Nehalem EP (Xeon) Processors 'Ridiculously fast'

[BenRoethig]

I don't mind the current tower. Its very practical, though I wouldn't mind them putting the ports on the back panel a little closer together so there can be a second row of three USB2.0 ports for a total of six. And when it comes to shrinking, don't give Apple any ideas, they have a tendency to go overboard and shirk things to the point where they're of little use to the intended audience. See the Mini and Cube.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I don't mind the current tower. Its very practical, though I wouldn't mind them putting the ports on the back panel a little closer together so there can be a second row of three USB2.0 ports for a total of six. And when it comes to shrinking, don't give Apple any ideas, they have a tendency to go overboard and shirk things to the point where they're of little use to the intended audience. See the Mini and Cube.

I agree with you on the USB ports. I'd rather just have two more of each, including FW800.

I'd also like to see TWO double wide PCI slots and a FIFTH HDD bay that is full supported, as opposed to using the second optical drive slot.

 

[ktlx]

And the other 95% bought the maxi-tower because it was the only expandable desktop option.

You may argue whether it's 50%/75%/80%/90% or whatever - but I'm confident that a majority of Mac Pros don't spend much time with more than 4 cores busy.

Some users obviously do stress the system (we call these people "Pros"), but many maxi-towers go to amateurs who could easily get by with an 8 logical processor, 4 core, single socket Core i7.

This is an argument for a single socket desktop and is completely irrelevant to the original post that nearly all Mac Pro users would see no difference if the Mac Pro used a desktop part.

Even the arguments in favor of a single socket, expandable desktop are largely pointless until Steve has a "come to Jesus" moment or is replaced.

 

[cisco0623]

That would imply only 5% of Mac Pro users are working on audio, video and 3D rendering or are developers. I find that very hard to believe.

What difference does a xeon processor make for rendering video or audio over a i7? A xeon might destroy a benchmark, but its not practical.

Basically the difference is marginal as far as using final cut or Logic Pro would be concerned. Hell I run logic pro7.2 on my G4 dual 1ghz mac pro and its fine for 95% of what most people would need. The larger bottleneck is the speed of the hard drives and ram/system board more than the CPU.

The point is I am not saying that there are not professionals who don't need the crazy hardware and the small difference they give - there are! But for an entry mac tower to be $2800 is absolutely scary. Make a $1500 version.

The problem with them pricing one this way is what I am talking about. The $1500 one will perform seriously close to the $2800 one. Hell, PC scene people are buying 920 core i7 at 2.66ghz and over clocking them to 4.4ghz on the new X58 boards. Why the hell even buy the $1000 extreme chip?

I love Apple software, but they manipulate it by forcing us to buy seriously overpriced hardware.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Let's drop the xMac crap now, shall we?

Steve Jobs is alive. Therefore, we're not going to see a headless iMac with user expansion capabilities.

 

[AidenShaw]

And when it comes to shrinking, don't give Apple any ideas, they have a tendency to go overboard and shirk things to the point where they're of little use to the intended audience. See the Mini and Cube.

Apple could, like Dell, actually give a choice of models.

Unlikely, but possible.

 

[drsmithy]

That would imply only 5% of Mac Pro users are working on audio, video and 3D rendering or are developers. I find that very hard to believe.

Actually it would imply that only 5% of Mac Pro users find themselves constrained by the CPU performance of an 8-core desktop.

Which, personally, I would consider a fairly high estimate. I'd be surprised if even 1% of users are CPU bottlenecked on a Mac Pro.

I little doubt the vast majority of Mac Pro users would be just as happy with a machine with half the resources - a single quad-core CPU, 4 DIMM slots, one free PCIe x16, one (or two) free PCIe x4 slots (wired for x1 if necessary), two drive slots - and half the pricetag. I'm also pretty sure Apple agrees with me.

 

[ktlx]

What difference does a xeon processor make for rendering video or audio over a i7? A xeon might destroy a benchmark, but its not practical.

