8-Core Mac Pro with Clovertown... in November?

[Multimedia]

I NEED An 8 Core Mac Pro, I Do Not NEED A 4 Core Mac Pro

I think I should clarify what I meant here that caused you to dive off into the deep end....
If you can do without something then you don't need it. It's a luxury, a "nice to have" but not essential.
You can manage just fine with your quad G5 so you don't need a Mac Pro. Fair enough. That also means that you don't need an octo-core Mac though. It may make your work go quicker but as you can get by without it now then you don't actually need one.
This what I meant by the "toy" thing that upset you so much. People will wait to buy this octo-core Mac because they want one not because they need one. For these people it is a toy.

Nonsense. I think you are mistaken. Typical coming from a Windows user. Your reason for needing Multiple Mac Pros now is to run Windows XP-64 in a highly profitable enterprise situation, a completely unusual an abnormal reason that does not apply to most of the members here.

For Mac OS X Only Users, I believe the opposite of what you postulate is true. I NEED an 8 core Mac Pro NOW NOT a 4 core Mac Pro. Meanwhile, there would be no serious amount of time saved crushing video with a 4 core Mac Pro than it takes to crush with a Quad G5 - perhaps 30% faster. So I am spending more time now by not advancing to a 4 core Mac Pro so that when I get the 8 core Mac Pro I can save radically more time then than I could with a small incremental transition at almost the same expense.

Not everyone is in the same boat though. Some people need a faster computer now so the option of waiting 3 months is not available to them.
Our situation was a little bit more complicated caused by the switch to a 64 bit operating system & 64 bit software. All of a sudden there was a huge hole in our processing power where the 32 bit machines used to be so we needed them now.

One thing that I do find a bit sad though is your need to repeat the word "Windoze". Don't you think it's a bit childish? There's a big wide world outside your "Apple bubble" & believe it or not "Windoze" is used by a huge number of people to be hugely productive. For some things it's actually (gasp) better than using OSX and for some things it's worse.

At the end of the day an operating system is just a tool to access whatever program you need to use at that moment. I really don't get this "fanboy" attitude & I've been a fan of Macs since my first one in 1988!

I have a dedicated 3.2 GHz Dual Threaded Pentium 4 Windows XP Pro Computer here in my office that I built myself just in case I needed it for something. The need never arises. Whenever I come across a need to use it, I pass. I'm sure you are right. I just don't want to deal with it so I don't. I live an isolated lifestyle that allows me the opportunity to avoid all Windows computers all the time. I'll try and get into it when I get my Dual Clovertown Mac Pro next Spring. But I doubt I'll get very far as I really am not interested in knowing that part of the world nor the people in it.

I am way past the point where I perceive these computers as only tools. For me, they are more like the people who use them. It's a sickness.

 

[Multimedia]

If You Don't Have A 4 Core Mac Then By All Means Buy The Mac Pro Now

EricTheRed71 made an excellent point earlier in this thread.... if you CAN wait for the Mac Pro, you don't need the Mac Pro. Simple as that. If you don't need it right away to complete a job or increase your productivity, then of course wait for the next release... but then again, why not just wait until the release after that, or the next, or the next...

Perhaps. But if you have a Quad G5 there is no compelling reason - unless you run Windows XP - to buy the 4 core Mac Pro as it is not significantly faster. It all depends on what you have now. If you don't have a 4 core Mac I agree that buying a Mac Pro NOW is an excellent and appropriate move. If you have a Quad G5 it is NOT.

I am pushing my Quad G5 beyond it's capacity most of the time all the time. But I don't see the 4 core Mac Pro as getting me out of this predicament unless I would be running them simultaneously - which is not out of the question. But the expense of Mac Pro RAM is so high, I would rather wait to spend the $4k+ on an 8 core model in a few months so I can really get my money's worth.

It is really a very individual situation decision that none of us can really tell others exactly what to do. I'm thinking rule of thumb, if you are not a Windows user but a power user of one sort or another and you don't own a Quad G5, then buying the Mac Pro now will be an excellent move for you to do. If you own a Quad G5 then waiting for Octo Mac Pro is probably going to get you a lot more bang for your buck than buying a Mac Pro now. That's why I'm waiting anyway.

Then there are also people like AppliedVisual who also makes a living being able to run Windows on the 4 core Mac Pro and even though he had Quads, it made sense for him to move to Mac Pro right away. So again, it's all very personal and individual as to when the move works to what.

 

[AppliedVisual]

Then there are also people like AppliedVisual who also makes a living being able to run Windows on the 4 core Mac Pro and even though he had Quads, it made sense for him to move to Mac Pro right away. So again, it's all very personal and individual as to when the move works to what.

