I am going whole hog when I replace my MacPro (1,1). It should last for at least 5 years.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Announces New Mac Pros With Up to 12 Cores, SSD Options
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am going whole hog when I replace my MacPro (1,1). It should last for at least 5 years.
Shhh. Steve might hear you and actually get off his ass and service Apple's base.
If only logic worked on Willie Wonka....
This is how I feel about the base Mac Pro:
AH, that's priceless. I wish a PC manufacturer could legally hire Long and the other guy to make a commercial where PC kicks Mac's ass with a Blu-ray equipped machine.
As it is now, those commercials are probably dead, because Long isn't a friggin' iPhone or iPad and Apple could really care less about making cutting edged Macs. All those hyper-processor smoke and mirrors (with little software that can even use them) while they still won't play a four-year old Blu-ray disc.
Dumb, Jobs. Just dumb. STILL.
It's looking like the 6 core will fill the price gap between the 8 core and 12 core options, but being a single processor Mac Pro, it will still have only 4 memory slots. 4 memory slots for a ~4000$ machine? Still a joke.
The 8 core got a 6% processor speed increase and a 6% price increase. Furthermore, you're either stuck with cores running at 2.4, or you upgrade to a 5000$ 12 core machine.
ECC memory is only part of it...
Most of the comments on this thread focuses on the performance of the Xeon platform vs Core platform.
Reliability and expandability are the major differences. (ECC is just part of the reliability)
The Xeon platform (Xeon, motherboard, memory etc) ... was designed for server or higher end workstations consideration - multi-socket support, power consumption & heat, etc.
(That's why you don't see i7 and related components in server farms).
And as with many components geared towards a business environment they are expensive and priced for businesses. If you are buying Xeon based workstation such as a Dell Precision or MacPro you are paying for more than just performance - if you don't need the expandability (such as multi-socket support) or the better motherboard, power management, ECC, etc then you are probably wasting.
P.
If a crew cab and enlongated tail is important to you, you should compare the Dodge RAM to the Chevrolet Silverado. If it's not, the comparison with a Hyundai accent is valid as it is written.
Nope, doesn't work that way. You not needing one of the features that is included in the price doesn't mean you can compare it to something that is cheaper because it doesn't include said feature.
The proper answer is not to even look at the Mac Pro to begin with.
It's the same thing with people and the Mac Mini. Somehow, because they don't need the Small Form Factor, the mini is overpriced. Everyone fails to note that the small form factor is a feature and thus is included in the price. Any comparison to Dell Inspirons fail on this point, you need to compare it to a Dell Studio Hybrid, which is Dell's SFF offering (no, the Zino and Zino HD are not it, they use low power chips equivalent to the Intel Atom, the Mini uses a full Core 2 Duo).
Apple does not have any machine, none whatsoever, that compete with a Dell Inspiron tower. None. Nada. Niet. No comparison between Apple products and Dell Inspirons is valid.
Well, many of the core i7 options out there also have expandability. But is there any data to suggest that a Xeon is more reliable than a Core i7 when they are basically the same (down to the transistor level) except for ECC support?
I'd say you see more Xeons in render farms because for them space is a premium. More cores in one box = more power = more work done = more money earned.
I don't know enough about server farms (like web servers) to comment on those.
It's more a case of that is what servers are sold with. Xeon processors are guaranteed to run in certain conditions, but for the end user there is no real difference. Most of the systems people build use better boards and power supplies than you find from Apple, Dell and HP and those parts are far more likely to have failure than Core i7 over Xeon (which is likely no difference). So they may be more reliable overall. You won't find many certified systems running consumer hardware though, which is very important to many users.
To my knowledge you can't use core i7 in multi-processor boards (expandability). The reason why you would get a Xeon platform is usually because you plan to have more than one processor.
For reliability, I think the thermal management is different for the Xeon, since it was designed for multi processor configuration, and once turned on, designed to stay turned on 7x24, indefinitely. I'm not sure about this ... try doing a google on "Thermal management Xeon".
(I don't think I can answer your question about hard data, though)
More importantly it's better to compare a Xeon _platform_ and vs i7 platform... that is, processor, power supply, mb, memory, ventilation etc... it all works together, especially when dealing with reliability engineering.
When you get a Dell precision or MacPro most of the key components should be higher quality, not just the processor.
P.
I'd agree with that. The one thing I wish Apple would do, is let us figure out our own choices for video cards, rather than forcing us into buying from them or flashing our own cards. Really, just what is the deal with not letting us use PC cards? (And don't bother giving me the deal EFI is better, it's not, it just drives the cost up).
Their thinking is "They only need a base choice and an "upgrade" choice that costs $500 - we know what's best for them".
Just like with the iPhone, when they said "they just need to hold it in a different way". Their corporate arrogance is almost entertaining.
If "object.1" (Core i* desktop) has everything that I need, and "object.2" (Xeon workstation) is more expensive and has features that I don't need - then the comparison is valid.
