Apple Announces Penryn Mac Pros and Xserve

[viltsu]

Yup, ordered mine:

2,8GHz with 2GB memory, buying 2 to 4GB more from 3rd party.
BT & Aiport
8800GT 512MB

I hope I´ll be satisfied to this computer. 3-5 weeks with 8800GT, it seems that they have a problem with those card supplies.

 

[BenRoethig]

I've been using tower form factor workstations at home and at work for over two decades, thank you. My new iMac is the first non-tower PC I've used since my original PC AT.

Yes, I am aware that the advantage the tower has is expandability and yes, that is a "feature". But HDDs are larger then they were in the G4 and G5 Power Mac days. And the video cards are more powerful. And with so many things now integrated into the systemboard, the need for slews of slots is not as great.

So for someone coming from a G4 Power Mac or first generation G5 Power Mac, the iMac just might be sufficient thanks to the advances and integrations since those machines shipped. And if it is not, then there is the Mac Pro tower.

I have that same iMac (the 20" 2.4ghz model). I find it to be slow and unexpandable. It's a great MATX equivalent, but anything beyond that its drawback start to show up fast. It has done little to make me want to use it instead my almost five year old iBook G3. A good tower that actually has faster desktop parts would have sent the iBook into semi retirement. Instead I'm considering giving my new purchase to my parents because I rarely use it.

 

[ChrisA]

So when do we get a reasonably priced tower from Apple? I'm sorry, but nearly $3,000 for a tower is a bit much for most people. I need towers too, not iMacs. Why not keep a quad in there for a little cheaper?

I'm waiting for an anoucement next week. If one is not available after then I'll build my own using an Intel mainboard and one new quad core CPU. Basically the specs I want are "one half of an 8-core Mac Pro."

Remember the 1990's? Apple then was able to sell an upgradeable tower system for $1500. You'd think that ten years later with the price of electronics falling they could continue to offer a product like that at the same price. What they need is a 1/2 MP for 1/2 the MP price. I'm pretty sure I can assemble one for under $1K and I will likely have to. My Sun just bought a new HP computer for $1,500. It has pretty much top of the line components, a quad core Intel CPU, lots of RAN and disk space, Vista and a nice LCD monitor and a "free" HP printer all for $1,500. Apple needs a product that can compete with that.

I'm very pessimistic about next week's keynote. Last year SJ did not even talk about Macs at Macworld. He spent the whole time talking about a new cell phone. This time mabe it's movie rentals or something like how the line of notebooks will 15% smaller. But I doubt they will introduce the one thing everyone wants: a new desktop with a mainstream design.

 

[milo]

I went the store and only saw the 8-core. Sorry, I missed it. No need to get your undies in a bunch. Chill.

Wait a minute. Just checked the store again and I don't see a quad. Where is it?

You're the one posting repeatedly without even reading the thread or checking your facts thoroughly...you don't think you might be the one with your panties in a bunch and needing to chill? The quad is listed on the BTO page: One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core) [Subtract $500]

Uh, it's $200 more expensive than the old mac Pro which was $200 more expensive than the 970MP powerMac which was $500 more than the 970FX PowerMac. When you don't have an unlimited cash supply it adds up.

The current quad is $2299. I thought the old cheapest MP was $2299 as well, you're saying it was $2099?

Anyone have a source confirming this either way?

$2300 starting is still very high end.

But is it any higher than the starting price was yesterday?

 

[EagerDragon]

Under 'Processing' it says "Quad-core: One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5400 series processor"

Does that mean it only has one processor? Will this model be much cheaper, mid range tower anyone?

Mid Range (Media Center / Home server) with license for 5 to 10 and Server Leopard for the keynote?

 

[diamond.g]

I just want to make this clear.

Assuming 10.5.2 adds the 8800GT drivers, you could go out and buy an 8800GT off the shelf, and it will be fully functional in OS X?

According to two locations I have found. It is possible for normal VC's to be supported in an EFI aware OS. Intel's PDF on EFI CSM, and Insanely Mac forum post #8.

Does this product allow for DDR3 RAM? Penryn does, but is it currently disabled for the new Mac Pro?

I hope not.

AFAIK none of Intel's Server/Worstation class stuff supports DDR3. They have DDR3 support in the desktop class, but most places are telling people to avoid DDR3 till much faster speeds become available, as there isn't any difference in speed yet.

 

[ziwi]

iPredict:

With this coming before MacWorld were gonna see mini towers at MacWorld.​

.

I was thinking that too, but since they are still offering a single quad as an option it seems less likely that that will happen. This is it. If you want the cheaper single quad tower - it is a $2299 Mac Pro or a dual quad tower is either a refurb or potentially clearance previous rev Mac Pro. I think that with them offering the single chip config that kills the mini tower hopes for next week.

