Apple Introduces New Mac Pro with Nehalem Xeon Processors

[myca]

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 for the tip, but I think I've made my mind up to build a hackintosh with an EFIX. Guess I've realised that the macpro is too much for me (I don't really need 8 cores), and the iMac I just think is too expensive, and underpowered for what I need. Looks like I fall in to the never to be released xMac category.

I Might even just go for a C2D quad and overclock it, it'll still be miles ahead of my current dual G5, and cost about the same as the high end mini.

I could spend the surplus on some nice audio DSP

 

[daver11]

You people whining about price have no idea what it used to be like. In 1990, Apple introduced the Mac IIfx. This powerhouse had a "wicked fast" 40 MHz (that's MEGA-hertz, not GIGA-hertz) processor, could hold a max of 128MB of RAM, and had a whopping 160MB hard drive!!

All this could be yours, in 1990, for between $9,000 and $12,000, depending on configuration. Monitor, keyboard and mouse were extra.

http://support.apple.com/kb/SP203
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_IIfx

Today, we get machines with literally thousands of times the power for less than one-third the price. Adjusted for inflation, it's more like one-sixth the price.

I ordered my new 8-core 2.26 GHz with 16GB of RAM yesterday, and I am not complaining. I'd pay more if they charged it. What difference does a couple thousand plus or minus make? This isn't a machine for playing games. I make my living on this machine. I spend 8 hours or more in front of this machine every day, and it's worth every penny.

 

[jaduffy108]

Thanks for the tip, but I think I've made my mind up to build a hackintosh with an EFIX. Guess I've realised that the macpro is too much for me (I don't really need 8 cores), and the iMac I just think is too expensive, and underpowered for what I need. Looks like I fall in to the never to be released xMac category.

yep...I'm gonna do the same thing. For around $1700 I can build a screamin' machine...significantly better than the 2.66 quad.

 

[myca]

yep...I'm gonna do the same thing. For around $1700 I can build a screamin' machine...significantly better than the 2.66 quad.

Nice one

I'm kind of looking forward to doing a build, the last time I built a PC was about 15 years ago, a crummy win 95 system, and at that time I really didn't have a clue what I was doing.

I ordered my new 8-core 2.26 GHz with 16GB of RAM yesterday, and I am not complaining. I'd pay more if they charged it. What difference does a couple thousand plus or minus make? This isn't a machine for playing games. I make my living on this machine. I spend 8 hours or more in front of this machine every day, and it's worth every penny.

I wish I could be more brazen with my money, but the free-lance work I do doesn't come around as often as I'd like, huge lay-offs in the games industry recently. Plus I need a machine that's affordable, does windows, does OS X, does audio and does games. I do audio post for video games amongst other things, so I can count play time as research

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

You people whining about price have no idea what it used to be like. In 1990, Apple introduced the Mac IIfx. This powerhouse had a "wicked fast" 40 MHz (that's MEGA-hertz, not GIGA-hertz) processor, could hold a max of 128MB of RAM, and had a whopping 160MB hard drive!!

All this could be yours, in 1990, for between $9,000 and $12,000, depending on configuration. Monitor, keyboard and mouse were extra.

That's because some of us weren't crazy enough to use a Mac then when it was underpowered, underwhelming and had a miserable operating system (only my opinion of course). In 1991, I had an Amiga 3000, which cost me around $2500 (barely used) with 350MB of hard drive space, 18MB of ram, a 25MHz 68030 and I'm reasonably certain it would have kicked the pants off that Mac in many respects in its day.

Today, we get machines with literally thousands of times the power for less than one-third the price. Adjusted for inflation, it's more like one-sixth the price.

So your argument is to compare getting royally RIPPED OFF in 1990 with getting ripped off "less" in 2009 by way of comparison. But paying too much is paying too much in any decade. Apple's current hardware is the SAME as Dell's hardware and they charge 2x as much and your arguement is that you USED TO pay 5x as much so it's all good.