Yeah, but I still have not bought a Mac Pro... I'm waiting for a proper 8-core configuration as well. As you have said, the quad-core isn't significantly faster than a G5 Quad. My poor G5 Quads can't handle my workload... I have a few PC systems that can do better, but much of my production pipeline is still OSX based (Final Cut Studio, Shake) and some of it is Windows only (Fusion, XSI) and some is platform independent (Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.., Lightwave, Maya, Modo...). While I will probably have a Windows/OSX dual boot config on my Mac Pro at home (once I get one), the office systems probably won't have such a thing as I have enough systems to go around.

 

[kfleung]

What is a proper 8-core config, please!

Yeah, but I still have not bought a Mac Pro... I'm waiting for a proper 8-core configuration as well. As you have said, the quad-core isn't significantly faster than a G5 Quad. My poor G5 Quads can't handle my workload... I have a few PC systems that can do better, but much of my production pipeline is still OSX based (Final Cut Studio, Shake) and some of it is Windows only (Fusion, XSI) and some is platform independent (Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.., Lightwave, Maya, Modo...). While I will probably have a Windows/OSX dual boot config on my Mac Pro at home (once I get one), the office systems probably won't have such a thing as I have enough systems to go around.

Sir,

Since I'm completely new to Apple/Mac, what is a " proper 8-core config for a Mac Pro ", please!

Although I've just got a Mac Pro, I'm still opened to have a rethink of my present Mac system (sell it on 2nd hand market when it's still relatively new or as I guessed I may need another even faster Mac Pro solely for my HD/HDV migration short coming some time next year). I intent to use my present Mac Pro mainly for digital photography processing. I'm still trying to work out which software (CS2 Vs Aperture) work best for me. Any hints, please.

For video work, as I'm still stuck and working with my analoge Betacam SP/Super-VHS systems mainly which I've invested a lot on the camera/lens/studio recorders/digital switchers/digtial effect generator/Editor/PC video cards/Adobe & Canopus applications, I'll keep my present SLOW PC systems until they expire. I'm so glad that there are so many forerunners on HD/HDV video work on this Forum that I can ask later on when I start migrating to HD and HDV on the future Mac.

 

[IEatApples]

I am looking to get the 2.6Ghz version with 2gb RAM & a 23inch cinema display!

I can hold off til mid January 2007 for the 8-core! but if the 8-core is 6 months away I see no need in waiting!

I am using a crappy windows laptop at the moment and really need the mac! I have never even used a mac before but I am so sick of windows that I have decided to take the plunge!

Thanks.

If you CAN wait til January, then why not? It will spare you the agony & frustration you'd get if the 8-Core came then, and you didn't wait.
I bought my iMac G5 right before an event, because it wasn't expected to come any upgrades to the iMac, but hey! Suddenly there's the Intel iMac.
I will never NEVER EVER EVER!!! buy anything "Apple" right before an event again.

 

[Multimedia]

2007 Toys Will Be Much Better Than 2006 Workhorses

If you CAN wait til January, then why not? It will spare you the agony & frustration you'd get if the 8-Core came then, and you didn't wait.
I bought my iMac G5 right before an event, because it wasn't expected to come any upgrades to the iMac, but hey! Suddenly there's the Intel iMac.
I will never NEVER EVER EVER!!! buy anything "Apple" right before an event again.

Pretty amazing when you think about it that one year ago the Quad G5 was brand new and any MacIntel was still only a figment of our imagination - expecially a dual core iMac in January 2006. Now here we are debating the value of waiting for an 8 core Mac Pro already.

It definately won't be 6 months. Three is a very conservative guesstimate. Four would be a drop dead latest possible due to NAB in mid-April and about the same time, Leopard. 2007 promises to hold even bigger more powerful quantum leap type changes than this year of transition has been. I've even held off buying a MacBook Pro until the next version with Leopard inside.

While experienced Windows users have joined those who became early adopters this year due to double duty capacity of Intel Macs, most of us who bought PPC Macs at the end - I even waited until February to buy my Quad G5 as soon as it went refurb - have had enough power left in our old 2005 models to stick it out 'til the big leaps of 2007 many of us could see coming long ago. In fact when I bought my Quad G5, I could see the Mac Pro was going to be a slightly faster Quad that would shortly thereafter be trumped by an 8 core model next year. The timeline is even faster than we thought it would be earlier this year.

But then it's only a toy for any of us that can wait right?

PS.
Has anyone got a thought for what HDTV/Monitor - true 1920 x 1080 - they will prefer to hook up to their Mac Pros in their development of HDTV programming?

I'm leaning toward a 40" 54 pound Samsung LN-S4095D for about $1800 including tax and shipping. Can anyone tell me that's a good or bad choice? Or would you rather just stick with more 30" CCFL screens from HP AV?

 

[EricTheRed71]

Nonsense. I think you are mistaken. Typical coming from a Windows user. Your reason for needing Multiple Mac Pros now is to run Windows XP-64 in a highly profitable enterprise situation, a completely unusual an abnormal reason that does not apply to most of the members here.

