Apple Introduces New Mac Pro with Nehalem Xeon Processors

[Stuart in Oz]

Awful, just awful.

Yesterday I could buy an 8-core machine here in Aus for $3999. Today I have to pay $4499 for a quad-core, with less memory expansion capacity and no ability to run two screens at once.

Are they insane?

 

[mcavjame]

The brain doesn't compute that a lower clock speed is in fact an improvement.

The processor does more with each clock cycle.

 

[MacFan27]

Very impressed!! Glad I waited...whos ordering?

 

[polaris20]

Awful, just awful.

Yesterday I could buy an 8-core machine here in Aus for $3999. Today I have to pay $4499 for a quad-core, with less memory expansion capacity and no ability to run two screens at once.

Are they insane?

Why can't you run two screens at once? Get the adapter.

 

[thoshino]

Reminds me of this weird glitch in Activity Monitor on my old iBook:
How can I unlock what must be over another G4 in my Mac?

Obviously your G4 must be equipped with an alien version of Intel's "Turbo Power"!

(or you experienced a painful, painful lag... or there was a measurement error)

 

[kabunaru]

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.

Wouldn't ATI Radeon HD 4870 be good enough?

 

[iMacmatician]

Obviously your G4 must be equipped with an alien version of Intel's "Turbo Power"!

(or you experienced a painful, painful lag... or there was a measurement error)

It happened after I did 2 (or more, can't remember) Exposé slow-motions in a row. Showed the weird number briefly then went back to normal.

Can't do it with my MacBook Pro for some reason.

 

[badNameErr]

Awful, just awful.

Yesterday I could buy an 8-core machine here in Aus for $3999. Today I have to pay $4499 for a quad-core, with less memory expansion capacity and no ability to run two screens at once.

Are they insane?

No, just completely incompetent. They obviously have absolutely no idea how to price products in anything other than the US market.

Looks like Mac desktop sales down under are going to tumble.

 

[DurandalReborn]

Lower clock speed does not mean lower performance

Hold on, these prices can't be right.... £2499 for a 2.26GHz Eight Core?? I'm shocked that 2.66GHz isn't the baseline. £2499 for a 2.66GHz Eight Core would have made a bit more sense although still more expensive than the previous model. As for the price bump of the Mac Mini up from £391 to £499. Ludicrous. I was planning on buying a new Mac Pro but I think I'll wait a while now.

Okay, for everyone wondering why the lower clock speeds, the i7 architecture is completely different from the previous set of processors. The CPUs are now true quad-cores, not two dual-cores smacked together on a single chip. Clock speed isn't the only factor in performance. A 3.0 GHz pentium CPU won't outperform a 2.4 GHz core 2 duo.

Do some research lol.

 

[Mr.PS]

Not as big of an upgrade as I thought - nothing really besides the processors. Still the same case... I have enough CPU power with my dual 2.8's. I was hoping for an SSD option and the ability to pre-install two ATI's. The Nvidia cards this time around are the cheap ones.

They should've just included a card with dual display ports, vs 1 DVI and 1 Display and offered the option to include a adapter. It's obvious display-port is leading the way from now on, on all new displays.

 

[Voltaic]

The Xeon 3500 IS the i7. Same chip, same price. Consumer i7 branded models have ECC support disabled.

That is what I meant, thank you for clarifying it.

 

[iMacmatician]

Okay, for everyone wondering why the lower clock speeds, the i7 architecture is completely different from the previous set of processors. The CPUs are now true quad-cores, not two dual-cores smacked together on a single chip. Clock speed isn't the only factor in performance. A 3.0 GHz pentium CPU won't outperform a 2.4 GHz core 2 duo.

Do some research lol.

Plus the Xeon 5500s are more expensive, clock-for-clock, than the Xeon 5400s.

