Is the quad-core Mac Pro available in Apple Stores?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by avalys, Jan 31, 2008.

  1. avalys macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    #1
    I'd like to buy the low-end Mac Pro, with just a single quad-core processor. Are these sold in Apple retail stores, or do I need to order one online?
     
  2. caeneal macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
  3. macenforcer macrumors 65816

    macenforcer

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #3
    I can't believe anyone would buy a single cpu mac pro. I mean what's the point? Too save a measly $300? If you want to save money buy an imac. Why seriously cripple the mac pro by going for this config? I don't get it.
     
  4. avalys thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    #4
    I save $500 by going for the single-CPU configuration, not $300. I do not think $500 is worth the incremental performance advantage.

    The dual-CPU version is a waste of money unless you're doing extremely processor-intensive work, which I am not. I am not looking to buy the fastest machine I can simply to brag about it.
     
  5. macenforcer macrumors 65816

    macenforcer

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #5
    Then why get a mac pro?
     
  6. avalys thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    #6
    The Mac Pro is upgradeable, the iMac is not. And I do not want a computer with an integrated display - I already have a monitor that costs more than the computer will.

    Additionally, the Mac Pro has faster hard drives available - which, unlike 4 additional cores, will make a noticeable difference in my everyday work.

    Most people would be far better off ditching the 4 cores they will never use and spending the money on a faster hard drive - which is what I think I will do.
     
  7. aibo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Location:
    Southern California
    #7
    What kinda monitor do you have that costs more than $2200? Just curious.
     
  8. sal macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    #8
    Why is it so hard to believe?

    The point is you are saving $500(not $300) because someone might not want all that power. The extra 500 would be totally worth it, if the purchaser was running apps that required a lot of power(audio or video) otherwise, it's overkill . The $500 can be saved or invested into the machine to improve performance. For example, more ram or purchasing the 8800 video card.
     
  9. sal macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
  10. phjo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    #11
    Now come on, one could think reading you, macenforcer, that a single quad would be so crippled to be useless... So a previous generation 2,66 quad mac pro is just so slow to be useless as well...

    I can certainly understand the OP, I did choose the 8-core myself, but will I ever need the 8-core for my needs ? a 4-core would most certainly have been quite powerful enough for a very long time to come.

    As a matter of fact, the 2,16Ghz core 2 duo iMac this mac pro is replacing was powerful enough for my needs, but I needed to have more than 3Gb ram on it, so it left the mac pro as the only choice (or go the windows way, which would have been much cheaper, but I would have hated it...)

    Now, for the OP, and for everyone having spare cpu cycles, there is a reason to buy the 8-core and feel well about it ! Put the unneeded 4 cores to some use with BOINC...

    phjo
     
  11. Lord Zedd macrumors 6502a

    Lord Zedd

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #12
    You mean useLESS.
     
  12. Eric Piercey macrumors 6502

    Eric Piercey

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Location:
    Perpetual Bondage
    #14
    You can also get the singles at MacMall.com and avoid some tax.
     
  13. Michael73 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    #15
    OK, I'm lost - why would anyone want this monitor?

    At 768 lines of resolution you could easily get something at about 1/25th the cost with 50% more lines of resolution.

    For that matter, if someone is hellbent on spending that much, why not get 3x30" ACD.
     
  14. Topper macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #16
    It wouldn't suit me either.
    I'd think I've done did died and gone to heaven if I had a 30" display.
    The discussion was about displays that cost more than the computer so I entered this display as a good example.
     
  15. Jonny427 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #17
    What? That thing is a piece of crap :confused:
     
  16. phjo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    #18
    Why ? boinc is not only SETI you know...

    phjo
     
  17. Topper macrumors 65816

    Topper

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    #19
    Yeah, I should have picked a different 46 inch NEC display.
    The one I am showing is meant for giving video presentations to large audiences.
     
  18. fluidedge macrumors 65816

    fluidedge

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    #20
    those displays are nothing i've just been to a trade show and panasonic are selling some 100" monster that is like 3 inches deep.

    some one (perhaps it was samsung) was selling some monitor that displays almost all of the visible gamut (god knows how, i didn't quite understand it) for some stupid amount of money.
     
  19. Thiol macrumors 6502a

    Thiol

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    #21

Share This Page