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.
'09 MP most controversial release ever?
- Thread starter ekoe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The truth is for non video/3d the Mac Pro is a terrible value. Adobe CS4 doesn't utilize the cpu power of having 8 cores (yes adobe's fault but what can I do about it?) so I'd rather have as single cpu 2.66/2.93 than two 2.26 but the quad machine is a joke with an 8GB limit (even consumer level x58 boards have 6 slots and support up to 24GB!)
Couldn't Apple have used a DP board with a single quad in it, or did they use a neutered board on purpose because they were afraid a single 2.66 would attract more than a DP 2.26?
Sadly you can go to a site like Cyberpower or Ibuypower, spec out a machine with a (yes consumer parts blah blah) x58 board, 2.93 i7, 12GB DDR3, 2x 1TB, 4850 512MB, and the rest of the usual components for under $2k. I could buy two of those for the price of one 'real' Mac Pro.
I hate to say it (because it brings vomit to the mouth) but I'm seriously considering going PC with x64... Photoshop runs faster (being 64bit on windows only) and being almost 50% cheaper once you add onto the base MP system.
That was the crux of my earlier posts. If 10.6 was deployed with these new Mac Pros, it could have minimised the speculation of "how" the OS and architecture work together to provide benefits.
This would have been quantifiable (to a point), and the cost differential may have been understood if Apple or benchmarks declared how MUCH more efficient it may be.
New MacPro and question for nano
Hello all, it seems the pricing has really angered all of you. I can understand and agree with that, since Apple came out with 3 new octo-cores and priced them sky high. In addition, to appease the price concerned (basically everyone) they came out with an additional set of machines that are quad-core only and cannot be upgraded. Even the memory on the lower end machines is limited. I was really hoping for more, but at the same time the Nehalem machines are what I have been wanting since I first heard about them 2 years ago. My answer is keep your macpro 8 core if you already have one, spend the money if you are looking to buy a macpro or really need a new machine. I happen to be blessed, and purchased a base 2.8 octo-core last year as a bridge until these new machines came out. I had promised it to a friend, so sold it 1 month ago (2k for a 2.8 with 10gb ram, 500gb hd, and 8800gt, 5 months old with 31months of ac left), and my new 2.93 octo-core with radeon and 1tb hd are on its way. Nano, what raid cards will work with this machine? I really do not want to lose my previous 4tb internal raid, but have no idea what the layout of the new machine is and are there 2 additional sata ports (5&6) like the old 5400 chipset machines?
Peace,
Noushy
Hello all, it seems the pricing has really angered all of you. I can understand and agree with that, since Apple came out with 3 new octo-cores and priced them sky high. In addition, to appease the price concerned (basically everyone) they came out with an additional set of machines that are quad-core only and cannot be upgraded. Even the memory on the lower end machines is limited. I was really hoping for more, but at the same time the Nehalem machines are what I have been wanting since I first heard about them 2 years ago. My answer is keep your macpro 8 core if you already have one, spend the money if you are looking to buy a macpro or really need a new machine. I happen to be blessed, and purchased a base 2.8 octo-core last year as a bridge until these new machines came out. I had promised it to a friend, so sold it 1 month ago (2k for a 2.8 with 10gb ram, 500gb hd, and 8800gt, 5 months old with 31months of ac left), and my new 2.93 octo-core with radeon and 1tb hd are on its way. Nano, what raid cards will work with this machine? I really do not want to lose my previous 4tb internal raid, but have no idea what the layout of the new machine is and are there 2 additional sata ports (5&6) like the old 5400 chipset machines?
Peace,
Noushy
Noushy-
I tend to agree I was entertaining a 2008 machine until I began doing serious evaluation of the benchmarks out there. I can't vouch for a personal experience on their numbers, and am relying on Barefeats, Geekbench, and Digital Arts for numbers, but it is coming clear that the new architecture has benefits. For example, barefeats has redone their initial benchmarks, and Digital Arts is showing a CS4 test where the 2.26 (2009) machine bests the 2008 MP by 210%. Most numbers are showing the 2.26 besting the 2.8 by a margin closer to 5-30%, though.