For Mac OS X Only Users, I believe the opposite of what you postulate is true. I NEED an 8 core Mac Pro NOW NOT a 4 core Mac Pro. Meanwhile, there would be no serious amount of time saved crushing video with a 4 core Mac Pro than it takes to crush with a Quad G5 - perhaps 30% faster. So I am spending more time now by not advancing to a 4 core Mac Pro so that when I get the 8 core Mac Pro I can save radically more time then than I could with a small incremental transition at almost the same expense.I have a dedicated 3.2 GHz Dual Threaded Pentium 4 Windows XP Pro Computer here in my office that I built myself just in case I needed it for something. The need never arises. Whenever I come across a need to use it, I pass. I'm sure you are right. I just don't want to deal with it so I don't. I live an isolated lifestyle that allows me the opportunity to avoid all Windows computers all the time. I'll try and get into it when I get my Dual Clovertown Mac Pro next Spring. But I doubt I'll get very far as I really am not interested in knowing that part of the world nor the people in it.

I am way past the point where I perceive these computers as only tools. For me, they are more like the people who use them. It's a sickness.

You wouldn't be getting just a 30% speed increase though. You'd be getting a 130% speed increase as you could still run your quad G5 at the same time. Surely being more than twice as productive for possibly 3-4 months would make it worth it? You could even sell the quad Mac Pro when the octos come out to recoup a chunk of your money but surely the Mac Pro would have paid for itself in 3 months?

I think the highlighted statements above are very strange and a bit disturbing. So I am a typical Windows user? Exactly what is that then? I'm also a long time Mac user so how does that fit in with your ideas? I can't imagine you avoid people who use Windows..... do you??

 

[Multimedia]

Sorry For Windows Bashing

You wouldn't be getting just a 30% speed increase though. You'd be getting a 130% speed increase as you could still run your quad G5 at the same time. Surely being more than twice as productive for possibly 3-4 months would make it worth it? You could even sell the quad Mac Pro when the octos come out to recoup a chunk of your money but surely the Mac Pro would have paid for itself in 3 months?

I think the highlighted statements above are very strange and a bit disturbing. So I am a typical Windows user? Exactly what is that then? I'm also a long time Mac user so how does that fit in with your ideas? I can't imagine you avoid people who use Windows..... do you??

Yeah I apologize for such rude biased tripe. I have depression problems.

I'd just rather not hassle with $4k into a 4 core Mac Pro right now. I've got other priorities for money like that 'til the 8 core ships. I just exercised my $199 FCP 4 to FCS 5.1 UB option so I can use Winter '07 to better learn the "new" Studio just in time for Final Cut Studio 6 to ship in April. And I want to get a Canon XH A1 HDV Camera as well. My Quad G5 will suffice 'til Dual Clovertowns are ready.

 

[EricTheRed71]

Yeah I apologize for such rude biased tripe. I have depression problems.

I'd just rather not hassle with $4k into a 4 core Mac Pro right now. I've got other priorities for money like that 'til the 8 core ships. I just exercised my $199 FCP 4 to FCS 5.1 UB option so I can use Winter '07 to better learn the "new" Studio just in time for Final Cut Studio 6 to ship in April. And I want to get a Canon XH A1 HDV Camera as well. My Quad G5 will suffice 'til Dual Clovertowns are ready.

Sorry to hear about your problems. Hope it's nothing serious.

That camera looks excellent... I'd love one like that but it would literally be a toy for me!

 

[paulvee]

Mac Pro Drive Sleds - Apple Part Number

Just got mine in today from Tekserve. P/N is 922-7728, and that's for a service part. Not sure if they have a different scheme for service parts, but that's the number.

 

[Multimedia]

ATI Radeon X1900GT PCI Express G5 Mac Edition Report

I've been here since 2001 but I'm still not allowed to create new threads. I guess it's 'cause I'm so popular with Arn and his crew. So I'll just let those of you here who have one of the last G5 PowerMacs with Dual Core G5 processors and a PCI Express video card system including the Quad G5 have my report on this video upgrade finally shipping from ATI and included in the $50 trade up program. After shipping & sales tax including the $50 credit I'll get by sending them ANY OLD video card it will have cost about $350.

1. It DOES Support Rotation on DELL Monitors. This was the #1 reason I bought it. I'm writing this in my "new" 1200 wide by 1600 tall rotated Dell 2001FP that was dark until now. It will also support rotation on the DELL 30" monitor if you mount it in a VESA wall mount that lets you rotate it. The DELL 30" comes with a fixed VESA stand that doesn't permit rotation unlike all the rest of DELL monitors which do come with rotatable VESA stands.

2. It pushes digital TV - both SD and HD on the 30" montor much better than the stock Quad G5 GeForce 6600 can. This is the second reason I bought it. Gone are the lagging images that have plagued the 30" from the weaker card. Much smoother video all the time no matter what source. Scrubbing EyeTV Video recordings on the 30" from this card is radically smoother and faster.

