Another example of lack of understanding of economics. Inflation reflects increasing overall costs over time. Within a given product area prices may go up or down, but overall $2000 today buys less than it did 10+ years ago. So inflation most certainly does apply. If you took $2000 out of your budget 10 years ago, it would be more of a proportion of overall spending than it does now, and that's what counts.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Introduces New Mac Pro with Nehalem Xeon Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Another example of lack of understanding of economics. Inflation reflects increasing overall costs over time. Within a given product area prices may go up or down, but overall $2000 today buys less than it did 10+ years ago. So inflation most certainly does apply. If you took $2000 out of your budget 10 years ago, it would be more of a proportion of overall spending than it does now, and that's what counts.
The single-dual CPU split is a smart one... for Apple/stock holders that is, since you can no longer buy that second Xeon CPU without saying thank you to Apple.
LOL... thanks for proving my point. $2000 buys MORE today than it did 10 years ago with computers. So inflation most certainly does NOT apply when dealing with the purchasing power in regards to computers. Again, except for at Apple.
I think you misread or didn't understand my post. Would suggest you re-read my post again, then edit yours...
I think you misread or didn't understand my post. Would suggest you re-read my post again, then edit yours...
Unless you are refering to your orignal post then yes I'm not sure what you are talking about. You can't say that those numbers are up because of inflation when inflation doesn't affect the cost of computers!
Maybe you would understand this example:
If the average cost of milk is $4 in 2000 and then costs $2 in 2009 you can't say it costs more in 2009 due to inflation.
Well you can, but would be wrong. I'm sorry if you don't understand that.
According to the site above, in a GHz to GHz comparison between the new Nahalem and the old Core 2 Extreme processors, we could expect a 25 33% increase in performance.
While not an exact comparison of the 08 vs. 09 Mac Pros, if we assume a similar performance gain tell me if this makes sense
2008 Mac Pro 2.8GHz
2009 Mac Pro 2.26 GHz
(2.8GHz 2.26GHz) = 0.54GHz
(0.54 / 2.8) *100 = 19.26%
In terms of GHz then, the 2.8 GHz CPU is 19.26% quicker than the 2.26.
So, if we can expect a 25 33% increase in performance, would this mean that the new 2009 2.26GHz Mac Pro Octo would be equivalent to a 2.83 3.00 GHz 2008 Mac Pro Octo?
If you included the fact that Turbo Boost can theoretically increase speed roughly 12% (according to the numbers Apple has provided), if Snow Leopard is able to take advantage of the additional threads, etc. The new 2.26GHz Mac Pro looks like it should be better than the 2.8GHz Octo of 2008.
Well see though I cant wait for some actual benchmarks
Unless you are refering to your orignal post then yes I'm not sure what you are talking about. You can't say that those numbers are up because of inflation when inflation doesn't affect the cost of computers!
Maybe you would understand this example:
If the average cost of milk is $4 in 2000 and then costs $2 in 2009 you can't say it costs more in 2009 due to inflation.
Well you can, but would be wrong. I'm sorry if you don't understand that.
My point is that inflation relates to overall budgetary costs. Within a specific product market things may get cheaper, but that is not the issue. the issue is this: If you spend $2000 on a computer today, that is "less" than you spent if you spent $2000 on a computer 10 years ago.
yes computers have generally gotten cheaper (but I discussed this elsewhere, I spent roughly $3000 on many computers back in the 80's and early 90's, which inflation adjusted is interestingly just about what the new mac pro higher end configs cost...), but largely that is the "dell" effect. Apple's price points have not had as much of a downward price pressure.
In short, when considering how much of your overall cash you're spending on a computer, $2000 today is less than it was 10 years ago, despite the fact that computers have gotten cheaper overall during that time.
G5 is pretty good, guys!
I have a dulie 2.0 G5 and convert my Canon 5dmkII 1080P footage to XDCAM fine, work with it realtime even with color correction added. AVHC footage doesn't work without an Intel processor, but someone mentioned that already. And the 5d footage is amazing!