Looking to further evaluate the 2.26 options, and place an order for one early this coming week. It will be replacing my 2005 2.5 G5, so anything will be a rocket compared to this box.
I tend to agree I was entertaining a 2008 machine until I began doing serious evaluation of the benchmarks out there. I can't vouch for a personal experience on their numbers, and am relying on Barefeats, Geekbench, and Digital Arts for numbers, but it is coming clear that the new architecture has benefits. For example, barefeats has redone their initial benchmarks, and Digital Arts is showing a CS4 test where the 2.26 (2009) machine bests the 2008 MP by 210%. Most numbers are showing the 2.26 besting the 2.8 by a margin closer to 5-30%, though.
Looking to further evaluate the 2.26 options, and place an order for one early this coming week. It will be replacing my 2005 2.5 G5, so anything will be a rocket compared to this box.
You don't have to loose it, but it would have to be external, unless it can be retained with Apple's RAID card. (I'm not sure with Apple's card, as it was created using another manufacterer I presume).
Just pay attention to relevant details, such as OS support if you want a mulit-OS system, as well as other items such as boot capability if you wish.
Essentially, just look for the external port versions of cards previously listed in other RAID threads.
If you refresh my memory with some details, including the manufacturer of the card used to create it, it would help both of us.
Keeps me from getting confused with specifics (other members' systems), and accidentally send you down the wrong path. MCHR Bench tests coming soon
MCHR, and Nano if you are out there, I still own a second MacPro 2.8, a long story that has a happy ending. I had a previous quad core 2.5 G5 that Apple and their Geniuses could not fix. It went in for repairs 3 times, and after lugging that 60lb beast in the store, I finally had it. After 2 hours with applecare customer support, and 20mins with customer relations, voila a brand new machine. The old machine was a G5 2.5 quad with quadro card, and 1gb ram. They sent me a 2.8 octo-core, quadro 5600 card, 2gb ram, 500gb hd. Total cost of new machine was over 5k.
So that machine is my backup, sold my purchased MacPro 2.8 octo-core with 8800gt to a friend, and was waiting for the MacPro 2.93 octo-core to appear on an internal price list. It just popped on last tuesday, and my order went in. Shipped on friday, and I will have it in 2days (overnight shipping only $65). It is a 2.93 octo-core with radeon 4870 card, 1tb hd, and 6gb ram. There are 8 2GB sticks of DDR3 1066 ECC sitting on my desk, and I cannot wait to play with it. I can run any real world test you want, and my MacPro 2.8 octo-core has 8x2GB dimms in it too.
Yes, the radeon card is faster than even the mighty $2600 quadro card, but we can swap cards out as well. I had been holding out with my G5 for the nehalem machine for two years (since intel announced the nehalem architecture), and it finally is here.
I have a Core i7 965 machine with 12GB of DDR3 1600, and let me tell you, it is extremely fast. It screams on everyday tasks, re-encodes a divx movie to MPEG2 in 20mins (compared with 40-50 mins on Core2 Quad 9650 at 3.6), and is running vista-x64.
All I can say is if the new MacPro is anything like my core i7 machine, I will be in heaven. I understand the need to feel your $3000-$5000 investment in a MacPro (2008 model) is justified and still competitive, it is, just that the new memory architecture, combined with the improvements from Core2 to Core i7 ultimately will result in a much faster machine. If I could not afford a new machine, I would still be very happy with my 2.8 octo-core. I purchased a 2.8 (before apple swapped out my G5) knowing that my real wish was a new nehalem machine, and that is why I did not buy a 3.2 at the time. Please people, lets be supportive and objective, because that really is what this community is about. I am happy to share my experiences and knowledge with you all, but in a fashion that is not condescending, or offensive.
Nano, I really need some help with the storage situation, as well as advice so post when you can or PM me.
