Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nice workstation, but still "missing" a few things:

- BluRay (play/burn)
- USB 3.0
- Intel WiDi (Wireless Display)
- High-Def 3D Viewing*

* NOTE: With NVIDIA® 3D Vision technology, you can transform PC games, photos and 3D movies into a truly immersive experience like no other!
Yes, as a workstation, how about creating 3D content (e.g., Pixar, now owned by Disney, for example)? 3D playback likely requires BluRay as well.

The irony is that Pixar doesn't use Mac's in their 3d department. As a matter of fact, most high-end 3d companies use PC's running on Linux or Unix, and render off a server farm. Though, you might find Macs in the previsualization and design departments.
 
I think you and I have different ideas of what I need.
I really don't care what you need. Also I do not pretend to know what you need, if that's what you think.

"People just don't need expandable towers that much today."
That much means less people need expandable towers.

"I don't see the problem for people who used G3s G4s and G5s for Photoshop to switch to iMacs."
Yes, I do not see a problem, but maybe there is. Or not.

So what exactly was your comment about? Ah, yes, not reading mine!
 
As I said in the iMac thread, these prices show Apple's contempt towards customers. Its hilarious that they would charge such outrageous prices for their hardware.
Whats even worse though is that theres tons of people ordering these systems right now thinking its a fantastic deal.

You compare this to what? Try to check how much a similarly specced Dell would cost you.
 
If you are a small studio or individual free-lancing, you can't always afford to have Apple repair your stuff, unless you replace your equipment every 3 years and buy expensive Apple Care. A Hackintosh give you more options for a lot less overhead.

I can attest to that. The only risk you run is Apple doing something to kill them in an update.

My Hackintosh runs beautifully, although I wish I had gotten a better supported motherboard (the price was so cheap on the one I ended up with, I'll deal with it). If you do your research ahead of time you can get a very nice and very stable machine built.
 
And how much less would that be?

Well, I just calculated an identical quadcore pc here in Belgium (except for the case obviously, took a high end Lian-li instead), turns out you can get two equivalent pc's (including OEM Win7 license) for the price of the base Mac Pro, which costs an astonishing €2429 over here.

All of this is getting hard to justify in my business (which is architecture, including 3D rendering). Twice the price for the "privilege" to use OS X...
 
Very disappointing there is no USB3 or new Fire wire connections

The graphics card has two MDP ports and a dual-link DVI port intended to be used all at once.

One would think a PCI card with LP, USB3, FW3200 or whatever other high bandwidth plug one might want, could be added aftermarket. I urge you to tell Belkin and OWC and others what you want so they can make it.

Rocketman
 
The arguments on overpriced seem justified for the entry Quad - especially when the processor can be had for $330 USD - I think the pricing falls closer and back in line as you BTO - I would bet the 6 core will be the 'best' value proposition when you base cost of the unit against cost of the processor - no one should be buying the Quad though for that starting price.

Worst part about that is that the refurbs won't drop significantly either to reflect the component prices either since the entry maintains a huge premium.
 
What about using the on-board connectors?

onboardsata_sm.jpg


Order a bracket here ($19) or elsewhere, and off you go. No hot swap though.

this is not the same as esata. it is not hot swap and in my case not reliable.
 
You compare this to what? Try to check how much a similarly specced Dell would cost you.

If I'm interested in such high end hardware, why would I be buying it from any manufacturer? If I'm going to dump $2,000 or more into a computer then I am going to build it myself.
 
I don't disagree. I think I made that pretty clear in what I said. However, workstation parts are workstation parts and desktop parts are desktop parts. They have their own prices and that's that.

Performance isn't the only measure of a computer either. Do I care about having fully buffered ECC memory? No. Not ever. However, the stuff exists for a reason.

I'm not an Apple apologist. The lack of eSATA is a constant thorn in my side for some of the things I would LIKE to do with Macs but ultimately look elsewhere. (Would bringing back ExpressCard slots to MacBook Pros and iMacs be too much to ask? And, obviously, the answer is yes.) However, what I tire of is this sense of entitlement may of the posters here display or the apples to oranges comparisons. I don't care if you don't need a workstation. The Mac Pro IS a workstation. If you don't need a workstation then who cares what the Mac Pro is sporting this year?

Apple clearly does not want to cater to the configurable desktop at this time. I wish they would. However, it appears that the guys who continue to make decisions that continue to increase profit margins have decided they don't want to go there.
I need a computer for my music studio. Mac mini is to little. Imac sounds to much. I need a good price/performance that you get from a i7 and a few pcie slots for audiocard and maybe a DSP card for UAD plugins.
 
If I'm interested in such high end hardware, why would I be buying it from any manufacturer? If I'm going to dump $2,000 or more into a computer then I am going to build it myself.
Ok, and you think it'll be much more cheap? Only the CPUs for the 4999$ Mac Pro would cost you 2048$.
 