3. It is slightly noisier in there. But not a lot. Just a little more white noise than before.

4. It only takes ONE slot. The cooling system is not that giant fat fan thing that takes two slots in the Mac Pro. That's due to the fact this is based on the coolest, slowest of all the X1900 processors - the X1900 GT running a little slower than the XT model - 575MHz vs. 625MHz. The 256MB of video RAM runs at 1.2 GHz vs. 1.45GHz in the hotter Mac Pro's X1900 XT model. All the cooling is done within the thickness of one card. It may be possible to get 4 of these inside a last generation G5 PCIe PowerMac to push and or rotate eight 30" displays although you would have to split the motherboard's power port to all of them and hope that wouldn't top it off - I doubt it would. Each card's fan gets its power from a connection to a vacant power port on the G5's motherboard via a cable that comes with it.

5. It comes with a CD which has an installer on it that you need to run before the card performs properly. The Read Me file says you should run this software installer before installing the card. I did it backwards and the displays worked but poorly and not correctly until after I installed the drivers that came on this CD. The bag my CD and manual were in is labeled Rev C so I feel like I've got a pretty mature version.

6. It can also drive S-Video and Composite Video Monitors from its separate analog legacy video port with an included breakout cable for both S-Video and Composite video out connections - something the Mac Pro card can't do without occupying a DVI port with a DVI to analog video adaptor.

7. I'm thrilled. Got my rotation back I lost when I sold my Dual 2.5GHz G5 that had an ATI card in it. The fact that NVIDEA cards don't support rotation is really crazy and unfair - especially given the fact that all PC NVIDEA cards do support rotation on PCs. And HD playback and editing on the 30" is noticably improved.

Surprise: This card only reports a total of 128MB of video RAM in the System Profiler. Turns out to be a documented bug I found it in the Read Me file that came with it.

Apple System Profiler reports incorrect VRAM size
ASP reports 128MB of VRAM for the ATI RADEON X1900 G5 Mac Edition when in fact there is 256MB of VRAM.

 

[AppliedVisual]

Sir,

Since I'm completely new to Apple/Mac, what is a " proper 8-core config for a Mac Pro ", please!

I was basically saying that current quad-core Mac Pro systems offer very little performance gain over the previous model G5 quad-core Power Macs that they have replaced. For new system buyers, this is not a big deal, but for those of us who already have G5 quad systems, the Mac Pro doesn't really offer any advantages, especially given the price -- unless we just need to buy more systems. By proper 8-core configuration, I was just saying that I'm waiting for an 8-core system option before I buy a Mac Pro and if I can hold out long enough, I would like it to have the upcoming Stoakley chipset from Intel, which will provide some new features and abilities vs. the current systems and I'm hoping Apple does more than just drop the new quad-core Xeon chips into the current Mac Pro system.

From the little bit you have mentioned, I think the Mac Pro you own is just fine for you. Probably no need to go upgrading when new ones come out unless you specifically have a need for the extra CPU cores. I do a lot of 3D animation work and I can use all the CPU power I can get my hands on for rendering of 3D images. Image processing and most video editing/compositing tasks don't need all those CPU cores. But a lot of this depends on your workflow too... Multimedia uses his systems to rip and encode DVD and other video sources and from what I've read, it seems he does lots of it every day and his G5 quad just can't handle the load.

But don't get me wrong when I talk about 8-core systems and wanting to wait. The current quad-core Mac Pro systems are still wicked fast and they are a very well-built and capable system that beats most everything else out there, even many workstations that sell in higher price brackets. The only thing that's kept me from buying one is that I don't need another system, I just need more powerful systems. And that's a lot of money to pay (especially with the FB-DIMM RAM prices) for only about 30% (at best) increase in performance over what I already have.

 

[kfleung]

Thx and thx!

I was basically saying that current quad-core Mac Pro systems offer very little performance gain over the previous model G5 quad-core Power Macs that they have replaced. For new system buyers, this is not a big deal, but for those of us who already have G5 quad systems, the Mac Pro doesn't really offer any advantages, especially given the price -- unless we just need to buy more systems. By proper 8-core configuration, I was just saying that I'm waiting for an 8-core system option before I buy a Mac Pro and if I can hold out long enough, I would like it to have the upcoming Stoakley chipset from Intel, which will provide some new features and abilities vs. the current systems and I'm hoping Apple does more than just drop the new quad-core Xeon chips into the current Mac Pro system.

From the little bit you have mentioned, I think the Mac Pro you own is just fine for you. Probably no need to go upgrading when new ones come out unless you specifically have a need for the extra CPU cores. I do a lot of 3D animation work and I can use all the CPU power I can get my hands on for rendering of 3D images. Image processing and most video editing/compositing tasks don't need all those CPU cores. But a lot of this depends on your workflow too... Multimedia uses his systems to rip and encode DVD and other video sources and from what I've read, it seems he does lots of it every day and his G5 quad just can't handle the load.

