Apple Introduces New Mac Pro with Nehalem Xeon Processors

[sigmadog]

If you enjoy paying more than the actual value for a product...this mac's for you. *I* don't like being ripped off. The product is fine in MANY ways...it's simply overpriced. I think Apple should take pride in offering great products at reasonable prices and profit margins...not seeing how much they can get through marketing hype.

Personally, the value I get from a Mac is directly related to the amount of money I can make over the course of the four to six years in which I use it as my main computer.

If, on the other hand, I was in an industry where I was forced to purchase a new top-of-the-line professional-grade computer every year, well, I might be unhappy with the price point. Happily, that is not my situation.

As far as a product's "actual value" having any relationship to it's price, have you ever bought coffee at Starbucks? The value is determined by the market's willingness to buy and not much else.

 

[pprior]

I was reflecting on how many people are upset about the pricing of this computer, so I started thinking about how much the computers I've purchased in my lifetime cost.

I bought several gateway computers around the 286/386 timeline that were very close to $3000, and for a long time I remember that every computer I bought was between $2400-$3000, but they kept getting faster.

Now that was probably 15 years ago, and with inflation those computers would have cost approx $5000 today.

Only in the last couple years have these horrendous stripped down crappy PCs sold for less than a grand become "normal" and IMO it has tainted many of the shall we say "younger" group that they should have the best at a cheap price.

In my experience (25+ years of buying computers) although these new machines are at a premium price, they're not that bad, and actually Apple should be getting kudos for making the ram a LOT more reasonable compared with their usual practice.

Just some thoughts from an older users.

 

[gmcalpin]

A wired numeric keyboard is now an OPTION? What do people who walk into a bestbuy to buy an iMac wanting a numeric keyboard do, since its a BTO option now?
Apple has completely lost ****ing touch.

You're in the wrong thread, because the numeric keyboard is still standard with Mac Pros.

Even just HUMORING you, those people will buy it online or use the keyboard they already own. Neither of these are horrible, excruciating options to have to be subjected to. Hell, some of them might even just buy the one with a numeric keyboard for $50 in addition to their iMac without the numeric keypad, because you know what? $50 is chump change.

 

[sigmadog]

Just some thoughts from an older users.

Amen. We old farts need to stick together.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple have announced systems using Nehalem Xeons early, Dell announced and shipped systems using Penryn Xeons early. Comparing old and new isn't fair. Dell will have competing systems soon. Probably at similar prices as Dell were more expensive before.

However it is fair to compare the $2,499 Mac pro to a Studio XPS 435 as the single socket Nehalem precision will likely be of a similar price and if you don't need ECC memory then XPS 435 probably will give you similar performance assuming nothing goes wrong. On a different OS of course.

I seriously don't think it is. You can't deny there's a price premium for professionnal grade hardware. If you want to compare to a hobbyist PC, you're going to be doing an apple and oranges comparison.

The Dell Precision line is the competitor to the Mac Pro. The thing with Apple is that they don't offer a Studio XPS type competitor, only the iMac in their mid-range, desktop PC and not all people want an all-in-one and so they look at the Mac Pro.

These people will call the Mac Pro overpriced and compare to every other hobbyist PC available and never be able to justify the cost. People who want professionnal grade workstations will never price a Studio XPS type computer, they'll for the Precision line-up. And there is where Apple wins for now. Like you said, we'll see how Dell follows-up with their own Nehalem offering, but it's probably going to be very similar price wise to the Mac Pro.

 

[dagomike]

Really, I could care less how much it costs. I'm happy to pay top dollar for the latest/greatest, however, I'll be annoyed if Apple is gouging us on these CPUs. Comparing i7 to Xeon makes no sense. It is what it is. I just want to make sure I'm not getting screwed, cause then I'll just wait for Apple to lower prices.

 

[polaris20]

These boards replicate themselves with every product cycle.

For those who want to build an equivalent Windows box for xxx dollars less, please go do it and stop wasting our time. Complain once if you must, then go. Do you have no lives?