Also, from what other people have said and rough benchmark calculations, a new octo 2.26 should equal the old generation at around 3ghz. The 2.26 for me with educational discount would be $2999, a refurbished 3.2 octo $4100. The old 3.2 is most likely slightly faster but will Snow Leopard take the Hyperthreading process into account and make Nehalem faster? Who knows . . .
Yes, I am not thrilled, I knew Nehalem would be expensive and I think Apple could offer some better price points, but as you can see, 3k is better than 4.1k. It's just, I think we all want definitely faster for 3k, and that isn't going to happen unless you shell out almost 6k.
In conclusion, people coming from G5's or 1st to 2nd gen Mac Pros from quad to low end octo (2.8), the upgrade to the minimum 2.26 is pretty good for the price vs performance gain. For those of you with an older octo 3.2, yes you can upgrade to a noticeably faster machine (the 2.9), but for a hefty price, one I would not consider doing seeing your gain most likely isn't even 2x in realworld apps.
I have a dulie 2.0 G5 and convert my Canon 5dmkII 1080P footage to XDCAM fine, work with it realtime even with color correction added. AVHC footage doesn't work without an Intel processor, but someone mentioned that already. And the 5d footage is amazing!
Also, from what other people have said and rough benchmark calculations, a new octo 2.26 should equal the old generation at around 3ghz. The 2.26 for me with educational discount would be $2999, a refurbished 3.2 octo $4100. The old 3.2 is most likely slightly faster but will Snow Leopard take the Hyperthreading process into account and make Nehalem faster? Who knows . . .
Yes, I am not thrilled, I knew Nehalem would be expensive and I think Apple could offer some better price points, but as you can see, 3k is better than 4.1k. It's just, I think we all want definitely faster for 3k, and that isn't going to happen unless you shell out almost 6k.
In conclusion, people coming from G5's or 1st to 2nd gen Mac Pros from quad to low end octo (2.8), the upgrade to the minimum 2.26 is pretty good for the price vs performance gain. For those of you with an older octo 3.2, yes you can upgrade to a noticeably faster machine (the 2.9), but for a hefty price, one I would not consider doing seeing your gain most likely isn't even 2x in realworld apps.
Turbo Boost overclocks working cores when other cores are idle, so the CPU has better single-threaded performance while still staying within thermal limits.
I'm using an older systems myself, and it still makes money too. Unfortunately, the current economy has taken it's toll on my business. As I am a graphics professional who works with huge files, I need the fastest system possible to maximize my income. Looks like I'll have to keep staring at progress bars on my outdated system as Apple's latest desktop offerings are at a price point that is beyond ridiculous. I seriously doubt the money that it will cost to upgrade to the 8-core Mac Pro will justify the presumably marginal performance increase (even as a tax write-off). I say "presumably" because in the past 14 years of using Macs professionally I have never found the performance claims made by Apple to be on par with real-world use.
I'm not going to pretend to be an economist, but I fail to see the logic of charging these outrageous prices in this economy even to a niche market. History has shown that corporations can put the needs of the shareholders before the needs of their customers for only so long. After that, the shareholders will become as unhappy as the company's ex-customers.
While switching to a PC will never be an option for me, I will now be forced to consider other Mac-based options rather than purchasing these new Mac Pros. It's a lose-lose situation for both Apple and my company. Thanks Apple. I'm glad I waited over a year for this.
That was a transient period, as if you go back a bit earlier, you find that the 'cheap' Mac IIcx was $5000.
And let's now take Inflation into account.
