What the hell? Someone must have hacked my MR account cos I didn't post that!
Oh well.... <logs in as Digital Skunk>
I don't get it???
It's funny, but I am lost.
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 Gets Nehalem Early, h264 and VMWare Performance Boosts
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't get it???
It's funny, but I am lost.
drlunanerd, I posted that...
...so there must have been a mix up. This was in response to someone else, as I'm trying to figure out if I should go with the newer single quad (4-core) 2.66GHz Mac Pro, or the older two quad (8-core) 2.8GHz one. No hacked accounts, just a mix up somehow.
edit: Oh, I see...it was a joke?
sumowax said:I will be using the software in Final Cut Studio and Logic Studio 8 mostly, as well as MOTU Digital Performer, Pro Tools 7.4 and a multitude of memory extensive custom sample libraries via Kontakt 3 and a proprietary sample playback engine. With Final Cut Studio I will mostly be bringing either HDV formats or importing them (AVCHD) in to FCP as Apple's ProRes422 for editing...eventually rendering the result as H.264 Quicktime. Mostly sound to picture work, and small video work. I will eventually also be required to purchase and use Apple Shake.
On the same machine my wife will be using Aperture and Adobe CS3 or CS4 (if she upgrades).
My biggest worry is the limited RAM on the new entry level Mac Pro, as I do often use software like Vienna Symphonic Libraries and Fxpansion BFD. The confusing bit to me is that despite the obvious benefits of the new technology all around and processors wise, on paper, I'm afraid that the expandability of the RAM simply is won't be enough inevitably. I've even considered going with the previous single quad 2.8GHz model, simply for the RAM difference. However after advice, and consideration I've decided it's either a newer single quad Mac Pro, or a previous generation two quad Mac Pro.
edit: Oh, I see....it was a joke?
This is why I'm confused. Theoretically faster processor and new tech, but limited RAM, or older but still suitable tech and more RAM?
We are both students.
...so there must have been a mix up. This was in response to someone else, as I'm trying to figure out if I should go with the newer single quad (4-core) 2.66GHz Mac Pro, or the older two quad (8-core) 2.8GHz one. No hacked accounts, just a mix up somehow.
edit: Oh, I see...it was a joke?
Price
Like BMW cares about people on welfare.
Bravo. You managed to be at the forefront of the one the category most of your customers cannot afford, while leaving your consumer lines at about the same exact specs they were at this time last year.
Well, I'm sure the few Richie Rich's here may be excited, and that seems to be the only people Apple cares about these days.
Like BMW cares about people on welfare.
Yeah, it was a mistake - either a vBulletin bug or a typo
I used to frequent another forum and we'd play tricks like that all the time on each other, was really funny sometimes
Back to being 'serious': the quad-core machine seems cynically crippled by Apple. Back to the bad old days of the low-end Power Mac G5s. If you plan on keeping it for a while you may come to regret the RAM limitation, unless 4GB chips fall drastically in price (and it actually supports them?). If you want 16GB or more it's actually much cheaper to go for an octo-core model.
looking forward to seeing the benchmarks after people start getting the new mac pros. glad apple got the new processors early
I would love to see benchmarks across the board.
Then those same apps/etc. tested again once snow leopard releases. Apple always plans ahead... or they know whats coming. 8-Core is pricey as hell...and in these economic times they would know too it might be a great idea... theres probably benchmark results for snow leopard they aren't releasing yet.
Then those same apps/etc. tested again once snow leopard releases. Apple always plans ahead... or they know whats coming. 8-Core is pricey as hell...and in these economic times they would know too it might be a great idea... theres probably benchmark results for snow leopard they aren't releasing yet.
Can someone tell me which model would be comparable to the 8-core two 2.8 Quad-Core model as far as overall processor intensive performances are concerned.
Two 2.8 Quad-Core (8-core) MA970LL/A $2798 = ?
Which one?
One 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 3500 Processor $2499
One 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 3500 Processor $2999
cheers
Two 2.8 Quad-Core (8-core) MA970LL/A $2798 = ?
Which one?
One 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 3500 Processor $2499
One 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 3500 Processor $2999
cheers
Well, I'll take the consumer friendly "fun" Apple of the early 2000's over the current elitist Apple that makes grossly overpriced, outdated computers for rich a$$holes.
I don't think that you need more than 6GB. In fact I would be surprised if you did. And when you do, how often would that be? Think about it.
Not theoretically - just a fact. I can however understand why you, and others here, are confusion - some even mad at Apple.
What most people here seem to forget is that there isn't anything comparable with the Nehalem, especially when it comes to memory bandwidth/performance - swap will still depend on the hard drive of course.
I would rather cash out the extra $200 for that second hard drive, instead of going for the 8-core (not that I can make decisions for you).
/me wondering how much memory you are using right now
What if I say that both are faster? Well almost (94% for the 2.66GHz) but it will always be apples vs oranges.
Yep, games that received their timing of the cpu cycle, I remember playing an old amiga game via emulation and the game was super fast lol.
True, but I'd rather have the epitome of "Think Different" Apple were we had tower configs starting at $1499 and iMac's made from desktop parts over what we have now.
They are gone, but I have a feeling not too many people bought those drives as options due to their high cost and not much speed gain due to the bottleneck of the SATA connection.
/me wondering how much memory you are using right now
6GB on a G5, and it hiccups a lot.