Ummm, that's called "Free market economics." Google it.

Why are you here? if you want cheap PCs there are plenty of places to buy.

Why is it fanboys always take this attitude of, if you don't like getting ripped off, go buy a Windows PC? It's pretty flipping OBVIOUS why I'm here. I like the current Mac Operating System. That doesn't mean I like getting RIPPED OFF on the hardware side of things. But you seem to eat it up so enjoy paying the new prices. My next "Mac" will be a Hackintosh (unless Apple changes their prices and attitude between now and then).

 

[Anonymous Freak]

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

For the desktop single-socket parts that have been publicly released since November, the most comparable would be the 2.66 GHz.

Comparing a Core i7 920 at 2.66 GHz to a Core 2 Quad Q9550 at 2.83 GHz, the i7 920 is the *clear* winner. Indeed, the i7 920 is better at very many tasks than the previous ultra-high-end QX9770, which is a 3.2 GHz part with a faster front-side bus than the Q9550. (And is comparable to the 3.2 GHz Xeon in the previous Mac Pro.) What few things the QX9770 beats the i7 920 at, it is by less than 10%. At video encoding that has extensions for the i7, the i7 absolutely smokes the Core 2 line.

Indeed, for some tasks, the Core i7 965 is faster than a *PAIR* of Core 2 Extreme QX9775s! Which is why I was *REALLY* hoping that Apple would release an iMac with the desktop i7, and why I'm disappointed with the $2499 Mac Pro, which is basically equivalent to a $1019 Dell XPS Studio (i7 920, 3 GB RAM, 640 GB drive, Radeon 4670 (the closest Dell offers to the GeForce 120.)) Sorry, the Mac Pro chassis and ECC RAM are nice, but it's not worth $1500.

While I don't doubt that the dual-socket systems will compare very well to the equivalent Dell Precision Workstation; the single-socket Mac Pro is abysmal. Sorry, but I built the equivalent of that for *WAY* less back in December. The dual-socket system is absolutely incredible, and is, indeed, an excellent value. But the single-socket system should be $1499 (like the single-socket Power Mac G5 was,) not $2499.

 

[daver11]

...In 1991, I had an Amiga 3000...

Oh my God, I had forgotten about you Amiga people! I used to argue with an Amiga user all the time. I loved to just dismiss him the same way PC users dismissed Mac users. I'd say "Amiga? That's just a baby's toy!" So funny!

 

[daver11]

...I wish I could be more brazen with my money, but the free-lance work I do doesn't come around as often as I'd like, huge lay-offs in the games industry recently. Plus I need a machine that's affordable, does windows, does OS X, does audio and does games. I do audio post for video games amongst other things, so I can count play time as research

My point is that the Mac Pro is for professional users. The $5,000 investment in a new machine is peanuts compared to the income it generates. The people complaining about price in this forum appear, for the most part, to be consumers. From a professional's point of view, these price differences are insignificant.

 

[winterspan]

The dual-socket system is absolutely incredible, and is, indeed, an excellent value.

Actually, no, it's a terrible value if you are comparing it to it's predecessor. The tray price of the CPUs have not changed much at all (the lower two 55xx series that Apple is offering are actually cheaper than their 54xx counterparts Apple offered in the older dual-CPU Mac Pro), the RAM is no longer FB-DIMM, the graphics cards pricing is negligible, etc ----- yet the price of dual-CPU Mac Pro using the "middle-of-the-road" 2.66 Ghz is greatly increased.

 

[myca]

My point is that the Mac Pro is for professional users. The $5,000 investment in a new machine is peanuts compared to the income it generates. The people complaining about price in this forum appear, for the most part, to be consumers. From a professional's point of view, these price differences are insignificant.

The income a machine will generate has little to do with what it costs, although it's common sense that a more powerful and stable machine will improve most workflows, and pushing around the 'Pro' moniker can sound quite arrogant sometimes, as many 'Pros' need many different tools.

