Apple Gets Nehalem Early, h264 and VMWare Performance Boosts

[Digital Skunk]

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...

Tallest has posted here a few times.

And comparing the current version Mac Pro to the previous gen is a waste of time..... stop doing it.

 

[akac]

http://www.computerpoweruser.com/ed...c04.asp&guid=3AC3E60D5BD24B5C873B8CE32A84257D

I’ll admit that I was very skeptical about Nehalem (now Core i7) upon its launch. In conventional applications, I saw everywhere from no performance increase over Penryn (Core 2 Quad) to 20%, 40%, and even 60% performance advantages. It seemed, though, that for gamers and the majority of users Core i7 just didn’t make any sense; the performance improvement was there in many cases, but the platform was much more expensive.

He goes on to say that using a Core i7 chip in real-world application it shows a lot of huge potential. Look at VMWare - things like that run much faster and make the new Mac Pros totally worth it for some people.

For me? Probably I'll wait for the next gen just because I have a one year old Mac Pro now that's doing great and I'm waiting on a 64-bit Final Cut Pro.

 

[BayouTiger]

I can't believe the constant moaning on this board. In the imac threads, all I hear is complaining that the price for the iMacs did not drop when the reality is that the $1499 config which was considered the best "value" dropped $300. Basically they all moved down $300 and stepped up the specs a bit.

On the MacPro these are very significant upgrades, but if you have the last generation, what do you expect? You have a very fast machine and there is likely no reason to upgrade. However if you are like me and still working with a 2.66 Woodcrest machine this is a very compelling upgrade.

One of the reasons to own a Mac anyway is to get out of the Upgrade Merry-Go-Round. Upgrades on the Windows side are much more necessary since the eventual Windows slowdown makes a new CPU seem much faster when part of this is just getting a "clean" setup. (Clean is a relative term as virtually no non-homebuilt PC is anywhere near clean).

The sad fact is that the real groundbreaking innovations in processors are over for now. The move to more cores is the only way Intel has to squeeze more from the architecture. Sure they could develop a truly new architecture, but no one is willing to go through that large a departure. That's why SnowLeopard is such a big deal. The real power will come when we can unleash the multiple cores we have. Under Leopard my 1.6 mini doesn't "feel" that much different than my 2.66 Quad Mac Pro. But when I fire up a truly demanding app, the difference is huge.

 

[JGowan]

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.

I think most of the people buying the Mac Pros are.... drum roll... PROS! They are making money with their computer, be it photography, graphic design (me), music, video, web, etc. This is a simple business investment (AND tax write-off). If you can't afford it, get a loan. Seriously. Borrow it from parents, friends or the bank.

The first Apple computer set-up I ever bought was a 7100 back in 1994 and I took out 2 bank loans for a grand total of $6000 -- It's all the money I could borrow at the time, but I wanted to do graphic design so I invested in myself. It's paid off. I make an excellent living doing what I love with equipment that continues to inspire me.

Get some tax advice too -- who knows? Deductions are very real for most everyone with computer purchases.

Also, if you know that your current set-up is getting to be "long in the tooth" and should be replaced in a couple of years, start saving for it now... just $250-300 monthly set aside would put you in a new Mac with money left over for a 24-30-inch Display. I've setting money aside for a couple years now and have about $20K that's earmarked for all new gear/software. My wife is an educator so I'll be getting the education discount.

I am not trying to be negative or try in any way to minimize your frustrations (I'm a little upset that the top (top) tier computer starts at $6000 before adding upgrades to it (Two 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeons), but… it is what it is -- at this point, you have to make hard choices and accept compromises. I want two 30-inch displays so I probably will stay away from Two 2.93 Xeons and probably go the upper-middle tier with two 2.66 Xeons. Definitely going for 16GB ram (bought from OWC).

Also, keeping your set-up for 5-6 years will really help you truly appreciate when you upgrade. I've bought all-new only twice before ... 1994, then 2002 (8 year gap from my 7100 to my Dual 1GHz G4 PowerMac Quicksilver) and now in 2009, It's 7 years on the same machine. I can honestly say that after hundreds of thousands of dollars earned, my investment was certainly well worth it. I am so ready for New and I'm sure I won't believe how much faster things will be with a new high-end Mac.