And enjoy windows. I really mean that.

I own too much software to change over, nor do I want to. I like the Mac OS (I run Windows when I need to in Parallels, by the way) and I earn my keep with FCP and CS4. It would be insanity to switch over for me. It's like the endless, and identical, debates on DPReview when Nikon comes out with an expensive new camera. Same gripes and general BS, same threats to change platforms.

Any pro has way too much invested in either system's glass (lenses) to just switch, but there is a very vocal contingent that always threatens to.

They rarely do.

So do what you want - love and peace, peace and love.

I will stick with Apple, drink the Kool-Aid, be a Fanboy - deride me all you want - their hardware has worked for me for 15 years, it has lasted longer than similar Windows setups and I have few complaints.

Buy what you need when you can afford it. Until then, use what you have and stop griping.

I agree completely.

No, it's not. It's quite a reasonable comparison, as long as you allow for the differences in hardware between a consumer-level desktop and a professional-level workstation(/server, since they use the same componets).

No, it's not a valid comparison.

When we purchased our HP XW8600, we looked at Dell, HP, and Lenovo. Had we looked at Apple (previous gen) we would have realized Apple, even if we never planned to run OS X (rather Ubuntu Linux) would have been a better deal. HP, Dell, and Lenovo workstations were more expensive than the MP.

Seeing as how there's no such thing as an HP/Dell/Lenovo workstation with the Nehelem Xeon yet, saying Apple's new Mac Pro is overpriced is a bit premature.

When that happens, and you can buy an HP workstation with the same chip, and it's much cheaper, only then will the Apple be overpriced.

Sure, you can build a Newegg machine cheaper. But if you're using it for business, it's nice to have a warranty. We don't have the time, resources, or money to carry every conceivable spare part in stock waiting for something to die. It's much easier to call, and get the part the next day.

EDIT

Here's the previous gen MP:
Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processors
2GB of 800 MHz DDR2 ECC fully-buffered DIMM
ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT with 256MB of GDDR3 memory
320GB 3Gb/s 7200-rpm SATA hard drive
16x double-layer SuperDrive

$2799

Here's the XW8600 from HP:

Genuine Windows Vista® Business 32-bit
Two 2.8Ghz Xeon Quad-Core Processors
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290 256MB PCIe
HP 2GB (2x1GB) DDR2-667 ECC FBD RAM
HP 300GB SATA 3Gb/s NCQ 10K SFF 1st HDD
3 year warranty

$4689

Sure you have to add Applecare......but last I checked it doesn't cost nearly $2000. This is Apples to Apples comparison. Not comparing a professional workstation with a POS gamer tower.

 

[BenRoethig]

Really, I could care less how much it costs. I'm happy to pay top dollar for the latest/greatest, however, I'll be annoyed if Apple is gouging us on these CPUs. Comparing i7 to Xeon makes no sense. It is what it is. I just want to make sure I'm not getting screwed, cause then I'll just wait for Apple to lower prices.

Comparing the i7 to the xeon 3500 makes a lot of sense. They're the same chip at the same price and use the same chipset.

 

[Morriss]

Apple have announced systems using Nehalem Xeons early, Dell announced and shipped systems using Penryn Xeons early. Comparing old and new isn't fair. Dell will have competing systems soon. Probably at similar prices as Dell were more expensive before.

However it is fair to compare the $2,499 Mac pro to a Studio XPS 435 as the single socket Nehalem precision will likely be of a similar price and if you don't need ECC memory then XPS 435 probably will give you similar performance assuming nothing goes wrong. On a different OS of course.

It'll be interesting to see the price comparison to a similar Dell set-up with the same Nehalem chips. When the first Octo-Macs came out, there were many articles showing that the comparable Dell models cost more than the Macs. So, maybe these new MP's aren't overpriced after all. Let's wait and see what the competition looks like later this month.

 

[petvas]

I have read most of the posts in this thread and I have to say for those of you that complain about the new Mac Pro's CPUs and are comparing it to the i7 Desktop CPU: Apple uses the Workstation XEON Nehalem Processors, not the desktop ones. The performance difference is really big...Do not compare different things! Try configuring a Workstation system on the Dell Website...

