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

MacPro bashing

J

jameskohn

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 11, 2006
342
0
Connecticut
I guess I'm not "techie" enough, because I don't understand the MacPro bashing that seems to go on in the Forums. I'm using a 14 month old MacPro, 3Ghz, 4Gb and I'm quite happy with it. I'm not a gamer, but I do a fair bit of photo and HD Video editing and it all goes quite well. When I started working with these big HD video files, it was wonderful to be able to just throw another 500Gb hard drive in a spare slot. This took all of $150 and about 5 minutes. What's bad about that?

When Leopard came out, I did an update install and it went without a hitch. Added an external hard drive for Time machine, no problem; just plugged it in and away we went. Performance seems fine to me, and I'm even happy with my 30" Cinema Display. I find it quite stunning, and it still blows people away when they first see it.

Would I like a zippier video card? Sure, why not. But as I look at all the Speedmark and other benchmarks out there, this machine still compares quite favorably.

I wonder if our obsession with the Forums gives us a skewed view of it all. As in most environments, people don't generally speak out just to say "everything is fine".
 
I agree with you, I'm fine with my Mac Pro, heck this Mac Pro is almost too much power for me.

It's always fun seeing the top of the line chips and if they will be put them in the Mac Pro anytime soon (not like I'm going to buy one anyway).
 
I think you misunderstand.

The issue is that the Mac Pro is OLD, not that it's crap. The machine itself is quite solid.

However, it hasn't seen any legitimate upgrade beyond a new processor offering since august 2006. The price is out of line for the hardware, and the hardware is aging fast.

As another poster pointed out, the iMac comes with a larger hard drive than the Mac Pro! This should never happen.

The Mac Pro starts at $2499, but the much cheaper iMac is catching up to it's specifications. Since the iMac also comes with a screen, there becomes a bit of a distinction issue when you try to claim the Mac Pro is a "professional" machine
 
FF_productions said:
I agree with you, I'm fine with my Mac Pro, heck this Mac Pro is almost too much power for me.
Click to expand...

eh, that doesn't make sense. I know what you are saying but unless a computer can render a 2hour ripped DVD into any format you want instantly, there is no such thing as to much power.
 
Complaints tend to be one of two things (or both). That Apple have out dated graphics cards or that based on component pricing (because other big vendors haven't changed their prices for the most part either) or going up against a consumer quad core the MP isn't value for money.
 
People would also like to have 2xquad core chips, 2gb ram, 500gb hard drive and 8800 graphics, the trade price of which is the same as the current mac pro's components when it was first released. The mac pro costs too much for what you get, even though it is very powerful.
 
Yeah, my main grief isn't the machine (its certainly solid :D), but the outdated price tag. If anything, Apple should lower the cost a bit to justify everything being outdated. Not by too much, but enough to justify the hardware specs comparred to whats being offered now in the Apple lineup, much less the industry.
 
Only the fact that apple is selling a machine with the same specs for more than 12 months without a price drop is annoying. I would like to buy one but I'm waiting until something changes. I would blame myself if I ordered right now and Apple introduces a new model in the next few months.
 
Once again, I challenge anyone in this thread (or on this forum) to build an identical machine to the Mac Pro for significantly less money. Remember: you CAN NOT use desktop motherboards or CPUs. Only Xeon motherboards and chips.

I've already done the exercise with the 3GHz quad-core Xeons. Using NewEgg as my source, I came up with a machine with a price tag very close to Apple's.

Like it or not, the Xeon chips and motherboards are still very pricey. That's why the Mac Pros are as pricey as they are.

jas
 
In what ways?

Maximum processor speed? Nope. Consumer quad-core chips are now faster than the current xeons in the macpro

Graphics performance? The maximum option is 1/2 the speed of current mid-level cards

RAM speed? Nope.

System i/o? Nope.

FSB? Nope.

Audio Processing? Nope.

blu-ray? Nope.
 
It's not really Mac Pro bashing, it's more like aggressive backseat Mac Pro technical designing and marketing. It usually starts about 3-4 months before a Mac Pro update, at least in some forums, or sometimes right after an update, if the update is mediocre. :D

Signs that your a backseat Mac Pro technical designer and marketter:
- you're able to resist buying a Mac Pro even with Steve Job's RDF
- you can find more than one fault with the Mac Pro
- you aren't happy with your current Mac
- you can find more than two upgrades you would like to a Mac Pro
- you copy/paste Mac Pro proposed case designs in your posts
- you know Intel's roadmap by heart
- you can name the specs of the current Mac Pro
- etc...
 
benpatient said:
In what ways?

Maximum processor speed? Nope. Consumer quad-core chips are now faster than the current xeons in the macpro

Graphics performance? The maximum option is 1/2 the speed of current mid-level cards

RAM speed? Nope.

System i/o? Nope.

FSB? Nope.

Audio Processing? Nope.

blu-ray? Nope.
Click to expand...

The current consumer chips in the market aren't faster than the Mac Pro's offerings just yet. They can't even handle the power that the Xeon's put out. I agree that the Mac Pro is outdated and not worth the cash right now, but no consumer desktop is going to compete with it and it's processors.

Blu-ray is over rated. Most content is still being encoded to DVDs and nobody in the consumer world has a blu-ray player that they use on the regular. It's just not saturated in the market yet... it will be... but not now. Apple will give us BTO Blu-Ray soon, and when they do the price will be right, and there will be a bigger market for it.