Peace,
Noushy
MCHR, and Nano if you are out there, I still own a second MacPro 2.8, a long story that has a happy ending. I had a previous quad core 2.5 G5 that Apple and their Geniuses could not fix. It went in for repairs 3 times, and after lugging that 60lb beast in the store, I finally had it. After 2 hours with applecare customer support, and 20mins with customer relations, voila a brand new machine. The old machine was a G5 2.5 quad with quadro card, and 1gb ram. They sent me a 2.8 octo-core, quadro 5600 card, 2gb ram, 500gb hd. Total cost of new machine was over 5k.
So that machine is my backup, sold my purchased MacPro 2.8 octo-core with 8800gt to a friend, and was waiting for the MacPro 2.93 octo-core to appear on an internal price list. It just popped on last tuesday, and my order went in. Shipped on friday, and I will have it in 2days (overnight shipping only $65). It is a 2.93 octo-core with radeon 4870 card, 1tb hd, and 6gb ram. There are 8 2GB sticks of DDR3 1066 ECC sitting on my desk, and I cannot wait to play with it. I can run any real world test you want, and my MacPro 2.8 octo-core has 8x2GB dimms in it too.
Yes, the radeon card is faster than even the mighty $2600 quadro card, but we can swap cards out as well. I had been holding out with my G5 for the nehalem machine for two years (since intel announced the nehalem architecture), and it finally is here.
I have a Core i7 965 machine with 12GB of DDR3 1600, and let me tell you, it is extremely fast. It screams on everyday tasks, re-encodes a divx movie to MPEG2 in 20mins (compared with 40-50 mins on Core2 Quad 9650 at 3.6), and is running vista-x64.
All I can say is if the new MacPro is anything like my core i7 machine, I will be in heaven. I understand the need to feel your $3000-$5000 investment in a MacPro (2008 model) is justified and still competitive, it is, just that the new memory architecture, combined with the improvements from Core2 to Core i7 ultimately will result in a much faster machine. If I could not afford a new machine, I would still be very happy with my 2.8 octo-core. I purchased a 2.8 (before apple swapped out my G5) knowing that my real wish was a new nehalem machine, and that is why I did not buy a 3.2 at the time. Please people, lets be supportive and objective, because that really is what this community is about. I am happy to share my experiences and knowledge with you all, but in a fashion that is not condescending, or offensive.
Nano, I really need some help with the storage situation, as well as advice so post when you can or PM me.
Peace,
Noushy
Value
My biggest gripe with the 09 MP is something that has been becoming more noticable over the past couple years. And that is Apple seems to be making direct efforts to limit end user options. The sata-lif connector in Air, the glass screen access in the iMac (what a pain/risk to do a simple upgrade), non-socketed cpu's in notebooks, firmware locked video cards in the MP (yes I know it's possible to get around this) and now the next step in the 09 MP.
The most noticable change in the MP line for me is that Apple has now removed the option for the end user to purchase a dual socketed system populated with a single 4 core processor. i.e., no more end user upgrading to a dual proc/8-core system later. For me, that was the biggest attraction to the MP in that it was a system I could grow into as needed.
Something I have never understood and is echoed again in the new MP is the craptastic video cards they put in these high end systems when the system is pretty much built for media professionals. Makes no sense to me. I mean the GT 120 is pretty much a rebranded 9500 GT (the 130 is roughly a 9600 GT as in the MBP). A genuine oem bottom feeder intended for budget DX10/Blu-Ray pc systems (the same $500 crap Steve says Apple doesn't know how to build).
The other option makes even less sense. The 4870 is a decent enough gaming card, but what happened to the Apple push with Cuda? Far as I know, ATI doesn't support Nvidia's Cuda and PhysX. So why not a GTX 260 (roughly the same price as the 4870) as the base card and move up into the 285 and/or Quadro line from there. I assume they will offer some sort of higher end Nvidia down the road. Why even offer a card like the GT 120 in a system that tries to be cutting edge in every other respect, along with a very cutting edge ~$4k price tag.