Basically the difference is marginal as far as using final cut or Logic Pro would be concerned. Hell I run logic pro7.2 on my G4 dual 1ghz mac pro and its fine for 95% of what most people would need. The larger bottleneck is the speed of the hard drives and ram/system board more than the CPU.

The point is I am not saying that there are not professionals who don't need the crazy hardware and the small difference they give - there are! But for an entry mac tower to be $2800 is absolutely scary. Make a $1500 version.

Then you should say what you mean. You said Apple should use desktop processors instead, as I quote:

I doubt 95% of mac pro users would see any real difference when using their mac if it were a Xeon or desktop i7, with that in mind, and this economy, maybe apple should offer those cpu's instead.

If you've ever used an eight core machine for audio, video or 3D rendering, you'll see the difference immediately. The same will be even more true once Nehalem arrives in the Mac Pro as the memory bottleneck opens up. To say 95% of the users probably won't see any real difference means they cannot be doing any work in those areas I mentioned. I find that incredibly hard to believe.

95% of people aren't Mac Pro owners. Hell, 95% of people aren't Apple owners. Even of those who own Apple computers, only a small number are those who own Mac Pros, according to Apple's own sales figures.

 

[ktlx]

I need some new acquaintances. I don't know anyone who has thousands of dollars to fritter away on computers that largely sit idle. I wish I knew this 98% of Mac Pro owners who are rich enough to buy machines for no reason. Everyone I know with a Mac Pro is using it to do at least some video, rendering or photography work. I am jealous of the guys who've got eight cores for rendering. Anyone who denies you won't notice the extra horsepower clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

[AidenShaw]

Anyone who denies you won't notice the extra horsepower clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

I think that the argument is that most people aren't rendering (or using 8-core aware applications).

These people won't notice any difference from the 4 idle cores, except for the larger hole in their bank account.

 

[cisco0623]

Then you should say what you mean. You said Apple should use desktop processors instead, as I quote:

If you've ever used an eight core machine for audio, video or 3D rendering, you'll see the difference immediately. The same will be even more true once Nehalem arrives in the Mac Pro as the memory bottleneck opens up. To say 95% of the users probably won't see any real difference means they cannot be doing any work in those areas I mentioned. I find that incredibly hard to believe.

Does this difference make the audio or video any less worthy in the end? If it takes an extra 4 seconds to mix down a track or 35 seconds to render a video? Does this difference warrant the price? Also does it warrant the lack of product selection a potential mac customer does not have? I bet mac users - pro or not - would enjoy having the choice of a cheaper model that still gets the job done.

My point is that its stupid that Apple doesn't offer a cheaper desktop and an easy way to do that is to use a desktop version of a cpu rather than the Xeon. I am not saying ignore pro's, but like their macbook (which is just as powerful as the pro) why not have a mac desktop at a lower price point? Would you be against it? Or better yet, would you consider purchasing it over the pro?

 

[drsmithy]

I need some new acquaintances. I don't know anyone who has thousands of dollars to fritter away on computers that largely sit idle. I wish I knew this 98% of Mac Pro owners who are rich enough to buy machines for no reason. Everyone I know with a Mac Pro is using it to do at least some video, rendering or photography work. I am jealous of the guys who've got eight cores for rendering. Anyone who denies you won't notice the extra horsepower clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

There are plenty of reasons to buy a Mac Pro that don't involve running 8 CPUs at 100% most of the time (if ever).

This is because the gaping hole in Apple's lineup - the vast gulf of capabilities between a Mac Mini or iMac, and a Mac Pro - means you have to buy a Mac Pro if:

• you want a machine that can run a couple of 30" screens (or just more than two)
• be connected to high-speed disk
• have some sort of expansion card installed
• have more than 2 CPU cores
• more than 4G RAM

The suggestion that there is is not a large proportion of users who want one or more of the above features, but don't need a pair of server-class quad-core Xeon CPUs, is laughable, and at odds with the experience of pretty much every other computer maker.

 

[diamond.g]

I think that the argument is that most people aren't rendering (or using 8-core aware applications).