That being said - I am still waiting...

 

[Setmose]

Ok, it's not the *top* gaming machine, but...

The new configuration is pretty damn good. Besides, the FPS wars are a little bit weird. There is no need to pump out more than 75 FPS because the LCD monitor will just dump the frames anyway. The PC hardware reviews for the 8800 GT all cite high 40's FPS as good benchmarks for todays maximum games such as Crysis and Bioshock, but at insane resolutions. In fact, I would opt for a 23" LCD rather than anything larger because you want to run at native resolution on the LCD. That way you can run a couple notches below the max resolution of the card and way boost FPS to the max 75 FPS that the LCD can handle. I used to game only on CRTs so that I could go to various non-native resolutions for legacy games without taking a visual or performance hit, but support for analog is fading away.

Looked at in this way, I think the new Mac Pro will be a very good gaming machine when booted in XP or Vista, but it will never win the FPS wars -- which are fictional anyway. This is why John Carmack describes his primary design decision as: is it a 30 Hz game or a 60 Hz game?

Macs != gaming machines.

If anybody is buying a mac to game professionally they are making a huge mistake. The BTO cards for the Mac Pro are more than adequate enough.

 

[Mike Teezie]

Intel Mac, here I come. Finally.

MacPro
8 Core
500 gig HD
8800 GT

Adding 6 gigs of Ram from a 3rd party, two 750 gig disks, and another 500 gig disk.

I guess they released them early so Steve could get that crucial extra ten minutes talking about how awesome the iPhone is. Whatever! I'll certainly take it.

 

[50548]

They could be getting these updates out of the way so they have enough time at MacWorld to announce all the other updates. Or it could be because these products were so far out of date they needed to get them out ASAP.

EXACTLY. This means that Apple will AT LEAST release the following at MW:

Superthin subnote;
Updated MBPs and MBs;
Mac Nano (headless Mac to replace the Mac Mini);
New Studio Displays.

Wait and see...another nail in MS's and PC makers' coffins...

 

[netdog]

uh but what i wanted in a new mac pro is a NEW mac pro...as in not a speed bump but a complete redesign

Inside it is. New motherboard. New quads in all MPs. Faster FSB. That's more than a speed bump.

 

[devman]

if we don't get new cinema displays next week i'm going to be very upset..

yeah I've been hoping for that too, but I think the fact these announcements today did not include bluray or new displays, makes it very unlikely that either will be announced at macworld. It just doesn't make sense to announce the new MacPros today (with only a few days shipping) and then announce new displays or bluray options next week.

 

[kapowaz]

Let me repeat myself.

Macs != Gaming machines.

Gaming and the Mac has long been an issue of contention for me. In certain circumstances the above statement is true; in others, it really isn't. The big issues with Mac gaming revolve around two issues:

1. Substandard graphics hardware in 'consumer' Macs
2. Substandard 3D performance in OS X

The first only really affects Mac mini and standard MacBook users, but the latter are a sizeable portion (particularly of 'switchers') who really oughtn't be ignored. In order for Mac gaming to 'take off', the standard MacBook needs to pack something a bit faster. The Mac mini is really too small and cheap to ever be an option, and I'm not even sure how successful it is (every Macworld seems to bring with it rumours of its demise). However, the remainder of the Mac range are actually pretty well-specced. The update to the Mac Pro further underlines this.

The second issue is annoying, but there's a (relatively) straightforward solution: use Bootcamp. I've dual-booted my (July 2007) MacBook Pro and can testify that gaming is silky-smooth on it. In fact, at its native resolution in World of Warcraft and Half-Life 2 (et famille) it nearly outperforms my desktop PC, which in February 2006 was pretty much state-of-the-art. Unfortunately gaming natively on the Mac remains something of a chicken and egg situation; developers perceive it as a non-gaming platform (sometimes with reason), and so gamers don't buy them for games. I'm hoping that with time this will improve (we're already seeing signs of progress).

Back to your original statement though, that Macs aren't gaming machines: I consider this patently untrue provided you're willing to dual-boot into Windows and you've invested in either an iMac or one of the Pro machines. Obviously this comes with all manner of caveats related to price and so forth, but that doesn't negate their fitness for the purpose.

 

[CWallace]

I have that same iMac (the 20" 2.4ghz model). I find it to be slow and unexpandable. It's a great MATX equivalent, but anything beyond that its drawback start to show up fast. It has done little to make me want to use it instead my almost five year old iBook G3. A good tower that actually has faster desktop parts would have sent the iBook into semi retirement. Instead I'm considering giving my new purchase to my parents because I rarely use it.

Understood.

I'm a "switcher", and I started with a Core Duo MacBook. I found that it was quite fast enough for the stuff I did so, so I (rightly) assumed that a faster Core2 Duo with more RAM (4GB vs. 2GB) and a better GPU would work even better. And it has.