The new 4 core MP at $2500 in what is pretty much a bottom end config (as Core i7 goes). It's a config that most pc vendors push out at ~$1k. Yes, I get that its Apple and OS X etc. I just don't get the price without the option to upgrade to 8 cores. (FWIW, the 4 core MP uses the Xeon variation of the Bloomfield Core i7 (9xx) - price, performance etc. are the same between these 2 lines, unlike the mp capable and much pricier 5x series in the new 8 core).
I'm just questioning where Apple is heading. I don't have a problem paying a premium for a product/company which earns it, as Apple has over the years. The new MP pushes me beyond being able to justify the price, which is disappointing. I am not a fan of the new mirror like screen on the MBP, nor of the buttonless pad (cool for some things, sucks for others) and find myself wishing I had kept the previous gen MBP (matte screen and IMO a snappier performance feel to it). The new 24" led/lcd? Ugh. Same as the MBP which my wife can't seem to resist reaching into her purse for makeup whenever she uses it. She of course loves it and I seem to have answered my own question
My biggest gripe with the 09 MP is something that has been becoming more noticable over the past couple years. And that is Apple seems to be making direct efforts to limit end user options. The sata-lif connector in Air, the glass screen access in the iMac (what a pain/risk to do a simple upgrade), non-socketed cpu's in notebooks, firmware locked video cards in the MP (yes I know it's possible to get around this) and now the next step in the 09 MP.
The most noticable change in the MP line for me is that Apple has now removed the option for the end user to purchase a dual socketed system populated with a single 4 core processor. i.e., no more end user upgrading to a dual proc/8-core system later. For me, that was the biggest attraction to the MP in that it was a system I could grow into as needed.
Something I have never understood and is echoed again in the new MP is the craptastic video cards they put in these high end systems when the system is pretty much built for media professionals. Makes no sense to me. I mean the GT 120 is pretty much a rebranded 9500 GT (the 130 is roughly a 9600 GT as in the MBP). A genuine oem bottom feeder intended for budget DX10/Blu-Ray pc systems (the same $500 crap Steve says Apple doesn't know how to build).
The other option makes even less sense. The 4870 is a decent enough gaming card, but what happened to the Apple push with Cuda? Far as I know, ATI doesn't support Nvidia's Cuda and PhysX. So why not a GTX 260 (roughly the same price as the 4870) as the base card and move up into the 285 and/or Quadro line from there. I assume they will offer some sort of higher end Nvidia down the road. Why even offer a card like the GT 120 in a system that tries to be cutting edge in every other respect, along with a very cutting edge ~$4k price tag.
The new 4 core MP at $2500 in what is pretty much a bottom end config (as Core i7 goes). It's a config that most pc vendors push out at ~$1k. Yes, I get that its Apple and OS X etc. I just don't get the price without the option to upgrade to 8 cores. (FWIW, the 4 core MP uses the Xeon variation of the Bloomfield Core i7 (9xx) - price, performance etc. are the same between these 2 lines, unlike the mp capable and much pricier 5x series in the new 8 core).
I'm just questioning where Apple is heading. I don't have a problem paying a premium for a product/company which earns it, as Apple has over the years. The new MP pushes me beyond being able to justify the price, which is disappointing. I am not a fan of the new mirror like screen on the MBP, nor of the buttonless pad (cool for some things, sucks for others) and find myself wishing I had kept the previous gen MBP (matte screen and IMO a snappier performance feel to it). The new 24" led/lcd? Ugh. Same as the MBP which my wife can't seem to resist reaching into her purse for makeup whenever she uses it. She of course loves it and I seem to have answered my own question
Please use paragraphs, one enormous block of text is very hard to read through. Sorry, had to say something.
Very good points made in this thread ; my greatest concern is also the way Apple is going, a matter which is confusing to me right now.
I'm working with my computers, need the power of the Mac Pro, the expandability and compatibility with externals only a desktop workstation can offer.
