/BUYERS.

When Apple truly updates the CPUs, we are seeing exactly where Apple intends to make higher margins. This is unfortunate for everyone, as most Mac buyers do NOT see CPU upgrades, not in last few years. When the Mac Pro does see true CPU upgrades, Mac Pro buyers have to fork out the extra cash to make sure Apple gets its margin.

At least Mac Pro buyers have the "OPTION" to truly UPGRADE their Mac Pro CPUs (not possible for all other Mac updates in last year). Hopefully Apple is now where it WANTS to be to make sure the shareholders are making their money. Hopefully, moving forward proves to see upgrades as the current shift has made up the differences among the different Apple products.

Go :apple: Stock Price... GO GO GO!

I am not saying the pricing is anything other than what a "for profit" company should do for its shareholders. It is just unfortunate for Mac buyers. It is NOT unfortunate for Apple shareholders. A large shareholder surely has to appreciate how Apple is treating new technology. As long as in the long run, Apple knows EXACTLY what it is doing and where the numbers are going. We have to expect that Apple is fully gauging the economy worldwide and will continue to grow or if not grow in number of Macs sold, grow in net income on the Mac side.

My two cents.

[123]

Actually the best buy for a 2.66 quad nehalem is to buy corei7 parts off the shelf and add an EFI-X (http://www.efi-x.com/) into the system.


You have to be careful, though. The only board confirmed to work is Intel's reference board which has the same limitations as the Mac Pro (4 Dimms). Unfortunately, the EFI-X guys took a page from Apple's book on secrecy. The last time anything was posted regarding progress on the GA-EX58 was in December I think.

what part of "your system isn't stable enough for a professional workstation... not supported drivers/hardware" don't you understand?
Well, since you lied about the "illegal" part, why should anyone take the rest of your assertion seriously?

[PVguy]

As to the cinebench benchmark vs price vs time, the dual processor G4 (2002 Quicksilver) was $3000, I'm still using it, with appropriate upgrades.

I haven't checked Cinebench for the new mini, but the Xbench results for the 2009 mini are about 2.5 times faster than this quicksilver. The only place the quicksilver holds it's own is the disk drive, and that is about a tie. So the 5400 rpm laptop drive in the mini has matched the performance of the 7200 rpm SATA drive and card in the Quicksilver. And the 9400M video is faster that the ATI 9600 video card upgrade in the quicksilver.

Time to upgrade. I'll just wait a bit more for Snow Leopard.

[Master Chief]

The worlds fastest computer running OS X is not a real Apple Mac Pro with 2 x 2.93GHz CPU's, but let's say a Hacktosh with Asus Z8NA mainboard and two OC'ed Nehalem CPU's (yes the 5500 series) running at a stunning clock speed, but that's like saying that Seat is a Volkswagen isn't it?

It will be cheaper, but not the real thing (which is where people pay a premium for after all).

[iMacmatician]

And why does everyone think snow leopard is made for i7!?That's what I don't get too. Some people are apparently comparing Gainestown Mac Pro with Snow Leopard to Harpertown Mac Pro with Leopard.

That comparison may be more valid after Snow Leopard is released, but not now.

All of the Mac Pros have Turbo Boost which increases clock speeds by 10-15% as dictated by workload. Can someone clear this up for me: Does Turbo Boost increase the clocks of a few cores when they are heavily used (and the other ones not used), or increase the clocks of all cores when the rest of the system is relatively cool? (Or both?)

How does today's top-end Mac Pro at 3.3 GHz qualify as a "pitifully low clock speed" That was probably the 2.27 GHz CPU.

if, clock cycle for clock cycle, offers significant performance benefits over the last generation? Factor price, multiple quad-core systems, CPU prices, and the 2.27 GHz model and the new Mac Pro doesn't look quite as good.

Does the competition offer faster clock speed Nehalems?They will soon; the fastest Gainestown is 3.2 GHz (faster with Turbo Boost).

[Eidorian]

The worlds fastest computer running OS X is not a real Apple Mac Pro with 2 x 2.93GHz CPU's, but let's say a Hacktosh with Asus Z8NA mainboard and two OC'ed Nehalem CPU's (yes the 5500 series) running at a stunning clock speed, but that's like saying that Seat is a Volkswagen isn't it?

It will be cheaper, but not the real thing (which is where people pay a premium for after all).It's a computer though. :confused:

[Master Chief]

...Can someone clear this up for me: Does Turbo Boost increase the clocks of a few cores when they are heavily used (and the other ones not used), or increase the clocks of all cores when the rest of the system is relatively cool? (Or both?)...

The following quotes are taken from the Intel Turbo Boost Technology white paper: "All active cores in the processor will operate at the same frequency. Even at frequencies above the base operating frequency, all active cores will run at the same frequency and voltage."

"Intel® Turbo Boost technology core frequency upside availability is ultimately constrained by power delivery limits, but within those constraints, it is limited by the following factors:
• The estimated current consumption of the processor
• The estimated power consumption of the processor
• The temperature of the processor

"The number of active cores at any given instant dictates the upper limit of Intel® Turbo Boost technology."

[pohl]

Can someone clear this up for me: Does Turbo Boost increase the clocks of a few cores when they are heavily used (and the other ones not used), or increase the clocks of all cores when the rest of the system is relatively cool? (Or both?)

It's both. Check out the video here: Pawlowski @ IDF keynote (http://www.tweaktown.com/news/10355/pawlowski_explains_turbo_boost_in_idf_fall_keynote/index.html), at the very end of the video, they show all 4 cores being clocked higher.

[warnergt]

You can't add a third-party Blu-Ray drive to a Mac Pro? Huh?

I just did a quick Google search and found a $449 La Cie external Blu-Ray drive.

Why hang an external Blu-ray drive off of a Mac Pro when you can mount it internally?
For $399, you can get a Sony 8X Blu-ray writer (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665491094).

[Tesselator]

It's a computer though. :confused:

Exactly! This isn't Nikon or Porsche where everything is designed by the manufacturer. Apple is essentially a VAR when it comes to hardware and an OEM when it comes to their OS.

VAR = Value Added Retailer
OEM = Original Equipment Manufacturer

Anyone treating the Apple name as a "brand" like Nikon and etc. has a few missing marbles somewhere! It's mainly about the OS and the case design when it comes to the Mac Pro and really all Mac models. While the case design is indeed pretty groovy it's certainly not worth $2,000 extra! Maybe $200 at most - if you're a freak and a fan!



Mr. 123,
Thanks for that. Point taken!

[warnergt]

http://www.mcetech.com/blu-ray/

That's a 6x Blu-ray writer for $499.
You can get a Sony 8x Blu-ray writer (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665491094) for $399.

[eeboarder]

.[/QUOTE]

what part of "your system isn't stable enough for a professional workstation... not supported drivers/hardware" don't you understand? This systems are for pro... can't play, kiddo

[QUOTE=Tesselator;7278372]That's completely untrue and so can be safely ignored!!!

Try googling Hackintosh stability. There's always problems. You have to be really careful about doing updates. It's more of a hobby.... One day it works fine, and the next you have to figure out quirky problems.

Like someone else in this thread said, your dick isn't the biggest one out there anymore. Just get used to yours and learn how to make it work for yourself.

[ziggyonice]

dp

[DoFoT9]

Exactly! This isn't Nikon or Porsche where everything is designed by the manufacturer. Apple is essentially a VAR when it comes to hardware and an OEM when it comes to their OS.

VAR = Value Added Retailer
OEM = Original Equipment Manufacturer

Anyone treating the Apple name as a "brand" like Nikon and etc. has a few missing marbles somewhere! It's mainly about the OS and the case design when it comes to the Mac Pro and really all Mac models. While the case design is indeed pretty groovy it's certainly not worth $2,000 extra! Maybe $200 at most - if you're a freak and a fan!



Mr. 123,
Thanks for that. Point taken!

yet you still buy one lol??

[Tesselator]

Try googling Hackintosh stability.

Which one? There's like 4 different incarnations. In almost every carnation there are incompetents and abled computerists. Heck if you read here you will find people complaining about stability on authentic Apple gear. If one pays attention and chooses wisely it's just as stable. No more and no less.

[DoFoT9]

Which one? There's like 4 different incarnations. In almost every carnation there are incompetents and abled computerists. Heck if you read here you will find people complaining about stability on authentic Apple gear. If one pays attention and chooses wisely it's just as stable. No more and no less.

im on my hackintosh right now, works 100% perfectly for me. too a while to setup but it was definitely worth it! it doesnt crash, it doesnt burn, the only problem i have with it is that the 800mhz RAM is recognised as 667mhz..

it cost 1/4 the price of my slower iMac, i love apple.. but i cant miss an opportunity when i see one (computer had been lying around doing nothing)

[Umbongo]

yet you still buy one lol??

The old Mac Pros didn't have the premium for the hardware you got.