Bottom line -- if you really want something, you can find a way to make it happen. You also might have to compromise on not getting the absolute latest/greatest, but in time now (I don't really know how young you are [I'm 43]), you WILL have the resources to get what you want. The best way is to start making a living with your computer as soon as you can. Then, getting new toys is all part of the natural order of things.

My 25¢ (adjusted for inflation)

 

[mattbatt]

So tell me, I have a 1st gen G5 1.8 power pc and was thinking of getting the basic 2499 new unit. So how much better will it be over my unit or should I just keep my powerpc G5 1.8 ...thanks

ok saying yours is a single 1.8 G5, dual add 40% increase, I'll see what I can do, seeing I'm not math major:

11/22/03: barefeats finds dual G5 2.0ghz 2.1 times faster than single G5 1.8 in After Effects render.

2/18/05: barefeats finds dual 2.5 ghz G5 25% faster than dual 2.0

11/18/05 barefeats runs quad G5 against dual core 2.5 in AfterEffects, almost quad almost 2x faster!

8/10/06, barefeats found the quad Mac Pro 2.66GHz woodcrest was as much as 62% faster than the quad G5 at UB AfterEffects.

Then we had clovertown (which the octo was introduced) and harpertown. Harpertown ran 17% faster at similar clock speeds than clovertown which was at least 17% faster than woodcrest.

Now nehalem in the least is said to be 20-40% faster per clock speed, so:

a quad 2.66 Nehalem would be 40% + 17% + 17% faster than the quad 2.66 woodcrest which is 62% + 200% + 25% + 210% =

a quad 2.66 Nehalem would be 5.71 times faster than a single G5 1.8. NOW, I think the HT in AfterEffects alongside Snow Leopard will see gains of 1.2-1.8x the clock speed in rendering, so the quad Nehalem would be 5.71 - 6.8 to 7.51 times faster than the G5 1.8.

 

[Wiska]

...
a quad 2.66 Nehalem would be 5.71 times faster than a single G5 1.8. NOW, I think the HT in AfterEffects alongside Snow Leopard will see gains of 1.2-1.8x the clock speed in rendering, so the quad Nehalem would be 5.71 - 6.8 to 7.51 times faster than the G5 1.8.

I had a dual G5 1.8Ghz. When I moved to 8-core 2.8Ghz Mac Pro, I noticed 8x-10x performance increase.

I think your math is under-reporting just how wickedly fast the Intel Macs are in comparison to PPC.

 

[commander.data]

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

If you are fully loading the computer than the old 2 x 2.8GHz E5462 Harpertown Mac Pro should be faster than the 1 x 2.66GHz Xeon W3520 Mac Pro. Nehalem just can't beat a Penryn based machine that has double the cores (8 old model vs 4 in the new model) while at a clock speed disadvantage. Hyperthreading for 8 virtual cores helps, but it's realistically like a 20% boost on average with some cases higher, while other cases even giving a negative performance gain. Either way not enough to make up the difference. If you use 4 cores or less then Nehalem will win, but if you need 8 cores, then 8 physical cores is still the way to go. It makes sense too considering the original price point/target market of these processor that Intel set when they were released. The 2 x 2.8GHz E5462 Harpertown Xeons was worth $1594 total, so a high-end part, while a 2.66GHz W3520 Nehalem based Xeons only costs $284, and is meant to be a low-end Xeon.

If you are using 8 threads, a 2.93GHz W3540 Xeon ($562) might get close to 2 x 2.80GHz E5462 Xeons with the right applications. Clock for clock, Nehalem is 5-10% faster than Penryn for general applications and 20-40% faster for video encoding and 3D rendering. At the same clock speeds, 4 Nehalem cores can potentially equal 6 Penryn cores. Very strong improvement, but not enough to justify Apple reintroducing single-processor Mac Pros without lowering the price accordingly.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=20

 

[Evangelion]

Heads not in the clouds, but PC laptops have had the option for quad core mobile processors for A GOOD WHILE.

Apple is still just behind the curve as usual when it comes to hardware.

And those quad-core "laptops" are practically desktop-replacements, not portable computers....

 

[Evangelion]

Beyond ECC and dual socket support what do we have again?

What do Core-based Xeons offer over normal Core 2's? Ability to run more thanone processor is their main differentiator, same thing here.

LOL... LOL... LOL... what a crap! we just went back to the 80's!!!

You have ZERO clue what you are talking about.

