The single socket options only come with a single socket motherboard. Spoke to a bloke at Apple in Ireland this morning, whilst I was purchasing the Dual Quad 2.8 he said that the Single 2.8 is not upgradable in the future. If you want a Dual Quad you have to purchase it from Apple.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Pro (Early 2008) Notes and Options
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
empty pins....
Often a motherboard will have all the circuits necessary for options (such as the second socket), but the socket or card for the option won't be soldered on the boards without the options. You can see the array of connection points on these mobos.
I'd expect that the motherboard for the "single" socket Mac Pro would be like that - it will be the same motherboard, but the 2nd socket won't be soldered in so there will be a "blank" space with about 771 little round silver dots in a grid.
Often a motherboard will have all the circuits necessary for options (such as the second socket), but the socket or card for the option won't be soldered on the boards without the options. You can see the array of connection points on these mobos.
I'd expect that the motherboard for the "single" socket Mac Pro would be like that - it will be the same motherboard, but the 2nd socket won't be soldered in so there will be a "blank" space with about 771 little round silver dots in a grid.
Finally someone with some sense.
Apple also won't release a mid-range because very few people in the target market actually want one (even though the whiners want you to think otherwise.)
"Switchers" want a mid-tower because that's all they have known and because they already have some POS screen that they think they want to re-use. They don't realise that the worst Mac screen is yards better than some of the best of the other brands and that OS-X will look like barf on most other screens.
They also mistakenly believe that they "will have to throw out the screen when they upgrade the computer." They don't understand that the computer they are buying will likely last a lot longer than their old computer and that when they replace it, it will still be useful to someone and perhaps even generate a bit of cash if they sell it.
dum-dum-dum-dumdum!
Beware of false economy
What made things especially tricky for me was that my processor was no longer in new production, so I couldn't buy it from reputable outfits. Moreover, trying to ensure an exact match with third parties on eBay was very difficult. I wound up buying a PAIR of matching CPUs just to make sure that they'd coexist happily. Each of the pair was faster than the original, so it worked out fine. I think I also had to change some mobo jumpers, which involved another set of nuisances, such as finding documentation for the mobo.
However, the amount of money I saved by waiting was offset by the cost of having to buy two CPUs. What's more, the hassle involved in trying to find an exact match simply was not worth the savings of not buying the second CPU in the first place.
In short, the lesson for me was, if you're ever going to want the second CPU, buy it now and be done with it. Alternatively, you could do what I wound up doing (though not by design), and buy a single CPU now, and then in a couple of years, buy two matching FASTER CPUs, and get even more of a speed bump.
FWIW, I'll share my experience of buying a second processor later. It was a while ago, and it was not a Mac, but the principles still apply. The rub was that the second processor has to be an EXACT MATCH for the first, in terms of speed, certainly, but also in all other respects.
What made things especially tricky for me was that my processor was no longer in new production, so I couldn't buy it from reputable outfits. Moreover, trying to ensure an exact match with third parties on eBay was very difficult. I wound up buying a PAIR of matching CPUs just to make sure that they'd coexist happily. Each of the pair was faster than the original, so it worked out fine. I think I also had to change some mobo jumpers, which involved another set of nuisances, such as finding documentation for the mobo.
However, the amount of money I saved by waiting was offset by the cost of having to buy two CPUs. What's more, the hassle involved in trying to find an exact match simply was not worth the savings of not buying the second CPU in the first place.
In short, the lesson for me was, if you're ever going to want the second CPU, buy it now and be done with it. Alternatively, you could do what I wound up doing (though not by design), and buy a single CPU now, and then in a couple of years, buy two matching FASTER CPUs, and get even more of a speed bump.
Someone noted that there were only two SKUs for systemboards - one for the 2.8GHz/3.0GHz and one for the 3.2GHz. If true, then the systemboards should have two fully-functional sockets.
Hi Freis968. I meant the ADC discount at the Developer's Store. I thought it seemed like a good deal even though there is a $500 fee to sign up, it sounds like you save so much more in discounts in the end that it pays off. I don't know much about the ADC though, I just saw the posts from others on here who seem to know quite a bit about it and thought I'd mention them to you since you were looking to save some $ (as we all are!)
Ha. Still not really a major problem. The existing Mac Pro's can handle the thermals and power just fine--lots of people are switching in and out PC's 8800 Ultra's and have no trouble with the thermals on the machine. They have to buy an extra power adapter, but really, big deal...