[Tesselator]

yet you still buy one lol??

Nope! Not a 2009 model! Not this kid! 2008 is good value though and you can NOT beat the prices even with a roll-your-own system (if you match the parts exactly). 2006 and 2007 are the same! A very good value!

2009... What the hell happened? MP went from being a good deal to probably one of the worst deals ever. :(

Well, I dunno, in 2006 BoXX wanted $35,000 or something terribly close to that for the exact same spec 3.0 that Apple was selling for $3,300. So maybe that's "the worst deal ever" - but 2009 MP's are pretty bad...

[DoFoT9]

The old Mac Pros didn't have the premium for the hardware you got.

thats true, but apple has always had a premium. there is an economic crisis and they need to keep making profits :p

what i dont get is some of the people on here complain about the prices, yet they still go and buy one.. then keep whinging..confused.

[DoFoT9]

Nope! Not a 2009 model! Not this kid! 2008 is good value though and you can NOT beat the prices even with a roll-your-own system (if you match the parts exactly). 2006 and 2007 are the same! A very good value!

2009... What the hell happened? MP went from being a good deal to probably one of the worst deals ever. :(

Well, I dunno, in 2006 BoXX wanted $35,000 or something terrible close to that for the exact same spec 3.0 that Apple was selling for $3,300. So maybe that's "the worst deal ever" - but 2009 MP's are pretty bad...

ahh you have a 2008, thats ok then haha.

i guess its just from the current status of the world.. i guess we will never know.. maybe they are getting greedy??

[Tesselator]

ahh you have a 2008, thats ok then haha.

i guess its just from the current status of the world.. i guess we will never know.. maybe they are getting greedy??

Actually, mine is a 2006 model I changed from 2 dual core 2.66 xeons to 2 quad core 2.66 xeons. I should probably upgrade to a 2008 model though. But I wanna wait still a bit to see if/when there will be 12 or 16 core systems available. We can actually do 12-core right now (http://www.buy.com/prod/6-core-xeon-x7460/q/loc/101/208409894.html) with the 7400 series xeons. I had thought that Apple would offer a model based on those - maybe still - later this year. <shrug>

.

[DoFoT9]

Actually, mine is a 2006 model I changed from 2 dual core 2.66 xeons to 2 quad core 2.66 xeons. I should probably upgrade to a 2008 model though. But I wanna wait still a bit to see if/when there will be 12 or 16 core systems available. We can actually do 12 right now with the 7200 series xeons. I hd thought that Apple would offer a model based on those - maybe still - later this year.

i actually knew you had the 2006... reading the temperature thread.. my brain just has trouble making links haha!!

nice to see your 'reusing' older hardware, would save a TON of dough!

a 12-core/16-core (theyr physical arent they?) would be lovely, albeit expensive. if we're complaining about the price now of the 8-core, imagine the price tag on a model thats higher then the current top-spec..hahaha

[Tesselator]

nice to see your 'reusing' older hardware, would save a TON of dough!

Actually I did the upgrade almost immediately after I purchased the MP as a quad back in late '06. I found the X5355's for like $800 each and the X5150's were selling on Yahoo Auctions for like $700 so for $200 all total I got 4 extra cores. I think I ran the system as a quad for like 4 months or something?


a 12-core/16-core (theyr physical arent they?) would be lovely, albeit expensive. if we're complaining about the price now of the 8-core, imagine the price tag on a model thats higher then the current top-spec..hahaha

http://www.buy.com/prod/6-core-xeon-x7460/q/loc/101/208409894.html I guess they have HT for a total of 24 virtual cores in a dual system. <shrug> haven't researched it yet. Someone here I'm sure knows.

[DoFoT9]

Actually I did the upgrade almost immediately after I purchased the MP as a quad back in late '06. I found the X5355's for like $800 each and the X5150's were selling on Yahoo Auctions for like $700 so for $200 all total I got 4 extra cores. I think I ran the system as a quad for like 4 months or something?

today is a pretty bad day for me.. i keep making the wrong assumptions!! *doh* wish i had moneys to buy stuff.




http://www.buy.com/prod/6-core-xeon-x7460/q/loc/101/208409894.html I guess they have HT for a total of 24 virtual cores in a dual system. <shrug> haven't researched it yet. Someone here I'm sure knows.[/QUOTE]

interesting. that thing would fly!!!! *googles*

[Eidorian]

I just wish I made more money with the machines I do have to afford and require those workstations. :(

[iMacmatician]

The following quotes are taken from the Intel Turbo Boost Technology white paper:"It's both. Check out the video here: Pawlowski @ IDF keynote (http://www.tweaktown.com/news/10355/pawlowski_explains_turbo_boost_in_idf_fall_keynote/index.html), at the very end of the video, they show all 4 cores being clocked higher.Thanks guys. So I suppose 4 cores @ 3.33 GHz can happen, if the heat and power consumption allow that.

http://www.buy.com/prod/6-core-xeon-x7460/q/loc/101/208409894.html I guess they have HT for a total of 24 virtual cores in a dual system. <shrug> haven't researched it yet. Someone here I'm sure knows.Yeah, those are the MP (4-8 CPU) versions. Really expensive but quite powerful. Per-CPU prices go almost twice as high as DP Xeons.

[iMacmatician]

sorry double post

[JazzyGB1]

Dang these things look amazing... I love the slideout ram.

Every Mac Pro from the original 2006 2.66ghz has had slide out RAM. I can't understand why its suddenly relevant on the new models.

A poor upgrade for the cost.

[Plutonius]

I included links to Intel's price lists with my last post.

I'll break them out here so it's easier to see. I'm only going to do the current 2009 and the previous 2008 Mac Pros.

2008 Models:
1 x 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown: $797 ($2299 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown: $797 x 2 = $1594 ($2699 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 3.00GHz X5472 Harptertown: $958 x 2 = $1914 ($3599 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 3.20GHz X5482 Harpertown: $1279 x 2 = $2558 ($4399 overall Mac Pro price)

2009 Models:
1 x 2.66GHz W3520 Bloomfield: $284 ($2499 overall Mac Pro price)
1 x 2.93GHz W3540 Bloomfield: $562 ($2999 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.26GHz E5520 Gainestown: $373 x 2 = $746 ($3299 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.66GHz X5550 Gainestown: $958 x 2 = $1916 ($4699 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.93GHz X5570 Gainestown: $1386 x 2 = $2772 ($5899 overall Mac Pro price)

Once again, the 2009 base 1 x 2.66GHz Mac Pro at $2499 only contains $284 worth of processors compared to $1594 worth of processors in the previous 2 x 2.80GHz $2799 2008 Mac Pro. The cost of 2 x 2.26GHz processors in the $3299 2009 Mac Pro is less than that of a single 2.80GHz processor in the 2008 Mac Pro. Even if Nehalem is faster, Apple is choosing significantly cheaper processors without corresponding changes in overall model pricing. In other words, there is a lot more performance to be had at the same processor price points as the old Mac Pro, that Apple is converting to profit instead. (Which may well be smart considering the economy). For example, 2 x 2.53GHz E5540 Nehalem based Xeons has a launch price of $744 each ($1488 total) which is actually less than the $797 each ($1594 total) of the old 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertowns.

Intel's price lists:

Nehalem based Xeon launch pricing:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-product-roadmap-2009,6384.html

Pricing for all other Intel processors:
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/INTC/581910387x0x272972/F5315E13-97C1-41EA-87F8-410F752F12EF/Feb_22_09_1ku_Price.pdf

Edited to add in overall Mac Pro pricing beside raw CPU pricing for better comparison.

Note - Compare the Octo 2.26 processor price to the Octo 2.93 processor price. The cost difference just for the processors (by the Intel cost chart you gave) is $2026 . I'm assuming that the 2.26 Octo Mac and the 2.93 Octo Mac are the same design except the processors yet their price difference is $2600. Apple having a 30% margin would make the $2026 part price difference about $2600.

[commander.data]

Note - Compare the Octo 2.26 processor price to the Octo 2.93 processor price. The cost difference just for the processors (by the Intel cost chart you gave) is $2026 . I'm assuming that the 2.26 Octo Mac and the 2.93 Octo Mac are the same design except the processors yet their price difference is $2600. Apple having a 30% margin would make the $2026 part price difference about $2600.
My concern isn't as much the 2009 Mac Pros being internally price consistent, as the lack of price consistency of the CPU price points used between the 2008 and 2009 Mac Pros.

For the 2.26GHz 8-core Mac Pro:

In 2008, a Mac Pro with $797 worth of CPU (1 x 2.80GHz E5462) costs $2299.
In 2009, a Mac Pro with $746 worth of CPU (2 x 2.26GHz E5520) costs $3299.

Same CPU cost to Apple between 2008 and 2009, yet the 2009 model is priced $1000 higher. Is the 2009 model faster? Yes, most definitely. But that performance should have come for free, ie. without the $1000 price increase.

