That's what I thought. It's misleading to say that it's $300 less for a base level Mac Pro now-- because before they had just one configuration that you could downgrade to 4 cores instead of 8 to bring the price BELOW the $2500 mark (where the base 4-core version sits now). I know we're using new / better processors, but don't pretend like the Mac Pro is cheaper than it used to be, Apple.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Introduces New Mac Pro with Nehalem Xeon Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What bugs me is the stupid Video port.. thanks to that proprietary wonder that I'm not sure what its tangible advantages are really to DVI.. we have no Quardo card support, fewer options cuz graphics cards have to have special hardware ports on them, not just a BIOS change.. and we have to pay 30-110$ extra for an adapter cable to run a second DVI display. I though we learned something from ADC port. I own a Quad mac pro and building the same spec again is not very tempting with the pricing. The 2.8 x 8 was a very good deal.
Each CPU connects to a memory branch through it's memory controller. Each processor can access the other processor's memory branch via the QPI link between them. So yeah you could have two dual channel setups.
Very surprised that they plated these Mac Pros with GT120 which is just a 8600GT rebranded. That card goes for about ~$100. Don't even get me started with the entry model being only 1 CPU (4-cores) and a UP TO 8GB ram. Appears to be a downgrade to me.
The entry level model is the machine everyone has been begging Apple to sell for years.
...Just at twice the price they were prepared to pay for it.
undt so..
Since the quad is basically a Core i7 with ECC support (ooh, wow, how exciting), the base level Mac Pro is pretty much the same as a Dell Studio XPS. The dell has a slightly worse Video card (HD 3650, but you can always switch that), but it does have a BluRay RW included.
Oh, and the small matter of Apple wanting £1899, and Dell wanting £709.
You know. Like less than *half* the price.
It's not the exchange rate. And it's gone beyond appletax.
Since the quad is basically a Core i7 with ECC support (ooh, wow, how exciting), the base level Mac Pro is pretty much the same as a Dell Studio XPS. The dell has a slightly worse Video card (HD 3650, but you can always switch that), but it does have a BluRay RW included.
Oh, and the small matter of Apple wanting £1899, and Dell wanting £709.
You know. Like less than *half* the price.
It's not the exchange rate. And it's gone beyond appletax.
It's not about that. It is about going from a very good value workstation (price similar to those of the components at retail) to very expensive systems. You can get the same hardware for $1000 less.
Fixed, man. Fascinating doesn't cut it. People are absolutely despicable, and the people that use this forum are among the worst of the worst.
I woke up today to find a plethora of new products from Apple, all of which are products that "users" have "demanded" that Apple update. All of the updates are in line with "demands", yet a quick view of the postive/negative reviews shows the true color of people who troll this site. Its absolutely, HORRIBLY, pathetic. Frightening, even.
SNOW LEOPARD
Multicore
Grand Central, a new set of technologies built into Snow Leopard, brings unrivaled support for multicore systems to Mac OS X. More cores, not faster clock speeds, drive performance increases in todays processors. Grand Central takes full advantage by making all of Mac OS X multicore aware and optimizing it for allocating tasks across multiple cores and processors. Grand Central also makes it much easier for developers to create programs that squeeze every last drop of power from multicore systems.
Multicore
Grand Central, a new set of technologies built into Snow Leopard, brings unrivaled support for multicore systems to Mac OS X. More cores, not faster clock speeds, drive performance increases in todays processors. Grand Central takes full advantage by making all of Mac OS X multicore aware and optimizing it for allocating tasks across multiple cores and processors. Grand Central also makes it much easier for developers to create programs that squeeze every last drop of power from multicore systems.
Dude, you get DL DVD-RW for $20, memory for $120, that crappy nVidia for about $100 and 1TB of HDD costs $100 as well. We are talking sub-800 prices here.What the hell? What is with the entry level price point??
From what I understand:
$150 graphics card
$100 SuperDrive
$200 HDD
$373 processor
$150 memory??
