3.33GHz BTO option on 2009 Quad Core... Worth it?

[Eidorian]

I didn't realize that the 3.33GHz quad-core processor is a relative of the Core i7-975 Extreme.
Who says Macs aren't gaming machines, albeit expensive gaming machines.

Don't forget that the Xeon W5590 is the dual socket version so they charge a little more to enable that second QPI link.

Otherwise the single socket Xeon W3580 is $999 as well. That is effectively a Core i7 975 with ECC enabled.

iThink this sorta speaks to a lot regarding the Mac Pro in general. None of the "informed" would buy it which are the people that should be purchasing a Mac Pro. Since most users don't need a Mac Pro and most would never use the power capabilities of it, those that are purchasing the upgrades from Apple in some sense are asking for it. Don't get me wrong, I almost bought a Mac Pro knowing damn well I would never get close to using its power - but that dream has been placed on hold.

I'm going to stick with Apple's notebooks. I was going to get a Mac Pro 2006 when launched but after the miserable support Apple has provided for it I'm glad I bought a Macbook instead.

 

[snouter]

iThink

I see what you did there...

 

[thegoldenmackid]

I see what you did there...

Awful habit, but one that I do absolutely no work to change.

 

[nanofrog]

i agree with you about building an i920 setup that runs at 3.6 for cheap .. and yes win7 is a very nice OS. I recently sold my pc off to buy a mac pro as im heading into the editing world and would like to use final cut .. etc .. my pc was a q6600 at 3.8 on air with 8gb of ram and sli .. but i am unable to use the software i need so it had to go ..

some i920s can hit 4ghz on air which is awesome

You can always make a hack out of a PC though, and is a plausible option for an individual (can more easily handle the time requirement for their own support, as there's usually no IT staff involved, unlike a large corporation that needs a single point of contact for support & repair). Especially students, as budgets are typically tighter.

The pricing czars for the Mac Pro are either legally retarded or amazingly arrogant. Of course the well-informed among us would never buy. I guess they need to rob Peter to pay Paul if they want lower MacBook prices.

No, it's not that.

It's more to do with Apple's moved into a consumer product company (devices such as iPods and iPhones + consumer grade computers). The pro market is a niche, and the small sales numbers don't help matters. As Apple's greedy (demand mid 30's % margins). The use of Xeon chips doesn't help matters either, particularly on the DP systems (but there's no choice here). The Quads however, is where the greed really shows, as the parts costs (publicly available quantity pricing is the same for the LGA1366 SP parts clock per clock whether it's labeled an i7-9xx or Xeon W35xx).

I didn't realize that the 3.33GHz quad-core processor is a relative of the Core i7-975 Extreme.
Who says Macs aren't gaming machines, albeit expensive gaming machines.

It's not the CPU that makes the difference, but the ECC memory (to some extent), and primarily the graphics cards choice limitations.

Run the system on the PC side (Windows and cards not available on the OS X side), it will do quite well. But it's rather expensive for such use, and a gaming PC is much better, assuming there's no other reason to have an MP (i.e. FCP, Motion,...).

Don't forget that the Xeon W5590 is the dual socket version so they charge a little more to enable that second QPI link.

$601USD is more than a little.

 

[Topper]

and primarily the graphics cards choice limitations.

Now that I've got the GTX 285, I'm not complaining.

 

[nanofrog]

Now that I've got the GTX 285, I'm not complaining.

Understandable. But the drivers could use work as I understand it (does better under the Windows side than OS X). So it's a really good Windows gaming card, but for work under OS X (assuming this is the case for you), not so wonderful, compared to what people would expect (and see under the Windows side). Especially for the $$$.

 

[Topper]

Understandable. But the drivers could use work as I understand it (does better under the Windows side than OS X). So it's a really good Windows gaming card, but for work under OS X (assuming this is the case for you), not so wonderful, compared to what people would expect (and see under the Windows side). Especially for the $$$.

It doesn't take too much experience to know that nVidia makes better drivers for Windows and ATI makes better drivers for Macs.

I get excellent gaming performance under WinXP.
Using X-Plane, I get a 38 percent increase in frame rate using Windows instead of OS X (166.8 fps to 121.0 fps).

I am not getting the video editing performance that I expected under OS X.
That should improve greatly when applications are written for SL and OpenCL.