For the 2.93GHz 8-core Mac Pro:

In 2008, a Mac Pro with $2558 worth of CPU (2 x 3.20GHz X5482) costs $4399.
In 2009, a Mac Pro with $2772 worth of CPU (2 x 2.93GHz X5570) costs $5899.

Again, CPU cost to Apple is relatively in line with each other, yet overall Mac Pro pricing has increased $1000 from the 2008 to 2009 model.

Personally, I think Apple priced the 2008 models too low. After the 2008 models were introduced I did a brief search and no other big OEMs like Dell or HP seemed to be offering dual processor Xeon workstations with 1600MHz FSBs and 800MHz FB-DIMMs that were competitively priced with the Mac Pro. The best they could do was dual 1333MHz FSB Xeons with 667MHz FB-DIMM. Most likely the profit margin was too low for Apple with the 2008 models so the 2009 models had to be priced higher not only to pay for themselves, but also to help recover margins for the 2008 models.

[DoFoT9]

im on my hackintosh right now, works 100% perfectly for me. too a while to setup but it was definitely worth it! it doesnt crash, it doesnt burn, the only problem i have with it is that the 800mhz RAM is recognised as 667mhz..

it cost 1/4 the price of my slower iMac, i love apple.. but i cant miss an opportunity when i see one (computer had been lying around doing nothing)

actually i take that back, my RAM is 800MHz-system profiler just doesnt recognise it! no gripes about my system now :)

[Patcoola]

holy jump cocks batman.

the new mac pros are looking good.

[Tesselator]

Yeah, those are the MP (4-8 CPU) versions. Really expensive but quite powerful. Per-CPU prices go almost twice as high as DP Xeons.

Wouldn't that be nice! 8 processors at 6 cores each and with HT. :D Now that's something to actually drool about!

96 virtual cores! Yaaah-Hooooo!

And at the current pricing that system would only cost you about $20K :)

[xbjllb]

http://www.mcetech.com/blu-ray/

Thanks. I have an external burner already.

What galls is having to use Windoze to author and proof the discs on a supposed cutting-edge and certainly overpriced machine.

:apple:

[xbjllb]

You can't add a third-party Blu-Ray drive to a Mac Pro? Huh?

I just did a quick Google search and found a $449 La Cie external Blu-Ray drive. You'd rather hold off on buying a Mac Pro until there is a BTO option for Blu-Ray rather than get one now and buy a third party drive?

You make absolutely no sense my friend. You're obviously not someone who has a need for a machine like this, with that kind of attitude, so you shouldn't even be looking at a Mac Pro. Cut off your nose to spite your face.

I have an external Blu-ray burner already. If everytime YOU needed to author, proof, and burn a disc or do a task that should be incorporated in the OS by now, you had to go to Windoze programs to do it, perhaps you'd understand.

Apple charges a premium for supposedly being cutting edge; that's absolute misrepresentation until they incorporate Blu-ray.

:apple:

[xbjllb]

Just don't buy a Mac. You'll complain with or without Blu-ray.

Oh, on the contrary; I just upgraded.

To a used machine, from a private party.

:apple:

[DoFoT9]

I have an external Blu-ray burner already. If everytime YOU needed to author, proof, and burn a disc or do a task that should be incorporated in the OS by now, you had to go to Windoze programs to do it, perhaps you'd understand.

Apple charges a premium for supposedly being cutting edge; that's absolute misrepresentation until they incorporate Blu-ray.

:apple:

well you'll be repeating yourself a lot more over the next few years. apple WONT be incorporating BluRay for a good.... 3-4 years.

optical media is (slowly) being outdated. solid-state is the way to go. HD is the way to go. apple knows this. they are riding it out.

in 5 years we will be saying "pfft you have BluRay, how old!"

p.s. ever heard of multiquote?

[Blabberlicious]

I'm going for the 2.26, but want to load it up with 16 gig of ram for AE work.

Do I buy the base machine and chuck out out the 1 gig chips (sigh), then plop in 8x 2Gig DDR3's?

Could someone confirm how best to upgrade the Ram (cheaply) in the UK.


Many thanks.

[Tesselator]

I'm going for the 2.26, but want to load it up with 16 gig of ram for AE work.

Do I buy the base machine and chuck out out the 1 gig chips (sigh), then plop in 8x 2Gig DDR3's?

Could someone confirm how best to upgrade the Ram (cheaply) in the UK.


Many thanks.

Up to you. Right now 2GB sticks are going for $45 ~ $55 each in the USA - $65 if you get the exact same parts Apple uses. Apple wants $100 for each stick. Pick one. :)

.

[diamond.g]

interesting. that thing would fly!!!! *googles*

Thanks guys. So I suppose 4 cores @ 3.33 GHz can happen, if the heat and power consumption allow that.

Yeah, those are the MP (4-8 CPU) versions. Really expensive but quite powerful. Per-CPU prices go almost twice as high as DP Xeons.

Wouldn't that be nice! 8 processors at 6 cores each and with HT. :D Now that's something to actually drool about!

96 virtual cores! Yaaah-Hooooo!

And at the current pricing that system would only cost you about $20K :)

The 7400 series hasn't gone Nehalem yet. I ordered two servers with the 7400 series in them. Cost you guys (Americans) 18k per server. 16 Core (no HT) 2.4 Ghz rig with 24GB of ram. It is pretty sweet. Now, for the price you paid, we could have gotten the same speed with 24 cores (at the time only the 16 core option existed).

[Umbongo]

thats true, but apple has always had a premium. there is an economic crisis and they need to keep making profits :p

what i dont get is some of the people on here complain about the prices, yet they still go and buy one.. then keep whinging..confused.

Well some people have a lot invested in software or still want to use OSX regardless but that doesn't mean they are happy about some of the issues, including price. The internet is meant for whinging!

[milo]

This update still looks like a price increase and a downgrade to the base (non BTO) model.

And don't forget the ram limitation in the new quad, that's a deal breaker for many pro users and unquestionably another downgrade.

So, any "pundits" or PC fanboys still saying that the new MPs are more expensive and less of a value than the previous ones? The new MacPros are simply the most powerful personal workstations in the world...there is simply no room for negative comments.

Um, what?

The benchmarks show that the new machines ARE more expensive and less of a value. Are you looking at the same benchmarks as the rest of us?

And based on the benchmarks, these are NOT the fastest machines in the world by any stretch of the imagination, there have been faster benchmarks posted on other machines.

it doesnt beat it...doesnt it??? :confused:

It doesn't beat it on single thread, but the old 8 core wins on multithread. But then on single thread the $2499 quad beats the $3199 new 8 core and comes very close to the $4699 model. Not very inspiring results for these new machines - the drop in clock speed would be much easier to swallow without the huge price bump.

[sneezymarble]

Try googling Hackintosh stability. There's always problems. You have to be really careful about doing updates. It's more of a hobby.... One day it works fine, and the next you have to figure out quirky problems.


I don't have any need to Google Hackintosh stability since I have all the knowledge I could ever want about it first hand. My Hack's been running perfectly stable for over a year. I use it for Photoshop, Final Cut, Zbrush, and a bunch of animation packages. Not only that but it even took less time to setup and install OSX on this system than it did to install Vista.

I don't doubt that people have problems with their Hackintosh machines and that they have to spend time at the expense of productivity getting them to work right. I do doubt that that is every Hackintosh users experience. Furthermore, I fail to see how the fact that Google returns results about Hackintosh stability entails the conclusion that all Hackintosh machines are unstable. And, I know for a fact it's not my experience. I set it up once, and it's worked reliably since.

[Plutonius]

My concern isn't as much the 2009 Mac Pros being internally price consistent, as the lack of price consistency of the CPU price points used between the 2008 and 2009 Mac Pros.

I was trying to show that it looks like Apple is getting a 30% margin based on the 2.26 octo vs the 2.93 octo.

If you compare the 2008 processor prices between the 3.0 octo and the 3.2 octo, you get a processor price difference of $644 and a Mac price difference of $800. Assuming that the 2008 3.0 octo and the 2008 3.2 octo are similar except for the processors, Apple was getting about a 25% margin based on the 2008 3.0 octo vs the 2008 3.2 octo.

It looks like Apple might have increased the margin about 5% but that doesn't even come close to the price increases we are seeing.

The price differences between the 2008 and 2009 Macs appears mostly attributable to parts, manufacturing, and overhead.

Another possibility is that Intel was giving Apple huge discounts in their 2008 CPU prices and they are no longer giving the price discounts for 2009.

[milo]

*sigh* I'm utterly amazed. Has anyone bothered to take a look at the i7 on Windows benchmarks? Maybe, just maybe, the Windows performance will give you some idea about the Nehalem performance on OS X once Apple has released Snow Leopard. NONE of the benchmarks you're running are using the hyper-threading features of the Nehalem. That's where it shines.