These people won't notice any difference from the 4 idle cores, except for the larger hole in their bank account.

Apple should offer another means of attaining at least 4 cores. Yeah you could get a Mac Pro Quad, but for some people the rest of the system (I'm looking at you FB-DIMMs) can still be seen as overkill.

 

[chromatronic]

Does this difference make the audio or video any less worthy in the end? If it takes an extra 4 seconds to mix down a track or 35 seconds to render a video? Does this difference warrant the price?

But making music is not ONly making Offline Bounce...
You need REALTIME power to process soft synth, effects etc etc....
Then the 8 core are really useful...

 

[AidenShaw]

But making music is not ONly making Offline Bounce...
You need REALTIME power to process soft synth, effects etc etc....
Then the 8 core are really useful...

...and 95% of Mac Pro users need this?

Nobody is saying that there aren't times when you need the power, especially for real pros. (And "pro" is not defined as "someone who owns an Apple computer with 'Pro' in its model name.)

...And maybe Imovie or whatever can peg 8 CPUs while rendering a video...

But, if Joe the Plumber is making a DVD of the baby movies for Grandma, and you tell him:

• Computer "A" can make the video in 45 minutes, and costs $3000
• Computer "B" can make the video in 90 minutes, and costs $1000
• Most of the time for most other things, computer "A" and "B" are about the same speed.

Which computer will Joe ask for?

'nuff said. Where's the single socket quad core mini-tower?

 

[BenRoethig]

Let's drop the xMac crap now, shall we?

Steve Jobs is alive. Therefore, we're not going to see a headless iMac with user expansion capabilities.

And I pray he retires every day. He has gone completely power mad. I don't want to see him build this company and platform only to bring crashing right down for a second time. Also, if you don't like Mac users who aren't well served by Apple talking about their needs, don't come into these kinds of threads. There are plenty of others where everyone walks the company line.

 

[diamond.g]

...and 95% of Mac Pro users need this?

Nobody is saying that there aren't times when you need the power, especially for real pros. (And "pro" is not defined as "someone who owns an Apple computer with 'Pro' in its model name.)

...And maybe Imovie or whatever can peg 8 CPUs while rendering a video...

But, if Joe the Plumber is making a DVD of the baby movies for Grandma, and you tell him:

• Computer "A" can make the video in 45 minutes, and costs $3000
• Computer "B" can make the video in 90 minutes, and costs $1000
• Most of the time for most other things, computer "A" and "B" are about the same speed.

Which computer will Joe ask for?

'nuff said. Where's the single socket quad core mini-tower?

I dunno Aiden, I may ask for computer a...

(my name isn't joe, and I am not a plumber...)

The best thing about these arguments (just like the ones before the new notebooks came out), is a lot of people will poopoo the idea then when Apple actually come out with it they will say it is the best thing ever and that Apple revolutionized the personal electronics industry. It is like that one Mac article I saw a while ago (can't remember the link).

The only two things I would like to see from Apple is a newer Mini (so I can actually replace my Win2k3 box, and dual boot Win2k8) and a cablecard system for Mac (so I can get rid of my Comcast DVR-- It's Sucktastic!™).

 

[Tallest Skil]

And I pray he retires every day. He has gone completely power mad. I don't want to see him build this company and platform only to bring crashing right down for a second time. Also, if you don't like Mac users who aren't well served by Apple talking about their needs, don't come into these kinds of threads. There are plenty of others where everyone walks the company line.

I only meant to cut the crap because it's not the purpose of the thread. All Mac Pro threads immediately get hijacked as xMac threads.

I'd love an xMac. Heck, that's why I made a crappy Hackintosh. The computer was secondhand from my grandfather when I got him to switch, so I put OS X on it. It's more of a proof-of-concept than anything; I'm the only one in my city with one, so that's cool.

 

[Umbongo]

I dunno Aiden, I may ask for computer a...

(my name isn't joe, and I am not a plumber...)