Money is not a big factor.
I am just happy to be competitive with PCs.
A lot of people on this forum are spending more money on SSDs than I did on my GTX 285.

 

[nanofrog]

It doesn't take too much experience to know that nVidia makes better drivers for Windows and ATI makes better drivers for Macs.

I've not experienced a GTX285 myself, and was remembering both the common instance of poor nVidia drivers as well as those who got a GTX285 Mac ed. when they came out.

I figured it was remotely possible they've improved them enough by now, the performance gap has narrowed. But I don't know if this has actually happened.

Money is not a big factor.
I am just happy to be competitive with PCs.
A lot of people on this forum are spending more money on SSDs than I did on my GTX 285.

I was thinking more in terms of value (price/performance), as it's much worse on a Mac edition, given the higher cost for reduced performance. Not strictly the raw sticker price, as hard core gamers will spend on a good card without any second thoughts. SSD's would be similar, and you can get a substantial improvement in performance (and easily notice it).

But in the Mac edition, I'd likely feel cheated given the reality of it's value, and would think others would have a similar reaction. The performance is there, particularly if compared to the stock card (GT120). But it's not what would be expected, as you indicate.

 

[lemonade-maker]

MP Quad 3.33GHz base = $3699USD
Dell T3500 (3.33GHz) can be had for ~$2500USD (web pricing; includes 1394 card and 3GB 1066 ECC memory, HDD = 320GB, then it's 500 or 750 to go up). And getting pricing over the phone is less $$$ as well.

Hmm.... So the real question: Is OS X worth $1200USD?

So quit going on and on about it and get the Dell. Some like to pay a premium some don't. For you it's about money, for me and obviously others not so much. Apple is apparently making sales. The cheapest initial cost is not always so in the long run. It's cool that the cost doesn't work for but you aren't the only potential customer. It's possible that the price is what it is to avoid cheapskate, whiney customers.

 

[smacman]

So quit going on and on about it and get the Dell. Some like to pay a premium some don't. For you it's about money, for me and obviously others not so much. Apple is apparently making sales. The cheapest initial cost is not always so in the long run. It's cool that the cost doesn't work for but you aren't the only potential customer. It's possible that the price is what it is to avoid cheapskate, whiney customers.

Easy tiger....

 

[snouter]

Some like to pay a premium some don't.

Who "likes" paying a premium?

The cheapest initial cost is not always so in the long run.

Specious at best. My $1200 home build would like a word with you.

Initial cost: $1200
Additional cost over the first 6 months: $0
Expected costs in the next 12-24 months: $0

Things I did not have to do: throw 3GB of ram in the trash to install 12GB of ram. Throw the video card in the trash to upgrade the video card. Spend $250 on AppleCare since I'm so worried about not being able to fix the darn thing that I just spent $4000 on.

It's possible that the price is what it is to avoid cheapskate, whiney customers.

Again, I love Apple and want to buy a MacPro (and I have the money) but it's clear that Apple views the MacPro as a low volume machine and they are fine with that. I did not whine, I handled my biz.

 

[300D]

Who "likes" paying a premium?

Anyone who wants something better than the average pile of junk.

 

[Eidorian]

Anyone who wants something better than the average pile of junk.

What's an average pile of junk?

 

[iamcheerful]

"average pile of junk"

What's an average pile of junk?

The pile has been listed, hasn't it?
(see image below)

p.s. couldn't resist it, mmm, come to think of it, it could be true!

 

[nanofrog]

So quit going on and on about it and get the Dell. Some like to pay a premium some don't. For you it's about money, for me and obviously others not so much. Apple is apparently making sales. The cheapest initial cost is not always so in the long run. It's cool that the cost doesn't work for but you aren't the only potential customer. It's possible that the price is what it is to avoid cheapskate, whiney customers.

I built a system, and it cost more than a Mac Pro.

The difference? It actually works for what I need it to do (Electronic Design Automation), unlike the Mac Pro I purchased where testing = FAIL.

It's not about the money in itself, but:
1. Functionality
2. Value

The '09's are horrible in this regard, and it's becoming evident to users. Worse, the trend will continue with the Gulftown based 2010 systems, given the fact they're using the same chipset, socket,....