How do I know that? Because IT SHOWS IN WINDOWS BENCHMARKS. ****ARRRRGHHHHHH****

You're talking about vaporware. Apple hardware has ALWAYS had the potential to run way better with future OS and software updates. Plenty of people have bought knowing that their hardware was sitting idle since the software wasn't really taking advantage yet, but in the hope that the software would come through eventually...only for it to never happen.

Am I the only one who thinks that second hand Mac Pros are starting to become very good deals?

With the new release, used 2006 Mac Pros are bound to come down further in price and there's now a good number of video card options for them that are faster than the original offerings.

I just can't see it being worth $2500 for entry-level. The previous entry level Mac Pro was a couple hundred dollars less. Why in the heck has the price gone *up*?

I'm surprised the prices are still so high for the 2008 models - the 8 core machine that was $2799 is still $2499 or $2599, same as the old EDU price.

Ran CineBench R10 on my i7 920 Hackintosh, and its about the same as the Mac Pro Quad 2.66.

Thanks for that, and for the info about your system. Are you having any compatibility problems? Things like issues with sound playback? And does your cooling system behave well? Thanks.

[iMacmatician]

Another possibility is that Intel was giving Apple huge discounts in their 2008 CPU prices and they are no longer giving the price discounts for 2009.Or Intel could be charging more for an early release.

[milo]

So for months now, people have been saying that you wont notice a dramatic increase in speed with the new nehalem machines running old software. Its been repeated on every site, numerous times that the clock speeds wouldn't improve substantially and so initially the improvements would be lost in the woods.

Why the complaints? How about that despite knowing all that, people didn't expect a drop in clock speed AND a drop from 8 cores to 4 on the low end AND a big price hike on the high end.

People would be fine with a modest improvement at the same price. Or a big improvement and a price bump. But this update is pretty much the worst combination of factors.

Does anyone read the news? (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/11/apple_ups_mac_build_plans_on_strong_reception_to_new_desktops.html) It would appear that the newest Mac announcements have met with great success and increased sales. It appears that all of this whining is actually translating into increased sales for Apple.

If you actually read the article, it says that the increased sales are mainly mac mini and some iMac, it didn't mention increased MP sales at all.

why not just download HD content from i-tunes store

Because you already own movies on BR that you bought for your TV?

How does today's top-end Mac Pro at 3.3 GHz qualify as a "pitifully low clock speed"

I assume he was talking about the 2.26, you know, the drop in clock speed that came with the $500 price increase.

[DoFoT9]

It doesn't beat it on single thread, but the old 8 core wins on multithread. But then on single thread the $2499 quad beats the $3199 new 8 core and comes very close to the $4699 model. Not very inspiring results for these new machines - the drop in clock speed would be much easier to swallow without the huge price bump.

yup yup, there has to be something going that we dont know about (i smell conspiracy!)

[AdamJD]

My 2.66 Quaddie is three years old now and for the graphic design work I do it's still blazing. It's really the first Mac that I've owned that hasn't seemed to slow down over the years. I can't imagine the speed of this thing. Anyone else feel that with the advent of the Mac Pro that the Macs have extended their lifespans by at least two more years than they used to last?

Not sure about that - we always underestimate how powerful software will become and how bloated bloatware will become :)

I'm looking to upgrade my 2002 Dual 1Ghz though - I think 7 years with it is sufficient! LOL

[DoFoT9]

Not sure about that - we always underestimate how powerful software will become and how bloated bloatware will become :)

hardware can only go so far!! eventually the software will have to catch up!

I'm looking to upgrade my 2002 Dual 1Ghz though - I think 7 years with it is sufficient! LOL

7 years as a primary machine is great! as a secondary machine.. well.. its got another 10 at least!

[BenRoethig]

There have been a lot of negative comment on these updates. I was going to get the low end octa until I saw the speed/price combination. Now I'm set to wait maybe another year....

Let's see how sales go though. One thing Apple will respond to....

The thing about dealing with those with unconventional thought processes is the result you get with them isn't always the one you expect. Low sales could also reinforce their beliefs about laptops and all in ones.

Nope, installing RAM in my Early 2008 Mac Pro was dead-easy. The tray is an interesting twist on it as I guess it might be a bit easier, but it's not exactly a revolution. I'm more interested in why they opted for such huge heatsinks, why not liquid cooling? They could have saved a ton of space for a couple more PCI slots, or another row of hard-drives (8 internal drives would have been SWEET).

They tried that with the G5 and it was a disaster. The plumbing has a tendency to leak.

On which note, anyone know if the two bonus internal SATA ports are still there? THe previous Mac Pros had four for each of the hard-drive bays, plus two tucked away behind the fan (data connections only), they still there?

Used for the optical drives.

Can I stick a PCI x4 card in an x8 slot?

Sure can.
x1 slots can take x1 cards
x4 slots can take x1 and x4 cards
x8 slots can take x1, x4, and x8 cards
x16 slots can take x1, x4, x8, and x16 cards.
Mac Pro x4 slots can take any because they use the x16 connector, but x8 and x16 cards are limited to x4 bandwidth.

No Blu-ray, no sale.

:apple:

No official support yet, but the optical drives are now SATA so you can install even the newest 8x Blu-Ray drives.

[AidenShaw]

I'm looking to upgrade my 2002 Dual 1Ghz though - I think 7 years with it is sufficient! LOL

7 years as a primary machine is great! as a secondary machine.. well.. its got another 10 at least!

If you plan on running the "secondary" 24x7, you'd be better off to junk the G4 and get a mini.

The mini is much more powerful, and uses much less power.

Over 10 years, your power bills will pay for the mini.

[awulf]

Thanks for that, and for the info about your system. Are you having any compatibility problems? Things like issues with sound playback? And does your cooling system behave well? Thanks.

The system runs stable, I can even over clock it to 3GHz without any problems, I ran that benchmark at the stock speeds for a fair comparison. I leave it running 24 hours a day. The GPU fan runs at full speed constantly making a bit of sound, but not unbearably loud. I have ordered a passive cooling heat sink for it anyway http://www.coolpc.com.au/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=127_3&products_id=1464 .

All programs run as well as on any other Macintosh, no random crashes. Firewire, Ethernet and USB
work flawlessly. As well as the bluetooth dongle, EyeTV 410, RadioShark, Apple Cinema Display 20", HP Deskjet 970cxi, Canon LiDE 200 scanner, wireless mighty mouse and iSight. Goes to deep sleep and wakes up without any problems. I have two 1TB hard drives in a mirrored RAID setup initially from my Power Mac G4, it plugged straight in without any need to reconfigure the RAID. The SATA blu-ray drive also works, but cant play any movies due to lack of software for OS X.

As for sound, Microphone, Speaker out and SPDIF work. There is one little annoyance that occurs when the sound chip idles after a while, it causes the speakers to make a pop sound, but have avoided this issue with a program KeepSoundAwake that runs in the background, which solves the same issue on a lot of Apple Macs. But I have just upgraded the sound driver, and haven't been able to re-produce the pops since.

[DoFoT9]

If you plan on running the "secondary" 24x7, you'd be better off to junk the G4 and get a mini.

The mini is much more powerful, and uses much less power.

Over 10 years, your power bills will pay for the mini.

he already has the machine, may aswell keep it!! my family likes to keep our old machines (i dont pay the bills :) ).

a mini would of course be more powerful, but the G4 is more expandable, in terms of HD space anyways. thats the clincher for me. i use ALOT of storage.

[AidenShaw]

(i dont pay the bills :) ).

When you do, you may reconsider ;) !


a mini would of course be more powerful, but the G4 is more expandable, in terms of HD space anyways. thats the clincher for me. i use ALOT of storage.

add USB drives at 1.5 TB per....

I wonder if the G4 still has the original 40GB ATA-66 drives in it.

[Infrared]

Thanks guys. So I suppose 4 cores @ 3.33 GHz can happen, if the heat and power consumption allow that.

So the next question is, how good is Apple's cooling? Is it good enough
to allow turbo boost to kick in?

Also, I notice that Dell's XPS 703x BIOS allows you to choose the level
of turbo boost. So it appears to be configurable, at least for the i7s.
This raises a possibility: could Apple have configured it a certain way?
Could they have disabled it entirely?

It would be nice to see some measured core speeds at this point. I am
not aware of anyone having posted figures yet.

[diamond.g]

So the next question is, how good is Apple's cooling? Is it good enough
to allow turbo boost to kick in?

Also, I notice that Dell's XPS 703x BIOS allows you to choose the level
of turbo boost. So it appears to be configurable, at least for the i7s.
This raises a possibility: could Apple have configured it a certain way?
Could they have disabled it entirely?

It would be nice to see some measured core speeds at this point. I am
not aware of anyone having posted figures yet.

