Hey now. My G5 is next to my desk; when it was under my desk I kept bumping into it with my knees.
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
Hey now. My G5 is next to my desk; when it was under my desk I kept bumping into it with my knees.
Their GPU options still suck you know what.
What's that you say? It's not a gaming machine? It's a workhorse? Oh my...excuse me for wanting my computer for both work and play. I guess that really is asking for too much.
I love Apple's products, but I'm not a blind fanboy; these computers are still lacking in some areas--overpriced Apple memory & medium range GPU options.
The GPU options are reasonable for the time being. The 8800GT 512 is pretty close to Nvidia's top end right now. Bear in mind that the 8800GTX and 8800 Ultra are both EOL now.
The new high end Ati and Nvidia cards are still a couple of months away, which is bad timing for Apple i guess.
The new high end Ati and Nvidia cards are still a couple of months away, which is bad timing for Apple i guess.
A bit disappointed...
I probably will buy a mac pro anyway, but this is overkill...
For someone like me who need more than 4Gb of ram and who'll never buy a pc, there is no alternative but to buy a mac pro... Seeing the pricelist for the penryn xeon processors when they were announced last november made me hope for a nice entry level mac pro with two 2,5Ghz (E5420) quadcore xeons...
The price differential is huge with the 2,8Ghz apple is advertising, although of course we won't know what apple is paying...
Even if I configure a macpro with only 6Gb of ram to begin with (2Gb apple and 4Gb third party) the price premium with what could have been a 8-core 2,5Ghz xeon is probably over 1000... (it will be a little less in a few weeks maybe, when more third party 800 mhz dimms are available here...)
And for what ? 15% faster computer ?
I'll wait for WWDC to order one of course... dreaming that maybe apple kept the macpro at this level in order to introduce a midrange apple desktop... (Probably not, I know, but it would be stupid not to wait a few more days...)
phjo
I probably will buy a mac pro anyway, but this is overkill...
For someone like me who need more than 4Gb of ram and who'll never buy a pc, there is no alternative but to buy a mac pro... Seeing the pricelist for the penryn xeon processors when they were announced last november made me hope for a nice entry level mac pro with two 2,5Ghz (E5420) quadcore xeons...
The price differential is huge with the 2,8Ghz apple is advertising, although of course we won't know what apple is paying...
Even if I configure a macpro with only 6Gb of ram to begin with (2Gb apple and 4Gb third party) the price premium with what could have been a 8-core 2,5Ghz xeon is probably over 1000... (it will be a little less in a few weeks maybe, when more third party 800 mhz dimms are available here...)
And for what ? 15% faster computer ?
I'll wait for WWDC to order one of course... dreaming that maybe apple kept the macpro at this level in order to introduce a midrange apple desktop... (Probably not, I know, but it would be stupid not to wait a few more days...)
phjo
Sorry, but no.
Starting with the Intel 5000X chipset (the chipset used in the original Mac Pro,) Intel uses "dual independent busses". This means each processor socket has its own bus. In the old Mac Pro, it was a 1333 MHz bus going to either two cores or four cores per socket. In the new Mac Pro (which uses the newer 5400 chipset,) it is a 1600 MHz bus going to four cores per socket.
In addition, Intel's dual-core chips do all their inter-core communication on-die via their shared L2 cache, but all of Intel's quad-core chips are really just two dual-core chips in one package. Each dual-core sub-chip can communicate with its pair internally, but communication between sub-chips (say between core 1 and core 3,) is through the main front side bus. This is why the older two dual-core chips over two 1333 MHz busses might be faster at some tasks than the newer single quad-core chip over a single 1600 MHz bus.
Because in the old Mac Pro, if communication is between two cores on the same chip, it was entirely internal, and the two separate chips could talk to the memory controller at 1333 MHz completely independently of each other; although communication between dual-core chips had to travel over two separate 1333 MHz busses. On the new Mac Pro, both dual-core sub-chips have to share the same 1600 MHz bus to talk to the memory controller, but they also communicate with each other through it. So if you need absolute maximum memory bandwidth, the older system (four total cores only
will do better. For any other purpose, the new one is better, even for inter-sub-chip communication, because now there is a 1600 MHz bus that communication only has to go from sub-chip to Northbridge, back to second sub-chip; whereas on an older system, it had to go from chip to Northbridge, across to a second bus when it's available, to second chip.
Probably for better cooling.
Nothing stopping you from dropping a 8800Ultra in there and getting an extra 10% performance.
How do they suck? Please, enlighten us. While they are not the absolute top-of-the-line $600 cards (Oh, wait, we have the Quadro for that,) the 8800 GT is the best bang-for-the-buck card on the market right now. (Seconded by the apparently-about-to-be-announced Radeon 3870.)
Really, if you're such a gaming snob that you *HAVE* to have the 8800 GTX or Ultra, that an 8800 GT isn't good enough for you, then what the <expletive> are you even doing posting about it? I'm sorry, but this just strikes as "Apple sucks!" anti-fanboism.
I will freely admit that it would be nice to have CrossFire support, but for all we know, that's coming along with the announcement (officially) of the Radeon 3870 next week.
Oh, and if you *really* want to do gaming, the Quadro outperforms the 8800 GTX. It should outperform the 8800 Ultra, also, but I can't find any direct comparison benchmarks.
By the way, the absolute lowest price I could find for the Quadro FX 5600 is $2600, so Apple's $2850 upgrade cost isn't too terribly out of line. And while Apple doesn't mention it, the Quadro FX 5600 is capable of running TWO 9 megapixel displays. (Two of the monster quad-HD 3840x2400 displays like the Viewsonic VP2290.)
I don't understand why people think this case has been around that long.
The previous design basic shell was introduced with a Ad showing Tanks, a G3 processor that broke the 1Gflop mark. Not long after the return of His Steveness.
The same case with different doors and fronts and apple logo colours must have been around for 6-7 years. The current case a very good 2-3 years left in it, and even then if there is a compelling reason to redesign, like the MB access improvements of the G3-G4 case or the air flow improvements of the Current Case.
Isn't "standard option" an oxymoron? just curious
And (as has been pointed out to me,) pointing this out after it's already been mentioned at least twice in the thread is rather annoying, as well.
I don't know if you have experience in the chassis design and qualification realm, but you're right on.
The expense of getting a chassis designed that can pass FCC certifications, safety regulations, and be mass produced is unreal. Some people think that a case is just $20 worth of aluminum because they see them that cheap at the store.
I don't know if the Apple cases are built this way, but some manufacturers have designed their machines to completely self contain a fire that is started from within. It wasn't advertised, but it was a way to have a pretty good indication of insurance / lawsuit fraud. Customers calling up to say that a machine torched their desk, papers, carpet, drapes, etc. We'd get pictures and the fire department's report. And every single time, it was found that something started the fire from outside of the case, and in most situations it was purposely set.
That kind of work is very expensive, and is a good reason to not redesign a chassis every year.
I'm sorry
I visited my local
store at the Biltmore in Phoenix last Saturday and I saw a guy, who looked to be about 25, buying a new Mac Pro and a Cinema Display I almost walked up to him to tell him not to buy it, and to wait until the 15th, but I thought the salesperson would have been offended so I didn't. I guess I should have told him to wait. I'm sorry Mr. I-just-bought-a-new-Mac-Pro-and-3-days-later-it's-outdated. ;(
I visited my local
store at the Biltmore in Phoenix last Saturday and I saw a guy, who looked to be about 25, buying a new Mac Pro and a Cinema Display I almost walked up to him to tell him not to buy it, and to wait until the 15th, but I thought the salesperson would have been offended so I didn't. I guess I should have told him to wait. I'm sorry Mr. I-just-bought-a-new-Mac-Pro-and-3-days-later-it's-outdated. ;(
Don't forget the new support for 32 GB of RAM. Yum
That is new right? I thought it was.
Thanks to my roommate, I caught this earlier today but being as I don't know too much about the Mac Pro I wasn't sure of the significance, so I didn't want to start a new thread.
He mentioned to me that the Mac Pro supported 32 gigs of ram, and after I went to Apple's site I noticed some changes. Along with the obvious change that the 8-core is the "standard model", I noticed 1tb drives BTO, and a few other small, and most likely insignificant changes, such as bluetooth not being an option. I guess it's standard now?
They feel that way right up until the point when they launch a new product-line. Remember: before Apple released the Mini, they obviously felt that Powermac and iMac was enough for everyone. But they obviously changed their minds. What makes you think that they couldn't change their minds again?
And before they released the Mini, they made it quite clear again and again and again that their product-lineup consists of professional desktop and laptop, and a consumer desktop and laptop, nothing else.
It has happened in the past.
Not quite. You would still have that workstation-spec chipset, FB-DIMMs and other stsuff that would be completely useless in a consumer-desktop.
And before they released the Mini, you could have said the exact same thing. And then they released the Mini.
Every year, no. But at least once every five! The current case looks nearly identical to the Power Mac G5 that was introduced back in 2003. In computer years, that's an eternity.
Whether or not you think the cheese grater look is aesthetically pleasing, the Mac Pro does stand as one of the largest, heaviest towers on the market. With the introduction of smaller chips that require less power and put out less heat, it would be nice to see at least a modest reduction in form factor.
I visited my local
Enh, if he cares, he's well within the exchange period.
True, it is very heavy, but I'm not sure that a reduction in size is really called for. It seems that with the increase in internal space it's gotten easier to add more internal hard drives and such, and I can't see that as a problem. Given all the people complaining about how they can't upgrade an iMac, imagine what they'd say if they couldn't fit their four TB of disk in along with their two optical drives and two graphics cards. ;-)
Also, it makes it harder to steal. It's hard to make a fast getaway carrying a 50 pound computer.
Except that I wouldn't be able to use the card under OS X because Apple insists on writing it's own drivers, so it would be a huge pain switching back and forth between GPU's.
See, to me this is the typical fanboyism that I hate, and to you i seem like the typical anti-fanboy. I can tell you right now that i'm not against Apple, especially since all of my computers are Apples. I just don't believe in praising them when they make stupid-ass decisions.
Face it, more and more people who own Apple computers are wanting to play games, especially since we now have access to all the Windows games through bootcamp. Hell, some people might even buy a Mac Pro for just that reason, even if that seems ridiculous to you--that's their choice, however, and you should just be glad that they are still supporting your favorite company by buying their products. These GPU options offered by Apple are subpar and middle-of-the-the road. Granted, Nvidia's topend 8800 cards are going to be replaced in a few months, but Apple should still offer them anyways to the people who want to make their rigs as hardcore game worthy as possible rather than alienating their customers. The Quadro GPU's are just too expensive to consider unless the card is an essential component for your work, so it's not really an option and I'm not sure why you're going on about them so much.
There is nothing stopping Apple from offering better GPU's right now and then upgrading later when the next generation is released.
Well, the thing is that Mac Pro is not meant for gaming. Sure, some people might buy one and use it primarily for just that. But that does not change the fact that it's not designed for that task. It's a workstation, and it's designed for workstation-workloads. And that does not include gaming.
you say that not including a better vid-card is a "stupid-ass" decision. to use a car-analogy, it was a stupid-ass decision by Ferrari when they didn't include a towball and a huge trunk to their latest sportscar.
That's nice. And because of that, Apple should design their _workstations_ with gamers in mind?
These GPU's that Apple offer are suitable for the intended workloads Mac Pro has been designed for. They might not be suitable for some other workloads, but that's 100% irrelevant.
Mac Pro's are not meant for gaming, therefore it's pointless to whine about lack of gaming-related functionality in Mac Pro's.
And for many people who buy Mac Pro's, it is.
Many others have been thinking the same thing. The motherboard is definitely the same on the single-chip variant as on the dual-chip (they are both socket 771, someone has already addressed this on this thread).
BUT: you can bet that the single-chip model won't ship with a second, spare heatsink for you to throw a second chip under.
Maybe third parties will make these? Don't know. Pound to a pinch of ***** that Apple won't.
Edit: Of course, what I want to know, is can these Penryns be dropped into the first Mac Pros? As these new machines are socket 771 (like the orig. Mac Pros) that suggests that they can be.