Any Thoughts on initial Mac/Intel Towers

Discussion in 'Games' started by Garand, Jun 19, 2006.

  1. Garand macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    #1
    Seems we are getting closer to the first Mac Intel towers. I am looking to go with a Conroe based Mac/Intel and use boot camp to run games that are native to XP and still use the OSX side for universal games, design, and video work.

    Any thoughts.
     
  2. lexus macrumors 68000

    lexus

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Location:
    Depends Greatly On The Weather
    #3
    I think they will be beasts which will roar for attention in shops where PC's are also sold. They are also the last mac's to be transitioned to Intel.
     
  3. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #4
    Hopefully ability to put either Nvidia SLI or ATI crossfire cards in there.

    Other than that, more power = nice

    Oh and a MUST = more USB2 and Firewire ports.

    A beast that the G5 tower is, 1 firewire 400 & 800 & 2 usb on the back is really really stingy.
     
  4. eva01 macrumors 601

    eva01

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Location:
    Gah! Plymouth
    #5
    The USB thing is the killer for me, as I had to buy a PCI card (and it sucks one port out of four actually works) So i had to buy a hub, even thou it is kinda pretty.
     
  5. AvSRoCkCO1067 macrumors 65816

    AvSRoCkCO1067

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Location:
    CO
    #6
    With the Mac Mini now having 4 USB ports, it would be a joke to see the new tower with any less than that.

    Coupled with the keyboard, you're looking at 5 available USB ports (the keyboard's obviously being USB 1 only...I think...)
     
  6. jasonditz macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    #7
    I'm a little worried about how well the Towers will sell.

    I mean, I'm sure they'll scream, and I'm sure they'll be great game systems. But what other purpose would they have?

    At this point, my CoreDuo Mini seems almost unfathomably fast. Other than a handful of high end 3D games, nothing seems out of its reach.

    What concerns me is, is there a big enough market for high end mac gaming rigs to justify the Towers?
     
  7. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #8
    If a system is a great game system, then almost certain its good at crunching any other numbers. A new dual or quad core intel Mac is going to toast any G5 system. watch, its coming.
     
  8. jasonditz macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    #9
    Oh I agree... it just seems like the CoreDuo Mini is already a damned good number cruncher in it's own right, and I'm not sure there's that big a market for something better right now.
     
  9. greatdevourer macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    #10
    There's more to computers than games ;) When you start fiddling with animation or HD movie editing or those vast PhotoShop files that people talk of, then you'll see why you want the power
     
  10. jasonditz macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    #11
    HD Movie editing I can maybe see... how many people are really doing that though either? There's no way Photoshop needs all that horsepower though. Especially not if Adobe finally gets off their asses and makes a universal binary.

    I'm not just using my mini for games and web browsing, I've been coding on it since 20 minutes after it got out of the box, and the sheer power of the so-called "low end" system is really staggering.

    It just feels like we're past the days when serious software development really necessitated a high end workstation... and I think that's going to make those workstations a lot less essential for a lot of "power users".
     
  11. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #12
    Um, Photoshop does need a huge amount of power for professionals. These people are dealing with files in excess of 50MB for a single image. And they deal with hundreds of these a day. Regular animation rendering currently takes vast render "farms" with entire rooms of PowerMacs to properly create the films you see from Pixar etc. There is a huge market for more powerful PowerMacs as Pros need every last drop of oompf from their systems.

    It's not about having "adequate" power for tasks of your a pro, it's about having more than enough power so that you can get more stuff done in a shorter period of time and thus being more productive and more competitive.
     
  12. jasonditz macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    #13
    Unless Photoshop is some sort of insane bloatware (and I haven't used it in a couple versions), I just can't see that. Animation, sure, but Photoshop? The Powermac G4 was a machine designed for Photoshop, and every professional I knew who used it said it was insanely fast (a lot faster than my Lombard, that's for sure). Why then, if we were to get UB version of Photoshop, would a MacMini that's many times more powerful than those G4's, struggle with Photoshop?