The MBP is the logical, pretty much only choice of laptop for travel and on-location work.
Like the majority of pro users, I'm also heavily committed to Apple hardware by the purchase of OS specific software and an OSX oriented workflow.
Heck, even all my clients are using Macs !
Hence, when Apple is pulling stunts like Mini Display Connectors, glossy displays, poor GPU choices or a stopgap workstation release, there is more at stake than personal dislike or approval, it's rather a matter of my future work environment.
Personally, I even waited several month before I went from 10.5.5 to 10.5.6 .
Not a chance in hell I'd use 10.6 as my main system until proven solid, or buy a computer that would require 10.6 to run at this point.
On the software side, Apple can only control the release of code they write. Essentially impossible to do with 3rd party developers.
As for the cost increase, it's high. The Quads use either the W3520 (2.66GHz), or the W3540 (2.93GHz). Both are cheaper than the E5462 (2.8GHz) from the base '08 models. The 2.26 Octo uses the E5520, which is also cheaper. Only the 2.66 (X5550) and 2.93 (X5570) are more expensive. The rest of the system doesn't cost that far off the '08's other components either. So there doesn't seem to be any justification, other than greed for such a difference.
No way around it, that kind of pricing structure squashes a decent price/performance ratio.
The 2008 and the 2009 margins are about the same. It isn't greed but it is the difference in cost for Apple (parts, manufacturing, overhead).
The 2009 do have a much worse price / performance ratio then the 2008 (Once the 2008 are gone, people will have to eat the 2009 cost if they want a new Mac Pro).
Doing the math, I considered a 2008, extra ram, video card upgrade, etc.
A comparable 2009 did not require the ram, and came with a video card I'd be able to live with. Are these points being discussed?
Yes, the 2008s are now discounted, and in no way am I defending the pricing structure of the 2009s. But if you keep your machine for a few years, that difference comes down to about a hundred dollars per year.
Only you can determine if that's a price difference you can live with.
A comparable 2009 did not require the ram, and came with a video card I'd be able to live with. Are these points being discussed?
Yes, the 2008s are now discounted, and in no way am I defending the pricing structure of the 2009s. But if you keep your machine for a few years, that difference comes down to about a hundred dollars per year.
Only you can determine if that's a price difference you can live with.
Apple's GPGPU effort is OpenCL based:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/
http://ati.amd.com/technology/streamcomputing/opencl.html
http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_opencl.html
Bear in mind with Snow Leopard that Apple's focus is not
on the Mac Pros. Anything that will be only of use on the
Mac Pros will, therefore, see a limited development effort.
If Apple are going to do something serious with OpenCL, it's
the iMacs, laptops and portable devices they'll have in mind.
What card options the Mac Pro has is likely irrelevant in that
context.
Most controversial?
1984: Apple introduces Macintosh, with no useful third party apps, a high cost, and poor specs.
1998: Apple drops its entire product line, Newton and all, and replaces it with 4 products.
iMac, 1998: Apple drops every single port off the iMac and replaces them with 2 USB ports.
iMac, 2002: Apple drops its iMac G3 starting at $799, for its iMac G4 starting at $1299
June, 2005: Apple switches from PPC to Intel
2007: Apple drops the cost of its iPhone by $200, less than 60 days after it went on sale.
2008: Apple does it again, another $200.
Macbook, 2008: Apple drops Firewire off its new Macbook
Macbook Pro, 2008: Apple doesn't offer a matte screen on its Macbook Pro
2008/9: Apple drops both Firewire 400 and DVI off its entire product line, forcing people to purchase in some cases very expensive adapters for backwards compatibility.
2009: Apple ramps up prices on its Mac Pro for an, as yet, unknown reason, drops Firewire 400, drops the pro video cards.
Apple pisses off its users all the time. Apple increases and decreases prices when it feels like it, recession or not. Apple drops ports that it no longer feels useful without a second thought for backward compatibility.
This is Apple, this is what they've been doing since forever, unfortunately you need to live with it to be an Apple user.