Oh God... Steve Jobs defintly is unconsious some where.

Steve Jobs is not related to this thing at all. and it's "somewhere", not "some where".

What good is a turbo bust then? If I have an application that does not need the 8 cores that mean there is no actual need to ask for aceleration any way... that is why we have more cores today!!!

The point of "turbo boost" is quite simple: Not all apps can take advantage of multiple cores. So the way to speed those up is to increase clock-speed. The processor can notice when some cores in the CPU are idling (because the app can't take advantage of multiple cores), so it shuts those cores down. Shutting those cores down lowers the heat, which means that they can run the remaining cores at a higher clock-speed, this increasing the performance of the app running on that core.

Understand now?

Who was the engineer of that one... Alf?

It was someone a lot smarter than you.

 

[Trip.Tucker]

You meant a 286 system. Intel never produced a 12 MHz 386 CPU officially--the first 80386 CPU started at 16 MHz.

And now, my home computer's Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2200 runs at 2,200 MHz.

Incorrect. There was actually a 9 Mhz system. Just because you never saw it doesn't mean it didn't exist.

 

[Jackal-Head]

"Outdated" Macs

Apple love people like you. They can deliver the most miserable updates and you say 'Thank you beloved Apple.' You have been brain washed!

The vast majority of people can see these updates for what they really are... lame outdated tech and over priced. Thats why so many people are complaining. I wonder why you cant see it ?

Better "brain washed" than clueless. It has already been mentioned that Nehalem Xeons are top of the line. Furthermore, Penryn Core 2 Duos are the top of the line mobile processors, which Apple uses for Mac mini and iMac. Core 2 Quad or Core i7 mobile simply aren't ready for prime time. Existing C2Q notebooks use desktop chips, btw. Ridiculous!

Of course I have already heard people who also complained that the Mac mini was too expensive and underpowered suggest that Apple should use desktop components instead. Marvelous idea! The new "Mac mini maxi" (Nickname: Cube Take 2) would be a great seller fer shure. I mean that's why so many people get rid of their fat, ugly and loud PC after all - so they can buy a fat, ugly and loud Mac.

 

[50548]

I can't believe the constant moaning on this board. In the imac threads, all I hear is complaining that the price for the iMacs did not drop when the reality is that the $1499 config which was considered the best "value" dropped $300. Basically they all moved down $300 and stepped up the specs a bit.

On the MacPro these are very significant upgrades, but if you have the last generation, what do you expect? You have a very fast machine and there is likely no reason to upgrade. However if you are like me and still working with a 2.66 Woodcrest machine this is a very compelling upgrade.

One of the reasons to own a Mac anyway is to get out of the Upgrade Merry-Go-Round. Upgrades on the Windows side are much more necessary since the eventual Windows slowdown makes a new CPU seem much faster when part of this is just getting a "clean" setup. (Clean is a relative term as virtually no non-homebuilt PC is anywhere near clean).

The sad fact is that the real groundbreaking innovations in processors are over for now. The move to more cores is the only way Intel has to squeeze more from the architecture. Sure they could develop a truly new architecture, but no one is willing to go through that large a departure. That's why SnowLeopard is such a big deal. The real power will come when we can unleash the multiple cores we have. Under Leopard my 1.6 mini doesn't "feel" that much different than my 2.66 Quad Mac Pro. But when I fire up a truly demanding app, the difference is huge.

Exactly. But whiners will always be whiners in this forum. NO OTHER maker has the same processors as Apple does for the MacPro. We're leading the flock, and nothing else is more advanced out there.

Of course, they may continue to moan about the lack of the borndead technology called Blu-Ray, or the fact that they can find a low-quality PC box for less money. Truth is: MacPros have ALWAYS been competitively priced in comparison with similar quality (if there is any, of course) makers from the Winblows world.

And no other PC has, for the moment, access to the chips that Apple has now, period. Not to mention a much cleaner design and the Apple build quality...