But don't get me wrong when I talk about 8-core systems and wanting to wait. The current quad-core Mac Pro systems are still wicked fast and they are a very well-built and capable system that beats most everything else out there, even many workstations that sell in higher price brackets. The only thing that's kept me from buying one is that I don't need another system, I just need more powerful systems. And that's a lot of money to pay (especially with the FB-DIMM RAM prices) for only about 30% (at best) increase in performance over what I already have.

Thx AppliedVisual and Multimedia for your positive advices and guidances. I agree with you 101% on the worthness of these skyhigh price tag for Apple or Apple approved FB-DIMM ECC RAM. But when I came on Mac desktop, it's the Intel Woodcrest already, timing I would say!

Personally, the videowork I would handle is low-end practical videography and postduction for small to medium sized firms. Mainly involved footage editing and some real time effects, I have a ForA 4:2:2 Digital DVE/Switcher (twelve years old now but still provide very high boardcast quality video output) taking care the effect part for me. I'm really bad at 3D animation work so I would usually sublet these talent work out for the young talent. Real time Colour correction and some programmable transitions are all I need. That's why my PC can still handle it well.

But when I migrate to Full HD/HDV, it may be a complete different story. The Full HD/HDV demands on huge data I/O, coding, transcoding, data processsing, storage and transmission. I'm not sure what I might need during my migration. Hopefully, my present Mac Pro should still work for me or the Mac Pro should alreadily has it's dual unitified 8-core Intel CPUs at late 2007 to early 2008. Unlike Multimedia, I'll definitely go for the more flexible Canon XL-H1 (the cheapest HD solution I can think of, certainly the Panasonic or Sony HD Varicam should be the best) for it's interchangable lens system, I have some EOS supertele EOS white lens excellent for wildlife docmentary HD video.

Thx again!

 

[AppliedVisual]

But when I migrate to Full HD/HDV, it may be a complete different story. The Full HD/HDV demands on huge data I/O, coding, transcoding, data processsing, storage and transmission. I'm not sure what I might need during my migration. Hopefully, my present Mac Pro should still work for me or the Mac Pro should alreadily has it's dual unitified 8-core Intel CPUs at late 2007 to early 2008. Unlike Multimedia, I'll definitely go for the more flexible Canon XL-H1 (the cheapest HD solution I can think of, certainly the Panasonic or Sony HD Varicam should be the best) for it's interchangable lens system, I have some EOS supertele EOS white lens excellent for wildlife docmentary HD video.

Your current Mac Pro will handle DV and HDV just fine... HDV is somewhat of a resource hog, but you shouldn't have any trouble working with at least 3 or 4 streams on that Mac Pro and still have plenty of headroom. I can work with 1 1080i HDV stream plus 3 DVCPROHD 720p streams simultaneously on my G5 quads without bringing down the house, so shouldn't be a problem. ...Where you're going to find more issues is with the software you ultimately pick and the Mac doesn't have everything (why I also run PC systems). There will always be something better on the horizon and at this time next year, I'm sure we'll be speculating about 8-core CPUs which will bring us 16-core workstations... But don't think twice about your Mac Pro you already have. It's a great system and should serve you well -- even for a few years as long as you can stand not having the latest and greatest. Given what you mention about your video gear, I don't think that's a problem for you. Actually I know quite a few people who stuck with betacam and s.vhs right up to switching over to HD (a couple of them only switched in the last few weeks). Both offered far superior color-keying capabilities vs. DV as well as a few other advantages - like no blocky bleeding edges on high-contrast reds we all get with DV. ...I've always hated DV and I practically skipped it and rented DVCPRO50 or digibeta gear over the years.

HD is somewhat of a muddled mess of "standards" right now, but things are looking to get better. HDV is already on its way out.. It was/is a stop-gap format or simple way of placing an MPEG-2 HD stream within the confines of the 25Mbps (and in some cases quite a bit less) data stream afforded by the already economical mini-DV tape systems. Many newer camcorders are moving too hard drive, optical or flash storage systems and data rates are increasing as well as newer codecs being used (like H.264 being used for the AVCHD standard). So there will be lots of things for you to consider as you begin to upgrade. If you had to pick an HD camera right now and keep your purchase under $15K for a good setup, you really only have two choices (IMNSHO). The Canon XL-H1 as you mentioned and the Panasonic HVX200. With the XL-H1, you'll need the extra EOS lens adapter to mount the lens you've mentioned, but it should work OK. I've used EOS lenses with older XL-2 camcorders and always had good results. But the XL-H1 produces the best scenic or panoramic imagery of any of the < $15K HD camcorders on the market today. If you're shooting outdoors on a budget, this is the one. Now, if you need variable frame rate ability on a budget or will be shooting in indoor settings - studio and stage work, the HVX200 is incredible. The color reproduction is simply amazing and the close-in detail this camera captures for studio style shots of actors or other subjects is mind-blowing... Especially considering it's a green-shifted ED-res CCD block. ...I own both the above-mentioned cameras and each will serve you well for an all around camera, but they excel tremendously in their own ways that I have mentioned.