It's not the PPC days, where there was something unique about the systems (hardware). Now, it uses the same parts built around an Intel design as every other system out there in the same class. Options (board level, such as RAID,...).

Other vendors just do better at it than Apple. That's the reason they have the enterprise market in terms of marketshare (Mac Pros and XServes are still enterprise grade systems that can run Windows or Linux). The '08 MP's were lower system costs vs. other Harpertown systems at the time, so it wasn't that. So it's other aspects that hurt it (poor warranty support, lack of hardware options both vendor offered and 3rd party). Not just "cheap, whiney" people, that happen to know what the hell they're doing, and realized Apple's systems just don't cut it in terms of what they needed.

Mac Pro's are sold to a niche market, even though the hardware they use is applicable to other workstation users. But their proprietary nature are hurting their ability to expand market share.

I even take work-arounds into consideration. But ultimately, pro users that I know demand it is 100% functional for the intended task. The MP wasn't. It's that simple.

That leaves the OS.

No OS is perfect (just check the forum on SL), but in days past, I'd have taken OS X over others available, as it was a better OS. But I was stuck with Windows (still am actually, as there's not enough OS X software to keep it all under one OS for what I'm doing). Win7 is stable, and quite usable, unlike previous editions. So OS X has some real competition now, and has lost it's edge for many. Those with substantial software investments in OS X pro software may not have a choice right now but to stay with it.

In the end, Mac Pro's aren't that wonderful as workstation solutions any longer.

 

[VirtualRain]

While this topic has strayed way off base, as with most around here, it seems that there's need for a constant reminder why people buy Mac Pro's. If you listened exclusively to the vocal minority in this forum, you would be left wondering why anyone buys a Mac Pro at all!

The fact is that people buy a Mac Pro for two reasons...
1. Apple. Apple provides a unique premium brand experience that is currently unmatched by most other's in the computer industry, although Sony comes close on it's consumer computing products. It's the same phenomenon that makes companies like Starbucks, BMW, Louis Vuitton, and other luxury brands successful in the face of better value competitors.
2. OSX. If Apple computers were sold with Win7, there would be little compelling reason to buy them. The Mac Pro represents the most extensible powerful platform that legitimately runs OSX.

Of course, any argument based simply on value, price or performance, will make a Mac Pro (or any Apple product for that matter) seem like a poor purchase decision.

Now, back to the topic at hand... The fact is, given the 3.33GHz CPU is a $1200 premium over the entry level quad, their's not a lot of savings to be had for the DIY'er... which is unusual for Apple. However, the question remains, is the added 25% performance worth it? In my opinion, if this option were available last March when I purchased my 2.93Ghz for a $500 premium, it would have been a tough call to spend an extra $700 for the 3.33Ghz. I likely would have purchased the same system I have today.

 

[gugucom]

I believe that Apple are loosing market share in the workstation market hand over fist. The internal cannibalization of the MP quad by the i7 iMac doesn't help that. It only showed how bad the MP value actually is. Within 4 weeks Phil Schiller had to eat his own words and issue a speed bump for the quad which definitely wasn't in the plan. Unless there is some drastic change in 2010 Apple might look back on 2009 as the years it lost the workstation market.

 

[VirtualRain]

I believe that Apple are loosing market share in the workstation market hand over fist. The internal cannibalization of the MP quad by the i7 iMac doesn't help that. It only showed how bad the MP value actually is. Within 4 weeks Phil Schiller had to eat his own words and issue a speed bump for the quad which definitely wasn't in the plan. Unless there is some drastic change in 2010 Apple might look back on 2009 as the years it lost the workstation market.

Who says they ever had it? They have what(?)... 5% of the computing market but reap 50% of the profits available? Arguably, they don't own any market segment but are ridiculously successful.

Here's a good alternate view...

4. Apple doesn't want to be a successful business

Tech watchers love the horse race aspect of technology industry competition. Apple competes with Microsoft. Apple competes with Google. Apple competes with companies like HP. But Apple doesn't see it that way.

Industry titans like Microsoft, Google and HP instinctively "fill out" their product lines to dominate huge areas of technology. Microsoft, for example, wants Microsoft software running on wristwatches, supercomputers and everything in between. Google wants to offer every conceivable service that can be squeezed through an internet connection. HP's massive product line runs the gamut from consumer digital cameras sold at Best Buy to entire data centers filled with enterprise systems.