Well, I just calculated an identical quadcore pc here in Belgium (except for the case obviously, took a high end Lian-li instead), turns out you can get two equivalent pc's (including OEM Win7 license) for the price of the base Mac Pro, which costs an astonishing €2429 over here.
All of this is getting hard to justify in my business (which is architecture, including 3D rendering). Twice the price for the "privilege" to use OS X...
Agreed, but this is only because it's the old Mac Pro and Apple do not change their prices until there's a new release. If you look at the newly announced stuff you'll see that you won't manage the same feat.
 
The current case design is a wonderful and timeless piece of artwork, as are the early Leicas, and as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't mind Apple using the same case for the next 60 years to come.
Agreed 100%.
Cheese grater tower forever!
 
Is it just me, or does the Quad i7 2.93GHz iMac seem like it carries a much better price/performance ratio than the new lineup of Mac Pros?

Yep, your right, i am thinking an imac is a better deal. I am even thinking that a refurbished last model from apple.

this just isn't worth it, without:

1- Blu-Ray
2- USB 3
3- Optional HDMI output also for secondary monitor

Also, it would be great to get a new case. this one is pretty dated. they have been using this aluminum design for many generations now with only minor changes.
 
I was planning to update my 2008 Macpro 8 core 2.8 to a 12 core model. But... 5000 bucks? You gotta be kidding me! No new case design, bluray player/burner, no hdmi, no usb 3.0, no high end graphic cards? Extremely overpriced!!

Waiting for next year to see if new specs/prices are better. If not im moving to a iMac 27 inch.
 
I need a computer for my music studio. Mac mini is to little. Imac sounds to much. I need a good price/performance that you get from a i7 and a few pcie slots for audiocard and maybe a DSP card for UAD plugins.
So? The guy is arguing whether the Mac pro is useful or not. The fact that it doesn't suit you means nothing (no offence here).
 
Agreed 100%.
Cheese grater tower forever!

Me too. Honestly, as a homebuilding PC enthusiast for 15+ years, the cheese grater case was a holy avatar of what my hacked-together nonsense could never be: beautiful, singular, ruthlessly purposeful. It's function, it's form, it's a tool, it's a weapon. I'm thrilled they didn't change it before I bought one. :)

Peace
policy
 
I was planning to update my 2008 Macpro 8 core 2.8 to a 12 core model. But... 5000 bucks? You gotta be kidding me! No new case design, bluray player/burner, no hdmi, no usb 3.0, no high end graphic cards? Extremely overpriced!!
Care to explain how it is extremely overpriced when only the CPUs are 2000$ already?
 
Ever herd of a hackintosh, for the price of a low end powermac you can easily build a machine that will make a mid range powermac look like a sniveling b*tch.

Apples tower pricing is so far out of line its looney.

THis is simply false. Once you deck out a hackintosh-style machine to compare properly, the price difference is not that big, although the disks from Apple are ridiculously expensive. I tried it TODAY and expected to buy an non-Apple machine and be forced to run Linux for a project; the price difference was not that big.
 
Ok, and you think it'll be much more cheap? Only the CPUs for the 4999$ Mac Pro would cost you 2048$.

Building my own system would be significantly cheaper.

I don't need a Xeon processor. Why? The only real world difference between a modern Xeon and a Core i7 is name and the ability to use ECC memory. ECC memory is a crock. The chances of non-ECC memory actually having an error are significantly less than your chances of winning the lottery.

And with Windows offloading most video work to the GPU, and CUDA, I can rely on significantly more powerful GPUs to do the work that slower CPUs have to do in OS X.

And even better? I can upgrade it myself later on down the road. Two years from now if I want a faster processor, or a new motherboard that supports faster RAM, I can do that myself at a fraction of the cost of upgrading to a new Mac Pro.

And thanks to the wide variety of GPUs available for Windows, I'm not limited to a handful of them.

I can spend about half as much on a Mac Pro right now and get an equally as fast PC. Two years from now I can dump a fast CPU in the system, upgrade the GPU, and put more RAM in, and still have spend several hundred dollars less than I would have on the Mac Pro.
 
I was thinking that for those people who want more than 8 cores, why not just buy cheap mini's and setup a render farm? I would think that a base 4 core machine (for the edit) along with a couple of mac minis would be cheaper and faster for rendering. I can't think of any reason to buy 12 cores in one machine when you have options to setup external renders. What I think would be the best solution is to have fast CPU on the edit machine, and multiple external cores to send the final file out to. Why would anyone want to keep the whole process confined to one box? Please enlighten me.

Pro Audio needs realtime processing. Apple is experimenting with "Logic Node" distributed computing but that needs to mature.
 