...OTOH, both have been available for about a year and newer codecs and standards are going to force updates quicker than Canon and Panasonic are probably willing to admit or accept. For your first few ventures into HD, you may find it more beneficial to rent a camera system when you need one... This could also afford you the luxury of trying out various cameras and also being able to use bigger/better cameras than what you could typically own. I often rent a Varicam or a Sony F950 (CineAlta) depending on the project at hand... The HVX200 and XL-H1 can't do everything and often not up to the client's expectations...

 

[Multimedia]

All Apple Pro Crossgrade-Upgrade Offers Extended To March 19

Just off the phone with the Apple Software Upgrade office in South Bend Indiana and she tells me that due to overwhealming response to their Pro Applicaitons Crossgrade and Upgrade offers to UB versions of Final Cut Studio, Shake, Logic and Logic Express, they have decided to extend the deadline all the way to March 19 2007.

If you don't have Final Cut Studio UB, all you have to do is find any upgrade version of any part of it or Final Cut Pro 4 or HD or Production Suite and it will only cost you $199 more to get the whole $1299 FCS 5.1 UB commercial version - even if what you have now is Academic. Really worth hunting around for a burried upgrade version from anywhere - mail order houses, academic stores, your local independent Apple dealer. All you need to find is an UPGRADE version of any parts which normally sell for only $199 or $299. Original FCP 1, 2 or 3 install CDs or DVDs can be used to get FCS 5.1 UB for only $699 still almost half price.

 

[macmanonline]

If you CAN wait til January, then why not? It will spare you the agony & frustration you'd get if the 8-Core came then, and you didn't wait.
I bought my iMac G5 right before an event, because it wasn't expected to come any upgrades to the iMac, but hey! Suddenly there's the Intel iMac.
I will never NEVER EVER EVER!!! buy anything "Apple" right before an event again.

I will be paying out 4000 Euro for the Mac Pro and Monitor! (Over $5000)

I really need the Mac Pro like I said, but it's too damn close to an event!

If I don't wait and find out that the 8-core is going to be released in Jan '07 I will be kicking myself!

So I have two things to consider:
1: If I get one now and I find out that a 8-core is a few weeks away then I will go crazy!
2. If I don't get one I will be going crazy hoping that I am not wasting my time waiting!

Overall:
I don't think I could live with myself if the 8-core came out in a few weeks!

 

[IEatApples]

I will be paying out 4000 Euro for the Mac Pro and Monitor! (Over $5000)

I really need the Mac Pro like I said, but it's too damn close to an event!

If I don't wait and find out that the 8-core is going to be released in Jan '07 I will be kicking myself!

So I have two things to consider:
1: If I get one now and I find out that a 8-core is a few weeks away then I will go crazy!
2. If I don't get one I will be going crazy hoping that I am not wasting my time waiting!

Overall:
I don't think I could live with myself if the 8-core came out in a few weeks!

Well, then trust me. WAIT!!! It will make you feel better.

Consider the possible "bad" outcomes:

1. You get the MacPro now and get scr*wed in January =

2. You wait and nothing happen in January =

You choose.

 

[Multimedia]

This Waiting Obscures The Reward Which Will Be Huge

Well, then trust me. WAIT!!! It will make you feel better.

Consider the possible "bad" outcomes:

1. You get the MacPro now and get scr*wed in January =

2. You wait and nothing happen in January =

You choose.

It's only been 14 months since we could have 4 cores. It won't be more than 3 more before we can have 8. That's pretty amazingly rapid progress. In less than a year and a half we will have gone from two IBM G5 cores to eight Intel Core 2 cores. Makes Moore's Law seem a little old fashioned doesn't it?

So I think we ought to be able to wait a few more months perhaps only weeks given the reality we're going to be getting another giant leap in performance when they ship so amazingly soon after we just got 4 cores only last October '05.

 

[AppliedVisual]

Makes Moore's Law seem a little old fashioned doesn't it?

Moore's Law is a bunch of poop that has little bearing on anything. It was originally postulated to describe the exponential increase in the number of transistors that make up silicon computer chips and has nothing to do with (then or now) CPU power. It's one of those things that's continuously propegated and incorrectly referenced by industry trade and marketing people for no apparent reason other than uh, filler content that may trigger a spark of recognition within a reader's brain. What's funny is how Intel treats this prediciton by their co-founder, Gordon Moore, in several of their publications (they even have an official Moore's Law press kit), they go on to talk about how Moore was a true genius that saw the future, blah, blah blah...(and in many ways this is true) Then they go on to show charts with a linear progression of CPU revisions (linear progression is NOT Moore's Law, LOL). Furthermore, whoever created these charts intermixed Pentium and Itanium lines roughly in order by MIPS it seems. And they have nothing to do with Moore's law and the number of transistors. In other lesser-known Intel documents and whitepapers, they talk about how Moore's law was never correct and that it was initially overrun where transistor counts through the late 80's to mid '90s on an industry-wide basis were often tripling or quadrupling every year. With recent CPU pipeline optimizations, redesigns and die shrinks, in many cases, the number of transistors per chip has actually decreased... Then only to nearly double again when CPUs are duplicated on the same die for multi-core designs. Intel removed the "Moore was Wrong" page in the midst of the site redesign just before the announcement of the Core Duo line of CPUs. Anyway, blah, blah blah.... I'm just being seriously pedantic today.