The problem is that Apple doesn't sell an "object.1", only "object.2". Therefore if my needs are for "object.1" Apple's solution for me is much more expensive than other vendors' systems that meet my needs.
Nobody is saying that a Dell Studio XPS is a better system than a Mac Pro (or a Dell Precision) - we're just saying that the Studio is a much cheaper way of meeting our needs.
If your needs are for ECC and/or dual-socket, then comparisons among Xeon workstations are appropriate - and then the price differentials are much less.
Very good point - the multi-socket capabilities of the Xeons is more critical than ECC to many places with lots of systems.
Web serving is extremely multi-threaded - each web request can be handled as a thread. The more logical cores per square foot the merrier.
Do you have a link to where Intel guarantees that Core i7 CPUs are less reliable than Xeons? Intel's warranty on both is the same.
Yes, which makes the non multiprocessor capable Xeon 3500 base mac pro all the more mysterious to me!
Yes, which makes the non multiprocessor capable Xeon 3500 base mac pro all the more mysterious to me!
In modern America, unfortunately one of the most important factors is "braggability". People want to be able to brag about their CPU, or their car, or their sound system with "Mega Bass" and "TRU SRS headphone surround".
Xeon is a name, and you pay premium price for it (clearly). "This is a Nehalem processor - it is the same used in render farms and servers". Forget that most people will use it for stupid tasks like download porn and play games. Only a small percentage will actually use it for 2D, 3D, video and music work. And that's where we come in, the super-awesomes.
uhm I really doubt that.
that will not happen and if it does it will be around 2013 or so. don't you see what apple did yesterday? where do you get crazy Ideas like that? I wish I was wrong but I am not I am just realistic.
that will not happen and if it does it will be around 2013 or so. don't you see what apple did yesterday? where do you get crazy Ideas like that? I wish I was wrong but I am not I am just realistic.
Maybe this got linked here before, but I think the writer has some excellent points.
the state of Apples professional line
Anyway, bottom line he's saying the Mac Pro is an inbetween system: neither prosumer, nor really professionally suited.
the state of Apples professional line
Anyway, bottom line he's saying the Mac Pro is an inbetween system: neither prosumer, nor really professionally suited.
And you come to that conclusion from what basis??? Apple Kool-Aid I think.
Most PC "hardware" only comes from a few different vendors. At least Dell desktops have been assembled in the USA for a long longer than Apple's machines (My old PowerMac says MADE IN THE USA on it; I wish I could say the same of my MBP).That has NOTHING to do with the hardware. A Dell can run OSX with only a slight modification to the boot loader.
I think he has a GREAT point. Keeping drinking your Apple flavored Kool-Aid where the Mac Pro is a cutting edge professional server with all the new features a pro could want and is a GREAT deal to boot.
The rest of us in the REAL WORLD know it's a slight update to an out-of-date insanely overpriced, minimally expandable (4 slots don't cut it in the pro world) product that gets almost no support from Apple (an expandable computer should be able to use a new graphics card a year later; Apple has been notorious for making their own equipment incompatible). Apparently, a $5000 Mac Pro has a Steve Jobs expected shelf life of only 3 years now like EVERYTHING ELSE in their lineup. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If Apple had REAL competition for hardware for OSX (i.e. if Dell, HP, etc. were allowed to make machines that ship with OSX), Apple would NEVER be able to get away with this kind of massive markup. The fact they don't OFFER a "consumer tower" is the reason people have to make those comparisons in the first place. Apple basically SELLS NO DESKTOP COMPUTERS in the consumer class. Until an iMac comes with a desktop GPU, I will not call it a desktop.
The truth is Apple has LONG since surpassed Microsoft as the KING OF GREED and it's run by a megalomaniac that makes Bill Gates look like the nicest most open guy on the planet. It's just a darn shame that such a nice operating system (other than the total lack of OpenGL and graphic driver updates) has to be in the hands of such an greed driven toy company, because that is exactly what Apple has become. Apple should be split into two divisions run by two different people. Steve is clearly not interested in real computers anymore or professional products. He only cares about gadgets. Apple "computer" should be run by someone that actually likes real computers, not just mobile products and gadgets.
I'm with Magnus on this one. The Mac Pro is not a very expandable machine at all, for the price. Also, the lack of more than 4/8 memory slots to at least 6/12 (or 18) cannot be forgiven in a real pro system. Like the blog said I linked to earlier : the MP is an in-between system with enormous CPU power backup up by a sub par (from the professional point of view) peripheral system.
On the greed subject: I think none of us is very well placed to see Apples real margins when it comes to computers. Components alone don't cut it, and we tend to only see the big picture of large profits company wide. However I think it would be fair to say that Apple is taking a bigger margin compared to other pc makers, which makes the Mac probably a fair bit pricier than it really should be. That's (osx) monopoly playing, and there's nothing we can do about it legally (unless go the illegal hackintosh way).