=========
$973
So the logic board (again without wireless) and the case costs OVER $1500? I'm sorry, but Apple's ENTRY LEVEL PowerMacs used to be $1500, TOTAL. What ever happened to that? I know asking $1499 for the entry level is stretching it, especially in these economic times, but even $1999 would have been better then what they're asking for now.
Now I'm really torn, I could buy an 8-core 3.2 2008 model for £32 less than the new 4-core machine. Whack the 4870 in the 2008 model and have a higher single thread clock speed. Eventually more ram too. Yes it'll be slower ram but I'll be able to use more, which will always be quicker than paging from disk!
The 8-core prices I agree are just insane for anyone that has to pay for this out of their own wallet and not by the company they work for.
Truly disappointed by the price points, I am scratching my head as to why the price jumps even with the weak £:$ ratio.
The 8-core prices I agree are just insane for anyone that has to pay for this out of their own wallet and not by the company they work for.
Truly disappointed by the price points, I am scratching my head as to why the price jumps even with the weak £:$ ratio.
Thanks for agreeing!
I'm not reconsidering my future with them though. I've been with Apple since the 90's before SJ came back. They make a product that I really like to use in my personal and business life (graphics/web/video).
What they are doing though is making me look at buying the cheaper models they offer instead of the machines that I would usually buy. Do I REALLY need that Mac Pro now? Could I get by with a mid to high end iMac? For home do I really need to have a mid to high end iMac or could I get away with a low end iMac and a base model MacBook Pro now?
After years of using the products I've learned that bringing a system to its knees with some form of function in Photoshop or After Effects doesn't necessarily make you some stellar designer, it actually makes me wonder if you are designing that file correctly in the first place. Sure there are times when you need that extra power but at what cost overall? If I am going to cripple Photoshop on three projects a year where a high end Mac Pro would save me some time, I don't think the added thousands of dollars in cost is worth it.
Show me something in Photoshop where you NEED a Quad Core Mac Pro with 6GB of Ram to perform a function. Even in After Effects, a lot of tutorials are easily performed on MacBook Pros.
But I'm not telling anyone what they should get. It's what you feel comfortable with in your life, professional or personal.
Anyone know if the new Mac Pro supports SLI? I saw you can add multiple graphics cards. Would be nice if you can make them work together.
I think they're trying to unify connections across desktop, laptop and display products.
Again, just one benchmark.
I will once again post this: http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html
And yes, I have read about Nehalem, and it isn't as powerful for all tasks as some fanboys seem to say. It's not the best thing since sliced bread.
I was using Apple's prices for adding a second SuperDrive, GPU, HDD, but you're probably right. Which means we're at $1700 for the rest of the computer.
Ever notice how Apple has stopped including display adapters and the like, too? You'd think prices would go down.
It does not. AFAIK that's just for driving more displays.
Remember Power 5/5+ Or 6 are not equivalent to the PPC chips that were in the G4/G5. They were more akin to early Power 4. The TDP of Power5/6 are a lot different, as are the boards they sit on. I doubt they could fit into a desktop machine, heck I'm surprised they've squeezed 5+ chips into J22 blades. But the roadmap for Power 7 and a few other Power systems IBM are developing are indeed v.impressive.
I would admit, I'd be interested in seeing one of our Power 595 Power-6 boxes running OSX
It's also got 384Gb of ram in it.
I agree. That's kinda why we see "PowerBook G5s on Tuesday!" jokes. Plus, we eventually learned that processor speed isn't everything. Multi-core procs do help a bit in stuff like video editing, and just simple stuff like running multiple apps at once. Now if only people can write programs that take advantage of them now (Here's to Snow Leopard!)
Really? Apple has a secret black market you can buy from? Unless that's what you mean, then no you cannot get the SAME hardware for a $1000 less.
What you mean is that you can get something similar that does not run OS 10.5, nor will it run 10.6. in a few months.
If thats what you're interested in, then go for it.
Nevermind the fact that a single quad core i7 floors an 8-core Xeon system of the previous generation.
I think this is an amusing question. In the space where Intel sells CPUs they have no competition. So what is the need to have a 4Ghz CPU? Even the lowly 2.26Ghz Nehalem CPU Intel sells can run at near 4Ghz speeds on air. They just choose not to.