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

Mac Pro Announced

I just can't decide what to do. I feel like getting a Mac Pro (even the 2.0 GHz) is probably a bit of, but not a lot of, overkill for me. I do like a fast computer!

I find my current 1.83 GHz iMac a bit slow at times. For example, if I am running FFMpegX, iSquint, and Toast all at the same time it is soooooo slow. Do you think the new iMacs will be noticeably faster, or should I just get a Mac Pro?

The one downside to the Mac Pro is that it doesn't come with some of the fun stuff like the remote, isight, etc. And, the iMacs are just a cleaner set up.

I'm torn. What would you do?
 
First Mac to ever register me in Welcome!

Bought mine today from Crossgates, Albany Mac store which was in the process of selling out of Mac Pros!

Only 2 left when I got mine. A large heavy duty packing carton contained my 65 pound work of art.

At last, the Mac I had been waiting for to tear loose my Sony FX1 HD Video and Final Cut Express on.

These are amazingly smooth machines. Silent running. Just one CPU blows away the fastest AMD64 based PC.

A look inside confirms that this machine is the ultimate mac power machine. I wasn't expecting all four drive brackets to come with the system. In the Xserve, they are expensive extras.

After being dissapointed with all the previous Intel processors, this is the one you've been waiting for!

:)
 
McFoxy said:
I just can't decide what to do. I feel like getting a Mac Pro (even the 2.0 GHz) is probably a bit of, but not a lot of, overkill for me. I do like a fast computer!

I find my current 1.83 GHz iMac a bit slow at times. For example, if I am running FFMpegX, iSquint, and Toast all at the same time it is soooooo slow. Do you think the new iMacs will be noticeably faster, or should I just get a Mac Pro?

The one downside to the Mac Pro is that it doesn't come with some of the fun stuff like the remote, isight, etc. And, the iMacs are just a cleaner set up.

I'm torn. What would you do?
Click to expand...

Wait for the new iMacs which will almost certainly have Core 2 Duo and be 30-40% faster from what I read. Hopefully will be out in September.
 
I know the feeling

combatcolin said:
COMBATCOLIN CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE!!

I can, i really can!

;)

Just wait until the day after i shell out £500 on a self-build Core Duo 2 PC and then see what some black polo-shirted neo hippie who lives a million miles from the UK where it never rains decides to release at the same price as the iMacs.

It will happen!

:eek:
Click to expand...

I know the feeling. I just pulled the trigger on a Mac Pro yesterday and I am just sure any day now I am going to hear that some neo-hippie who lives a million miles from AK where it never snows has released something between the laptop on a stick (imac) and the nuclear powerhouse of the Mac Pro.
 
aswitcher said:
Wait for the new iMacs which will almost certainly have Core 2 Duo and be 30-40% faster from what I read. Hopefully will be out in September.
Click to expand...
If it's Conroe you're going to get a big leap over Yonah. You have a faster bus, more cache, and it clocks higher much faster then Merom for the same price.

If we get Merom in the iMac you're only going to see 10-15% at best in rendering and encoding. A few more fps in games if you're lucky. The video card is going to be a bigger bottleneck then the CPU.
 
When I make the switch to Apple, I will be deciding between an iMac and the Mac Pro, with the main criterion being noise.

If Conroe gets put in the iMac, it will probably mean there will be an extra fan, which means noise. From what I understand, the Yonah iMac is virtually silent (<23 dBA). A Merom iMac, at only slightly higher wattage, may or may not need a fan.


Does anyone have any sources for the noise characteristics of the new Mac Pro yet?

I could only find these for the G5 tower and the intel iMac:

http://images.apple.com/environment/resources/pdf/apes_PMG5_2-22-06.pdf
http://images.apple.com/environment/resources/pdf/apes_iMac_7-12-06.pdf
 
Thunderbird said:
When I make the switch to Apple, I will be deciding between an iMac and the Mac Pro, with the main criterion being noise.
Click to expand...

You're buying a computer based on noise? What about power requirements for tasks? Price? Purpose? If noise is your only concern, then just get a mini or an iMac. Both are quiet and you will save money. However, the Macpro will also be quiet if you only use it to surf the web or do email, but you will be buying more computer than you need if that is all you use it for.

Let me see if I can help you out... The first rule of buying a computer is deciding what you need it for and what software you plan to run. Then you figure out which computer will give you the most bang for your dollar to complete the tasks you require based on your budget. Finally, aesthetics such as noise, form factor, expansion and availability come into play. However, you often have to make a compromise based on your needs and budget. If you reply back with what software you plan to use and what type of work you do, then we might be able to help you make an informed decision.

The Macpro is a workstation class computer. It's not intended for average home users or folks who have little processing needs. I'm amazed at how many people are considering Macpros when they don't need one. They are obviously caught up in the hype and have money to flush down the toilet. :eek:
 
I wasn't asking for help. I already know what my computing needs are. After assesing my needs and doing some research, I've boiled my decision down to either the iMac or the Mac Pro, with the main deciding factor being noise (along with price, upgradability, performance, etc.). I am leaning towards an iMac, which is why I am hoping whichever chip it gets upgraded to will not require a fan. But if the Mac Pro turns out to be quieter than the upgraded iMac, it could swing my decision.
 