It appears as though Apple is using ginormous heatsinks and relying on the system fans to move air around. So overall heat in the daughterboard area looks to be also constrained to memory heat and the heat of the proc before it (in the air flow). People are saying their Mac Pros are really quiet so it may be some time before anyone really gets them cranking.

Apple probably uses what ever default Intel sets. I am kinda surprised there aren't any EFI tools/hacks to expose more functionality.

[Infrared]

I was trying to show that it looks like Apple is getting a 30% margin based on the 2.26 octo vs the 2.93 octo.

No, you have calculated a margin on the price difference,
not a margin on the absolute price. I.e., you have wrongly
assumed that Apple's percentage margin is the same across
the range.

[Flavioparentiq]

My mac pro is arriving tomorrow, i'll be happy to do all the test the thread's readers request me for a week.

SPECS:

Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon Nehalem
16GB (8x2GB)
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
One 18x SuperDrive

[cisco0623]

Awsome thread people.

I love reading users opinions and experiences.

I think value wise the new pro's are not such a great bargain, but I think each prospective mac buyer needs to say - what do I need my MAC for.

I like AdamJ have been running my dual 1gig G4 since (I think early 2002). I use it for Logic Pro. I cannot run logic 8 on it (lol) Leopard is OK, but I am finally ready for another 7 year run! The machine is perfectly fine, except that software is now too powerful for it. I don't mind waiting a few extra seconds to process files, etc - it keeps me humble lol

I will probably jump on a 2008 2.8 octo - That thing will be like light years jump compared to my G4, but what difference would I see between the 8-2008 and the new 2009? Probably nothing great.
The $700 difference I will save will allow me to load it up with 10 gig of ram and 2 1tb Hard drives, And I will still have $200 in my pocket. That thing will run the next 3-4 iterations of Logic and OSX fine for me.

I would advise anyone seriously shopping for a macpro to weight these realistic options like I have.

BTW AidenShaw, that cat is gorgeous lol

[DELLsFan]

Once upon a time it was all about processor speed. Now, it's all about how many cores there are. Do we really need 8 cores to rip/encode our Netflix DVDs?

:eek:

:apple:

[diamond.g]

Do we really need 8 cores to rip/encode our Netflixowned DVDs?

Yes we do. :D

[AidenShaw]

Do we really need 8 cores to rip/encode our Netflix DVDs?

Thieves need all the power that they can find.... :rolleyes:

[Flavioparentiq]

Awsome thread people.

I love reading users opinions and experiences.

I think value wise the new pro's are not such a great bargain, but I think each prospective mac buyer needs to say - what do I need my MAC for.

I like AdamJ have been running my dual 1gig G4 since (I think early 2002). I use it for Logic Pro. I cannot run logic 8 on it (lol) Leopard is OK, but I am finally ready for another 7 year run! The machine is perfectly fine, except that software is now too powerful for it. I don't mind waiting a few extra seconds to process files, etc - it keeps me humble lol

I will probably jump on a 2008 2.8 octo - That thing will be like light years jump compared to my G4, but what difference would I see between the 8-2008 and the new 2009? Probably nothing great.
The $700 difference I will save will allow me to load it up with 10 gig of ram and 2 1tb Hard drives, And I will still have $200 in my pocket. That thing will run the next 3-4 iterations of Logic and OSX fine for me.

I would advise anyone seriously shopping for a macpro to weight these realistic options like I have.

BTW AidenShaw, that cat is gorgeous lol

I totally agree. I needed mine for heavy final cut editing, photoshop batch action and after effect on full hd 1080p raw footage for a full feature narrative/animation live movie. I thought the 2.93ghz was too expensive compared to the 2.66ghz for only 17% gain, so I went for the octo 2.66 and plenty of ram (16gb) and even with such a beast I know I will still wait hours before the final rendering is over...

[mingus51]

Sure can.
x1 slots can take x1 cards
x4 slots can take x1 and x4 cards
x8 slots can take x1, x4, and x8 cards
x16 slots can take x1, x4, x8, and x16 cards.
Mac Pro x4 slots can take any because they use the x16 connector, but x8 and x16 cards are limited to x4 bandwidth.

Pardon my ignorance if I'm reading this incorrectly but are you saying that PCI cards can fit into the PCI-e card slots?

This would mean I wouldn't have to ditch my Delta 1010 in favor of a firewire solution

[Umbongo]

Pardon my ignorance if I'm reading this incorrectly but are you saying that PCI cards can fit into the PCI-e card slots?

This would mean I wouldn't have to ditch my Delta 1010 in favor of a firewire solution

Those are all PCI-E only.

[BRLawyer]

This update still looks like a price increase and a downgrade to the base (non BTO) model.

And don't forget the ram limitation in the new quad, that's a deal breaker for many pro users and unquestionably another downgrade.



Um, what?

The benchmarks show that the new machines ARE more expensive and less of a value. Are you looking at the same benchmarks as the rest of us?

And based on the benchmarks, these are NOT the fastest machines in the world by any stretch of the imagination, there have been faster benchmarks posted on other machines.


1 - I've looked at the same benchmarks, and they OBVIOUSLY show that a much-lower clocked MP beats the pants out of the 2008 models. If this is not better, I don't know what it is. As for prices, they are competitively priced with any other branded PC out there...frankenmacs and acme chinese PCs don't count, of course.

2 - They ARE the fastest and most powerful machines in the world right now, regardless of whether you believe it or not as a PC fanboy. There is NO OTHER personal workstation that is faster than the new MPs, especially because there is NO OTHER PC using the newest chips.

3 - Blu-Ray is a BORNDEAD technology, as others have already explained. So unless you wanna be stuck with a deluxe backup solution (as useful as HD-DVD for that matter), they serve no other purpose than to make a machine more expensive and full of DRM hurt. And no, I don't wanna watch slightly better movies on a computer screen.

Again, negative comments are only admissible for those that can't or don't wanna afford it. The new MPs are the cream of the crop right now.

MS IS DEAD. DELL IS DEAD. BLU-RAY IS DEAD.

[drsmithy]

The 7400 series hasn't gone Nehalem yet. I ordered two servers with the 7400 series in them. Cost you guys (Americans) 18k per server. 16 Core (no HT) 2.4 Ghz rig with 24GB of ram. It is pretty sweet. Now, for the price you paid, we could have gotten the same speed with 24 cores (at the time only the 16 core option existed).

Seems an awfully small amount of RAM for that much CPU power. What's it for ?

[diamond.g]

Seems an awfully small amount of RAM for that much CPU power. What's it for ?

Ironically? We run a bunch of servers off of it virtually. Luckily enough we aren't really stressing the RAM nor CPU's in the system (8 VM's running so far). We were originally going to put in 64GB of RAM, but got permission after the order had gone out (because the config we went with was seen as cheap).

If we order any more for our site here, it will be 128GB, 24+ Core as fast as we can buy.... I actually had support for taking my little network here all Mac, but lack of decent server hardware kinda killed that dream.

EDIT: Our power draw has gone down since we started consolidating the servers.

[AZREOSpecialist]

You're still not getting it. You price a product according to what you think the market will bear, factoring your competition into the equation. Sometimes that means keeping your prices the same, other times lowering prices, and sometimes raising prices. It's a commodity like anything else.

You cannot claim the Mac Pros are overpriced unless you give an apples-to-apples comparison (pardon the pun) of similar Nehalem based products from other mainstream manufacturers. Saying that today's Nehalem Mac Pro is overpriced simply because it is higher priced than last year's model, without any direct comparisons to other vendors' products, is just not a valid argument. Using your logic, a better statement might be "the Mac Pros are priced higher than last year's models" instead of injecting a value judgment by saying they are "overpriced". If you are going to make that assertion, you should back it up with comparisons to other PRODUCTS, not just links to component costs.

Comparison between CPU pricing between generations is a perfectly valid comparison simply because that is precisely how Intel does things. Intel has fairly stable price points and when new models are released they directly replace processors in existing price points. Often older models remain at the same price point, alongside their replacements, and don't drop in price.

Case in point is the new 2.66GHz T9550 Core 2 Duo processor that Apple just introduced in the 15.4" MacBook Pro to replace the previous 2.53GHz T9400. Apple didn't put in a more expensive processor, the 2.66GHz T9550 costs $316 and directly replaces the 2.53GHz T9400, which Intel is continuing to sell at $316. So Apple gets the 2.66GHz T9550 for no additional cost and they just decided to pass that on to consumers.

Regardless of factors in performance, the raw CPU value of a system is based on what price point of CPU you choose to put in.

In the case of the Mac Pro, the previous standard configuration offered 2 x 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown Xeon at $797 each for $1594 worth of processors in a $2799 system. The new standard Mac Pro configuration offers 1 x 2.66GHz 3500 series Nehalem based Xeon, most likely the W3520 Bloomfield which costs $284. It's basically a Core i7 920 with additional verification. So before you had a $2799 system with $1594 worth of processors and now you have a $2499 system with $284 worth of processors. Apple reduced the price by $300, but they are still using $1000 cheaper processors.