As for the other points, the same can be said for every other machine in the market. HP and Alienware announced new systems but aren't shipping until 2008, and the Alienware machine is $5500 base. Awesome power, but for the price and the OS I can wait for the Mac Pro.
 
Intel uses an obsolete memory interface until the end of next year, unlike AMD that has fixed this a long time ago.
 
cube said:
Intel uses an obsolete memory interface until the end of next year, unlike AMD that has fixed this a long time ago.
Click to expand...

Obsolete != bad

It might be outdated but it works well and provides all the bandwidth Intel need at the moment.

That's like complaining that your car has an older engine than a newer model but they both do 180BHP!
 
24-inch iMac
2.8ghz Core 2 Extreme
2gb ram
500gb HDD
24in display
ATI HD 2600 PRO

Mac Pro
Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon processors
1gb ram
250gb HDD
No screen
7300 GT

And the iMac is a good $200+ cheaper:confused:
 
FireSlash said:
24-inch iMac
2.8ghz Core 2 Extreme
2gb ram
500gb HDD
24in display
ATI HD 2600 PRO

Mac Pro
Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon processors
1gb ram
250gb HDD
No screen
7300 GT

And the iMac is a good $200+ cheaper:confused:
Click to expand...

Your logic in impeccable good sir! I mean, comparing a full tower system with almost endless upgrade capability against a souped up laptop based desktop with almost zero capability, and finding that the iMac wins!

Wow you really thought that one through! I mean they are SO aimed at the same markets!
 
FireSlash said:
24-inch iMac
2.8ghz Core 2 Extreme
2gb ram
500gb HDD
24in display
ATI HD 2600 PRO

Mac Pro
Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon processors
1gb ram
250gb HDD
No screen
7300 GT

And the iMac is a good $200+ cheaper:confused:
Click to expand...

And your point is?

If you don't know that there is significant differences between these two, then a Mac Pro isn't for you!
 
Sad

I agree with FireSlash 100%

I don't understand this new breed of Mac users. What used to set us apart from the PCers was our cynicism and objectivity.

Back in the old days of PPC the longest we went was 9 months between upgrades. The Mac Pro base specs have not seen any revisions since they were introduced. The only change has been to the top model and that was just the processors. Furthermore, in the old days, a few months after having introduced a new PowerMac either the specs were improved or the prices substantially dropped. Apple has kept the base and mid models exactly as they were introduced and for exactly the same price. Value they no longer are. Apple is just being greedy because they are selling.

Now that the Mac has entered the huge Intel world, we should see cheaper Macs and more upgrade options. We now have fewer, expensive and dated Video Card options than ever. Macs, including the Mac Pros have fallen behind the latest technologies, i.e. Blu-Ray, eSATA, faster RAM, etc.. Furthermore FW has not seen any development from 800 to 1600 and 3200.

Mac Pros are very nice indeed, but they are fast becoming outdated. This reporter makes some very good points:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/10/25/wishlist/index.php
 
TBi said:
Obsolete != bad

It might be outdated but it works well and provides all the bandwidth Intel need at the moment.

That's like complaining that your car has an older engine than a newer model but they both do 180BHP!
Click to expand...

Paper bandwidth. The benchmarks show that the Mac Pro actually sucks in this department.
 
cube said:
Paper bandwidth. The benchmarks show that the Mac Pro actually sucks in this department.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...

First off, the Mac Pro isn't actually slowed down by it's bandwidth, the problem is the memory latency.

The slowdown is due to the advanced error correction mechanism that the Mac Pro uses. It's used to make sure there are no errors in data. This is not as big a deal in consumer products. However in major corporations where it takes hours upon hours to compile/render/encode then any error is unacceptable.

The Mac Pro's hardware trades off speed for reliability.

They are for different markets. Stop complaining about it!
 
TBi said:
Hmmm...

First off, the Mac Pro isn't actually slowed down by it's bandwidth, the problem is the memory latency.

The slowdown is due to the advanced error correction mechanism that the Mac Pro uses. It's used to make sure there are no errors in data. This is not as big a deal in consumer products. However in major corporations where it takes hours upon hours to compile/render/encode then any error is unacceptable.

The Mac Pro's hardware trades off speed for reliability.

They are for different markets. Stop complaining about it!
Click to expand...

How did the big corporations ever get by when the Power Macs were using non-FB-ECC RAM? :rolleyes:
 
TBi said:
Your logic in impeccable good sir! I mean, comparing a full tower system with almost endless upgrade capability against a souped up laptop based desktop with almost zero capability, and finding that the iMac wins!

Wow you really thought that one through! I mean they are SO aimed at the same markets!
Click to expand...

The upgrade capability is not exactly endless. Or else half the people would stop complaining about the video cards!
 
TBi said:
Hmmm...

First off, the Mac Pro isn't actually slowed down by it's bandwidth, the problem is the memory latency.

The slowdown is due to the advanced error correction mechanism that the Mac Pro uses. It's used to make sure there are no errors in data. This is not as big a deal in consumer products. However in major corporations where it takes hours upon hours to compile/render/encode then any error is unacceptable.

The Mac Pro's hardware trades off speed for reliability.

They are for different markets. Stop complaining about it!
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about ECC. I like ECC. The latency is because of the FB-DIMM overkill only needed by enterprise.

The benchmarks I'm talking about show pathetic bandwidth of only a fraction of what the specs say.
 
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