Apple Introduces New Mac Pro with Nehalem Xeon Processors

[ceres]

OK, now I understand what you are saying; you were right.

I was actually pretty shocked by those benchmarks you linked to. I guess the question now is how much this will have improved by the time Snow Leopard comes around.

Haven´t looked at benchmarks bc it doesn´t matter in a typical non-professional scenario. I don´t think that the majority of MP purchases goes to Professionals but rather home users that want processing power and a higher degree of expandibility.
A i7 Quadcore is a mainstream part at around 250 Euros / 270 Dollars that fits in mainstream mainboards that support 12 GB of RAM. All things considered you are paying 1000$ on top on the new Quad MP and get less power.
Quadcore processing is mainstream these days. Apple feels differently.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

The consumer 2.66ghz Core i7 chip outperformed the old 8 core 2.8 Mac Pro so I have no doubt that despite the cores halved, and the lower clock speed, the machine is still faster. Not bad for $300 less.

We'll just wait for the benchmarks so I can laugh at the naysayers

Also, the "Xeon 3500 series" chip that is in the single-socket machine is essentially identical to the 2.66 GHz Core i7, only with ECC added. Also, that *guarantees* that the 'quad-core' system only has one physical socket. Xeon 5500 series chips can be used in a single-socket board; but Xeon 3500 series chips cannot be used in a dual-socket board. (aka, the chips are downward compatible, but not upward compatible.)

 

[BenRoethig]

So the 5500 in the 8cores are even better/faster/sexier then the 3500? That explains the increase in price.

Yes and no. The 5500 is the same core, but it adds a second QPI link for dual CPU configurations. Its also available in more Clock speeds.

In a nutshell, why are people being so negative in their feedback? As I see, all news about new Macs have an overwhelmingly negative feedback...

Most people aren't so thankful to have new machines when it involves downgrades in capability and a massive price increase.

What's up with the WHINERS here??? You weren't EVEN expecting new MacPros and Apple delivered it!!!

What's up with all the apologists?

 

[iMacmatician]

Sure, the MP has arguably never been a great value...but does that make it OK for it to overnight become a much worse value? Do you really think that yesterday's version wasn't a better value?

Yeah the specs are better, but the value is debatable.

And on that benchmark, assuming I'm reading it right, the new quad is NOT faster than the old 8 core.

What a surprise.

Since the dual 2.66 Mac Pro costs $1400 more than the dual 2.26 Mac Pro, I really wish they'd offered a single 2.26 Mac Pro for $700? (even just $500?) less than the current single 2.66 Mac Pro...

A ≤$2000 Mac Pro would have really cut back on a lot of this bitching....

It sure would…I think Apple wanted a significant gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro.

Or maybe not, since a lot of people here don't understand that the current SYSTEM is as fast or faster than the older SYSTEM, even though the CPU clock speeds are smaller and you're trading off 8 physical cores for 8 virtual cores.

The current system SHOULD BE faster than a year+ old system.

 

[cube]

The $2,499 is the xMac. Single socket processor, support for more than 4GB, graphics card upgradable, multiple displays, drives, RAID. Just comes with a hefty price tag.

No. The Mac Pro is bulky and is gratuitously made out of server components for the single CPU version.

 

[mchalebk]

Anyone else think it's ridiculous that you can spec up a Mac Pro to $15,000 and still have to pay $50 for a wifi card?

This gets brought up time after time. It's a very simple answer. There are many businesses that do NOT want wireless capability in their machines. It is imperative that Apple offer these "Pro" machines without wireless capability.

Besides, when you're paying many thousands of dollars for a Pro-level computer, it seems kind of ridiculous to complain about a $50 option.

 

[antominus]

free market

Umm, it's called the FREE MARKET. Google it. Their justification is called "Shareholders" (of which I am one). Do you think for one second that they didn't carefully research price points before release?

Does anyone understand economics anymore?

Ummm, it's called pricing your product out of a competitive range. The free market will freely walk away. Way to stand behind the company you own and say "yes, we refuse to be fair in our pricing because we won't make competetive products we can sell more of, but ridiculous products for insane prices".

Granted, these won't affect your stock at all. They probably sell 275,000 of these a year and the notebooks and consumer machines are 95% of their business. And if they only sell 150,000 this year at this inflated price it won't matter a bit.

The mac pro is a production machine. It is now for full time production only. It's called mindshare, and it is ALL apple has. It is their entire business, which they just cashed out of. The pro's can't walk away, they just have to pay more for less while everyone else pays less for more, including Apple. A mac pro just became a non-option for the entire pro-sumer and student/amateur artist market. So yeah, you don't need to set a new limit for your next trade, but it hurts the company when everyone knows that their flagship product is crap.

$2499 for that? Hackintosh. It ain't pretty, but hell it's $1100 and a little time, duct tape and bubble gum. That sound you here is customers, albeit amateurs or future pros, walking out the door.

