Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Quietly Adds 3.33 GHz Quad-Core Option to Mac Pro

Eidorian said:
These silent processor updates mean no new GPU options for BTO either. :rolleyes:

An 8600GT in 2010? Only with Apple.
Click to expand...

Really unbelievable. Most expensive computer with crap video cards.
The reality distortion field must be powered by the Hadron Collider.

Who in their right mind is going to buy that $3,700 absurdly overpriced single quad Xeon junk when a $1,600 3.6GHz i7 tower with a ATI 5700 video card and 9GB of memory will absolutely crush it.

Boggles the mind. I truly believe Apple is trying to kill Mac Pro sales.
That's the only possible explanation.
 
PeterQVenkman said:
Holy smokes, me too. I'm actually going to have to start transitioning my software to windows. It's going to hurt.

A corei7 machine from cyberpowerpc (Intel® Core™ i7-975 Extreme Edition 3.33 GHz 8M L3 Cache LGA1366) with the same specs is $1714. (Granted, their computers look like a giant, cheap toy with lights all over the place).

Time to start learning how to build computers.

Is it just intel's pricing that's killing the MacPro line? The previous gen Xeons from Apple were pretty darn competitive, especially in dual quads- where they had a fairly large margin of savings over Dell and HP. Is the ridiculous jump in price not entirely Apple's fault?
Click to expand...


No, it's Apple's refusal to build i5 & i7 towers that should sell for $1,200-$1,800.
 
Umbongo said:
I doubt this has any impact on the next Mac Pro release. Likely more to do with the iMac. Hence no 3.33GHz on the 8 cores. The whole thing is baffling really because 3.2GHz processors were available at launch and 3.33GHz came out 4 months ago.
Click to expand...
I hope that because they saw cannibalism happening from their Pro customers going to the 27" iMac, they felt compelled to bring some of the bigger business back to the Mac Pro.

I hope to hell they update their entire line (or at least the top tier) -- and right soon -- with the chips Intel will be releasing in early january. I need a machine and having been holding out for this update. :mad:
 
JGowan said:
I hope that because they saw cannibalism happening from their Pro customers going to the 27" iMac, they felt compelled to bring some of the bigger business back to the Mac Pro.

I hope to hell the update their entire line (or at least the top tier) -- and right soon -- with the chips Intel will be releasing in early january. I need a machine and having been holding out for this update. :mad:
Click to expand...


same here
 
I have a feeling that they are just extending the life of the current Mac Pro and are going to significantly update the line in the next year. Maybe a recurrence of when the G5 was introduced and was hailed as the fastest PC alive?

Would be cool if Apple could do that again and stun the media with something ridiculous. There really has been little innovation over the G5/Mac Pro lifestyle except updated specs. They need to come up with something revolutionary.

Maybe implementing Core i9 6-core processors? For a total of 12 cores? :cool:
 
Dam it, I hope apple doesn't plan on riding this tiny update for months. I want my i9 NOW!!!!
I was hoping that after the holidays in early January apple updates the mac pro but now i'm having second thoughts about my prediction :mad:

JGowan said:
I hope that because they saw cannibalism happening from their Pro customers going to the 27" iMac, they felt compelled to bring some of the bigger business back to the Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

I hope this is true...
 
RebootD said:
I talked myself into getting the 2009 Quad 2.66 because it was on sale for $2,200 on Amazon back in March. At the time there were no Quad iMacs so it seemed like an okay deal. Add some WD Black 1TB drives, 8GB memory it came to about $2,500 total.

But today it is a complete joke! The base i5 iMac has 1GB more ram, larger standard hard drive and a built in IPS screen for $500 less than the standard MP? Would it kill Apple to load up the base to the 2.93 Quad with 6GB and a 1TB hard drive to make it try and look competitive?

I fear this will be my last non-AIO purchase for my work if this trend keeps up as well. Lets all hope in 3yrs they figure out how to put 8 Core chips, 16GB of memory and 2x hard drives into an ultra thin macbook pro so I don't have to worry about paying 4x more than a system is worth.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my 2006 Mac Pro was a good deal on launch day (cheaper than self building or buying Dell). It's been a great machine for sure and I always felt I had a good deal. The 2008 Mac Pro was similarly well priced. The 3.33GHz Quad should have the price point of the 2.66GHz Quad.

Bubba Satori said:
No, it's Apple's refusal to build i5 & i7 towers that should sell for $1,200-$1,800.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, i7 processors cost pretty much the same as the xeons in the quad Mac Pro, only the ones in the octo cost a lot more since Intel charges a premium for dual CPU support in processors. So if Apple were to sell an i7 tower, they'd probably charge pretty much the same as for the quad core Mac Pro.
 
Minimoose 360 said:
I have a feeling that they are just extending the life of the current Mac Pro and are going to significantly update the line in the next year. Maybe a recurrence of when the G5 was introduced and was hailed as the fastest PC alive?

Would be cool if Apple could do that again and stun the media with something ridiculous. There really has been little innovation over the G5/Mac Pro lifestyle except updated specs. They need to come up with something revolutionary.