Having said that, I believe that instead of 2,26Ghz Apple should offer 2,66Ghz as a standard...I also do not like the mini Display port option..That shows me that Apple isnt going to offer a new Apple Cinema Display of professional quality...(no mirror...and with a matte display)

The price for the 2,66Ghz system is really absurd...Before this upgrade u could get an 8 Core Mac Pro for much less money...

I won't be upgrading and I will wait till next year.

 

[dagomike]

Comparing the i7 to the xeon 3500 makes a lot of sense. They're the same chip at the same price and use the same chipset.

Which Mac Pro is that in? I'm really just looking at the 2.93 GHz chip.

 

[pooryou]

I don't see any problem with the prices. If anything I was impressed by the RAM prices. People who can't afford a Mac Pro should perhaps question if they really need a Pro model.

 

[orytek]

All I know is I used to be able to buy the Fastest Mac about every two to three years. Not anymore. I can't shell out over six thousand for the top configuration.
I don't care how much faster these are. They are supposed to be faster!
I expected maybe 4 thousand for the 2.93 8 core but not this.

 

[drsmithy]

No, it's not a valid comparison.

Certainly it is, in the context it was made, which was to establish an upper bound on what the bottom end Mac Pro should cost, based on what a machine of nearly identical hardware costs, plus experience in the price differences between consumer and "professional" hardware.

I was not saying the XPS was a direct competitor to the Mac Pro, I was using it as an example of nearly identical hardware (particularly in terms of performance) costing substantially less.

When we purchased our HP XW8600, we looked at Dell, HP, and Lenovo. Had we looked at Apple (previous gen) we would have realized Apple, even if we never planned to run OS X (rather Ubuntu Linux) would have been a better deal. HP, Dell, and Lenovo workstations were more expensive than the MP.

Doubtful, especially if you'd specced the Mac Pro up to meet the PCs longer warranties and higher-end video cards (although the latter would not have been possible). Although you may have been doing your comparison in that brief period where the Mac Pro was actually cheaper, although it is hardly valid to infer a general case from that.

How so ? Explain to me why a Dell Precision workstation is not a direct competitor to the Mac Pro.

Umbongo already has.

Apple have announced systems using Nehalem Xeons early, Dell announced and shipped systems using Penryn Xeons early. Comparing old and new isn't fair. Dell will have competing systems soon. Probably at similar prices as Dell were more expensive before.

 

[KnightWRX]

Umbongo already has.

Compare the Precision Workstation to the previous Mac Pro then. Notice any patterns ? The Mac Pro wasn't overpriced or underspecced before today either. The Precision workstation just didn't get litterally destroyed like it did today with this announcement. Don't expect the Precision refresh to bring you a way cheaper system than the Mac Pro either.

In no way is it a dumb comparion. A professionnal outfit buying systems today is doing the same comparison I just did.

Same for the HP workstations. Go price one yourself (either a xw6600 or higher). The Mac Pro is right there where it should be as far as price and specs go.

 

[polaris20]

Doubtful, especially if you'd specced the Mac Pro up to meet the PCs longer warranties and higher-end video cards (although the latter would not have been possible). Although you may have been doing your comparison in that brief period where the Mac Pro was actually cheaper, although it is hardly valid to infer a general case from that.

Doubtful? Dude, I did the leg work. THE MAC PRO WAS CHEAPER!! I just spec'd it out right now and posted it. Did you bother to look at it? Apparently not. Look at the friggin' numbers. Read my entire post, not just the first line. Unless you're bad at math, $4689 is more expensive than $2799.

 

[dagomike]

If this is accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_(microarchitecture)

I'd guess the base 2.26 Octo is the E5520. List price of $373 (@1000 units)

The 2.93 X5570 is $1386. Difference of $1013 each.

At the Apple store, to upgrade it's a difference of $2600. That's a difference of $575 over list, which corresponds to a 20% sales margin.