No, I guess I don't understand economics. I thought companies who had a habit of SCREWING thier customers BLUE lost business. You know, like Intel whose stock went from 40 to 15 when they wouldn't compete with AMD at the turn of the century and sold slower processors for higher prices... just like Apple is doing now.

SOMEONE is paying attention, shareholders.

 

[mBox]

Gonna have to wait this one out. We need the higher ram Quadro FX cards for 3D and Motion Graphics. The options now are bunk

 

[AdamTro]

Umm, it's called the FREE MARKET. Google it. Their justification is called "Shareholders" (of which I am one). Do you think for one second that they didn't carefully research price points before release?

Does anyone understand economics anymore?

Sounds like you're of the Austrian School?

 

[milo]

They have every justification in the world, and its the people's fault. This product has been priced as such because there are people (lots of them) who will pay this ^ for this ^.

Actually we don't know that yet. There might be lots who will buy this, or sales could tank. Time will tell.

Where's the xMac?

Didn't you hear, it shipped today.

Problem is, apple is charging $2499 for it.

Just like it will be tomorrow, next year, and the next ten years. Get over it. YOU WILL NOT GET A CHEAP HEADLESS MAC. Buy a PC if you want cheap junk.

Funny, isn't the mini a cheap headless mac? It seems apple DOES offer "cheap junk"...it's just that Apple's is actually worse than that on the PC side.

I bought an entry-level 8 core 2008 for the same price as an entry level 4-core, but now it is actually much and much faster, with more ram and more HD.

Where's the benchmark showing that the new 4 core is "much faster" than the previous 8 core? I think it's telling that Apple compares the new and old 8 core machines in their benchmarks but leaves out the new 4 core. If it is really faster, then why isn't Apple showing that off in their benchmarks?

 

[Wie Gehts]

Umm, it's called the FREE MARKET. Google it. Their justification is called "Shareholders" (of which I am one). Do you think for one second that they didn't carefully research price points before release?
Does anyone understand economics anymore?

Considering the number of corporations that are tanking, neither do their board members

 

[SHOlover]

I've been desperately waiting to replace my G5. We are a Final Cut Studio production house and I am getting sick of running XDCAM EX edits on a MBP17 and the G5. I really need a Mac Pro and have been waiting for months for the expected Nehalem chips. And it's not a bad machine, graphics card notwithstanding. But buying this machine in sterling is very distasteful indeed, and I don't really know what to do.

No worries! My 2008 Mac Pro runs XDCAM HD perfectly! I have taken footage from the EX3 and the new 700, and they look great--bear in mind you have to take half a step more than necessary (IMO) but the end results are phenominal. I'm just waiting on FCS3 to pull the trigger on 2 of these bad boys. Then XDCAM footage will be fully seamless (I hope).

 

[CaptainScarlet]

In a nutshell, why are people being so negative in their feedback? As I see, all news about new Macs have an overwhelmingly negative feedback...

What's up with the WHINERS here??? You weren't EVEN expecting new MacPros and Apple delivered it!!!

It's what the internet has become...One big bag of whiney chronic complainers.

 

[milo]

The four cores are seen and perform as eight. So the new base 2009 Mac Pro is STILL an eight core machine.
Read-
http://www.apple.com/macpro/features/processor.html

The eight core processors are seen and perform as a SIXTEEN core machine.
See above.

If that is true, then benchmarks should prove it.

So where are they?

In a nutshell, why are people being so negative in their feedback?

Have you even looked at the thread? Did you look at the pricing compared to previous models?

Simple answer - $500 price jack on the 8 core. If they had these models at previous pricing I'm sure people would be ecstatic.

The consumer 2.66ghz Core i7 chip outperformed the old 8 core 2.8 Mac Pro so I have no doubt that despite the cores halved, and the lower clock speed, the machine is still faster. Not bad for $300 less.

I keep hearing this claim, but never with the actual benchmark. So where's the link to it?

 

[shawmanus]

Nehalem EP benchmarks

specfp_rate base:
http://www.techradar.com/news/compu...tel-dual-socket-nehalem-ep-benchmarked-487131

HPC evaluation from Los Alamos( you need to provide name and email to download):
http://www.worldscinet.com/cgi-bin/jform.cgi?/ppl/mkt/free/S012962640800351X.html



I think even Core I7 performance is useful to compare as fundamentally they are the same. This is just 2-socket plus 2 QPI links.


http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=1

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15818/16

 

[mdriftmeyer]

If that is true, then benchmarks should prove it.

So where are they?



Have you even looked at the thread? Did you look at the pricing compared to previous models?

Simple answer - $500 price jack on the 8 core. If they had these models at previous pricing I'm sure people would be ecstatic.



I keep hearing this claim, but never with the actual benchmark. So where's the link to it?

I think the prior poster to you doesn't understand the difference between Virtual Cores and Actual Cores.