Take the MacBookPro, which lost connectivity and a lack of matte screens at the last update, many 'Pros' would consider that notebook now an expensive shiny toy, but I digress.

The income I make doing 'Professional' audio post could earn me enough to get a shiny new mac pro, I'd saved up near £2000 to get one at this refresh, but the 8 core model is over kill (and over my budget) for what I do, and the quad core is a rip off compared to the previous 2.8 8 core base model (in the UK at least).

This leaves me as a 'Pro' user with the decision to buy either an over priced model, a pricier over powered model (which for my needs will offer no additional bonus), or an under powered and over priced 'Consumer model'.

With the above options that Apple are giving me I've chosen not to buy hardware from them. Instead I'll build a system to my requirements, grab an EFIX, and grab some DSP and buy a few more plugins. That way I'll spend about the same in total, but have a lot more to show for it, and with the extra DSP and plug ins I should find it easier to generate my income.

 

[daver11]

...With the above options that Apple are giving me I've chosen not to buy hardware from them...

If Apple's offerings aren't a good fit, do what you gotta do. For me, they fit.

 

[Donar]

I did what i gotta do yesterday - so no prosumer hardware sale for Apple, only a little software package.

 

[-hh]

Who cares about 10 years ago. It's all about "now".

Not quite: Yesterday gives us perspective about tomorrow.

One of the many things that we here don't know is how Snow Leopard benchmarks on these new machines vs. the 2008 Mac Pros. But you can bet that someone within Apple made some product decisions with that knowledge.

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.

Merely your opinion. Personally, I'm waiting for some independent benchmarks in the area of greatest interest for me, since I've been waiting for this update cycle to replace my current iron. From what I've seen so far, the 2009 is a comparable value to the 2008 ... and you should note that I said "VALUE" and not "COST".

If its a good value, I simply don't care if its MSRP is $1,000 or $5,000.

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.

And since Dell hasn't yet shipped a new Nehalem-based DP Xeon PC so that you can compare their prices, your point is ... what?

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.

By however you choose to measure value, if its not a value for you, then don't buy.

Technical progress should offer better products at similar prices or make similar products more affordable.

Technological progress generally improves value. Not necessarily exclusively by making things cheaper. Years ago, someone (John Dvorak?) said: "The new computer that you want always costs $5,000".

EDIT: It was actually Bill Machrone, from PC Magazine. Cite here.

If they had offered: ...

Don't worry, in time all of your desired price points will be hit.

However, they'll be hit in the same exact way that one is able to buy a Porsche 911 for $30K: by buying used, after the newer, better version comes along.

We've all heard the saying "Time is Money".

What people tend to forget is its compliment, which is "Money is Time": when you don't have money, you have to sacrifice time - - and wait for the market to come down to what you're willing to spend, etc. You'll be able to have the Nehalem Mac Pro at the price you asked for in, oh, roughly 2012.


-hh

 

[-hh]

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

Just another comment:

The general fallacy of all of the above is wrapped up in one phrase:

"(economy of scale)"

A million dollar question is when the respective price points were set, what were the projected sales volumes for Mac Pros in 2008 versus today?

Once again for this iteration, Apple went with two motherboard designs, which means higher fixed costs for the manufacturing line, and a lower total production volume to amortize them across.

Now combine that with a perfect storm of a Global downturn in sales, along with the larger trend that has all desktops in a steep decline vs laptops, and the bottom line is that trying to estimate how many Mac Pros will be sold in the next 180 days is downright scary.

As such, there very well could be a $500/unit increase in the estimated true manufacturing costs for Apple because of these factors that you've simply not taken into account as part of the price to get ANY new Mac Pro design.

Bottom line is that unless we have access to all of these manufacturing cost value estimates & projections, we don't have sufficient perspective to say if they've made a mistake or not. To be explicit, Intel's published price on just the CPUs' public MSRPs is simply not enough data.