You listing all those features just shows how far behind the game Apple really is in terms of providing its customers with adequate performance in the graphics department. I'm simply saying Apple should at least offer more GPU options. I never said that they should add Crossfire or SLi, but that would definitely be nice and should be done in the future anyways.
It's not a big deal at all. In fact in might be a benefit for all us consumers in terms of pricing too--Apple would be forced to offer competitive GPU's at competitive prices rather than charging ridiculous prices for old out-dated hardware--they would have an incentive to bring their pricing back on par to where it should be for their existing cards and have the newest most powerful cards priced where their current cards are. Replacing and honoring warranty wouldn't be a huge deal either since these cards that they use are essential the same as their Window's counterparts, they just have Apple software written for them. Apple doesn't make the cards, and if one breaks you may send it off to Apple, but they then send it off back to the company that made it for repair or replacement. And after all the extra money Apple has brought in from the iPhone this past year, I think it would be nice of them to splurge for their consumers sake for once by giving them more options when they are building a computer.
That's odd. I'm using Leopard on a Mac Pro with Photoshop CS3 and that works just fine for me. So far I haven't found anything in Photoshop CS3 that doesn't work under Leopard the same way it worked unter Tiger.
When you need to make lame excuses like this for an Apple computer you know that things aren't going right with their computer development.
A quick look at Tom'sHardware for a review gave me the answer i need for this question.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/geforce_8800_gt/
Twice the price,space and heat/noise for the fairly small increase that the GTX version delivers. You also lose Purevision2 which among other things give in hardware HD decode including H.264, and HDMI support.
I'm sorry, what exactly do you mean by that. Could you by any chance use a car analogy to better illustrate your point?
Oops, wrong forum.
"From Barefeats.com:
ALERT TO OWNERS OF "OLD" MAC PROS!
The GeForce 8800 GT is compatible with the original Mac Pro (August 2006). And since it comes in an aftermarket kit, that means you can order one even if you have the older Mac Pro. Go to the Apple Store USA and search on "MB137Z/A" to find the kit. The price is $349. There is a 5 to 7 week wait but it will be worth it.
You can also order a Radeon HD 2600 XT kit (a better card than the GeForce 7300 GT) for $149. It will arrive in a few days. Search on "MB198Z/A" on the Apple Store.
The Radeon X1900 XT kit is still listed for $399. Search on "MA631Z/B" at the Apple Store. But why pay $50 more for a card slower than the GeForce 8800 GT?"
I think part of my questions answered.
LOL I love this stuff, I mean.. I've seen this a few times here. "You don't know what you want, what you really want is something else! This is in your own interests" I'm in the market for a performance upgrade from a dual 1.8ghz PowerMac.. At this rate i may wait a loooong time before upgrading (i might not, i love the look of these octos!).. BUT.. If it wasn't for the shoddy video, even a mac mini benchmarks better for a lot of stuff than my G5 now - a mid-tower would be something a lot of people could much easier afford to upgrade too - it's not just a switcher machine. I'm sure the people who want one aren't just being pedants, and they aren't being mislead.Finally someone with some sense.
Apple also won't release a mid-range because very few people in the target market actually want one (even though the whiners want you to think otherwise.)
"Switchers" want a mid-tower because that's all they have known and because they already have some POS screen that they think they want to re-use. They don't realise that the worst Mac screen is yards better than some of the best of the other brands and that OS-X will look like barf on most other screens.
It's no different to the Windows users who use the same arguments against the entire platform. They say we "think" we want X and Y when we'd be better off without. The fact that 96% of people buy their product means they *must be right!* omg.
The whiners have a point, and there's always a good number of them in a lot of threads - and a lot of potential switchers I talk to would definitely buy a mid-range if it was there. There's a psychological barrier against humoungous intimidating (expensive) pro machines and the mini is seen as a toy. Also gamers are real Mac users too. Hell, after Apple's big "Macs are good for gaming too!" expro rant and key industry figures saying there aren't enough good gaming configurations, it makes even more sense.
A cube-like thing makes a lot of sense and obviously a hell of a lot of people *do* want a mid-tower. The more Apple succeeds in peaking switcher interest the more there will be a gap for this machine. The past sales of similar machines don't mean squat - if Apple did it right they'd sell like crazy. Apple doesn't charge obscene amounts anymore just for a nice chassis - if the cube-like machine fell between the mac mini and tower that'd be fine..