Using the CPI to bring everything up to 2007 values:
$1820 in 1997 (midpoint for the Mac 6500)
= $2,351.17 using the Consumer Price Index
= $3,026.10 using the relative share of GDP
$1299 in 2003 (G4): sorry, but this is cherrypicked data as this is price point is literally the "leftover" G4 that was announced on 23 June 2003, the very same release day announcement for the first G5's. The slightly more honest G4 could be the Jan 03 for $1499, but this was still in the throughs of "we're falling behind" angst. The more competitive and mainstream G4 would have been the MDD, whcih was released in 2002 at $1699:
$1699 in 2002 (G4 MDD)
= $1,958.17 using the Consumer Price Index
= $2,240.67 using the relative share of GDP
For the G5, should we use:
$1999 in 2003 (G5 1.8GHz SP)
or
$1999 in 2005 (G5 2.0GHz DP)
Results would be:
2003: $2,252.59 - $2,518.17
2005: $2,122.26 - $2,221.98
Present value calcuations were from MeasuringWorth.com
And of course, we should keep in mind that this online tool only had values up through 2007 and its now 2009 - - as such, these present value calculations are roughly 18-20 months out of date. If we look at the last G5 value (2005) and recognize that 2005-2007 added roughly 10%, its probably relatively fair to add 10% to all of these 2007 present value calcuations to develop a reasonable SWAG for March 2009.
Doing this (and rounding off), we get:
1997: $2,590 - $3,330 Average: $2,960
2002: $2,150 - $2,460 Average: $2,305
2003: $2,480 - $2,770 Average: $2,625
2005: $2,330 - $2,440 Average: $2,385
Averaging these four averages = $2,568.75
Versus the $2,499 starting price point for today.
Golly.
-hh
Wow, a lot of bitching and moaning on this release. I think that some people here are not taking into consideration the other aspects of the box. I am betting, because I bought one, that the 2.66 quad is going to out-perform (with snow leopard) and be a better value than the old 2.8 octo. It has a better graphics card, more RAM, and a bigger hard drive. Also, with Snow Leopard, I think that the graphics card is going to give it an even greater edge.
Yes, I think that Apple charged too much (by at least $300). I hope that they throw me a bone and give me Snow Leopard for free, but I am not holding my breath.
Yes, I think that Apple charged too much (by at least $300). I hope that they throw me a bone and give me Snow Leopard for free, but I am not holding my breath.
No numbers yet, but Boxx says they'll be selling their Octo Nehalems at a cheaper price point than Apple. Of course, no OS X included. However, in the past, Apple was able to beat Boxx out on price.
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=5722580&postcount=75
You guys are all referencing previous performance.. Though they have always been overpriced, this Mac Pro definitely sets a new record for gouging. Let's just see the Mac Pro sales numbers for this next 3 quarters, and we'll see how well all the experts at Apple did. I don't doubt that many of the hard-core loyal fans will continue to shell out the dollars, but I do believe many "average" self-employed users will not put up with it anymore unless their work depends on Apple software.. Count me in as one of these. OSX is a great motivating factor to suck it up, but if Microsoft ever gets their **** together and has a successful Windows 7 launch, then I don't know what will happen...
Also, it appears OEMs like Dell, Sony, HP, Acer, etc are finally "getting it" with regards to their PCs needing all the good engineering and style of an Apple. I'm not saying they are similar yet, but it is definitely moving in that direction. For those who always want to call out Dell, check out their XPS Studio line and upcoming "Adamo" ultraportable. These are becoming nice machines!
The Nehalems are definitely fast -- particularly in commercial server workloads like SAP, Oracle, VMware etc -- but not THAT fast. I would be *incredibly surprised* if the 2.66 outruns the older dual 2.8 in most commercial desktop applications and DCC type stuff. guess we'll all have to wait for the benchmarks..
That said, the dual-socket Nehalems will be incredibly fast with all the new memory and interprocessor bandwidth...
I have to agree, I do doubt that the quad 2.66 will run Logic Pro faster than the octo 2.8, and with only 4 sockets for ram it wont handle huge sample libraries as easily without streaming them from disk.
I did notice that the benchmark on Apples site had nothing regarding Logic Pro, when all recent updates did mention use of Logic Pro plug ins, which leads me to believe that Logic runs slower on the new base machine. I hope that some benchmarks prove me wrong, but I doubt it.