Maybe implementing Core i9 6-core processors? For a total of 12 cores? :cool:
Click to expand...
Maybe a dual-processor Beckton Mac Pro for 16 cores.
 
alphaod said:
Let's say I'm working on assembling twenty 5GB panorama; I need to get it done quickly for argument's sake.

How would a second system help me in this case?
Click to expand...

Well I should have put this in my original post: of course everyone uses a computer differently. If you need the most blazingly fast cpu out there, *and* you cannot spread your cpu cycles across multiple computers, you will spend your money on the chip. If, however, you have software applications or human processes that can span multiple computers (instead of rendering 8 video clips on 1 single computer you render 4 on 2 different computers or a single software application than can divy up work between multiple computers (BOINC is an example)), I think it's much more valuable to buy a 2nd machine. Afterall, the cpu is 1/2 the price of a brand new machine that comes with RAM, drives, motherboards, etc. This 2nd machine will hold it's value (and be able to offer you other things to do) over the years than simply a faster cpu on a single machine.

It's all relative to what you actually need the Pro to do...and how often you use it in each way.

-Eric
 
Minimoose 360 said:
I have a feeling that they are just extending the life of the current Mac Pro and are going to significantly update the line in the next year. Maybe a recurrence of when the G5 was introduced and was hailed as the fastest PC alive?

Would be cool if Apple could do that again and stun the media with something ridiculous. There really has been little innovation over the G5/Mac Pro lifestyle except updated specs. They need to come up with something revolutionary.

Maybe implementing Core i9 6-core processors? For a total of 12 cores? :cool:
Click to expand...

Is that a joke? :) That's hardly going to 'stun the media' with innovation.

Truth is, there's not a huge amount they can do. They're just workstations with xeon chips. A single socket motherboard and you might as well go for a machine 1/5 of the cost. Double or more sockets, it's 'just' an intel workstation running osx.
'Fastest PC', 'innovation' in the form of X, it's all just marketing rubbish. Maybe it'll come with a 96 socket option, maybe it'll come with 40GBs network connections, maybe it'll come with a decent warranty - it's all been 'done' before by someone else, in a different coloured box.
 
Spanky Deluxe said:
Unfortunately, i7 processors cost pretty much the same as the xeons in the quad Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

No, the 3.3Ghz Xeon is about 3 times the cost of the $270 920 i7 that easily OCs to 3.6GHz.

Spanky Deluxe said:
So if Apple were to sell an i7 tower, they'd probably charge pretty much the same as for the quad core Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Apple probably would, stick a junk $50 video card in it and have even higher margins. $50 billion in the bank.

Apple should put some of this in the box.

vaseline.jpg
 
Spanky Deluxe said:
Unfortunately, i7 processors cost pretty much the same as the xeons in the quad Mac Pro, only the ones in the octo cost a lot more since Intel charges a premium for dual CPU support in processors. So if Apple were to sell an i7 tower, they'd probably charge pretty much the same as for the quad core Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

The 2.8ghz Lynnfield i7 quad-core processor, which is used in the iMac, sells for $290 on NewEgg. The 2.93ghz sells for $550.

After researching the Xeon 3500 series, which I couldn't find on NewEgg, I found out that its the Bloomfield i7. NewEgg has the 2.66ghz Bloomfield i7 for $290, exactly the same as the Lynnfield 2.8ghz i7.

I'm stunned. This means the low-end Mac Pro is a complete rip-off at its current price point. This machine should be $500 less minimum.

I'm, once again, very tempted to look at a hackintosh.
 
Interesting that they only updated the single processor model - if the dual CPU model were available at the higher speed, I might be taking them up on this to replace my returned/defective i7 iMac. (Yes, I know I'm a sucker.)

I wonder if this is leading up to using the 6 core only in the dual-CPU version...? Either that or perhaps they'll put the 3.33 in the dual-CPU as well and push the 6-core upgrade off to later next year.
 
I don't think we will see any updates till June of next year. Because that is when the 6-core Westmeres are coming out.
 
alphaod said:
Let's say I'm working on assembling twenty 5GB panorama; I need to get it done quickly for argument's sake.

How would a second system help me in this case?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't, but let's say we're rendering out those twenty 5GB panoramas from a 3d program. A second machine would help a lot! :)
 
PeterQVenkman said:
I would think that logic like "bigger companies can spend more money on computers" wouldn't hold up well in large purchase orders, or in this economy. I wonder how well the current Mac Pro is actually selling.
Click to expand...

They expense it on their taxes. But you're right, one would think those sales of specced-out mac pros might be down. I suppose there are always people with money who just don't want to be bothered to put in their own memory or HD, however easy it may be to do, so I'm sure some sell and of course the profit margin for Apple is large.
 
jetjaguar said:
I thought the 6 cores were due out in January
Click to expand...

Intel's last word on the matter was Q2. Some sources claim things are going to happen early. To think Intel will launch Xeons earlier than they claim ignores all the recent history.
 
I don't think they actually expect to sell any of these....they are probably just there to show that there is a MacPro that is faster than the iMac. The prices are a joke. If anything I think it will push more iMac sales.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back