    I'm all for "Faster", but when the cost of entry is a couple grand and the difference in speed is between 1 second and 0.5 seconds... there's got to be a point at which the "more than enough" power stops yielding enough results to justify the purchase.

    GIMPshop screams on a MacMini with a gig of RAM, so if you photoshoppers find that Adobe can't get decent performance out of a system like that and want you to purchase the higher end model, you might want to give that a test drive.

    I'm not trying to rip on Apple's towers before they even come out, I'm sure they'll be spectacular and I'm sure the Pixars of the world will use them to fabulous effect. I'm just saying, ever since the shift to Intel the Minis should not be overlooked. Some of you who, like me, had gotten used to buying the high end because the iMacs and eMacs were pretty ill-suited to the power user might be surprised at what you find on these new systems. I know I was.
     
  13. greatdevourer macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    #14
    What are you doing with GIMP? What in the way of effects. How many layers. What's the resolution? What's the file size?
     
  14. *Y* macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Location:
    VA
    #15
    The point is no matter how fast the machines are, professionals will always need faster machines. It all about speed baby :D. As hardware becomes faster software becomes more demanding. It is like a law or something.:rolleyes:
     
  15. THX1139 macrumors 68000

    THX1139

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #16
    WTF? You're joking. right? You think the mini is good enough and we don't need faster computers? :confused:
     
  16. Music_Producer macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2004
    #17
    You're kidding right? Lets put aside photoshop, movie guys, etc. etc. I am sure you know that the music community uses macs. If I have a song that consists of 128 tracks (stereo tracks.. thats 128 wav/aiff files) with plug-ins, virtual software synths and samplers and what not, I can make a quad core G5 stuffed with 4 gb of ram slow down to G3 speed.

    Trust me, at this stage I probably need an 8 core machine with 8 gb of ram :D You can keep your little mac mini puppy for 'coding' :p
     
  17. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #18
    You're wrong. People need power, more than they think. Maybe some dont *need* it but *want* as much of it as possible. More power = good. I remember reading in MacUp magazine back in early 2002 when iMacs G4 were released they said that a speed needed for average home user was reached... Now CPUs in low-end are Macs clock at 1.6-2 GHz dual-core and some people think that its not enough :rolleyes:

    As for Photoshop, now it takes many minutes to do any heavy action on a large photo on the fastest dual/quad G5s and you say PS is not a "power" app? You cant image how big images can be! :) And you need to process tons of them every day, so more power = good.
     
  18. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #19
    128 tracks :eek: We have a recording studio and have a pro tools setup, 128 tracks is huge, bounce a few down and clean up :)

    Seriously are you using no hardware TDM soluition that would take some of the stress off the cpu, but still 128 tracks :eek:
     
  19. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #20
    50mb? I'm doing a book cover this morning on a dual 2.5, about A5 with 20-odd layers and it's 350mb. Those who say that Photoshop is fast enough on current Macs don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about.
     
  20. uaaerospace macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Location:
    Alabama
    #21
    I agree. Speed is relative. You may think photoshop is fast on your current machine, but use a new, top of the line intel tower when it comes out and I expect you'll become very impatient with your mac mini.

    Plus, for professionals, time is money.
     
  21. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    i don't think a conroe mac is likely, and if it is it wont be the mac pro, it'll be some kind of demi tower.

    woodcrest is going in the mac pro and while apple could have a low end conroe mac pro it makes no sense to make such different SKU's, it makes more sense to use the same logic boards and same cpu slot with the same features.

    as for needing power you can never have enough, this macbook is just about useable with CS2 under rossetta but i'd kill for a quad G5, or a uni version, when i use it i tend to work with 25-50MB files.
     
  22. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #23
    Agreed. But CS3 native should be grand on current intel mac models. Also the biggest thing with photoshop is as ever - LOADS OF RAM

    More than anything else, Ram makes a huge difference with photoshop.

    Most of my work ends up between 350 & 500mb too.
     
  23. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
  24. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #25
    Yeah, well there you go eh? 350MB files require some serious grunt that your average Mac mini just can't provide.

    Sorry to the OP if you don't believe it but the facts are staring you in the face.
     

Share This Page