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
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
No one really knows. We can guess, but we don't know. Benchmarks should appear soon enough that should better aid you in a purchasing decision.
Hmm I cannot find the old 2.8 octo anywhere online in the UK, apart from some silly CTO options at cancom.
And this release has peeved me when I was gonna upgrade to a new mac pro, but funds being as they are it was going to be the base model, which to all intents has increased in price, but decreased in value IMHO.
I doubt if 8 cores is required for my needs, but the over priced iMac is underpowered, and I already have 2 nice displays.
Looks like it's hackintosh time, I've just priced a rig that'll super-seed the base mac pro for half the price, including the EFIX, I just pray to god that it works (once the X58 chipset is compatible with the EFIX that is).
And this release has peeved me when I was gonna upgrade to a new mac pro, but funds being as they are it was going to be the base model, which to all intents has increased in price, but decreased in value IMHO.
I doubt if 8 cores is required for my needs, but the over priced iMac is underpowered, and I already have 2 nice displays.
Looks like it's hackintosh time, I've just priced a rig that'll super-seed the base mac pro for half the price, including the EFIX, I just pray to god that it works (once the X58 chipset is compatible with the EFIX that is).
You could keep checking the refurb page, they go quick in the UK but they all models are often on there at least once a week (mondays and tuesdays I'd check). Also there are new boxed ones on eBay from time to time.
You could also try calling John Lewis and see if they have any in stock anywhere.
Thanks.
People tend to forget that years ago, back when bread was a nickel and gas only cost $0.49/gallon, the take-home salary of the average good white collar job wasn't $75K, but it was more like $20K.
Not to date myself, but when I first started working, minimum wage was $1.80/hour...and it would take roughly 18 weeks working full time (and ignoring taxes) to raise enough money to buy the most basic Apple ][ ... $1298 for 4K of RAM.
Today, the Federal Minimum wage is $6.55/hour and the time required to buy the basic Mac Pro is just under 10 weeks. If we settle for a 20" iMac, it takes <5 weeks.
-hh
Who cares about 10 years ago. It's all about "now".
And now the Mac Pro is more expensive than last week. It may or may not be more powerful than the previous models, there's only one sure thing: the entry price point is higher, and the cpu option are outrageously poor and expensive.
At least with the previous models, we had the feeling that Apple was giving us a good "bang for the buck", putting $1600 worth of cpus in a $2799 computer. Even Dell and HP could not compete with Apple's Mac Pro prices. Today, I could buy a $2499 computer with a $284 cpu in it, or a $3299 computer with $746 worth of cpus in it... I don't think I'm getting enough oumph for the money.
Apple used to offer the best of the best cpus in the Mac Pro (1600FSB harpertowns up to 3.20GHz), now they are offering low-end and middle of the road cpus, and even forget to offer a workstation-class gpu for their flagship workstation. Way to go.
Technical progress should offer better products at similar prices or make similar products more affordable. Apple does it for the iMac, Mac mini and some of the notebooks, but it seems they are using another approach with the Mac Pro, the one that says "let's get as much cash as we can from those suckers".
If they had offered:
- A single 2.93GHz ($568) model for less than $2299 (the harpertown model had a $800 cpu), it would have been a reasonable update (borderline).
- A dual 2.53GHz (2x$744) model for about $2799 (the harpertown model had two $797 cpus), it would have been a reasonable update.
or
- A dual 2.66GHz (2x$958) model for about $3599 (the harpertown model had two $1022 cpus), it would have been a reasonable update.
Instead of offering 5 middle of the road configurations they could have offered just four (economy of scale) with a larger price/power range:
$1899 (max) single quad 2.66GHz ($284), 3GB RAM
$2699 (max) single quad 3.20GHz ($999), 3GB RAM
$3699 (max) dual quad 2.66GHz (2x$958), 6GB RAM
$5499 (max) dual quad 3.20GHz (2x$1,600), 6GB RAM