 

[JoeDMD]

If you are using 8 threads, a 2.93GHz W3540 Xeon ($562) might get close to 2 x 2.80GHz E5462 Xeons with the right applications. Clock for clock, Nehalem is 5-10% faster than Penryn for general applications and 20-40% faster for video encoding and 3D rendering. At the same clock speeds, 4 Nehalem cores can potentially equal 6 Penryn cores. Very strong improvement, but not enough to justify Apple reintroducing single-processor Mac Pros without lowering the price accordingly.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=20

I guess this sums it up -
There's no denying that the Core i7 is the fastest thing to close out 2008, but you may find that it's not the most efficient use of money... If you're running applications where Nehalem shines (e.g. video encoding, 3D rendering) then the ticket price is likely worth it, if you're not then the ~10% general performance improvement won't make financial sense.

If I go with the mac pro, it will probably be a single chip model. Sure I hit a wall with 8 or potentially 16GB Ram, but I don't do video or rendering for a living (just for myself, and there is no ROI) and yes, it may be slightly overpriced, but just for the fact that my drives can go inside the case, and you get a real video card, makes it much more attractive than the mini.
(I just can't swallow the concept of an all in one - too easily becomes an all in none)

 

[iMacmatician]

Better "brain washed" than clueless. It has already been mentioned that Nehalem Xeons are top of the line.

They are, except that the Mac Pro does not use the highest-end 3.2 GHz CPU.

Furthermore, Penryn Core 2 Duos are the top of the line mobile processors, which Apple uses for Mac mini and iMac.

The top of the line is Core 2 Extreme (dual-core and quad-core). The 3.07 GHz in the iMac is most likely a Core 2 Extreme.

Core 2 Quad or Core i7 mobile simply aren't ready for prime time.

Mobile Core 2 Quad/Extreme have been out for a while now. Mobile Nehalem won't be here until late this year.

Existing C2Q notebooks use desktop chips, btw. Ridiculous!

Some of them do, but there are notebooks with mobile quad-cores.

 

[kirreip]

I guess this sums it up -
If I go with the mac pro, it will probably be a single chip model. Sure I hit a wall with 8 or potentially 16GB Ram, but I don't do video or rendering for a living (just for myself, and there is no ROI) and yes, it may be slightly overpriced, but just for the fact that my drives can go inside the case, and you get a real video card, makes it much more attractive than the mini.
(I just can't swallow the concept of an all in one - too easily becomes an all in none)

That's exactly what i was thinking. The Mac Mini and iMac are a good concept. But only if you like the all-in-one-idea. If you do not like having three external HDs lying around and like to have an upgradable system, then the MacPro seems the way to go. And if you do not need 8 cores and 8+ gigs of ram, then just look for a single chip model. I'll do soon. But first I want to see some benchmarks (it helps me to feel better )

 

[Digital Skunk]

And those quad-core "laptops" are practically desktop-replacements, not portable computers....

Well, by the average consumer's standpoint, especially those that don't do the level of work required for such a machine, sure it's not portable. By that same measurement neither is the 17" MBP and the 15" MBP is pushing it.

For professionals that need as much power as they can get and have that power machine ready to be packed up and gone in a few moments they are VERY portable. Especially when compared to the alternative... a desktop.

Those machine are mobile desktop replacements and are VERY portable. Even when you leave the biased opinions aside, a machine of 10 lbs. with quad core would be a better option for many power hungry pros than a machine that has little over the 5 lbs 15" MBP.

Existing C2Q notebooks use desktop chips, btw. Ridiculous!

Ouch! Epic FAIL! The Covet is still top notch in terms of mobile performance. The Lenovo W700 trails ONLY because it's huge.

 

[ikir]

When I hear Apple talking about "speed improvement" for me that is a an amount of crap the size of jupiter.

I see all those benchmark showing "3 time faster than the previous processor", when the reality is that is barely noticiable.

The only way for you to get those results is to buy a Mac 6 revisions later at least, or lets say, wait 3 years.

I had my quad G5 and the only time I saw a realistic speed improvement was when I got the last quad core 2.8... THEN I saw an speed improvement.

But if you think the new ones are faster than the one I just bough 3 months ago... forget about it.

It is a huge pile of marketing BS unless you have one of the first Intel machines, THEN is when NOW you will see an improvement.

The benchmarks are such waiste of time, nothings more unrealistic in this world.

They are just benchmarks, and generally Apple ones are quite right. But it doesn't mean that it will noticiable for all the tasks. But don't blame Apple for these benchmarks.

 

[Deanster]

This is a really interesting update for me...

Nehalem is clearly the 'architecture of the future'. Massive memory bandwidth, QPI, etc. will define the next couple years of desktop computing.

This particular set of hardware and price points introduces some real challenges for buyers, however.

To buy into the new architecture, you either need to accept a 4-core CPU with an 8 Gig RAM limit at a modestly expensive price for the base machine, or seriously pile on the $$$ for a 'full' implementation with 8 cores and a 32 Gig RAM limit.

Given that the previous generation offered 8 cores and 32 Gigs of RAM at the same base level pricing, and this tech has been around for 18 months or so, it's a huge bummer of a situation for the base model buyer who has been waiting for a compelling upgrade. You could have bought the previous-model Mac pro a year and a half ago, and been enjoying the benefits the entire time.

I'm a great example of a base-model buyer - until the Mac Pros came out, I bought bargain-basement towers from Apple when they were discounted as new models came on the market - Quicksilver 800mhz, MDD 2x 867, G5 2x2.3... All bought for around $1500-1700. I've moved down into iMacs since then, as the $2000+ entry price for Mac Pros just isn't justifiable for my enthusiastic consumer needs.

Now, instead of a model which is a compelling path forward, Apple has put the base-model buyer in a really rough spot. At the exact same price point, you can buy the older architecture with a larger RAM capacity and twice the cores, or the new architecture, which is very slick indeed, but with only 4 cores and 8 gigs of RAM, may well have a limited future life.

Unfortunately, the only real path out of this mess is to go buy the 8-core Nehalem machine, with an entry price of $3,300 - a price that's realistically out-of-reach for consumers, most pro-sumers, and many marginally profitable pro users.

Everyone else needs to VERY carefully figure out whether to move into the iMac - an OK consumer machine, but the upgrade price is steep, since you're replacing a $1500 machine, instead of a $600 CPU each cycle; or buy the previous 8-core Mac Pro, forgoing the Nehalem architecture, or buy into the Nehalem architecture and forgo the extra cores and RAM.

It's a stone-cold bitch of a decision, especially with Snow Leopard on the way, which may bring substantial increases in multi-core/GPU utilization via Grand Central, and with the knowledge that this round of updates is probably it for Mac Pro through mid-2010.

For someone with a Dual G5 they've been holding onto for the last year, waiting for this upgrade, it's an ugly situation, with price/performance/future growth considerations that you're going to have to live with for the life of the machine.

Personally, I'd say you either need to pony up for the 8-core Nehalem, or see if you can find the previous 8-core model at a discount in the coming weeks. It'd just hurt too much to pay full boat for an 18-month old model, and the 4-core/8gig machine doesn't seem to me to have a 5-year future.


Edited to correct 16-gig limit to 32. Don't know what I was thinking. Perhaps it was too much for me to accept that the 'new' machine was limited to 1/4 the RAM of the previous model, and the same 8 Gig maximum that the original G5 1.8 single-core PowerMac had in 2004!

 

[Wiska]

^ the RAM limit is 32GB for the 8-cores.

 

[davidbrummy]

Well put

This is a really interesting update for me...

Nehalem is clearly the 'architecture of the future'. Massive memory bandwidth, QPI, etc. will define the next couple years of desktop computing.

This particular set of hardware and price points introduces some real challenges for buyers, however.

To buy into the new architecture, you either need to accept a 4-core CPU with an 8 Gig RAM limit at a modestly expensive price for the base machine, or seriously pile on the $$$ for a 'full' implementation with 8 cores and a 32 Gig RAM limit.

Given that the previous generation offered 8 cores and 32 Gigs of RAM at the same base level pricing, and this tech has been around for 18 months or so, it's a huge bummer of a situation for the base model buyer who has been waiting for a compelling upgrade. You could have bought the previous-model Mac pro a year and a half ago, and been enjoying the benefits the entire time.

I'm a great example of a base-model buyer - until the Mac Pros came out, I bought bargain-basement towers from Apple when they were discounted as new models came on the market - Quicksilver 800mhz, MDD 2x 867, G5 2x2.3... All bought for around $1500-1700. I've moved down into iMacs since then, as the $2000+ entry price for Mac Pros just isn't justifiable for my enthusiastic consumer needs.

Now, instead of a model which is a compelling path forward, Apple has put the base-model buyer in a really rough spot. At the exact same price point, you can buy the older architecture with a larger RAM capacity and twice the cores, or the new architecture, which is very slick indeed, but with only 4 cores and 8 gigs of RAM, may well have a limited future life.

Unfortunately, the only real path out of this mess is to go buy the 8-core Nehalem machine, with an entry price of $3,300 - a price that's realistically out-of-reach for consumers, most pro-sumers, and many marginally profitable pro users.

Everyone else needs to VERY carefully figure out whether to move into the iMac - an OK consumer machine, but the upgrade price is steep, since you're replacing a $1500 machine, instead of a $600 CPU each cycle; or buy the previous 8-core Mac Pro, forgoing the Nehalem architecture, or buy into the Nehalem architecture and forgo the extra cores and RAM.

It's a stone-cold bitch of a decision, especially with Snow Leopard on the way, which may bring substantial increases in multi-core/GPU utilization via Grand Central, and with the knowledge that this round of updates is probably it for Mac Pro through mid-2010.

For someone with a Dual G5 they've been holding onto for the last year, waiting for this upgrade, it's an ugly situation, with price/performance/future growth considerations that you're going to have to live with for the life of the machine.

Personally, I'd say you either need to pony up for the 8-core Nehalem, or see if you can find the previous 8-core model at a discount in the coming weeks. It'd just hurt too much to pay full boat for an 18-month old model, and the 4-core/8gig machine doesn't seem to me to have a 5-year future.


Edited to correct 16-gig limit to 32. Don't know what I was thinking. Perhaps it was too much for me to accept that the 'new' machine was limited to 1/4 the RAM of the previous model, and the same 8 Gig maximum that the original G5 1.8 single-core PowerMac had in 2004!

Well put!

As a G5 user I have been looking forward to this upgrade for a while. I would like to switch to Intel as I tend to use VMWare for various linux development work projects. Currently I have to set up my MacBook Pro at home rather than use my desk top with my lovely 28inch dual monitors. Now I am completey stuck between the old model and the base new model. There is no way I can swing the extra cash for the higher new model. I see the reports saying VMWare is much faster but speed to me is not the biggest issue compared to a machine that will last. Also VMWare needs memory not just processor speed. 8GB is pretty bad.

Also this fact you have to buy a second graphics car for dual monitors is really crap. I was speechless when I saw something I consider to be a downgrade. This is a pro machine for people like me.

I have to 8 core in my amazon cart. I am totally on the edge of just getting it.

 

[mattbatt]

I had a dual G5 1.8Ghz. When I moved to 8-core 2.8Ghz Mac Pro, I noticed 8x-10x performance increase.

I think your math is under-reporting just how wickedly fast the Intel Macs are in comparison to PPC.

That's sort of what I thought, so can some math people help us out? The barefeats testing results are acurate. For the time being, lets just say "a LOT faster dude!"

 

[chmilar]

Also this fact you have to buy a second graphics car for dual monitors is really crap.

You can run two monitors from one card. If both monitors are DVI, then you need a mini-displayport to DVI adapter to connect the second monitor.

Apple's Tech Specs clearly state that you can run up to 8 monitors by installing 4 video cards.

 

[mattbatt]

You can run two monitors from one card. If both monitors are DVI, then you need a mini-displayport to DVI adapter to connect the second monitor.

Apple's Tech Specs clearly state that you can run up to 8 monitors by installing 4 video cards.

But that is just the point: you need a mini-displayport to DVI adapter which is $30, but for the 30" monitor, you need the Mini DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI Adapter which is $100. So for $50 more, why not get another GPU, but the fact remains, the old MacPro didn't need any adapters.

 

[joelypolly]

Its a new architecture

For those that are complaining about the loss of 4 cores should look at the following benchmarks posted by anandtech and actually understand that it is a brand new architecture.

 

[davidbrummy]

You can run two monitors from one card. If both monitors are DVI, then you need a mini-displayport to DVI adapter to connect the second monitor.

Apple's Tech Specs clearly state that you can run up to 8 monitors by installing 4 video cards.

Looking at the config page is says the following:

"All Mac Pro graphics cards support two Apple displays. To connect two 24-inch Apple LED Cinema Displays, an additional NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 graphics card is required. To connect two 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Displays, a Mini DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI Adapter is required."

I don't know much about the Apple Displays so is this saying you are ok with one adapter for two normal DVI monitors. For two Apple LED Cinema Displays however you need two cards. Either way it does not read well as the second sentence seems to contradict the first.