The irony is that Pixar doesn't use Mac's in their 3d department. As a matter of fact, most high-end 3d companies use PC's running on Linux or Unix, and render off a server farm. Though, you might find Macs in the previsualization and design departments.

True. 3D software just doesn't run well on Macs. Maya is notorious for its poor performance on the Mac. It's because we're running on graphics drivers and a OpenGL implementation from the digital stone age.
 
Nothing here to make me consider upgrading from my 2008 dual 2.8...but that's good...no need to be envious. Happy to stick with the 08 for another year or two until there's a serious development.

And what good value those 2008's were!

Might check out one of those trackpads though...
 
Building my own system would be significantly cheaper.
I don't need a Xeon processor. Why? The only real world difference between a modern Xeon and a Core i7 is name and the ability to use ECC memory.
Basically, you are saying that if you use different parts you'll build a cheaper computer. That is certainly great, but the CPUs inside the MacPro are still 2048$ on newegg.
Also, if I am not wrong, the Xeon is supposed to be better tested and designed to operate in different thermal conditions.

And with Windows offloading most video work to the GPU, and CUDA, I can rely on significantly more powerful GPUs to do the work that slower CPUs have to do in OS X.
And even better? I can upgrade it myself later on down the road. Two years from now if I want a faster processor, or a new motherboard that supports faster RAM, I can do that myself at a fraction of the cost of upgrading to a new Mac Pro.
Well, then it doesn't suit you. Although I don't see why people just don't resell the computer and buy a new one. Works great for me.

I can spend about half as much on a Mac Pro right now and get an equally as fast PC.
Not if you use the same parts - processors specifically.

Two years from now I can dump a fast CPU in the system, upgrade the GPU, and put more RAM in, and still have spend several hundred dollars less than I would have on the Mac Pro.
Frankly, I think you'll loose as much money as me when I am reselling (a Mac Pro will always have a better resale value than a rig you build)
 
...
Let's see what's good. The internal design is nice and cable-free, let's keep that. The cheese grater mesh and the aluminum is great for airflow and cooling, let's keep those too. The elevation is good. Another keeper.

Now let's look at the stuff that's less than perfect. The power socket way up near the top? Dum-de-dum. I don't care where the power supply is - get that thing moved. 3 USB ports on the back? Are you kidding me? Is this an entry-level laptop or a professional desktop? Try 6. Two FW ports on the back and two on the front? Um, few if any need two temporary FW ports and nobody wants a permanent setup with ugly cables hanging off the front. Try 3 back, 1 front. Now, what about those giant handles? They're great when you need to lift it once a year, but for those 364 other days a year they're in the way when you want to place peripherals on top of the machine. It's like having a suitcase with a giant handle that won't fold away. Inventors solved that stuff 500 years ago. You can do it too. Finally, aesthetics. Any chance of throwing the customers a bone here? Perhaps a black Apple logo and some black trimmings to bring it in line with every other Mac in the lineup? How about those ghastly CD tray squares, they look positively retarded, any chance of slot-loading drives or do you still have to cater to the 0.000002% who have this mini-CD they simply must insert every day?

These are just suggestions and you might not agree with them at all. But please don't suggest that the Mac Pro can't be improved or that a fresher look would come at the expense of function. The Pro has just as much room for improvement as the old Mac Mini did. The difference is that Apple hasn't stopped caring about the latter.

You seem to be one of the first, if not the first, in 17 or so pages to actually offer suggestions on how to improve the case... instead of just slagging it. I may not agree with it, but at least you made some suggestions. After I baited you into it, though.... :)

Every business was once a small startup on a budget. If the threshold is too steep, they will go with a PC, learn Windows applications, build their pipeline around Windows and become entrenched. 10 years ago there was a Mac for everyone because the entry-level desktops had the necessary I/O and expandability too. Now those are luxury features. Selling Mac Pro to customers who are already beyond having to care about money is great and all, but they will all retire one day. We don't want a situation where all Mac users are consumers and all content producers are on PC, do we?

Umm... actually, small businesses are picking up Minis. I'm seeing them popping up everywhere... and I think the fact that Apple felt they could bump the price tells me that the Minis are selling really well. They fit anywhere, you can pop a cheap monitor on it, they are reliable. And cheap.... just what a startup budget needs. :D

Building my own system would be significantly cheaper.

I don't need a Xeon processor. Why? The only real world difference between a modern Xeon and a Core i7 is name and the ability to use ECC memory. ECC memory is a crock. The chances of non-ECC memory actually having an error are significantly less than your chances of winning the lottery.
...

"A two-and-a-half year study of DRAM on 10s of thousands Google servers found DIMM error rates are hundreds to thousands of times higher than thought — a mean of 3,751 correctable errors per DIMM per year." From ZDNet Wish I could win 3700 lotteries. Per Year.

You were saying ???

I can't afford to let errors creep into my workflow.... perhaps you can, eh?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.