For the most part, back in '65, Gordon Moore was a true visionary and one of the few people of the day that did have an accurate glimpse of the future. His law never really applied to much of anything, but it did earn him immortality in the industry. While he was essentially proven wrong -- transistor count and CPU power actually scaled faster and farther than any of his predictions called for, he is often credited because he was the only one to predict such a thing. The majority of the industry at the time, other than a few of his intel followers, thought he was nuts and that computer chips would never evolve at such a frantic rate. These days, while Moore's law is often cited incorrectly, transistor counts are somewhat sporatic and no longer corrolate directly with CPU power and speed.

But one thing is a given, CPU power does significantly increase at an alarming rate... While it doesn't necessarily double every 18 months as the incorrectly stated Moore's Law says it should, it is still quite rapid. And we often see sudden jumps every few years as newer designs take place. The evolution of multi-core CPUs is going to push CPU power into exponential growth for the next few years. Far faster than the MHz race with AMD did... Or at least it looks that way. And eventually the number of cores per CPU will hit a wall just as MHz did... And I'm thinking that wall will arrive sooner than Intel and AMD predict, just as the MHz wall just short of 4GHz caught most industry "experts" by surprise when they were all claiming 10GHz by '07 back when Intel and AMD shipped the first 2GHz CPUs.

So I think we ought to be able to wait a few more months perhaps only weeks given the reality we're going to be getting another quantum leap in performance when they ship so amazingly soon after we just got 4 cores only last October '05.

While I'm in a pedantic mood, keep in mind that "quantum leap" actually refers to a very insignificant positional shift. It is the movement of an electron, that encircles the nucleus of an atom, from one valence level to another. ...I can trigger millions of quantum leaps in the balm of my hand simply by rubbing my hands together. Heh. ...But I guess "quantum leap" sure sounds cool and markets well when most people don't know what "quantum" even means. As in a particular amount... Or the smallest measurable quantity of any form of energy or matter within a given system.

OK, my pedantic rant is over... I'll go find something more productive to do -- like pick my nose.

 

[paulvee]

I want solid state, super fast storage before more processing speed at this point. Or both combined would be even better.

 

[AppliedVisual]

I want solid state, super fast storage before more processing speed at this point. Or both combined would be even better.

...And the technology is available. It just hasn't reached a point for manufacturers to switch over. Newer FLASH chips have cells that can be re-written nearly a million times over, so just about good enough for mass storage use, getting very close. Capacities are already high enough that solid state drives could be made that are physically smaller than platter drives with equal or better capacity - even redundancy built-in too. I think it's only a matter of a few more years as FLASH progresses a bit more to increase re-write abilities. From there, market demand and new mass storage products will push prices way down. 2TB notebook "drives" that are silent, cool-running, several times faster and consume 1/20th of the power used by today's notebook drives are probably only 3 to 5 years away. Of course, I've been in this industry far too long, so I know that my prediction is complete BS.

 

[sbaik]

Hi everybody

I was in this dilemma for a while buying now or wait for the 8 core then i finally decided to go with mac pro 2 x 2.66 dual core after I knew the price range of the quad core processor
1.8 QC is for $690
2.33 QC is for $850
2.66 QC is for $1170
knowing that the 2.66 DC costs $690
I think apple won't be able to replace the mac pro now instead they will add a the 2 x 2.33 quad core as a new option and this option will cost the same as 2 x 3GHz dual core which is $3300 while removing the 2 x 2GHz dual core from the configuration list, the other option for apple (which i really doubt) will be replacing the whole dual core thing with quad 1.8, 2.33 and 2.66 in this case the price of the 2 x 1.8 quad core will be similar to the mac pro 2 x 2.66 DC but with a lower front bus side (the 1.8 is 1066) and the 2 x 2.66 QC price will be almost $4000 which is nonsense.
So in both cases the the Mac Pro now with its 2 x 2.66 dual core is very good and well priced and sure will out perform the 1.8 and the 2.33 quad core in many applications but the 8 cores will out preform it in the server stuff which is not apple arena anyway but for most of the apple pro users like photographers, video editors, graphic designers....etc i think Mac pro 2 x 2.66 dual core is more than enough for the time being.
Anyway I'm so happy with my mac pro it gives me what i need and more so see u on the 16 cores

 

[mwswami]