And the argument that it'd cause confusion is offensive really, there's already more variety in the iPod line than the Mac desktop one.. Are people saying people put more thought into the purchase of a <$300 MP3 player than a $600-$3000 computing investment?
The only reason I'd want to upgrade to a MacPro/PowerMac is because I think the performance premium is worth it. Lets be honest though, your ability as a Pro, or semi-pro is not based on having the fastest machine on the market. Most people who aren't spec whores want a good fast machine and probably dont need octocore Xeons (or, tbh Xeons in general - i know there's a 4 core option)
I have a dual LG monitor set-up. I wouldn't pay extra for Cinema displays - i would if I had money to burn. Apple aren't the only people who can make good monitors - they use the same panels as everyone else.
.. For what it's worth I don't think they're very likely to release a mid-tower either, but I don't think that's because it wouldn't sell. It's likely to increase profit margins and for image reasons. ("we don't support this outdated paradigm, we're edgy!") I certainly wouldn't be calling people dumb for wanting a logical missing configuration.
Do Apple care about gamers or not though? They need to make their mind up - none of the configurations are ideal.
I'm sorry Jimmdean but in my eyes you are a total loser. You play to be elitist and arrogant. I hate people like you. People who can only see black and white. Nothing else. What position are you in that you determine what Mac Pros are meant for or not? Who said games are for kiddies only? Have you watched the last Apple ads? I do animation, 3D rendering and some post production. When I have time I like to play a game and I'm very happy that the new Mac Pro has finally good BTO in terms of graphic cards. How dare you to think that games are only for little kids? Have you been sleeping last few months or have you not checked the Apple page in that time? Apple is aimed for everyone. They like to simplify things and they like to include more things in one. Mac Pro could be the case. It fits the professional need and it is also good for some casual gaming.
I'm sick of people who say that Mac Pro is not meant for games. Who are you to determine such conclusion????? I am a customer and I choose what I think is the best for my needs. People telling me that I chose the wrong product because I do gaming and Mac Pro is not meant for games are simply elitist .....(sorry but I would probably be very rude here so imagine what I meant instead of the dots
). Those elitist .......s please either accept that other customers enjoy the same product as you or simply go away as you have no place here. Bashing people here for using MP for MULTI use is simply ridiculous. Go through Apple's adds and then come back when you understand their philosophy. PLEASE!!!!
Agreed. Plus, if you use ATi cards you can use ATi Displays Control Panel to provide FSAA to apps like SketchUp -- the display is miles better with this turned on (so useful even if you're not a gamer
It might depend what you are doing on your computer. Originally I too was under the impression that ATI was the better choice for video card, that is until recently. I might be wrong on this, but at least regarding 3D animation and modeling it might be that NVIDIA is better. I only came to this conclusion after reading posts and talking to people on CG Society. I think more people there tend to like the NVIDIA (that could be different now though as its been a while since Ive been there). Also, like I said, it depends on what youre primarily doing on your computer.
I'm sorry Jimmdean but in my eyes you are a total loser. You play to be elitist and arrogant. I hate people like you. People who can only see black and white. Nothing else. What position are you in that you determine what Mac Pros are meant for or not? Who said games are for kiddies only? Have you watched the last Apple ads? I do animation, 3D rendering and some post production. When I have time I like to play a game and I'm very happy that the new Mac Pro has finally good BTO in terms of graphic cards. How dare you to think that games are only for little kids? Have you been sleeping last few months or have you not checked the Apple page in that time? Apple is aimed for everyone. They like to simplify things and they like to include more things in one. Mac Pro could be the case. It fits the professional need and it is also good for some casual gaming.
I'm sick of people who say that Mac Pro is not meant for games. Who are you to determine such conclusion????? I am a customer and I choose what I think is the best for my needs. People telling me that I chose the wrong product because I do gaming and Mac Pro is not meant for games are simply elitist .....(sorry but I would probably be very rude here so imagine what I meant instead of the dots
Well said! When I bought my Mac Pro, shortly after its debut, I bought it for the purpose of using it with Logic Pro and Photoshop as well as multimedia purposes such as games, watching movies, email, blah blah blah...etc.
I can't believe how many people in this forum spew their "elitist" bullcrap about how Joe, who just bought a Mac Pro, should've gone with an iMac instead since he's not a "Pro" user and that Mac Pros were not meant for gaming, only "Pro" use. Anyways, we're getting a bit off topic here I think.
To each their own
Yes, but not advertised. You kinda have to dig a little to find out which model you have or are getting.