FWIW, one of my development projects is running into financial problems because the final cost for my chip run at the Foundry has come in a lot higher than what they gave me as my working estimate from just a few months ago. In the current economic climate, everyone's changing their risk tolerances, partly because they can no longer assume 100% utilization of their lines, which drives up overhead rates.

-hh

 

[mjteix]

Once again for this iteration, Apple went with two motherboard designs, which means higher fixed costs for the manufacturing line, and a lower total production volume to amortize them across.

Did you even looked at the new Mac Pro? They are not using 2 motherboards designs, then went for a motherboard+daughterboard concept (an old one by the way). The "motherboard" (the big one) supports the 5500 chipset, the PCI slots and other controllers/port, and the daughterboards support the cpu(s) and RAM. The two are linked by the QPI bus(es). So, going from a single cpu Mac Pro to a dual cpu Mac Pro is just changing the daughter boards, all the rest of the computer is the same. Nice job, could generate some economy of scale (vs two motherboards design). Easier assembling, easier BTO assembling, all this should generate LESS fixed costs. If you include the less expensive cpus used and less expensive RAM, it all should translate into less expensive computers. Also splitting the "motherboard" in two parts, makes it easier to engineer/manufacture both, since you have more space available and each one has less components to deal with. It probably costs less to engineer/manufacture those 2 boards than to engineer/manufacture a single board the size of the "motherboard" supporting all the parts. But you should probably know that since you are somehow in the business.

As such, there very well could be a $500/unit increase in the estimated true manufacturing costs for Apple because of these factors that you've simply not taken into account as part of the price to get ANY new Mac Pro design.

I think that estimating the cost/price of a computer using Intel's price list is more accurate than taking numbers out of a hat like your $500/unit increase in manufacturing costs. If the economy was in such a shape, Apple would have an increase in cost for all products, and the new Mac mini and the new iMac would have seen a price increase too (less than $500, but anyway). Don't try to find excuses, when it is simply greed that created the increase of price points: they KNOW, they won't sell a lot of Mac Pro in the next months/years, they are just adjusting the prices in order to make as much profit as they can on the few sales they will make. They think that their new pricing is probably "fair" vs the competion in the workstation segment (because they used to be even more affordable than others with their woodcrest/harpertown designs). The problem is that the Mac Pro looks less and less like a workstation:
- 8GB of RAM max. for the single cpus models? Most desktop computers using Core i7/X58 can handle 24GB of RAM (and in triple channel mode) at half the cost...
- Not even a Quadro or similar GPU option?
- No SAS drives anymore?
- No entreprise SSD option?
To who are they targeting these Mac Pros to?

But you know what? I'll go along with you assumption (those $500) and mix it with my "assumptions". I'll start from the previous base model and "update" to the two new base models:
- Take a $2799 old Mac Pro, remove the cpus ($1600), that makes $1200. Add your $500 increase in cost, $300 of cpu (Xeon 3500 2.66GHz), that's $2000. There are still $500 unaccounted for (Apple is selling this for $2499). And the total is not far from my previous estimate at $1899.

$1899 (max) single quad 2.66GHz ($284), 3GB RAM

- The same with the dual-cpu models gives a total of $2500 ($1200+$500+2x$400) for the dual 2.26GHz. There are still $800 unaccounted for (Apple is selling this for $3299). If we move to dual 2.66GHz cpus instead (2x$1,000), we get $3700, that's close to my previous estimate at $3699, don't you think?

$3699 (max) dual quad 2.66GHz (2x$958), 6GB RAM

I was probably one of the few saying that the nehalem Mac Pros will be more expensive than the harpertown models in other threads, but I never suspected that it will go that far, even in this economy, or whatever.

Now, if the new Mac Pro is hand-build/tuned by a qualified engineer, and that's why it is priced like that, just let us know and give us his phone # so we can call him if we have a question/request.