 

[Mr.klaxon]

Some people just get caught up in the Language

Quad-core, 8-core, core-duo, single-core, 16-core!

It seems to be that people don't understand that each chip generation is often completely different from one another (apples and oranges). All that matters are the benchmarks and multi-tasking capabilities, if this increases then you are getting a better machine for your money. So if tomorrow some engineer comes out with the mother of all processors that happens to be "single core" but out preforms every chipset/core-configuration to date, people shouldn't be crying that they have lost a number of processors, but exclaiming about the improvement of the technology.

The main mistake that Apple appears to have done is not issue or release a presentation video (for those who do not like to read) demonstrating the improvement in their processors and the change in "x-core" language so that consumers don't get hung-up on the words but instead are impressed by the products.

 

[milo]

Dude, that's directly from the Apple product page.

Not me.

And you read every bit of sales hype you read?

This gets brought up time after time. It's a very simple answer. There are many businesses that do NOT want wireless capability in their machines. It is imperative that Apple offer these "Pro" machines without wireless capability.

Besides, when you're paying many thousands of dollars for a Pro-level computer, it seems kind of ridiculous to complain about a $50 option.

So include the wireless but give buyers the option of leaving it out. It's not rocket science.

And when you're paying many thousands of dollars for a Pro-level computer, it seems kind of ridiculous to get nickel and dimed with a $50 option. Seriously, apple didn't make enough and had to squeeze even more? Come on.

It's what the internet has become...One big bag of whiney chronic complainers.

Nah, one big bag of whiney chronic complainers...and one big bag of sycophantic apologistic suckup fanbois.

 

[mryan]

You think $3300 to go over 8 GBs is bad? I remember the days when RAM was over $1/MB (yes, MEGAbyte). If you want a deal, go to dealram.com

I remember the days when RAM was over $50/MB (yes, $50).

 

[winterspan]

HOLY ****! Just going to dual-2.66Ghz Xeons ends up with a base price of $5000 everything left at default (crap "GPU", 1HDD, etc) ... What are they thinking? Thats an outrageous price...

For those making excuses, the new Nehalem Xeons aren't supposed to cost much more than the existing Xeons, certainly not more than 25% or so..

Why would they dramatically raise the price/cost ratio right now??

 

[milo]

specfp_rate base:
http://www.techradar.com/news/compu...tel-dual-socket-nehalem-ep-benchmarked-487131

HPC evaluation from Los Alamos( you need to provide name and email to download):
http://www.worldscinet.com/cgi-bin/jform.cgi?/ppl/mkt/free/S012962640800351X.html



I think even Core I7 performance is useful to compare as fundamentally they are the same. This is just 2-socket plus 2 QPI links.


http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=1

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15818/16

From what I saw there it looks like 4 cores still isn't as fast as 8 of the old ones - did I miss something?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Very surprised that they plated these Mac Pros with GT120 which is just a 8600GT rebranded. That card goes for about ~$100. Don't even get me started with the entry model being only 1 CPU (4-cores) and a UP TO 8GB ram. Appears to be a downgrade to me.

So what kind of Hackintosh can I get that would be comparable to the 4-core model here (CPUs don't have to be workstation level, though; I'm interested purely in overall capability and the ability to do consumer level things like gaming in addition to video editing, etc.) I'm getting the feeling that Mac hardware is pretty much useless at any reasonable price range now compared to what the PC world has to offer for the same hardware. If Apple wants Psystar to go away, they sure aren't going the right away about getting rid of them (i.e. through competition). Obviously, they are betting the farm on litigation restoring their total monopoly on OS X hardware and they are betting that YOU want OS X so darn badly that you will continue to pay these insane prices for mediocre hardware.

 

[G4DP]

I laughed when I saw the update. They will give a 20% speed increase over our 2008 Mac Pro, anyone who believes Apples claims is just dumb.

As for the price increase - Told you so, although I didn't think it would be as much as it is.

 

[deze]

Got to love the graphics - not
no workstation card full stop, got to have 2 cards to use 2 led displays.
Apple seriously lost the plot on this one, the mac pro is a workstation machine and they give us gaming graphics cards, the ati one is likely to be out of date in the next few months too (coming upto update cycle)

Price not too sure its good value but nehalem is still pricey, I suspect a fair few people may now hold off on it atleast in the UK

Feeling disappointed here in the UK
Reasons:
Price in general
Limited ram on the quad
8 core price ridiculous for 2.26 and it gets worse for the BTO's
(i mean 2x 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [+ £2,080.01) WTF?
What the hell is a GT 120? Base model is a GTS 250 on Nvidia's site.

Apple has left me with questions, so I'm going to wait, as time will answer them.

As for now i think the models look desperate, premature and overpriced.

 

[Ad Pro]

so which is the fastest machine?

One 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
or
Two 2.26GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon