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

Apple's New 8-Core Mac Pro Shows Up in Benchmarks

nutmac said:
E5-2697 costs $2614 and E5-1680 costs $1723 (Apple no doubt gets heavier discount). No a tremendous price difference, so if E5-1680 will be on the low-end configuration, I expect Mac Pro to start at around $4000 (since Mac Pros will have dual AMD FirePros).
Click to expand...

Ehh. I was thinking the same thing. Unless they put the really cheap firepro's in there.

Has anyone else noticed there is only one mini pciex for an ssd? Yet there looks like a second one on back of the other video card, but not soldered in? If it only allows one internal ssd, I'm not buying for the above reason (too many peripherals)
 
bedifferent said:
Gotta admit, one reason I love MacRumors are the witty, playful comments. Some are pure genius ("That's just plane wrong" on iPhone "Maps" guiding users onto a runway was hysterical).

On topic, care to guess-timate entry level costs? Unless Apple has an arsenal of discounted parts, known specs alone suggest entry level prices beyond current systems.

- Dual AMD Fire Pro 6GB Graphics
- PCIe 3.0
- PCIe SSD Boot Volume

Add the expense of placing internal drives in expensive Thunderbolt 2.0 chassises:

- 4 x SATA II HDD's
- 1x LG Blu-Ray Burner
- 1x 256GB Mercury EXTREME Pro 6G

I'm guess-timating $3K+ for basic systems.

Main concern: "With configurations offering up to 12 cores of processing power"

Evidence points to one processor, offering only 4 DIMM slots and a heavy reliance on its GPU's. Three 4K displays are impressive, yet 4K is jumping the gun a bit: expensive, ISP's can't support the large data w/o developed compression, adoption [rate] still questionable ( re: Blu-Ray vs HD battle).

Pro's are split on external storage; increased wired devices negate point of a small platform, built-in components lack GPU and PCIe expandability, 1 processor.
Click to expand...

It states "up to" 6gb on fire pros. Maybe there will be cheaper alternatives
 
Wie Gehts said:
enough about this. its time the front page got back to all iCrap toy news
Click to expand...

I like how people say this.. as if macrumors is neglecting would-be mac news. They Just post what's there. Would you rather they only update the site once a week when there's a "mac rumor"? :rolleyes:
 
aloshka said:
It states "up to" 6gb on fire pros. Maybe there will be cheaper alternatives
Click to expand...

I hope you're correct. It seems to push GPU and OpenGL dependability, only 1 CPU with lower GPU specs may equate to a slower system than current models. We'll have to wait and hope for the best.
 
bedifferent said:
Stop there a moment. Yes, it is a system many depend on for their living, that does not mean we should wait 3+ years for a smaller desktop system with limited internal storage, swapping and upgradability for what appears to be a much higher price point. Apple has already lost a great deal of the professional market after ditching their stellar and well regarded 3 tiered anti-glare CCFL LCD's for 1 iMac based LCD LED riddled with known quality issues. Actual pro's have every right to justify concerns, dismissing them as "whining" either means you are not in this market and/or lack the knowledge necessary for objective criticism and concern.

Lastly, whining about such comments is getting tired. Either add something genuine to the debate or move along.
Click to expand...

My comments are directed at the whiners who use this machine as a gaming rig and other uses which Apple is not primarily designing for. There is plenty of room for serious debate amongst professionals about the efficacy of the new design and to what extent the apparent lack of internal upgradability has for them. Also fair game is the fact Apple is pushing us towards external expandability while it appears there are precious few options from which to choose...i.e. how many external TB2 drive enclosures are on the market (or will be) when this machine hits the street?

This harkens back to when my MP '08 was released and a Quadro 4000 was available for $1,195 as a BTO. People were all over the MP forum saying this card sucked for playing Crysis and was overpriced. Again, this card wasn't built for that so don't buy it. This mirrors my feeling for the new Mac Pro. If you aren't part of the intended market and it doesn't meet your needs, stop whining and buy something else. If however, you are part of the intended market but the machine doesn't meet your needs, then you have every right to complain.
 
Michael73 said:
My comments are directed at the whiners who use this machine as a gaming rig and other uses which Apple is not primarily designing for. There is plenty of room for serious debate amongst professionals about the efficacy of the new design and to what extent the apparent lack of internal upgradability has for them. Also fair game is the fact Apple is pushing us towards external expandability while it appears there are precious few options from which to choose...i.e. how many external TB2 drive enclosures are on the market (or will be) when this machine hits the street?

This harkens back to when my MP '08 was released and a Quadro 4000 was available for $1,195 as a BTO. People were all over the MP forum saying this card sucked for playing Crysis and was overpriced. Again, this card wasn't built for that so don't buy it. This mirrors my feeling for the new Mac Pro. If you aren't part of the intended market and it doesn't meet your needs, stop whining and buy something else. If however, you are part of the intended market but the machine doesn't meet your needs, then you have every right to complain.
Click to expand...

Agree with you there, apologies for any confusion. :)

I miss the Power Mac G4/5 pricing; below or at $2K with enough to spare for a 23" or 30" CCFL LCD, good days. My dual 23" displays lasted ~8 years, never had an issue. Technology changes, even more so now, but man prices seem to jump faster than the advancements.
 
kobalap said:
Mom and dad might have good jobs. You never know.

Frankly, gamers whining about needing higher end GPUs and what not annoy the heck out of me. I would be embarrassed if the main driver for my computer purchase was my gaming needs.
Click to expand...

Because god forbid people use a high end computer for recreation instead of work.

Also, how about those skilled SC2 players (or other professional and competitive gamers) that make 100k a year PLAYING GAMES on high end rigs are doing it wrong.

FYI, I make about 2100 a month playing computer games. By no means up to the level of those SC2 champions though unfortunately. I wish!

I see nothing wrong with wanting a MAC that isn't terrible at games. One shouldn't be forced to a windows PC for this. However, that's direction apple is pushing (that or hackintosh). It's a real shame to shrug off such a large market.
 
Based on their choice of this particular processor, it's clear that the cache is a priority. Must be part of the overall design goal.
 
holmesf said:
The largest RAM DIMMs available are 32 GB. So your servers have 48 memory slots?

The only server arrangement in the world that could do this is a completely maxed out AMD Magny-Cours arrangement, because it supports distributed shared memory with 4 CPU sockets and 12 DIMMs per CPU.

Sounds legit :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Intel and IBM both have 48 slot systems.

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us...otherboards/server-board-s4600lh-s4600lt.html

Anyway, anyone comparing a rack server to a desktop workstation has a banal sense of humour.

You can have fun configuring one here:

http://www.broadberry.co.uk/xeon-e5-4600-rackmount-servers/tyan-ft68b7910

Enjoy your insurance premium.
 
bedifferent said:
Agree with you there, apologies for any confusion. :)

I miss the Power Mac G4/5 pricing; below or at $2K with enough to spare for a 23" or 30" CCFL LCD, good days. My dual 23" displays lasted ~8 years, never had an issue. Technology changes, even more so now, but man prices seem to jump faster than the advancements.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. It feels like it's a lot more expensive theses days to be on the high end of Apple's technology spectrum. To be fair, I've got a great 30" ACD and I don't know if that was ever really an affordable monitor. I bought mine a few years before they discontinued them but I do some color intensive work and lacked the desktop space for 2x23" ACDs so I justified the expense.

Since my current 30" ACD is in great shape and the only thing it really lacks is a more modern array of connectors on the back and something other than a DVI connector I'm going to have a hard time justifying a new 4K display if they release one. Besides, I absolutely love my matte display. I'll be upset if they only release one in glossy.
 
MacFather said:
are Pro users satisfied with new design ?


Image
Click to expand...

Oh you can laugh, but if you use your mac for actual work then you have most of those extra bits externally in addition anyway. Mac Pros are big, they're spacious, but they're not a bloody T.A.R.D.I.S.
 
clamnectar said:
That's not low end... the processor alone costs $1700:
http://ark.intel.com/products/77912/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1680-v2-25M-Cache-3_00-GHz
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of your point.

My post was in reference to the article which seemed to indicate the 8-core as a lower-end version of the new Mac Pro line (as opposed to the 12-core model).

I never implied that an 8-core Xeon processor is "low-end" by itself, but if the new Mac Pro line were to consist of a range of Xeons from 8-core to 12-core, which one would be the "low-end Mac Pro"?

As an aside: This is one of my frustrations with this forum: there are too many people waiting to pounce on the most minor difference of opinion, and argue it as if it were factual and all the data were in. It makes posting here a real pain in the butt at times.
 
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