Also, as applications like Office and Creative Suite moved from PPC to Intel, not having to run them through Rosetta has improved the baseline performance of my MacBook and iMac even more. And I find 10.5.x to be generally snappier then 10.4.x.

In my case, I don't perform any serious CPU/GPU/HDD/RAM intensive work. I was also fortunate that I used an HP xw6400 at work, which is essentially a Mac Pro running Windows. So I knew what four and eight CPUs brought me and it wasn't much for the work I did. In fact, I found it was actually slower for many functions due to CPU overhead and I did that work on a Core2 Duo I had handy.

So with the Mac Pro running more then twice as much as the Al iMac 24" in similar configurations, I couldn't justify the thousands more it cost since I would not use it. I know there are drawbacks to the form factor of the iMac, but I knew them going in. I need more storage, but I use a NAS so my MacBook can also access it. The GPU is fine for the games I play, and since I do not play first-person shooters (which seem to need the most GPU oomph), I expect it will be sufficient for years. And 4GB is plenty for the datasets I work with, plus all my software is designed to work in a 32-bit environment, anyway.

But that is me. I know there are others who need more RAM, more local storage (and don't want to use external devices), better graphics now and better graphics later. And for them, an iMac just won't cut it and they need a Mac Pro.

 

[takao]

I think that with them offering the single chip config that kills the mini tower hopes for next week.

That being said - I am still waiting...

yeah sadly .. unless of course they try to put something in in the same price category as the imac directly or below it ... i think over the next 1-2 years we will se mroe refocusing of the products .. especially on the lower side with the mac mini/apple tv/i mac mac book

 

[diamond.g]

Back to your original statement though, that Macs aren't gaming machines: I consider this patently untrue provided you're willing to dual-boot into Windows and you've invested in either an iMac or one of the Pro machines. Obviously this comes with all manner of caveats related to price and so forth, but that doesn't negate their fitness for the purpose.

That is the crux of the problem, in order to game on a Mac you have to support Windows. With that being the case there is no way Apple could ever topple MS (well at least in the gaming department).

 

[iN8]

I like that I can configure it with a single quad-core processor. I really don't need 8-cores and I like the $500 price drop.

 

[milo]

Can somebody post a comparison between this and what Dell has?

There was one posted a couple pages back. Way more expensive than the MP.

To those pissed about the cost, this is high end (even the bottom model with a single proc). And Apple don't compete on price.

Sometimes they do. Can anyone find a comparable PC to these new mac pros for cheaper?

 

[DGaio]

Oh the irony! The base system configuration is actually cheaper in Euros

And for those complaining about the price. This is after all a WORKSTATION and not a normal DESKTOP Computer. You have the iMac for that category. Every component inside the Mac Pro is regarded has of high quality so in all, i think it is a fair price.

 

[CWallace]

Sometimes they do. Can anyone find a comparable PC to these new mac pros for cheaper?

We get some great prices on our HP xw8400s, but that is because we buy off the State Government contract. For an average consumer, I expect the prices are closer if not more expensive then the Mac Pro.

 

[Brianstorm91]

Yey for MacPro people!

Is it just me or is MR being really slow?

New MBP next week please!

 

[netdog]

Can anyone tell what warrants the price increase? Are the Penryn chips really that much costlier than the previous ones?

They chose to go with the 2.8 with 1600MHz dual channel FSB as opposed to the 2.83 with the 1333FSB, and this also raises the cost for RAM (which they also doubled) as it need 800MHz chips.

 

[Random Ping]

excellent, more room in the keynote next week for drastically new products.

Wow. 11 pages of comment already. I'll never get through them all. But the comment above is basically the same thought I had. I honestly didn't expect Apple to have much new to announce this year, but if they are pre-announcing this hardware, the clearly don't think they need to wait and use it to pad a boring keynote.

Good deal.

 

[krye]

Is it safe to assume that the new 2.8GHz 8-core machine is faster than the old 3.0 GHz 8-core machine? Because the base price is $2799, where the old 8 core machine was $3999. That's a huge savings!

 

[FF_productions]

Not a bad price, I just priced comparable configuration for a Dell Precision Workstation T7400 - 64bit and the price tag was for $5,267!!!

Here are the specs:
2 x Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5460 (3.16GHz,2X6M L2,1333)
2GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 667MHz, ECC (2 DIMMS)
256MB PCIe x16 nVidia NVS 290
16X DVD-ROM
No Floppy Drive
No Monitor
80GB SATA 3.0Gb/s,7200 RPM Hard Drive

Nice system right? I just love the 80GB default hard drive size that come with this package.

So go out there and get yourself a mac even if you are planning on running windows

Wow, and we are bitching about Apple's configuration?