1984: Apple introduces Macintosh, with no useful third party apps, a high cost, and poor specs.
1998: Apple drops its entire product line, Newton and all, and replaces it with 4 products.
iMac, 1998: Apple drops every single port off the iMac and replaces them with 2 USB ports.
iMac, 2002: Apple drops its iMac G3 starting at $799, for its iMac G4 starting at $1299
June, 2005: Apple switches from PPC to Intel
2007: Apple drops the cost of its iPhone by $200, less than 60 days after it went on sale.
2008: Apple does it again, another $200.
Macbook, 2008: Apple drops Firewire off its new Macbook
Macbook Pro, 2008: Apple doesn't offer a matte screen on its Macbook Pro
2008/9: Apple drops both Firewire 400 and DVI off its entire product line, forcing people to purchase in some cases very expensive adapters for backwards compatibility.
2009: Apple ramps up prices on its Mac Pro for an, as yet, unknown reason, drops Firewire 400, drops the pro video cards.
Apple pisses off its users all the time. Apple increases and decreases prices when it feels like it, recession or not. Apple drops ports that it no longer feels useful without a second thought for backward compatibility.
This is Apple, this is what they've been doing since forever, unfortunately you need to live with it to be an Apple user.
Apple and customers
Well I hate to argue, but I disagree that Apple's intentions are to 'piss off customers'. They dropped firewire 400 because they felt the performance and number of present day accessories did not warrant much further support. They added additional firewire 800 ports which can easily be converted to FW400 with a 10 dollar adapter from OWC.
As for the pricing, a big chunk of it is due to Intel and their crazy pricing structure on the newest high end core i7 architecture. How can a 920 chip be $229, and a 965 be $1000? Or for that matter a 2.26 xeon Nehalem-EP be $450 and the 2.66 be $1050? Well because most companies purchasing these chips are using them in dual processor rack servers like HP, Sun, IBM, Dell, etc. and can sell them to Medium to Large businesses and enterprises and tack on additional margins as well. They could care less about the workstation market since a majority of these chips (say 75+%) get used in servers. Apple's persistent refusal to use desktop chips, along with Intel's crazy pricing structure on their professional chip lines, gives us this pricing.
Our problem is that we want an expandable desktop mac. The only real game in town is a MacPro (not really considering open systems with hacked OS installations). The MacPro is an Enterprise class server turned into a desktop for 'the rest of us'. Lets just be happy that Apple is still making these things since the market is really, really small for anyone outside of professional photography or video work.
Peace,
Noushy
Well I hate to argue, but I disagree that Apple's intentions are to 'piss off customers'. They dropped firewire 400 because they felt the performance and number of present day accessories did not warrant much further support. They added additional firewire 800 ports which can easily be converted to FW400 with a 10 dollar adapter from OWC.
As for the pricing, a big chunk of it is due to Intel and their crazy pricing structure on the newest high end core i7 architecture. How can a 920 chip be $229, and a 965 be $1000? Or for that matter a 2.26 xeon Nehalem-EP be $450 and the 2.66 be $1050? Well because most companies purchasing these chips are using them in dual processor rack servers like HP, Sun, IBM, Dell, etc. and can sell them to Medium to Large businesses and enterprises and tack on additional margins as well. They could care less about the workstation market since a majority of these chips (say 75+%) get used in servers. Apple's persistent refusal to use desktop chips, along with Intel's crazy pricing structure on their professional chip lines, gives us this pricing.
Our problem is that we want an expandable desktop mac. The only real game in town is a MacPro (not really considering open systems with hacked OS installations). The MacPro is an Enterprise class server turned into a desktop for 'the rest of us'. Lets just be happy that Apple is still making these things since the market is really, really small for anyone outside of professional photography or video work.
Peace,
Noushy
That's true. If you look at the trends in sales numbers, stationary computing "systems" are only a fraction of laptops, portables, and future netbooks.