Please stop the 160 GB advice - buy the biggest disks possible!

Multimedia said:
They can get a Quad Mac Pro @ 2GHz with a 160GB HD for $1962 Educational. Maybe you pitch in the other $270 to make it 2.66GHz? :p
Click to expand...
It is pennywise - pound foolish to buy a disk smaller than the biggest possible.

The most expensive thing on a typical computer is the disk slot - you only get a few (or one) of them. Fill the slots with small disks, and you'll soon run out of space.

You'll soon regret wasting the 90 GB or so that you saved 60 dollars on.

The "cost per GB" of a disk is nothing compared to the "cost per disk slot".
 
The "cost per GB" of a disk is nothing compared to the "cost per disk slot".
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, you're giving said 160 GB drive to someone as a gift...in which case, you've won :D
 
Hi,

As far as noise is concerned, the Mac Pro is very, very quiet. I have been doing some minor stuff for the past few days, and I never hear it. I will be doing a lot more in the next couple of days, as my 2GB upgrade will arrive today. I can give a better idea of noise then. (I will be doing a lot more FCE, and Photo work).

I would say the loudest part of the mac pro is the hard drives, I can tell when they are spinning, and when they are sleeping. ( i currently have 2 WD 250GB in mine)

Kimo

Thunderbird said:
When I make the switch to Apple, I will be deciding between an iMac and the Mac Pro, with the main criterion being noise.

If Conroe gets put in the iMac, it will probably mean there will be an extra fan, which means noise. From what I understand, the Yonah iMac is virtually silent (<23 dBA). A Merom iMac, at only slightly higher wattage, may or may not need a fan.


Does anyone have any sources for the noise characteristics of the new Mac Pro yet?

I could only find these for the G5 tower and the intel iMac:

http://images.apple.com/environment/resources/pdf/apes_PMG5_2-22-06.pdf
http://images.apple.com/environment/resources/pdf/apes_iMac_7-12-06.pdf
Click to expand...
 
The whole Photoshop comparison is crap, as everybody knows that the current CS2/Photoshop are no compiled for Intel CPU's. This isn't Apples fault. If you need serious Photoshop work, then stick with the Quad G5, or build a window's box. Don't compare the new Mac Pro to a bunch of cheaper AMD's just because it can't run Photoshop as fast. (I am not bashing AMD, as I love their CPU's, and have a couple of them)
Click to expand...

Exactly, the Core 2 completely wipes out the Athlon64 in the pc version photoshop, the problem simply lies in Adobe's inability to port their existing pc photoshop program onto the mac platform (not to bash Adobe of course as the difficulties are probably signficant).

As far as a G5 comparison is concerned, a 2.6 GHz Athlon 64 Quad is already 20-30% faster than a 2.5 GHz G5 Quad, As the Core 2 Duo is 20% faster than a 2.8 GHz Athlon64 in the same benchmark program, it is undoubtedly far faster than the top G5 system, at least as far as hardware is concerned.
 
AidenShaw said:
It is pennywise - pound foolish to buy a disk smaller than the biggest possible.
Click to expand...

The MP comes with FOUR slots. While I would not put 20GB drives in the machine, the downgrade to 160 is very worthwile. For $90 you can buy an extra drive. Second, with the advent of external storage, smaller drives can always be used for backup purposes. The $90 you save on the MP can be put to a much larger drive. Second, The price point for the biggest drives is outrageous [even more outrageous is what apple charges for the drives]. A 750GB drive should not be 4x the price of a 320GB drive. Where is the sense in that.
 
kbonnel said:
Hi,

As far as noise is concerned, the Mac Pro is very, very quiet. I have been doing some minor stuff for the past few days, and I never hear it. I will be doing a lot more in the next couple of days, as my 2GB upgrade will arrive today. I can give a better idea of noise then. (I will be doing a lot more FCE, and Photo work).

I would say the loudest part of the mac pro is the hard drives, I can tell when they are spinning, and when they are sleeping. ( i currently have 2 WD 250GB in mine)

Kimo
Click to expand...

Thanks kbonnel, that's good to know. So, you don't hear the fans much?

I understand that hard drive noise is difficult to completely get rid of. Though I don't mind HD seeking sounds too much. It's actually sometimes reassuring to know when the HD is kicking in and working properly.

kbonnel, please return to this thread when you have more to share about the Mac Pro and its sound levels. I'd be really interested.
 
Thunderbird said:
Thanks kbonnel, that's good to know. So, you don't hear the fans much?

I understand that hard drive noise is difficult to completely get rid of. Though I don't mind HD seeking sounds too much. It's actually sometimes reassuring to know when the HD is kicking in and working properly.

kbonnel, please return to this thread when you have more to share about the Mac Pro and its sound levels. I'd be really interested.
Click to expand...

Well, I have been using my Mac Pro most of the day with the additional Datamem.com memory (addition 2GB (1GB sticks), and I can report that I don't notice anything different. It sounds the same, though I doubt I could hear the fans ontop of the hard drive hum. (which is also not really noticable unless you put your ear close to the box, or you have a super quiet office/room.)