XEON E5335 - 1333 FSB 2.0 Quad core

I was in this dilemma for a while buying now or wait for the 8 core then i finally decided to go with mac pro 2 x 2.66 dual core after I knew the price range of the quad core processor
1.8 QC is for $690
2.33 QC is for $850
2.66 QC is for $1170
knowing that the 2.66 DC costs $690
I think apple won't be able to replace the mac pro now instead they will add a the 2 x 2.33 quad core as a new option and this option will cost the same as 2 x 3GHz dual core which is $3300 while removing the 2 x 2GHz dual core from the configuration list, the other option for apple (which i really doubt) will be replacing the whole dual core thing with quad 1.8, 2.33 and 2.66 in this case the price of the 2 x 1.8 quad core will be similar to the mac pro 2 x 2.66 DC but with a lower front bus side (the 1.8 is 1066) and the 2 x 2.66 QC price will be almost $4000 which is nonsense.
So in both cases the the Mac Pro now with its 2 x 2.66 dual core is very good and well priced and sure will out perform the 1.8 and the 2.33 quad core in many applications but the 8 cores will out preform it in the server stuff which is not apple arena anyway but for most of the apple pro users like photographers, video editors, graphic designers....etc i think Mac pro 2 x 2.66 dual core is more than enough for the time being.
Anyway I'm so happy with my mac pro it gives me what i need and more so see u on the 16 cores

Intel just released the 1333 FSB 2.0GHz quad core Xeon E5335 for $690. Apple will likely offer the 2x4x2.0 Mac Pro at the same price as the current 2x2x2.66. But I agree with you, the 2x2x2.66 is a very good buy for most people.

 

[Multimedia]

$4k Is Not Nonsense For An 8 Core Mac Pro

I was in this dilemma for a while buying now or wait for the 8 core then i finally decided to go with mac pro 2 x 2.66 dual core after I knew the price range of the quad core processor
1.8 QC is for $690
2.33 QC is for $850
2.66 QC is for $1170
knowing that the 2.66 DC costs $690
I think apple won't be able to replace the mac pro now instead they will add a the 2 x 2.33 quad core as a new option and this option will cost the same as 2 x 3GHz dual core which is $3300 while removing the 2 x 2GHz dual core from the configuration list, the other option for apple (which i really doubt) will be replacing the whole dual core thing with quad 1.8, 2.33 and 2.66 in this case the price of the 2 x 1.8 quad core will be similar to the mac pro 2 x 2.66 DC but with a lower front bus side (the 1.8 is 1066) and the 2 x 2.66 QC price will be almost $4000 which is nonsense.
So in both cases the the Mac Pro now with its 2 x 2.66 dual core is very good and well priced and sure will out perform the 1.8 and the 2.33 quad core in many applications but the 8 cores will out preform it in the server stuff which is not apple arena anyway but for most of the apple pro users like photographers, video editors, graphic designers....etc i think Mac pro 2 x 2.66 dual core is more than enough for the time being.
Anyway I'm so happy with my mac pro it gives me what i need and more so see u on the 16 cores

I think $4k would be a bargain and I also think it will sell for less than that but will cost more than that once you fill it up with RAM. Others here have reminded us that the ancient IIFx sold for over $8,000 back in the early 90's. You really should have some historical persepctive on pricing before you think $4k is too much for 8 cores.

I also think I can get AppliedVisual to agree with me that we in video are certain that 4 cores are not nearly enough for now. You should read this thread before you start speaking for all of us who have elucidated in depth why four cores won't do.

So by your last sentence you think 4 cores are fine but will buy 16 cores when it comes out? Makes no sense. Why do all the "4 cores is enough" crowd barge in here to brag about their adoption of the current Mac Pro and why we should give up our plans to buy one with 8 cores when it ships? We all know why you buy a 4 core Mac Pro now. We don't need to be reminded there are perfectly good reasons to buy now and not wait a little longer for the Dual Clovertown. We have our reasons for waiting patiently. No one is going to talk us out of waiting. So please don't try and bug off please.

 

[weckart]

I think $4k would be a bargain and I also think it will sell for less than that but will cost more than that once you fill it up with RAM. Others here have reminded us that the ancient IIFx sold for over $8,000 back in the early 90's. You really should have some historical persepctive on pricing before you think $4k is too much for 8 cores.

It is a fair comment, but it would only be fair to point out, too, that:

a) The market has changed considerably since then. What was an acceptable price then is less so now.
b) Given the pace of developments and expectations, the useful life of any computer now is much dimished, meaning your $$$ probably do not go as far as they once did, although, admittedly, if you need to keep up with the latest developments (i.e time spent processing is money wasted), the price of hardware is probably marginal to the cost of training and software.
c) All the cores added to the die are going to result in diminishing returns unless Intel sorts out its FSB bottlenecks. There is only so much data that can be pushed around. Bragging rights only.
d) Software needs to be (re)written to take advantage of the added oomph available.