Doesn't seem to be an Apple tax here, or gouging. The gear is just expensive. I guess if you wanted Apple to go i7, that's one thing, but Apple is delivering bleeding edge and that stuff costs coin.

 

[drsmithy]

Compare the Precision Workstation to the previous Mac Pro then. Notice any patterns ? The Mac Pro wasn't overpriced or underspecced before today either. The Precision workstation just didn't get litterally destroyed like it did today with this announcement. Don't expect the Precision refresh to bring you a way cheaper system than the Mac Pro either.

A Precision T4700 configured like the old Mac Pro costs $2874, with a three year warranty.

In no way is it a dumb comparion. A professionnal outfit buying systems today is doing the same comparison I just did.

Your comparison isn't stupid because it's comparing a Mac Pro to a Precision, it's stupid because it's comparison a Mac Pro that's just been updated to a completely new hardware platform with a Precision that hasn't.

 

[polaris20]

It'll be interesting to see the price comparison to a similar Dell set-up with the same Nehalem chips. When the first Octo-Macs came out, there were many articles showing that the comparable Dell models cost more than the Macs. So, maybe these new MP's aren't overpriced after all. Let's wait and see what the competition looks like later this month.

EXACTLY! Too bad you're one of the few here with a decent grasp on logic.

 

[Inconsequential]

It's a single socket now.

Oh well, kind of expecting it.

Single 2.93Ghz i7 for me then!

 

[budkid]

oh my...so expensive. I see the trend..

 

[Torajima]

Exactly ... it's a Mac PRO, not a Mac Hobby or a Mac Home.
.

Love the elitist attitude...

The "PRO" machines used to start under $2000. I really don't think that is too much to ask.

 

[KnightWRX]

A Precision T4700 configured like the old Mac Pro costs $2874, with a three year warranty.

Your comparison isn't stupid because it's comparing a Mac Pro to a Precision, it's stupid because it's comparison a Mac Pro that's just been updated to a completely new hardware platform with a Precision that hasn't.

Hence why I told you if you wanted to nitpick, to configure vs an older Mac Pro. The fact remains that right now, the Dell Precision as is is the Mac Pro's competition, it's what Dell offers right now to buyers, even if it is in need of a refresh.

Will Precision buyers be as whiny and nitpicky as the Mac Pro buyers when Dell does go through with their refresh ?

 

[Anonymous Freak]

I have read most of the posts in this thread and I have to say for those of you that complain about the new Mac Pro's CPUs and are comparing it to the i7 Desktop CPU: Apple uses the Workstation XEON Nehalem Processors, not the desktop ones. The performance difference is really big...

The Mac Pro uses one of two processor families.

The "eight-core" system uses two Xeon 5500 series chips.

The "quad-core" system uses a single Xeon 3500 series chip. This chip is about 99% identical to the desktop "Core i7". The *ONLY* difference is that the Xeon supports ECC RAM. That's it.

Intel has been re-branding desktop chips as Xeons for a couple years for use in single-socket workstations and servers. In general, the chips cost the exact same price as the same-spec desktop chips, even; they just like to have the "Xeon" branding on servers.

 

[Umbongo]

Ok this is all getting very silly and catty.

The 2006 and 2008 Mac Pros were great value, they were powerful and at the top end in processing when they came out (ignoring overclocking) and while lacking things like really cutting edge graphics cards and having high memory and hard drive prices from Apple they were very solid systems. They not only appealed to professionals but also the many amateur content creators that the current digital age has created. So can we drop the "if you are pro you pay it" and "only pros need a mac pro" crap?

If you want quad core, multiple display support, multiple internal hard drives, better graphics, RAID you now not only have to buy higher grade hardware than you might need, but pay a huge premium over the actual retail price that hardware can be found for elsewhere. The $2,499 Mac Pro has ~$1,500 worth of hardware. That is a lot to run OSX over Windows. Certainly something worthy of complaint considering Apple have changed their pricing policy overnight. That isn't to say that the Mac Pro isn't a tool worth $2,499 to someone.