 

[tonyl]

2006 Mac Pro - $2,499 Two 2.66GHz dual core ($690 per processor) $1,119 + processors
2008 Mac Pro - $2,799 Two 2.80GHz quad core ($797 per processor) $1,205 + processors

2009 Mac Pro - $2,499 One 2.66GHz quad core ($284 per processor) $2,215 + processor
2009 Mac Pro - $3,299 Two 2.26GHz quad core ($373 per processor) $2,553 + processors

Please explain Apple.

The cheapest Mac Pro: 1st: $2199 (2x2.0), 2nd: $2299 (1x2.8), 3rd: $2499 (1x2.66), but with only 4 memory slots, max 8GB (maybe 16gb?). What a ripoff on 3rd try!

 

[queshy]

Still nothing compelling enough to make me ditch my white 24" iMac which is still fine.

 

[nick9191]

People bitching about the cost are doing so because it's $500-$1000 overpriced, not because it's "expensive".

You can buy a Dell PC almost exactly the same specs as the bottom end Mac Pro for less than half as much.

EDIT: Even (quite generously) allowing for the traditional "Apple Tax", the bottom end Mac Pro shouldn't be a cent over $2000.

Again, how could you possibly know this.

Apple is the first one out with these chips, Dell wont get them for another month. If you're comparing this to a consumer i7 chip then you're comparing a gaming rig to a pro Xeon workstation which is completely fallacious.

Apple have always charged a decent price for their pro workstation, if you look at any keynote you will always find them jeering about how their computer is $1000 cheaper than Dell's, and I see no reason why they would change this.

 

[turtlebud]

"ONLY" 1.2x faster for Aperture

So the main application I'm using my G5 for right now is Aperture. I will be starting to learn FCE for video editing hopefully in the next months. So the main thing I was interested in was how the new Mac Pros performed in Aperture. Needless to say, there is much to be desired from my perspective. In short, the new Mac Pro 8 core 2.93Ghz runs Aperture 1.2x faster than the old 8 core 3.2Ghz.

Of course the new 2.93Ghz base model is $5900 vs. $4000 (I think) for the 3.2Ghz (I can't find the exact price for the 3.2Ghz model).

Since my target was probably the mid range (old 2.8Ghz 8 core or new 2.66Ghz 8 core), the prices would have been $2800 vs. $4700. Would it be safe to assume that if you compare the performance of the 8 core 2.8 vs the 8 core 2.66 that it would be roughly 1.2x faster w/ the new 8 core 2.66Ghz processors?

Yes, I've done my reading and I know that that the new 4 core is virtually the equivalent of a 8 processors because of multi-threading and 8 is equivalent to 16, but even with that difference, a 1.2x improvement for Aperture just doesn't seem like it's worth almost $2k.

Am I missing something with my logic? I wonder how the 2.66Ghz quad core stacks up to the 2.8Ghz 8 core.

 

[Morriss]

I therefore, after 13+ years of being a rabid macuser, am moving my business over to PC and have no regrets doing so. I look forward to being able to custom build any system I like, big or small at a reasonable price, with cheap ram, and the latest components. No more software incompatibilities, or waiting years for a Mac version of the latest release of Zbrush or whatever... no more bootcamp, parallels or networking hassles.

I also use C4D and have thought once or twice about switching to windows. The total cost of software license transfers, for me, would not be economically wise right now, though. How much are you spending (software wise) to make this change to windows?

 

[Morriss]

Yes, I've done my reading and I know that that the new 4 core is virtually the equivalent of a 8 processors because of multi-threading and 8 is equivalent to 16, but even with that difference, a 1.2x improvement for Aperture just doesn't seem like it's worth almost $2k.

Am I missing something with my logic? I wonder how the 2.66Ghz quad core stacks up to the 2.8Ghz 8 core.

Isn't Aperture a GPU intensive app? Maybe this accounts for the slight difference in performance.

 

[sigmadog]

I think this is the upgrade most of us professionals who are holding on to our Dual G5's have been waiting for.

