BongoBanger
macrumors 68000
You want to qualify that statement because you're actually dead wrong?
Apple Introduces New Mac Pro with Nehalem Xeon Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You want to qualify that statement because you're actually dead wrong?
iMacmatician
macrumors 601
Doesn't look too bad. I'm surprised at how fast the 2.27 GHz 8-core is extrapolated at. Seems consistent with other Nehalem benchmarks. On the other hand there's still a big gap between the 2.27 GHz 8-core and a (Gainestown) 4-core.
Umbongo
macrumors 601
I had no intention of purchasing this Mac Pro regardless of specs or price, nothing I have said has ever indicated that and I have hundreds of posts regarding this subject. All I am doing is showing my discontent in Apple going from good value to obscene "Apple Tax". As I said, you are making big assumptions.
BenRoethig
macrumors 68030
This might have been the straw that broke the camel's back and you trolls truly do get your wish. I really hope you zealots can keep Apple afloat during the upcoming lean times like we did. You see all too content to drive the informed user base off the platform and I can't imagine the teens' parents will continue to keep buying them Macs in the current economy. Why must a company this great keep destroying itself? Right because they listen to those who will sing their praises no matter what they do.
Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
Dual socket processors aren't that cheap...
Umbongo
macrumors 601
2.26GHz ones are.
La-d-da
macrumors newbie
WHERE ARE THE NEW DISPLAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Man, Apple dropped the ball on these for many years already. What a joke.
I am glad I decide to buy Applecare and keep my current system for another year. Not too crazy about this update.
I would expect an updated 30" display soon. The current version has Firewire 400 ports, which today's announced products are lacking.
GT120 in A MacPro and no pro video cards ? What an over priced joke.That's it. I'm off to Newegg to build my own workstation.
That's what I did last month while I was (then) waiting for a quad-imac for my daughters. While I had spare parts to use, at $800, a Quad Core i7 920 overclocked to 3.6ghz, DFI x58-T3H6 micro ATX motherboard, 6 GB of DDR3 for sub-$1K is a great deal IMO. Running Leopard 10.5.6 on it without any major problems other than sleep. This thing is snappy, response times are quick, faster in "feel" than my octo Mac Pro.
Now my kids can have WinXP in VMware up and running at all times so they can switch between the two OS's as needed for their school apps.
Simple: windows programs will not utilize multiple cores/processors unless they are specifically written to do so. The majority of applications do not, or do so poorly. Grand central will make that process transparent so that even programs NOT written to utilize multiple cores will be able to do so, transparently.
Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
Apple give us cheap processor options? The single socket Xeon is really the Xeon 3500 Series which isn't just a single processor on a dual board.
Apple is making an absolute killing here.
iMacmatician
macrumors 601
Yes. Same with RAM options.
UMHurricanes34
macrumors 65816
But you can use the new ATi card in the older Mac Pro, and Apple will be releasing an upgrade kit once 10.5.7 is released.
lftrghtparadigm
macrumors 6502
Of course its an obscene Apple tax, as has always been the case with every new leap forward.
What ? The standard 2006 mac Pro came with two 2.66Ghz dual-core Xeon 5150s and a GeForce 7300GT.
The Xeons in the 2006 Mac Pro are about 2.5-3x as fast as the processor in the Mini (2.66Ghz vs 2Ghz, 4 cores vs 2, 4Mb vs 4Mb cache, 1333Mhz FSB vs 1066).
The Mac Pro came with a 7200rpm desktop SATA drive. The Mini comes with a 5400rpm laptop drive.
The integrated 9400m probably is faster than the discrete 7300GT, but it's certainly not going to pick up the slack (especially when you consider it is stealing usable RAM and bus bandwidth to operate).
A 2006 Mac Pro is going to absolutely walk all over a brand new Mini, in everything outside of a few game benchmarks. The Mini is a dog, performance-wise. For the same price at Dell you can buy a machine with twice the power.
Extrapolation? Then why doesn't Apple publish more concrete numbers?
See, I understand that based on extrapolation, the 2.23GHz Nehalem machine is equal to the 2.8 machines, but what about actual benchmark data performance. All that Apple has shown were comparisons between last year's 3.2Ghz machines vs. the new 2.93Ghz machines. There's no info on how does a 2.23Ghz machine fare against its older brothers...that's the real stumbling block for me. I'll gladly pay the $3200 if I know that the performance is at least on par.
I've studied computer architecture and the fact that the memory controller is on the die really excited me, but clock speeds still have some meaning...not a lot as marketing hype likes us to think, but it still has some significance in performance.
It's like a city building a 10 lane highway, but then reduces the max. speed to 55mph from the previous 70mph. Great, there's more space, but reducing the speed on me ain't gonna help with traffic in the long run.
See, I understand that based on extrapolation, the 2.23GHz Nehalem machine is equal to the 2.8 machines, but what about actual benchmark data performance. All that Apple has shown were comparisons between last year's 3.2Ghz machines vs. the new 2.93Ghz machines. There's no info on how does a 2.23Ghz machine fare against its older brothers...that's the real stumbling block for me. I'll gladly pay the $3200 if I know that the performance is at least on par.
I've studied computer architecture and the fact that the memory controller is on the die really excited me, but clock speeds still have some meaning...not a lot as marketing hype likes us to think, but it still has some significance in performance.
It's like a city building a 10 lane highway, but then reduces the max. speed to 55mph from the previous 70mph. Great, there's more space, but reducing the speed on me ain't gonna help with traffic in the long run.
takao
macrumors 68040
1.Grand central isn't even released yet
2.guess what features in regards to multi core/processor/GPGPU usage (also unreleased) Windows 7 will offer ... _the same as grand central_ ... minus the more fancy buzzword easily thrown around in web forums
3. i would recommend to actually look up what the current windows vista kernel actually can do what other OS kernel still can't do
I couldn't agree more. But look at the bright side: the comments are a step up from the calibre on YouTube.
Dude, these boards are meant for people to complain if they want... At least they're complaining about something that people want to hear about...
Personally - I expect to see these show up in the 'refurb' store at heavily discounted prices in the not too distant future.
It will not, because it can not.
Yeah, go ahead and call me a troll (when in reality that's all you ever really do here). Clearly you guys whining haven't used the machine, seen any tests/benchmarks, or shopped with HP, Dell, or Lenovo for equivalent workstations. For the latter, I have. I have an 8-way HP workstation sitting right behind me that costed more than the equivalent Apple.
I'm not a zealot either (clearly you can't even bother to read my sig) because I don't just use Apple either, but rather use an Apple, Linux, as well as Windows (servers/laptops, workstations).
So keep whining, Ben. And when someone comments on it, call them a troll. Let's do a test though; I bet you'll still be here in 6 months, still complaining, still trolling.