Were you reading The Dude's posts, t0mat0? The world does not start and stop because...oh and "Mac Pro Early 2008", please, is the preferred nomenclature.
My message might have come across that way, but that doesn't change the facts. There simply is no large group of Apple consumers who want a mid-tower. You are just wrong about that. Sorry to be the one to tell you.
It's also untrue that many people *ever* upgrade their computer beyond a stick of memory and (maybe) a new video card. So my comment about what people "think" they want vs. what they actually want or need is pretty much right on the mark. This has been pointed out in the media many times over by people much more knowledgeable than me.
Well, here you are agreeing with me about "switchers" being the primary group interested in the mid-tower. Let me say you are absolutely right about me being right about that.
Here I think your smoking something pretty weird. If there ever was a demographic that is almost the complete opposite of the average Mac user it is the average "gamer." X-Box goons are noteworthy for their Apple bashing and their fierce unreasoning loyalty to Microsoft if nothing else, and the majority of PS3 users are Japanese. Japan is one of the only markets that Apple has difficulty in and has one of the highest Windows penetrations of any market AFAIK.
Okay now I am wishing I read this bit before I started replying.
This indicates to me that you have no concept of markets, products or sales at all. One of the reasons a mid-tower is not a good idea is that the sales of the all-in-ones that fill this niche is through the roof. Making an argument that a product they are literally shoveling out the door should be replaced by a different one and claiming that the furious sales of ... well the machine that is selling, is irrelevant, is just nuts.
You are ignoring the obvious. Apple is already "doing it right" with the iMac and the sales prove it. A more important market segment to measure if you want to support your argument is those people who *did* want a mini-tower, that were then convinced to buy an iMac and were subsequently so disappointed that they *still* wish for a mini-tower and that they could take the iMac back. I would bet this is a very tiny group of people. Prove me wrong.
Wrong again methinks.
With few exceptions, Apple always has three product lines in each segment, a mini/nano, a mid-range, and a pro. iPod is the same as the desktops and portables in this regard, although I will agree with you that there has been a lot more variety in the iPod lines lately. Apple always strives for that three model segment though and one would expect that once the transition to flash is made they will return to that formula.
You are wrong about the ACD's also, they are almost the best monitors you can get, and for what you get they are good value. I have occasion to see dozens of different new (non-Apple) monitors a year and test them out and almost without exception they have lower resolution, poorer colour management and inferior construction. Even the good ones are generally much poorer than the equivalent Apple part, but the majority of users that would be happy with a mid-tower would also be happy with some Ben-Q POS monitor and not even see a difference. These consumers are not Apple's market.
Another really good sales-based reason for *not* doing a mid-tower is that it would take away from the sales of the existing segments.
If the iMac is selling like hot-cakes with a customer satisfaction rate that is through the roof (it is), and if the MacPro is doing similar gangbusters (it is), why would you introduce a new model that would eat into the sales of both? It adds to manufacturing costs, adds to support costs, and would have a similar margin to every other mid-tower out there (razor-thin). Apple would be destroying or throwing away at least *some* portion of those iMac and MacPro sales at a very *high* margin, and replacing it with sales of a low-margin product. There simply is no upside for Apple here.
Now since Apple is one of the few companies that thinks of the consumer first, they *might* want to do that just because "so many people want it" as you assert. But just as what I said when I started this post, I don't think you are right that this group really exists. If it does exist, I don't think it's large enough for Apple to throw away money on.
the photoshop field input problem is a known issue - and a BIG annoyance if you're a heavy user. adobe even has a PDF about the problem - look for the top link on this page:
http://www.adobe.com/support/photoshop/
sounds like it's actually a leopard problem, not in the PS code, and will be addressed in 10.5.2
I sure hope so, I'd like to upgrade to Leopard asap, and as a graphic designer, I need PS to perform.
What... Wheres my mac pro mini?
I refuse to chuck out my monitor every time I want a new graphics card.
And I'm not shelling out rediculous amounts of cash for obscure FB-DIMMS and Xeons.
Apple, bring out a decently priced mini tower with a decent graphics card (i.e. 8800gt), and I'll be your customer.
I refuse to chuck out my monitor every time I want a new graphics card.
And I'm not shelling out rediculous amounts of cash for obscure FB-DIMMS and Xeons.
Apple, bring out a decently priced mini tower with a decent graphics card (i.e. 8800gt), and I'll be your customer.