Complaints about speed/power/cost only seem to matter to those who need/crave yearly updates. I suspect for the vast majority of pro users, this is not even close to reality. We milk our computers for 4 years or more and use them to make our living. The cost of a new system every 4-6 years is entirely justified on the basis of increased productivity and advances in technology (not to mention software).

I will happily dole out $3000-$4000 for a new Mac Pro because it will keep me happily productive for years. And i will be grateful for the opportunity, because i remember paying $10,000 in 1992 for a Mac IIfx and thinking I was getting a stinking good deal.

Thanks, Apple. I love your computers, but even more than that I love making money with your computers.

 

[sedril]

I think I'll wait and hope they do a speed bump in 6 months to the 3.2 chip... Then I'll buy it... Still wish Apple would use better video cards...

 

[TheThirdMan]

Yesterday I could buy an 8-core machine here in Aus for $3999. Today I have to pay $4499 for a quad-core, with less memory expansion capacity and no ability to run two screens at once.

Are they insane?

My thoughts exactly. How can they justify the pricing!? 4x2.66ghz vs 8x2.8ghz (even with the higher speeds nehalem brings, they just don't compare)? I'm so glad i bought the Jan 2008 release, looks like the new refresh is a joke...

 

[turtlebud]

Isn't Aperture a GPU intensive app? Maybe this accounts for the slight difference in performance.

Yes, it does use the GPU - a better Graphics card will see benefits with Aperture (I upgraded the stock card to a 7800GT on my G5 when I ordered it). However, I have played with the Mac Pros (previous gen) in the Apple store and when I do a batch edit (lift & stamp) for a set of pictures (maybe 20), I have seen it use up to 700% of the CPU in the Activity Monitor, which I assume means that it's using 7 of the cores. I assume that the comparisons that they are running are with similar graphics cards since they don't mention specific graphics cards in the notes. So that leads me to believe that if you'd see the same type of comparative performance even with better graphics cards (assuming you upgraded them in both systems).

 

[JasonUKBristol]

Although the price seem a little steep i'm buying one. However i'll just need to wait for snow leapard to be released so I can save £80. Is there an ETA for snow leapard yet???

 

[turtlebud]

I think this is the upgrade most of us professionals who are holding on to our Dual G5's have been waiting for.

Complaints about speed/power/cost only seem to matter to those who need/crave yearly updates. I suspect for the vast majority of pro users, this is not even close to reality. We milk our computers for 4 years or more and use them to make our living. The cost of a new system every 4-6 years is entirely justified on the basis of increased productivity and advances in technology (not to mention software).

I will happily dole out $3000-$4000 for a new Mac Pro because it will keep me happily productive for years. And i will be grateful for the opportunity, because i remember paying $10,000 in 1992 for a Mac IIfx and thinking I was getting a stinking good deal.

Thanks, Apple. I love your computers, but even more than that I love making money with your computers.

for $3-4K, that looks like either the 4 core 2.93Ghz or the 8 core 2.26Ghz. Are those the ones that you're looking into? Cause the upgrade to the 8 core 2.66Ghz will run $4700. that's the jump that seems a bit steep.

 

[thoshino]

Okay, for everyone wondering why the lower clock speeds, the i7 architecture is completely different from the previous set of processors. The CPUs are now true quad-cores, not two dual-cores smacked together on a single chip. Clock speed isn't the only factor in performance. A 3.0 GHz pentium CPU won't outperform a 2.4 GHz core 2 duo.
Do some research lol.

Yes and the Core i7 can also teach you how to fly.
The P4 3.0Ghz was (if I'm not mistaken) released in 2002, and the 2.4Ghz C2D in 2007? The comparison of a 5 year tech gap to a <1,5 year tech gap is absurd given Moore's law.

Trust me, most people on this forum are aware of the weak connection between clock frequency increase and performance increase (as they weren't seven years old when the P4 was released) and:

Look at the "organic" benchmarks and see my calculation above.
I think it's fair to say that...
1. over one year people expect more than 5% performance gain on the high end stock-order option.
2. you need to do some more research as well.

oh, and cut the lol when you casually insult people.