On the greed subject: I think none of us is very well placed to see Apples real margins when it comes to computers. Components alone don't cut it, and we tend to only see the big picture of large profits company wide. However I think it would be fair to say that Apple is taking a bigger margin compared to other pc makers, which makes the Mac probably a fair bit pricier than it really should be. That's (osx) monopoly playing, and there's nothing we can do about it legally (unless go the illegal hackintosh way).
6 core
guess 6 core is the best bet, or wait a lil longer
Dual 2 GHz PowerPC G5
10 GB DDR2 SDRAM
256 MB Geforce 6600
Two 500 GB HDD
guess 6 core is the best bet, or wait a lil longer
Dual 2 GHz PowerPC G5
10 GB DDR2 SDRAM
256 MB Geforce 6600
Two 500 GB HDD
No, it means Apple doesn't have a solution for you. The comparison is not valid. Your comparison should go as follow : "Dell's Inspiron to Apple's ... oh, nothing here, Dell it is".
End. Of. Story.
I think he has a GREAT point. Keeping drinking your Apple flavored Kool-Aid where the Mac Pro is a cutting edge professional server with all the new features a pro could want and is a GREAT deal to boot.
Ah, refreshing to be called a kool aid drinking fanboy for once, it had been a while since it happened and people were constantly calling me a hater and fandroid nowadays (even though I own an iPhone...).
And in the REAL world like you call it, some people need the ECC RAM and Xeon processors. That you don't is fine. That you think the Mac Pro is an overpriced POS is also fine. But whining solves nothing. The Mac Pro is what it is, something useful to someone who needs ECC RAM and a Xeon processor.
Further theories that Steve Jobs' ego interferes with the consumer:
Apple Drops nVidia from New Mac Pros to Snub Adobe
I can definitely see Apple dumping nVidia because Adobe's mercury engine in Premiere, based off of CUDA, makes FCP look old and busted. Steve doesn't want people switching to Adobe Premiere and dumping FCP. He doesn't have the software to back it up, so he gimps an entire hardware line to spite a software competitor.
There are 3d rendering engines based off of Cuda also (octane is pretty sexy, also I think Lux Render is on the mac).
Yes, we can always buy an extra nVidia card elsewhere, but it's just yet another expense on top of the enormous cost of being a "pro" on the mac. And this is assuming Apple would new Cuda capable nVidia cards in a timely manner, if at all.
I think I've had it with insanity of Steve Jobs. It's beyond ridiculous at this point. It seems like only yesterday he was snubbing any mention of ATI at the announcement of the G4 cube because they released the stats of the Cube's video hardware before his holy keynote. If anything, it only illustrates one thing - if you are not with Steve 100%, you are against him 100%.
Apple is a dangerous partner to have. You never know when it's going to turn on you and bite you in the rear. It could be out of competition or purely out of spite and an age old grudge. Apple's 3rd party hardware partners, 3rd party software developers, and even its customers and users should watch out. This time, Steve bit Adobe - again - and simultaneously took a swipe at the options of some pro users, all while smiling and demanding a massive price premium.
All hail Steve, and his gift of seeing enemies everywhere.
Apple Drops nVidia from New Mac Pros to Snub Adobe
I can definitely see Apple dumping nVidia because Adobe's mercury engine in Premiere, based off of CUDA, makes FCP look old and busted. Steve doesn't want people switching to Adobe Premiere and dumping FCP. He doesn't have the software to back it up, so he gimps an entire hardware line to spite a software competitor.
There are 3d rendering engines based off of Cuda also (octane is pretty sexy, also I think Lux Render is on the mac).
Yes, we can always buy an extra nVidia card elsewhere, but it's just yet another expense on top of the enormous cost of being a "pro" on the mac. And this is assuming Apple would new Cuda capable nVidia cards in a timely manner, if at all.
I think I've had it with insanity of Steve Jobs. It's beyond ridiculous at this point. It seems like only yesterday he was snubbing any mention of ATI at the announcement of the G4 cube because they released the stats of the Cube's video hardware before his holy keynote. If anything, it only illustrates one thing - if you are not with Steve 100%, you are against him 100%.
Apple is a dangerous partner to have. You never know when it's going to turn on you and bite you in the rear. It could be out of competition or purely out of spite and an age old grudge. Apple's 3rd party hardware partners, 3rd party software developers, and even its customers and users should watch out. This time, Steve bit Adobe - again - and simultaneously took a swipe at the options of some pro users, all while smiling and demanding a massive price premium.
All hail Steve, and his gift of seeing enemies everywhere.
No, it's not that simple, because some people have to use Mac OS X due to their line of work (creative, entertainment, etc).
Hence, making only a "high grade" product line at very high prices forces them to buy those features they don't need, extorting more money from a customer that just needed a mid-grade product.
It's a cheesy, weasel way to make money from their most loyal customer group (industry professionals).
I really am not a fan of towers anymore nor do I have a use for them though these new Mac Pros are beginning to make me rethink that premise.