Now Nehalem may be more expensive to design for, and the new Mac Pro does have layout changes, but is it worth $1000? Keep in mind that the new Nehalem processors have the memory controller bundled into the price now since it's on chip. Thermal requirements are also reduced since the old Mac Pro had to deal with 2 x 150W TDP processors, while the new ones only have to deal with 2 x 95W TDP processors. ECC DDR3 is also cooler than FB-DIMMs. The new CPU tray design is also enabled by Nehalem since the memory controller is on the CPU allowing a simple combined CPU/memory tray and would have been a lot more expensive and difficult to due before with Harpertown and an off-chip memory controller.

The previous 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown remains at the $797 price point and it's direct replacement in it's price category is the 2.53GHz E5540 Gainestown which sells for $744 and is capable of dual processor configuration unlike the 3500 series Nehalem that Apple uses in the $2499 Mac Pro. The 2.26GHz E5520 only costs $373 each. Regardless of performance, so even if the new configuration is faster, Apple is now using processors at significantly lower price points than before, without a corresponding drop in Mac Pro pricing. Granted Intel may be charging Apple more for first dibs on Nehalem, but the difference isn't 20% or even 50%, it's several fold.


The evidence:


Price for 2.80GHz E5462 on last page and remains unchanged from the original $797 launch price even after the most recent Feb 09 price adjustments:
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/INTC/581910387x0x272972/F5315E13-97C1-41EA-87F8-410F752F12EF/Feb_22_09_1ku_Price.pdf

Launch pricing for 2.66GHz W3520 at $284:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-product-roadmap-2009,6384.html

[Umbongo]

You're still not getting it. You price a product according to what you think the market will bear, factoring your competition into the equation. Sometimes that means keeping your prices the same, other times lowering prices, and sometimes raising prices. It's a commodity like anything else.

You cannot claim the Mac Pros are overpriced unless you give an apples-to-apples comparison (pardon the pun) of similar Nehalem based products from other mainstream manufacturers. Saying that today's Nehalem Mac Pro is overpriced simply because it is higher priced than last year's model, without any direct comparisons to other vendors' products, is just not a valid argument. Using your logic, a better statement might be "the Mac Pros are priced higher than last year's models" instead of injecting a value judgment by saying they are "overpriced". If you are going to make that assertion, you should back it up with comparisons to other PRODUCTS, not just links to component costs.

Are we forbidden from using the retail cost of individual components for comparison then?

[BRLawyer]

Are we forbidden from using the retail cost of individual components for comparison then?

Of course you are forbidden...individual components have never represented the sole value of the whole...otherwise everybody would be priced the same way.

[Flavioparentiq]

Are we forbidden from using the retail cost of individual components for comparison then?

From when the individual components reflects the FULL cost of a computer system? What about the build engineering, the primary material costs, the shipping cost (related to fuel), in a word, the derivative cost. You can't say an item is overpriced looking only the individual components and not the full drawing...

[iMacmatician]

2 - They ARE the fastest and most powerful machines in the world right now, regardless of whether you believe it or not as a PC fanboy. There is NO OTHER personal workstation that is faster than the new MPs, especially because there is NO OTHER PC using the newest chips.For the next few weeks…

[Umbongo]

Of course you are forbidden...individual components have never represented the sole value of the whole...otherwise everybody would be priced the same way.

But as a buyer that is irrelvent to me. If I can build a system that has the exact same features and performance to me as a Mac Pro would but for $1000 less then the Mac Pro is "overpriced" from my perspective. Why do I care if Apple are the same price as Dell or HP if all of them are charging $1,000 more for the same hardware I can easily obtain?

[suderman]

3 - Blu-Ray is a BORNDEAD technology, as others have already explained. So unless you wanna be stuck with a deluxe backup solution (as useful as HD-DVD for that matter), they serve no other purpose than to make a machine more expensive and full of DRM hurt. And no, I don't wanna watch slightly better movies on a computer screen.

I think those who really want Blu-Ray in their machines are probably involved in video creation and want to be able to offer their clients a high def product. Instead a work-around solution, it would be nice if Apple offered an "official" means to distribute our own high def content.

[Flavioparentiq]

But as a buyer that is irrelvent to me. If I can build a system that has the exact same features and performance to me as a Mac Pro would but for $1000 less then the Mac Pro is "overpriced" from my perspective. Why do I care if Apple are the same price as Dell or HP if all of them are charging $1,000 more for the same hardware I can easily obtain?

Ehm... no.. you can't. Why? Because xeon nehalems are not yet in the market. Of course, as soon as they will come out, you can run to ebay and get a super cheap powerful computer. Then if it breaks, well, you can use the plenty of time you have to find the components and replace them. Or even upgrade them again! How I miss those good old "do-it-yourself" days...

In the meantime why don't you buy yourself a xbox360? It sounds like it could be more suited for you than a mac pro.

[BRLawyer]

But as a buyer that is irrelvent to me. If I can build a system that has the exact same features and performance to me as a Mac Pro would but for $1000 less then the Mac Pro is "overpriced" from my perspective. Why do I care if Apple are the same price as Dell or HP if all of them are charging $1,000 more for the same hardware I can easily obtain?

This is at the core of the concepts of welfare and "willingness to buy"...how many people obtain enjoyment from assembling their own computer, or have their demand satisfied by such hobbyist actions? 1%? 2%?

That's exactly why Apple is SO successful in the mainstream market nowadays...they anticipate demand and create it with a measure of welfare that is way beyond geeky needs manifested in this forum.

[Flavioparentiq]

I think those who really want Blu-Ray in their machines are probably involved in video creation and want to be able to offer their clients a high def product. Instead a work-around solution, it would be nice if Apple offered an "official" means to distribute our own high def content.

As an indipendent film maker, i find the blu-ray burners very useful for festival (if you shot in full Hd 1080p, or if you work on hi-def animation projects).

But then again, you can buy them for 400$ and plug them in the mac pro :)

[Tallest Skil]

But then again, you can buy them for 400$ and plug them in the mac pro :)

Yow, from where are you being ripped off?

I bought a BD-RE DL/HD DVD-ROM drive in March 2007 for $327 (6x BD-R burn), and that same drive was $100 on Black Friday last year.

[Umbongo]

Ehm... no.. you can't. Why? Because xeon nehalems are not yet in the market. Of course, as soon as they will come out, you can run to ebay and get a super cheap powerful computer. Then if it breaks, well, you can use the plenty of time you have to find the components and replace them. Or even upgrade them again! How I miss those good old "do-it-yourself" days...

In the meantime why don't you buy yourself a xbox360? It sounds like it could be more suited for you than a mac pro.

I can preorder everything and have them arrive before some of the custom configs from Apple so I don't think that argument holds much weight and some of the stories of dealing with the genius bar and Applecare aren't exactly that of a trouble free purchasing experience. And you have absolutely no idea of my computing hardware needs, but thanks for the insulting tip anyway.

This is at the core of the concepts of welfare and "willingness to buy"...how many people obtain enjoyment from assembling their own computer, or have their demand satisfied by such hobbyist actions? 1%? 2%?

That's exactly why Apple is SO successful in the mainstream market nowadays...they anticipate demand and create it with a measure of welfare that is way beyond geeky needs manifested in this forum.

But it is those with geeky needs who mostly are discussing this, or do they have no right to voice their opinion?

[Flavioparentiq]

Yow, from where are you being ripped off?

I bought a BD-RE DL/HD DVD-ROM drive in March 2007 for $327 (6x BD-R burn), and that same drive was $100 on Black Friday last year.

Didn't buy any, i just google mac pro blu ray and the FIRST link was :

http://www.mcetech.com/blu-ray/

Obviously you can find cheaper

[Flavioparentiq]

I can preorder everything and have them arrive before some of the custom configs from Apple so I don't think that argument holds much weight and some of the stories of dealing with the genius bar and Applecare aren't exactly that of a trouble free purchasing experience. And you have absolutely no idea of my computing hardware needs, but thanks for the insulting tip anyway.



But it is those with geeky needs who mostly are discussing this, or do they have no right to voice their opinion?

You are questioning everything, mac pro, apple care, apple's marketing, apple itself. What's the point? The thread's title is: "Updated Mac Pro Benchmarks and Video of Internals". Not Mac vs. Pc.

Again, Apple is a style of life. I've been assembling pc since 286, and I wouldn't go back to pc for anything, too much time lost in stupid tasks, stupid conflicts, stupid "do it yourself" jobs.

What I need is a fluid workflow, and that's all what apple is about.

You will always find cheaper equivalent hardware, you can use efix, you can build a super powerful hackintosh, whatever. For me (and i guess many others) it's just a loss of time. I can't be bothered anymore in this. I'd rather work 10 hours more a week and afford a Mac than working less and getting a pc (or assembled) equivalent.