The best thing about these arguments (just like the ones before the new notebooks came out), is a lot of people will poopoo the idea then when Apple actually come out with it they will say it is the best thing ever and that Apple revolutionized the personal electronics industry. It is like that one Mac article I saw a while ago (can't remember the link).

The only two things I would like to see from Apple is a newer Mini (so I can actually replace my Win2k3 box, and dual boot Win2k8) and a cablecard system for Mac (so I can get rid of my Comcast DVR-- It's Sucktastic!™).

I don't think people are against the idea, more just pointing out that Apple aren't likely to do it.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

I dunno Aiden, I may ask for computer a...

The only two things I would like to see from Apple is a newer Mini (so I can actually replace my Win2k3 box, and dual boot Win2k8) and a cablecard system for Mac (so I can get rid of my Comcast DVR-- It's Sucktastic!™).

You will have to wait for tru2way and even then apple maybe forced to let cable co software run on there box.

also the mini may need to be a little bigger to fit fast and big hd's need for a DVR.

Direct tv boxes have 320gb to 500gb in there HD DVR's

 

[Digital Skunk]

.....

I for one haven't heard too many people saying the new MBs were amazing. The build quality on them is greatly improved, but as we know with Apple, they give and they take away.

I am still not too happy about the lack of matte and FW400 on the MBPs and the lack of EVERYTHING sans USB on the MBs.

But that kind of mantra was spread all over the internet when the iPhone came out. That's another story about Apple fantastic marketing that got brainless consumers to dump more affordable contracts and sign their life over to a slower, less stable network.

 

[chromatronic]

Which computer will Joe ask for?

'nuff said. Where's the single socket quad core mini-tower?

i think joe should buy an Imac

 

[AidenShaw]

Joe wants quad-core, 4 GiB, 1 TB and Blu-ray for $699

i think joe should buy an Imac

Joe doesn't like all-in-ones - doesn't see the point in tossing the monitor when you want to upgrade the CPU.

Joe is going to Fry's this morning (see ads). He'll either get quad-core, 4 GiB, 1 TB and Blu-ray for $699, or maybe the 6 GiB system with Media Center and built-in HDTV tuner? (It has a spare optical slot, and a BD drive is $79 at Fry's.)

To the people suggesting that Apple should make an $1800 mini-tower, this should be a wake-up.

 

[BenRoethig]

But you know Aiden, Apple always knows best. How could people possible use things like blu-ray, a TV, tuner, full size optical drives, easy access port, multiple internal hard drives so you don't have to use your all too small and not so easily upgradable main drive for bootcamp, etc. Anyone who needs them is obviously helping to make the next hollywood blockbuster and needs a workstation.

 

[MrCrowbar]

Joe doesn't like all-in-ones - doesn't see the point in tossing the monitor when you want to upgrade the CPU.

Joe is going to Fry's this morning (see ads). He'll either get quad-core, 4 GiB, 1 TB and Blu-ray for $699, or maybe the 6 GiB system with Media Center and built-in HDTV tuner? (It has a spare optical slot, and a BD drive is $79 at Fry's.)

To the people suggesting that Apple should make an $1800 mini-tower, this should be a wake-up.

Lots of these look great on paper (specs, features), but they're not though out well. For instance the mainboard can be a serious bottleneck if not matched well, cooling might be an issue (case design) and power consumption (if you care about it). You can get away cheaper if you hand-select your components and build it yourself. This way, you only pay for the features (and software) you want.

If you're a gamer, get a medium dual core chip (games hardly benefit of quad cores right now) and overclock the cr4p out of that thing. The Core 2 are awesome for overclocking, it's easy to do and you don't need water cooling like in the 90's. You don't need too much RAM, games aren't that huge. 4GB is plenty. Spend your research and cash on the mainboard and pick a graphics card just below the super high end (outdated within 2 months anyway and overpriced).
If you got a Windows XP license, go ahead and download an optimized version, which is more lightweight (less RAM usage, faster boot, more responsive) and saves space on your hard drive.

Dell workstations are pretty good actually, the price is pretty much on par with Mac Pros if you go for comparable configurations.