Though we are a fanatical bunch (and photo editing workstation buyers are), I'm happy Apple offers the MPs, and I hope they continue to do so, despite even my whining. Quirky though they are, I use my Mac for years without issue for just about anything you could imagine.
I agree, they are trying to make money pure and simple.
Intel don't choose to make a 920 or a 965 everytime they make an i7. They produce many and then determine what speeds they are suitable to run at. Higher clocks are therefore "rarer".
The price complaints are nearly all about Apple's $1,000 premium over the retail cost of components because previously there wasn't one.
I think a better way to put it is in the past the majority of their customers were creatives and schools so they sold desktops. Now they finally got their consumer level group buying in droves and those people love laptops (even my family who never take if off the desk which cracks me up.)
It is somewhat that, but also Intel has great yields, and most often, they underclock higher end parts to meet demands. Lets face it, there are 920 Core i7 chips out there that overclock to 4Ghz on air, and that is really just a 965 part being sold as a 920. This has been proven multiple times on the net. Again, Apple has to make a profit too, and the R&D, advertisement, additional programming all add up to the $1000 premium for the MacPro.
Peace,
Noushy
But the premium wasn't there before, hence the reaction. The Mac Pro changes aren't anything major. Maybe overall Apple's profit will still be the same for the year, or even per system as we don't know what deals they had or sales figures. However that doesn't mean the apparent value hasn't changed.
I attempted to discuss that exact point on page 7 (March 13th) of 'Anyone disappointed with the 2.26GHz '09 MP' thread. Check it out (15th from top): https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/665263/
According to my estimates, I would only be saving about £400 by purchasing a '08 2.8GHz octo (DIY-upgraded to similar spec) vs. the '09 2.26 octo. And even then I'd have a slower, older machine. At that point in the discussion, there were numerous claims the 2.8 '08 was faster than the 2.26 '09, due to the early benchmark results.
To me, it just made no sense to purchase the old architecture, unless I could locate a new one for about £1500 which was not happening in London.
I think my observation was sort of bogged down by all the enthused debate from individuals who had not taken the time to run the actual $$ numbers. The debate got a bit ugly then, and I noticed there's a few dudes in 'time-out' because they got a little carried away. So it's not really a surprise my comment went unobserved.
But I think this is an observation worthy of discussion.
Echo, Umbungo, MCHR, all correct
I agree with the above discussion. As the newer benchmarks are coming out, the performance of the Nehalem chips are starting to shine through. They have a lot of untapped potential, along with then newest architecture. There is nothing wrong with the last gen MacPro, however the IMC (onboard memory controller) is really what shines. In addition, DDR3-1066 ECC is so much faster than FBDIMMS at DDR2-800, not because of DDR3, but because of all the latency that FBDIMMS introduce, not to mention heat.
The newer machines are much more efficient, cooler, faster, and are clearly the direction Intel is heading with Core i7 and Core i5 (laptop, lower end desktop chips with dual channel memory). All I can say is tomorrow I will be able to setup my machine and within a few days give you real seat of the pants performance numbers. I only wish the retail price of the 2.26 8core started at say $2400-$2800, and Apple had just done away with the 35xx series single processor systems.
Peace,
Noushy
I agree with the above discussion. As the newer benchmarks are coming out, the performance of the Nehalem chips are starting to shine through. They have a lot of untapped potential, along with then newest architecture. There is nothing wrong with the last gen MacPro, however the IMC (onboard memory controller) is really what shines. In addition, DDR3-1066 ECC is so much faster than FBDIMMS at DDR2-800, not because of DDR3, but because of all the latency that FBDIMMS introduce, not to mention heat.
The newer machines are much more efficient, cooler, faster, and are clearly the direction Intel is heading with Core i7 and Core i5 (laptop, lower end desktop chips with dual channel memory). All I can say is tomorrow I will be able to setup my machine and within a few days give you real seat of the pants performance numbers. I only wish the retail price of the 2.26 8core started at say $2400-$2800, and Apple had just done away with the 35xx series single processor systems.
Peace,
Noushy