But I understand that not anyone is as passionate as me about his work.

[FunkyChicken]

The internet is meant for whinging!

I thought the "internet is for porn"?? Man I'm sooo confused....:confused:

[BRLawyer]

You are questioning everything, mac pro, apple care, apple's marketing, apple itself. What's the point? The thread's title is: "Updated Mac Pro Benchmarks and Video of Internals". Not Mac vs. Pc.

Again, Apple is a style of life. I've been assembling pc since 286, and I wouldn't go back to pc for anything, too much time lost in stupid tasks, stupid conflicts, stupid "do it yourself" jobs.

What I need is a fluid workflow, and that's all what apple is about.

You will always find cheaper equivalent hardware, you can use efix, you can build a super powerful hackintosh, whatever. For me (and i guess many others) it's just a loss of time. I can't be bothered anymore in this. I'd rather work 10 hours more a week and afford a Mac than working less and getting a pc (or assembled) equivalent.

But I understand that not anyone is as passionate as me about his work.

This post sums it all up nicely...PC users, hobbyists and the assorted acmebrand-fanboys that populate this forum always try to convince us that the XSED-456464 box out there is cheaper and more powerful than a Mac...I am glad Apple doesn't see things this way, as a company DRIVEN by design, not profit; otherwise we would be participating in DellRumors now. :rolleyes:

[PeterQVenkman]

3 - Blu-Ray is a BORNDEAD technology, as others have already explained. So unless you wanna be stuck with a deluxe backup solution (as useful as HD-DVD for that matter), they serve no other purpose than to make a machine more expensive and full of DRM hurt. And no, I don't wanna watch slightly better movies on a computer screen.

Except, of course, for the countless video professionals that apple professes to target with Final Cut Studio and the Mac Pro.

Right now Apple has a whole HD workflow that does not include the major HD media of this time.

Will streaming/download be the future of movies? yes.

Does streaming, at its current state in US markets, match the resolution, bitrate or compression of blu-ray for professional/presentation purposes?

Hell no. Not even close.

If you can't see the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD, than not only do you need to get off your high horse, you also need your eyes checked.

It sounds like you do not need Blu-Ray and that is fine. But do not pretend to speak for the professional market that can readily find Blu-Ray solutions on the PC (when we'd rather use a mac!).

[Flavioparentiq]

This post sums it all up nicely...PC users, hobbyists and the assorted acmebrand-fanboys that populate this forum always try to convince us that the XSED-456464 box out there is cheaper and more powerful than a Mac...I am glad Apple doesn't see things this way, as a company DRIVEN by design, not profit; otherwise we would be participating in DellRumors now. :rolleyes:

I agree. But apple is driven by profit more than by design :) Let's say that they follow the design to make more profit and not vice versa...

[pohl]

This post sums it all up nicely...PC users, hobbyists and the assorted acmebrand-fanboys that populate this forum always try to convince us that the XSED-456464 box out there is cheaper and more powerful than a Mac...

...and whenever they do, it always reminds me of how proud this man is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcLXDF0ZJ3g) of his house. (Except he's a lovable character because he doesn't troll forums.)

[thogs_cave]

So, any "pundits" or PC fanboys still saying that the new MPs are more expensive and less of a value than the previous ones? The new MacPros are simply the most powerful personal workstations in the world...there is simply no room for negative comments.

Sure there are. And I'm quite loyal to Apple, I've owned Macs for a very, very long time. I've also spent a good deal of money with Apple.

These are good machines, and bloody fast. But, there is no compelling reasons for any of us owning "older" (I have a 2008 8-core 2.8GHz) systems to upgrade, and given the price differential, if you can find an "older" machine (as one of my coworkers did after seeing the new ones), you get much more in the bang-for-the-buck.

Plus, I don't like Intel's decision to go to triple-channel, as it doesn't jibe well with eight RAM slots. Losing bandwidth when you max out memory is counter-intuitive.

Overall, it's a nice increment. But I don't see it as world-shattering, like the first G3, G5 or Pros were. (I skip the G4 because the software wasn't there to take advantage of it, and for some time the G3 seemed just as fast. Not to mention that whole clock-speed issue.)

It's fine to criticize. I still buy the hardware, it's excellent. But there is always room for improvement.

[pohl]

These are good machines, and bloody fast. But, there is no compelling reasons for any of us owning "older" (I have a 2008 8-core 2.8GHz) systems to upgrade...

I'm actually surprised that this isn't a foregone conclusion. Don't most people always skip at least one generation, if not more?

[iMacmatician]

Plus, I don't like Intel's decision to go to triple-channel, as it doesn't jibe well with eight RAM slots. Losing bandwidth when you max out memory is counter-intuitive. The board actually has 12 or so RAM slots but Apple apparently gimped it to 8 slots because it was too big to fit in the case.

[BenRoethig]

But it is those with geeky needs who mostly are discussing this, or do they have no right to voice their opinion?

There are two basic types of Mac users: those who view the Mac as a tool and those who few it as a religion. Trust me, you will never win with those who few it as a religion, so save yourself years of frustration and don't try to reason with them, just ignore them. The only fact they will accept is that Apple did it and therefore it is correct. You can never beat dogma.

[Tallest Skil]

The board actually has 12 or so RAM slots but Apple apparently gimped it to 8 slots because it was too big to fit in the case.

But the Mac Pro's board doesn't, correct?

Tylersburg itself has 12 slots, but since Apple put half the board on a daughter card, they cut out four RAM slots in the design process of their board, right?

[Umbongo]

You are questioning everything, mac pro, apple care, apple's marketing, apple itself. What's the point? The thread's title is: "Updated Mac Pro Benchmarks and Video of Internals". Not Mac vs. Pc.


Thread titles are irrelevent in this subforum as every one will go offtopic. Mac Pro threads especially have a history of being ridden offtrack quickly.

BRLawyer is right when he suggests this forum is full of those who question everything Apple and its users do but I don't think that a bad thing. No one is really suffering because the content of this forum isn't all pro-Apple or on topic.

[drsmithy]

If we order any more for our site here, it will be 128GB, 24+ Core as fast as we can buy.... I actually had support for taking my little network here all Mac, but lack of decent server hardware kinda killed that dream.

Just a note that you are almost certainly better off getting more, smaller servers, rather than fewer, bigger ones (for multiple reasons - cost, redundancy, "splash damage"). This is particularly true when comparing dual-CPU to quad-CPU hardware (the latter tends to be disproportionately expensive).

IMHO, you're mad to buy a quad-socket machine if you have a requirement that can be equally well met by a pair of dual-socket machines, especially when the latter are routinely capable of holding 64G of RAM these days.

EDIT: Our power draw has gone down since we started consolidating the servers.

Undoubtedly. I've just been doing the numbers for replacing and virtualising a bunch of our old PE750s/850s/etc (few dozen of them). A quartet of Dell M600 blades with 8 cores and 64G of RAM each will comfortably replace ~30 old servers (could probably handle 3-4x that) and reduce power draw by roughly an order of magnitude (that's before even considering the lower power draw of the Nehalem servers we'll actually end up with once this project is concluded). If you're virtualising, it's hard to go past a Bladecentre+SAN combo (even with something low-end like an MD3000i). Then there's the massive savings to be made from the better manageability and physical resource usage of the blades.

Even if you're not, it's still good to replace old hardware if power consumption is a concern. I was expecting an improvement, but jaw-droppingly amazed to see the difference in power usage for one of our old quad-CPU IBM xSeries 260s when compared to a new 4-core blade (+ some SAN disk) was a factor of 5 !

(Apologies for going off-topic.)

[drsmithy]

I am glad Apple doesn't see things this way, as a company DRIVEN by design, not profit; otherwise we would be participating in DellRumors now. :rolleyes:

If Apple were "driven by design", they'd be dropping some awesomely designed products into a few of the gaping holes in their hardware lineup (like a good business-class laptop and a mid-range desktop), the profit hits these would entail (particularly the latter) be damned.

[awulf]

From when the individual components reflects the FULL cost of a computer system? What about the build engineering, the primary material costs, the shipping cost (related to fuel), in a word, the derivative cost. You can't say an item is overpriced looking only the individual components and not the full drawing...

They are a good estimate. Think about it, each little retail component is made by a separate company with:

Shipping - Have to ship each component individually, from different manufacturer->wholesaler->retailer->consumer
Packaging - All components I bought come in big flashy boxes with CDs and extra cables etc.
Profit - Retail components are not sold at cost, not like Gigabyte, LG et al are charities, plus there is the profit from wholesaler and retailer as well!
Customer Support - Yes all little retail components have their own customer support, even more over head per product then an integrated one from Apple.
R&D


Apple has 1 integrated solution, they buy all their parts at whole sale prices with huge buying powers, there is no huge over head for each component.