Yep, they are no more available from the store, but for a reason - falling prices of SSD will push mainstream adoption.
I have four fifth-generation Cheetah's myself, but I am thinking about switching to two 80GB Intel solid state drives, giving me a green 160GB boot drive with insane performance.
A similar image popped into my head when reading this article as well. hehe You would think they would have used something other than "Turbo". Welcome to the 80's
All we need now is a two character RED_LED-display and we're full circle. Although I guess it would have to have room for three digits.
Please, someone make a mockup!
A lot? Really? I'm rather surprised. Which program is such a memory hog?
Good thing that Snow Leopard is on the horizon (due to be released later this year) and that the Nehalem is doing such an incredible job (allocating/moving and releasing memory is a snap).
Good news: The 2.93GHz breaks every single SAP SD benchmark set by the previous, higher clocked 3.33GHz Xeon!!!
It will be somewhere above the ColecoVision and slightly below the average PC three years from now. The deadendry-level Mac Pro costs more than the old 8x 2,8Ghz and will die faster because it's memory roof will soon be reached.
I'm surprised they didn't just stick some integrated craphics in it.
The Apple logo should from now on contain a worm-hole symbolizing the company's high standard gradually being hollowed out.
BMW wasn't founded by hippies in a garage. Might have been founded in a garage though, but not by hippies.
Oh, and BMW never claimed that the company, its customers and the guys making Fuzzy Dice were a community and that BMW is a company that "thinks differently".
the market
I like that they posted performance comparisons to the G5 Quad (since that is what I have now), but I wish they would have compared it to the base 8-core MacPro, or the quad...
I think
must be aware there are a lot of us out here with old G5's that are getting sick of the fading support for PPC and the rolling wave of death that pans down the screen saying 'oops you're going to have to re-boot'
I've been waiting for Nehalem, but I just might have to wait a little longer now.
The forums here are getting a bit tedious - three or four un-related discussions in 1 thread, and people repeating mis-information (that the Turbo boost is only a power 'shutdown' feature, and ignoring that it will automatically allow one of the cores to overclock if it can shut down some of the others... ) Has it always been this way here, or am I just getting to be an old irritable richie rich?
I like that they posted performance comparisons to the G5 Quad (since that is what I have now), but I wish they would have compared it to the base 8-core MacPro, or the quad...
I think
must be aware there are a lot of us out here with old G5's that are getting sick of the fading support for PPC and the rolling wave of death that pans down the screen saying 'oops you're going to have to re-boot' I've been waiting for Nehalem, but I just might have to wait a little longer now.
The forums here are getting a bit tedious - three or four un-related discussions in 1 thread, and people repeating mis-information (that the Turbo boost is only a power 'shutdown' feature, and ignoring that it will automatically allow one of the cores to overclock if it can shut down some of the others... ) Has it always been this way here, or am I just getting to be an old irritable richie rich?
I'm glad I bought my MacPro last year (I couldn't have waited another year anyway) but the increase in speed (compared to my machine) seems only incremental. I'm not nearly as envious as I could have been (after reading all of Tallest Skil's Nehalem threads for the last year). I wonder where he is, I half way expected him to be flaming non-stop... I guess the Mods banned him or he ran off screaming in to the woods...Has anyone poked around Dell.com or other sites to build something comparable?
Does anything currently offer two quad i7's?
Wrap it up in the OS, and the aesthetics of the casing, and its really not that over priced.
note* as a design, for some things, image does matter...and I am willing to pay for that sleek aluminum.
I will say Apple has been pushed more towards the mainstream consumer. If you take each individual product, and break it to either consumer or pro, I would say they are mainly focusing towards the avg. consumer.
Does anything currently offer two quad i7's?
Wrap it up in the OS, and the aesthetics of the casing, and its really not that over priced.
note* as a design, for some things, image does matter...and I am willing to pay for that sleek aluminum.
I will say Apple has been pushed more towards the mainstream consumer. If you take each individual product, and break it to either consumer or pro, I would say they are mainly focusing towards the avg. consumer.
Unless your company is buying it for you, a Hackintosh will give you oodles more bang:buck ratio. it will also give you bragging rights and possibly get you laid.
If I worked for a cool company with a budget for these, I'd grab the latest one, as the virtualization feature will surely be built-into Leopard to replace Boot Camp. No way Apple likes users booting their Macs to Winbloze. Developers will love it and come running to the Mac and the world will be full of shiny happy people holding Macs.
If I worked for a cool company with a budget for these, I'd grab the latest one, as the virtualization feature will surely be built-into Leopard to replace Boot Camp. No way Apple likes users booting their Macs to Winbloze. Developers will love it and come running to the Mac and the world will be full of shiny happy people holding Macs.
I've seen a single processor workstation (using the Core i7, not Nehalem Xeons... so it may in fact be inferior) marketed towards the same people - professionals. However, it is even more ridiculously priced than the Mac Pro... so in comparison the Mac Pro may actually be a good deal.
http://www.boxxtech.com/products/3DBOXX/4800_Overview.asp
AFAIK no other manufacturer has released a dual nehalem computer.
By the way, if one were to do 3D rendering, it may in fact be possible to buy two regular Core i7 computers for the price of one octocore Mac Pro, and do distributed rendering. Since 3D rendering is embarrassingly parallel, using 2 computers can achieve almost the same speed as using 1 computer with 2 processors.