The additional ram made a very big difference in how fast this beast runs, and photoshop elements is moving very good.

For those of you who wanted to know, I plugged in my watt reader, and got these readings:

Powered off: 1Watt
Running Hardware Test: Range from 170watts - 202watts
Idle in OSX: 160 - 170watts
Doing some mild photoshop work (tops out so far at around 208watts)

When I find something that is really killing the processors, I will do another check.

Kimo
 
kbonnel said:
Well, I have been using my Mac Pro most of the day with the additional Datamem.com memory (addition 2GB (1GB sticks), and I can report that I don't notice anything different. It sounds the same, though I doubt I could hear the fans ontop of the hard drive hum. (which is also not really noticable unless you put your ear close to the box, or you have a super quiet office/room.)

The additional ram made a very big difference in how fast this beast runs, and photoshop elements is moving very good.

For those of you who wanted to know, I plugged in my watt reader, and got these readings:

Powered off: 1Watt
Running Hardware Test: Range from 170watts - 202watts
Idle in OSX: 160 - 170watts
Doing some mild photoshop work (tops out so far at around 208watts)

When I find something that is really killing the processors, I will do another check.

Kimo
Click to expand...

1GB memory is still a problem for me. This new fb-dimm memory is pricey ($380 for 2GB)

3GB sounds out of balance!
 
chatin said:
1GB memory is still a problem for me. This new fb-dimm memory is pricey ($380 for 2GB)

3GB sounds out of balance!
Click to expand...

Eh, 3GB isn't that out of balance when it's your best option over 1GB :)

For excercising the processors, how about downloading the BOINC client and connecting to World Community Grid and doing some genetic research? That should excercise all four coures pretty good and give you an idea of power consumption maximums.

But those numbers are really nice for a dual proc quad core system!
 
drives...

regarding the drives debate. My thinking would be to get the cheapest smallest option on the build to order Mac Pro (ie the 160GB) and then in the future save up for a second 160GB drive to fully utilise Leopard's Time Travelling thing. I suspect secondary drives are going to become crucial for that (or possibly partitions, but a second drive would be better).

Also with the advent of new disc removable disc techonologies, a really large single hard drive could actually be considered it's own bottle neck, they become messed up over time so I'd think about using the four drive bays as time progresses. One for back up/time machine, one for boot camp, etc...

I think that's gotta be the way to go.

And I can't wait.

Also regarding the iMac/Mac Pro debate. I too have been wrestling with this. The clean simplicity of the all in one solution vs being stuck with a machine that you can't upgrade. I'm still writing this on the angelpoise G4 which I will always keep as a design classic, but I can't do anything to speed it up, not a thing. And the lovely 20- inch screen is stuck in place obviously too! So if you really are weighing it up between a specced to the max iMac 20 inch and a cheap as you can get (but with at least 2GB RAM) Mac Pro, I think I'd lean towards the latter, whatever upgrades are about to hit. Don't get the Apple monitor (save money and get a better product elsewhere), get the smallest Hard drive and you can always replace or add drives/cards/possibly chips etc down the line and plump for the Mac Pro.
 
AidenShaw said:
It is pennywise - pound foolish to buy a disk smaller than the biggest possible.

The most expensive thing on a typical computer is the disk slot - you only get a few (or one) of them. Fill the slots with small disks, and you'll soon run out of space.

You'll soon regret wasting the 90 GB or so that you saved 60 dollars on.

The "cost per GB" of a disk is nothing compared to the "cost per disk slot".
Click to expand...

But when you run out of HD slots, you can always just dump the small HD you had originally. I'd totally recommend getting the smallest available boot drive and adding a big third party drive with the money you save, unless you plan on filling all four slots reasonably quickly.
 
McFoxy Needs A Mac Pro

McFoxy said:
I just can't decide what to do. I feel like getting a Mac Pro (even the 2.0 GHz) is probably a bit of, but not a lot of, overkill for me. I do like a fast computer!

I find my current 1.83 GHz (Core Duo) iMac a bit slow at times. For example, if I am running FFMpegX, iSquint, and Toast all at the same time it is soooooo slow. Do you think the new iMacs will be noticeably faster, or should I just get a Mac Pro?
Click to expand...
Yes you need the 4 cores to run all those programs at once. They each want more than one core. Toast will sometimes use more than 3 cores with the Mac Pro and the new Toast 7.1 UB. Handbrake will use 2. I know because I ran tests in the Apple Store Saturday.
McFoxy said:
The one downside to the Mac Pro is that it doesn't come with some of the fun stuff like the remote, isight, etc. And, the iMacs are just a cleaner set up.
Click to expand...
You can set up the remote later with a USB IR interface that is coming. Any DV camera will work like iSight only better.
McFoxy said:
I'm torn. What would you do?
Click to expand...
I don't know why you are torn. Mac Pro can run much bigger monitors. Put the Mac Pro on the floor and you have plenty of space on the desktop for TWO monitors. It's a no brainer. That "sooooo slow" you experience with the iMac is telling you that you are past needing only two cores. Buy a Mac Pro. You'll never go back. :)
 
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