Oh what's this... Dell do sell the i7 920 2.66GHz too (Just like a Xeon Mac Pro 2.66GHz minus ECC RAM)! http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/desktop-studioxps-435mt?c=au&cs=audhs1&l=en&s=dhs Starting from AU$1599 vs Apples AU$4499. Dell's system is cheaper than mine (AU$1653) because the system doesn't have the over heads of the list above!

[Flavioparentiq]

They are a good estimate. Think about it, each little retail component is made by a separate company with:

Shipping - Have to ship each component individually, from different manufacturer->wholesaler->retailer->consumer
Packaging - All components I bought come in big flashy boxes with CDs and extra cables etc.
Profit - Retail components are not sold at cost, not like Gigabyte, LG et al are charities, plus there is the profit from wholesaler and retailer as well!
Customer Support - Yes all little retail components have their own customer support, even more over head per product then an integrated one from Apple.
R&D


Apple has 1 integrated solution, they buy all their parts at whole sale prices with huge buying powers, there is no huge over head for each component.

Oh what's this... Dell do sell the i7 920 2.66GHz too (Just like a Xeon Mac Pro 2.66GHz minus ECC RAM)! http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/desktop-studioxps-435mt?c=au&cs=audhs1&l=en&s=dhs Starting from AU$1599 vs Apples AU$4499. Dell's system is cheaper than mine (AU$1653) because the system doesn't have the over heads of the list above!

Get a dell then.

[BRLawyer]

If Apple were "driven by design", they'd be dropping some awesomely designed products into a few of the gaping holes in their hardware lineup (like a good business-class laptop and a mid-range desktop), the profit hits these would entail (particularly the latter) be damned.

Believe me, I was there when Apple went that route back in the 90s...on paper, they seemed to make everyone happy...xMacs galore, headless, AIOs, laptops, notebooks, subnotebooks, accessories to everything, market segmentation to the max...downside is, they tried to cater to every geek out there with end-to-end solutions that created only confusion and unnecessary production lines...instead of ingeniously anticipating and creating demand with a tight-run inventory, as they do nowadays.

Needless to say, they are BY FAR the most successful computer company in the world, even as the U.S. economy bases itself on little more than faith these days.

Sculley screwed up, not SJ.

[awulf]

Get a dell then.

I already have an i7 system as you can see in page 3 of this thread, a Hackintosh just as fast as the Mac Pro Quad 2.66GHz.

[bxs]

It doesn't make any sense for Apple to release a new Mac Pro model that has the same speed as last years model and is almost 20% more expensive. Because of that, there has to be plenty of advantages with the Nehalem processor that will make it much faster than the previous model when Snow Leopard is out and when other software is updated to take advantage of the Nehalems.

For this reason I'll probably buy a 2.26 over the old 2.8, even if it's $500 more. But I'm as bummed out as anyone that the clock frequency of the core model is only 2.26. If it was 2.66, everyone would probably be very happy, even with the $500 increase. My expectations for the new Mac Pros were that the clock frequencies and price would stay the same, just a new and faster generation of processors. In other words, a 2.66GHz Nehalem Mac Pro for 2799. I guess Intel screwed this one up for Apple with the Nehalem pricing.

Don't forget the Turbo effect that can clock the processor up in three increments of 0.133 GHz when other cores run idle.

This means the 2.26 GHz can jump up to a 2.659 GHz speed :D

[BenRoethig]

But the Mac Pro's board doesn't, correct?

Tylersburg itself has 12 slots, but since Apple put half the board on a daughter card, they cut out four RAM slots in the design process of their board, right?

Technically Tylersburg doesn't support any memory as the memory controller is now on die. Nehalem's memory controller supports up to 9 DIMMs per CPU (18 in a dual CPU setup), but 6 is most common. The Mac Pro has 4 because of case limitations and the engineering department did an amazing job (as usual) fitting those in.

[drsmithy]

Believe me, I was there when Apple went that route back in the 90s...on paper, they seemed to make everyone happy...xMacs galore, headless, AIOs, laptops, notebooks, subnotebooks, accessories to everything, market segmentation to the max...downside is, they tried to cater to every geek out there with end-to-end solutions that created only confusion and unnecessary production lines...instead of ingeniously anticipating and creating demand with a tight-run inventory, as they do nowadays.

This is a false dichotomy. There is a middle path between the two extremes. I don't particularly want Apple to become Dell, but I *do* think there is value for them in addressing some of their more obviously lacking options (EDIT: mainly because, of course, they are the sort of hardware I and the people I work with are interested in :) ).

[Flavioparentiq]

I already have an i7 system as you can see in page 3 of this thread, a Hackintosh just as fast as the Mac Pro Quad 2.66GHz.

So you are posting to convince us to do like you? What do you do with your hackintosh? You work with it? Is your job related (dependent) to the hardware you use? If yes, how much money do you invest in your hardware compared to the incomes it makes (in percentage)?

[awulf]

So you are posting to convince us to do like you? What do you do with your hackintosh? You work with it? Is your job related (dependent) to the hardware you use? If yes, how much money do you invest in your hardware compared to the incomes it makes (in percentage)?

No its not a work computer, although I do web designs with it on the side. Its main purpose is a personal computer. Even if I did need a dedicated work computer I would use this, its not like couple of hundred dollars savings, the savings are whopping $AU2500!. It is a completely stable system, no less stable than my old Power Mac G4 1GHz or Macbook Pro 2.2GHz.

Now if I were a millionaire, I'd buy the Mac Pro, just because it looks nicer, no other reason. Also the if you need super speeds the top end dual CPU Mac Pro is the fastest around.

[Tesselator]

Now if I were a millionaire, I'd buy the Mac Pro, just because it looks nicer, no other reason. Also the if you need super speeds the top end dual CPU Mac Pro is the fastest around.

No you wouldn't. No millionaire got to be one by being a fool with his money! The don't become fools after either. If you ever become a millionaire it will be because you think like this! Maximizing value and minimizing cost! :)

[Flavioparentiq]

No you wouldn't. No millionaire got to be one by being a fool with his money! The don't become fools after either. If you ever become a millionaire it will be because you think like this! Maximizing value and minimizing cost! :)

"many millionaires are mainly the janitors of their possessions"

So sad.. life is one, enjoy it. But if you don't want to, maximize the value of your life and minimize the cost of it!

You'll be happy.
Oh yeah.
Super happy.
Happy like an hippo.

[DoFoT9]

When you do, you may reconsider ;) !

yes i possibly may, but im a nerd and would most likely sacrifice some other power hungry device (like a fridge :p )



add USB drives at 1.5 TB per....

I wonder if the G4 still has the original 40GB ATA-66 drives in it.

no thanks, USB is too slow for my needs, FireWire--maybe. but the main reason for me buying a mini would be as a TV viewing device e.g.home theatre. i dont particularly want a billion hard drives sitting around the TV lol thats just silly. id just use my storage devices that are connected to my MBP and network them together :)

simple, easy and clean. lucky i put all those gigabit ethernet cables in eh>? :p

[Flavioparentiq]

Link: About the New Mac Pro: Details and Information

http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009-03-16/#9746

"The most impressive test is performed with a Photoshop CS4 setting, with the new high-end (expensive) model being almost three times faster than the previous Octo Core 3.2 GHz."

[AZREOSpecialist]

Are we forbidden from using the retail cost of individual components for comparison then?

You can do whatever you want, but it's just not a valid comparison in my opinion. It just depends on how you look at things.

If it costs me $500 in component costs to build a a computer that my competition is selling for $5,000, I will sell mine for $4,750 and make a great profit. It's all about what the competition is charging.

So, what is the competition charging for a Nehalem system. Anyone?

[DoFoT9]

You can do whatever you want, but it's just not a valid comparison in my opinion. It just depends on how you look at things.

If it costs me $500 in component costs to build a a computer that my competition is selling for $5,000, I will sell mine for $4,750 and make a great profit. It's all about what the competition is charging.

So, what is the competition charging for a Nehalem system. Anyone?

excellent point, are there even any competitors atm?

[drsmithy]

excellent point, are there even any competitors atm?

Depends on how you want to measure "competition". If you're happy without ECC RAM, then Dell will sell you a quad-core Mac Pro equivalent for about $1,100.

[DoFoT9]

Depends on how you want to measure "competition". If you're happy without ECC RAM, then Dell will sell you a quad-core Mac Pro equivalent for about $1,100.

a xeon based one>?<

[eeboarder]

Depends on how you want to measure "competition". If you're happy without ECC RAM, then Dell will sell you a quad-core Mac Pro equivalent for about $1,100.

link?

[Tallest Skil]

a xeon based one>?<

A NEHALEM Xeon based one?

I think not.

[DoFoT9]

A NEHALEM Xeon based one?

I think not.

yea, i meant that... :D

highly doubted.