 

[diamond.g]

Did you even looked at the new Mac Pro? They are not using 2 motherboards designs, then went for a motherboard+daughterboard concept (an old one by the way). The "motherboard" (the big one) supports the 5500 chipset, the PCI slots and other controllers/port, and the daughterboards support the cpu(s) and RAM. The two are linked by the QPI bus(es). So, going from a single cpu Mac Pro to a dual cpu Mac Pro is just changing the daughter boards, all the rest of the computer is the same. Nice job, could generate some economy of scale (vs two motherboards design). Easier assembling, easier BTO assembling, all this should generate LESS fixed costs. If you include the less expensive cpus used and less expensive RAM, it all should translate into less expensive computers. Also splitting the "motherboard" in two parts, makes it easier to engineer/manufacture both, since you have more space available and each one has less components to deal with. It probably costs less to engineer/manufacture those 2 boards than to engineer/manufacture a single board the size of the "motherboard" supporting all the parts. But you should probably know that since you are somehow in the business.

Isn't the chipset X58? Those daughterboards are going to be a hot item. Get the cheap Mac Pro and find a daughterboard that takes 2 CPUs...

 

[ktlx]

Isn't the chipset X58?

I don't think it is. Apple lists too many PCIe 2.0 lanes for the X58 and too few for an X58 + N200 combination.

 

[diamond.g]

I don't think it is. Apple lists too many PCIe 2.0 lanes for the X58 and too few for an X58 + N200 combination.

The Southbridge can have up to 6 additional PCIe lanes. Now the real question is do they have to be 6x1 or can they be 1x4 with 2 unused.

 

[ktlx]

The Southbridge can have up to 6 additional PCIe lanes. Now the real question is do they have to be 6x1 or can they be 1x4 with 2 unused.

The Apple document I read earlier this week said the Mac Pro has four slots, two of which are PCIe 2.0 16x and two of which are PCIe 2.0 4x. That's too many lanes for the X58. It seems odd that Apple would needlessly cripple the number of lanes when all four slots are physically 16x, so I'm skeptical they're using an X58 in combination with an N200.

 

[diamond.g]

The Apple document I read earlier this week said the Mac Pro has four slots, two of which are PCIe 2.0 16x and two of which are PCIe 2.0 4x. That's too many lanes for the X58. It seems odd that Apple would needlessly cripple the number of lanes when all four slots are physically 16x, so I'm skeptical they're using an X58 in combination with an N200.

But the southbridge can support the extra lanes required.

 

[mjteix]

I don't think it is. Apple lists too many PCIe 2.0 lanes for the X58 and too few for an X58 + N200 combination.

It is not the X58 but the xeon version of it (future 5500 chipset) that has 2 QPI links enabled and there are multiple versions 24/36 PCI lanes + a southbridge (ICH10/R). You can even use up to 2 IOH if you need a lot of PCIe lanes...

 

[diamond.g]

It is not the X58 but the xeon version of it (future 5500 chipset) that has 2 QPI links enabled and there are multiple versions 24/36 PCI lanes + a southbridge (ICH10/R). You can even use up to 2 IOH if you need a lot of PCIe lanes...

According to Wiki, X58 has support for 2 QPI. It is supposed to be used with all the current Socket 1366 CPU's

 

[intenseinsense]

For those questioning the power of Nehalem, I found a great article which has given me more consideration to order a new MP. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3326&p=5

And those looking to build a Hackintosh.. Has Intel even announced a Xeon Nehalem yet? I haven't been able to find one and if you do, let me know. Thanks

Two cents from Insense

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Has Intel even announced a Xeon Nehalem yet?

Nope.

My NDA says I'm not allowed to talk about the processors and chipset that are in the (publicly released) Mac Pro for a while longer. (I can't even tell you the date, because *THAT* is under NDA.)

It's funny when Apple releases something I don't even have internal-to-Intel beta access to yet...

 

[123]

But the southbridge can support the extra lanes required.

The ICH10 supports 1x4 or 4x1, but only PCIe 1.1, not 2.0. Apple is either using their own SB, or the Mac Pro specs are wrong (actually 2x16 2.0, 1x4 2.0, 1x4 1.1).