Apple doesn't want to dominate like this. It has no interest in this kind of imperialist expansion. Apple is interested only in surgical strikes into this business or that product category, where they can solve design problems others have failed to solve.

Understanding this about Apple helps explain otherwise inexplicable decisions, such as why Apple got into the mobile phone handset business, and why the company is so ambivalent about business products.

To Apple, the mobile phone industry proved clueless at how to offer a compelling user experience with a phone, with its history of cramped buttons and claustrophobic user interfaces. They believed, correctly it turns out, that their designers could drop a game-changing phone into the market and "change the world" again. But when Apple casts its gaze at the enterprise space, it doesn't see sufficiently compelling design problems that will emotionally affect users. So why bother?

Apple's choices in markets it gets into make no sense, unless you understand that they don't want to dominate industries, or even maximize revenues. They just want to design and sell better products that will affect user experience in markets where that's an achievable goal.

Of course, business success is great. But Apple sees that as only a means to the end of shipping thrilling designs.

Steve Jobs was recently named CEO of the Decade by Fortune Magazine. I'm sure Jobs' ego was pleased by the designation. But ultimately, he doesn't care about this sort of thing as much as you might expect. Jobs doesn't want to be viewed by history as a Lee Iacocca or a Henry Ford. He wants posterity to look at him as a Mozart or a Da Vinci. He wants to be seen as a builder of beautiful things, not a builder of business empires.

Next time Apple does something that infuriates you, or makes you go "huh?" remember that Apple has its own unique world view. And only by understanding that perspective can you understand why Apple does what it does.

Link

 

[snouter]

While this topic has strayed way off base, as with most around here, it seems that there's need for a constant reminder why people buy Mac Pro's.

I do it because I hope Apple reads these things to check the pulse. I have no interest in platform wars. I use two MacBook Pros, two Windows 7 desktops and one SuSE Linux computer daily.

1. Apple. Apple provides a unique premium brand experience that is currently unmatched by most other's in the computer industry, although Sony comes close on it's consumer computing products. It's the same phenomenon that makes companies like Starbucks, BMW, Louis Vuitton, and other luxury brands successful in the face of better value competitors.

Ah, it's premium. I don't buy it. I drive a BMW ///M. I paid handsomely for it. I did so because I am fairly certain that there are not very many competing products that can do what it does.

Computers made of the same parts more or less do the same thing.

Windows 7 v. OS X. Preference. You'd have a hard time convincing me that one is truly superior to the other at this point.

Final Cut Pro? Logic? ok. Studio Max, CAD software? ok.

Most everything else runs fine on either platform. Windows may even have an edge in hardware diversity and gaming.

2. OSX. If Apple computers were sold with Win7, there would be little compelling reason to buy them. The Mac Pro represents the most extensible powerful platform that legitimately runs OSX.

True, Apple runs OS X. Are you making the claim that OS X is vastly superior to Windows 7? In what, UI? Hardware diversity? Productivity? Coolness?

Links to coolness benchmarks please.

Of course, any argument based simply on value, price or performance, will make a Mac Pro (or any Apple product for that matter) seem like a poor purchase decision.

Not on value, price or performance? What else is there?

Now, back to the topic at hand... The fact is, given the 3.33GHz CPU is a $1200 premium over the entry level quad, their's not a lot of savings to be had for the DIY'er... which is unusual for Apple. However, the question remains, is the added 25% performance worth it? In my opinion, if this option were available last March when I purchased my 2.93Ghz for a $500 premium, it would have been a tough call to spend an extra $700 for the 3.33Ghz. I likely would have purchased the same system I have today.

The 3.33GHGz makes the quad $3700 with 3GB ram and an GT120 512MB.

My 3.6GHz was $1200 with 12GB ram and an HD4890 1GB.

At what point can we have this conversation?

 

[alphaod]

So quit going on and on about it and get the Dell. Some like to pay a premium some don't. For you it's about money, for me and obviously others not so much.

For most people it's about the money… I would never buy the top end model because I'm bound to get ripped off.

Personally I don't give a crap about what OS the computer runs now that Windows 7 is so kick ass. Now there is the argument about quality, support, and that shazzam.

As with Dells, I'm pretty sure that's just a comparison, but nonetheless that $1200 is a lot of money; for the price difference I could buy a faster video card, HDD/SSD, etc.; that's substantial.

And not many folks like paying a "premium"; if you say you do, it's pretty much asking to be ripped off. If you can have two of the same machines in every way, would pay more for one that says "Special Edition" and nothing more?

 

[Techhie]

It's possible that the price is what it is to avoid professional customers, or the ones who know what they are paying for and have a limited budget to work with.

Fixed that for you

 

[Techhie]

The 3.33GHGz makes the quad $3700 with 3GB ram and an GT120 512MB.

My 3.6GHz was $1200 with 12GB ram and an HD4890 1GB.

At what point can we have this conversation?

The conversation doesn't need to happen, anyone who buys a professional workstation without looking into its actual value deserves to be raped by Apple corporate.

 

[VirtualRain]

Ah, it's premium. I don't buy it. I drive a BMW ///M. I paid handsomely for it. I did so because I am fairly certain that there are not very many competing products that can do what it does.

A couple of points...

I'm also intimately familiar with ///M. As you probably know there are definitely competitors out there that offer 400+HP products (some at lower price points) but that doesn't change our enthusiast mind-set one bit... does it? Same for the lady (say, for example, my girlfriend ) who swears a Louis Vuitton hand bag is better than the knock-off for 1/10th the price.

There are a lot of people who think buying an ///M is an absolute waste of money. These people view vehicles as instruments simply to get from point A to B... and could care less if it puts a permanent grin on their face in doing so. It seems that some of the people that frequent this forum fall into this kind of category when it comes to buying a computer. Fair enough. But don't castigate the buyer who DOES see value and every time they sit down and fire up their Mac Pro... get's a **** eating grin on their face!

 

[snouter]

A couple of points...

I'm also intimately familiar with ///M. As you probably know there are definitely competitors out there that offer 400+HP products (some at lower price points) but that doesn't change our enthusiast mind-set one bit... does it? Same for the lady (say, for example, my girlfriend ) who swears a Louis Vuitton hand bag is better than the knock-off for 1/10th the price.

There are a lot of people who think buying an ///M is an absolute waste of money. These people view vehicles as instruments simply to get from point A to B... and could care less if it puts a permanent grin on their face in doing so. It seems that some of the people that frequent this forum fall into this kind of category when it comes to buying a computer. Fair enough. But don't castigate the buyer who DOES see value and every time they sit down and fire up their Mac Pro... get's a **** eating grin on their face!

I knew I should not have gone down that slippery road... lol

My main point was than if two computers use mostly the same parts (Nehalem hyperthreading, SATA hard drives, fairly plain video cards, same ports, etc) then the performance is going to be pretty much the same.

The premium implied by ///M also includes a high revving 400hp, great handling and superior brakes.

I could get a Dodge SRT8 or a Mustang GT and on paper get the 400hp, but what about the inferior handling or the brakes or the excessive weight? I'm not even going to touch styling as that is more subjective.

ok I hate the car argument already, lol

On to the handbag! Your girlfriend is right. A real Louis Vuitton is designed for heavy use and if treated well, should last a lifetime. A knock off will start to show threads in a few months and fall apart after a year.

///M and real LV are actually designed to perform at a higher level.

My argument is that I'm a regular dude, and except for the OS, I was able to build a better computer than Apple for half the money. I also argue that I love OS X, but Windows 7 is also very good, and I'm calling it a push.

Both hoopties turn in the same lap times (Mine might even be faster running at 3.6GHz?). One does it for far less cheese.

I can't help but feel that Apple is selling me the exact same thing I can get across the street for a premium, and that's where it starts to break down for me.

This mythical $1200 i7 920 @ 3.6 computer that I keep refering to uses premium parts (Antec, Asus, Intel, Corsair, Western Digital, ATi) and I'd put it up against anyone else's Apple quad.

I only made exceptions for FCP/Logic and Studio Max/CAD since those are OS dependent.

I bet Adobe CS4 runs better on Windows actually PShop and Premiere Pro are 64bit on Windows. But that's on Adobe.

 

[snouter]

But don't castigate the buyer who DOES see value and every time they sit down and fire up their Mac Pro... get's a **** eating grin on their face!

I really hope I am not doing this.

I hope I am making somewhat objective points.