So far, not impressed by Nehalem vs. last years Mac Pro

[Pika]

...Surely in that case, you think they'd charge more for the laptops?!

Well the problem is... the world is going mobile and the majority of the people are willing to spend on laptops because them got all the power they need to do all the work, plus the advantage to go anywhere with it.

Laptops no longer cost a great deal more than desktops -- the price difference might be less than $100 for a comparable, mid-priced machine when the cost of a desktop monitor is added in -- but you will notice a bigger monetary difference if your computer ever breaks. A tech-savvy family member or someone at the neighborhood computer store can solve most of the problems that pop up with desktops.

Laptop problems can be more expensive to correct. Many of their components are integrated, meaning you cannot replace the part that has broken without also replacing other components. Laptop parts also tend to be proprietary, so replacements must be purchased from the manufacturer, which generally means paying a premium. Often only authorized service centers can handle laptop repairs. Repair bills of several hundred dollars or more are not uncommon.

On the other hand, a laptop can be the money-saving choice if buying one portable computer means you do not have to purchase separate desktop computers for multiple residences.

The number of laptops sold in the US is expected to exceed the number of desktops for the first time ever in 2008, according to research firm IDC.

Apple on the other hand is concentrating more on their best selling products (MacBook & iMac) then their least selling products (Mac Pro & Xserve).

- Best selling products from Apple gets reasonable prices.
- Least selling products from Apple gets unreasonable prices

 

[jjahshik32]

Well the problem is... the world is going mobile and the majority of the people are willing to spend on laptops because them got all the power they need to do all the work, plus the advantage to go anywhere with it.

Laptops no longer cost a great deal more than desktops -- the price difference might be less than $100 for a comparable, mid-priced machine when the cost of a desktop monitor is added in -- but you will notice a bigger monetary difference if your computer ever breaks. A tech-savvy family member or someone at the neighborhood computer store can solve most of the problems that pop up with desktops.

Laptop problems can be more expensive to correct. Many of their components are integrated, meaning you cannot replace the part that has broken without also replacing other components. Laptop parts also tend to be proprietary, so replacements must be purchased from the manufacturer, which generally means paying a premium. Often only authorized service centers can handle laptop repairs. Repair bills of several hundred dollars or more are not uncommon.

On the other hand, a laptop can be the money-saving choice if buying one portable computer means you do not have to purchase separate desktop computers for multiple residences.

The number of laptops sold in the US is expected to exceed the number of desktops for the first time ever in 2008, according to research firm IDC.

Apple on the other hand is concentrating more on their best selling products (MacBook & iMac) then their least selling products (Mac Pro & Xserve).

- Best selling products from Apple gets reasonable prices.
- Least selling products from Apple gets unreasonable prices

Well that sucks.

To me though, I think nothing beats a nice powerful desktop. Just feels like a real computing experience to me.

Pretty much I would much rather have a $300 netbook + a nice 2.66GHz Octo Mac Pro.

 

[Tesselator]

Well the problem is... the world is going mobile and the majority of the people are willing to spend on laptops because them got all the power they need to do all the work, plus the advantage to go anywhere with it.

I dunno if you're right or wrong but I know I heard this exact same thing 3 years ago and again 5 years ago and again 7 years ago. And 5 or 6 years ago I heard there just won't be any market at all for desktops as everything will be special purpose individual handheld devices - and that even lap-tops were in danger of going extinct because they were too big and bulky.

But just because none of that actually happened then doesn't mean it isn't happening as we speak I guess. My proclivity is to not fall for it (again) tho. <shrug>

Admittedly this has come true in places like Iraq tho.

 

[Pika]

I hate to say it but the Nehalem Mac Pros are not any faster than last generation Mac Pros and especially Penryn Mac Pros being considered old now, I think I'm going to wait another year or so (at least until snow leopard is out) for something unbelievable is released.

To answer this:

For the most part it is much faster than the last range of Xeon's.

But... All render tests done on it versus the other mac which is a dual 2.8 (intel - 6 months old) came out about 3-7 seconds slower. This is with/without MRSat/QMaster. Most of the render tests were just scenes pulled from the visor but I also got the same kinds of results with a lot of my own stuff. Unfortunately you will have to wait for the release of Snow Leopard which will be a full 64bit OS. As yet I have not tried it under BootCamp 32 or 64bit.

Mental ray is the weak link at this point. Every other renderer I tested (Houdini's Mantra, VRay for C4D, Maxwell, C4D, even Maya's software renderer) all use 16 threads. But not mental ray

 

[Saladinos]

The Mac Pro and XServes are, in my opinion, more expensive because of the type of customer who buys them. Creative professionals (Mac Pro) or businesses building their IT Infrastructure (XServe). In both cases, computers are a money making tool - a fixed asset. To these customers, computers are an investment. If you look around the board here for creative professionals considering Mac Pros, that's exactly the way they consider them.

Because the goal of the computer is to make more money, these customers can justify the initial cost, and keep on buying. Hence no downward pressure on prices, and Apple gets to keep on growing miraculously despite massive margins.

IMO, we're going to need to see the back of SJ before Apple's prices will change. In that case, we'll probably be left with Peter Oppenheimer. Nothing will change under him, because he won't be able to live up to the persona SJ has built and won't want to depart from the Jobsian sales model that has done Apple so well to this point. It'll be Oppenheimer's replacement that's most open to experimenting with sales models IMO. That is, of course, providing sales slump, which is a bit of a wild conjecture, I grant you.

 

[Tesselator]

Yeah, OK. Those may be givens. But why did the prices of Mac Pro go up by $2,000 in 2009 from 2008's pricing?

 

[grue]

Yeah, OK. Those may be givens. But why did the prices of Mac Pro go up by $2,000 in 2009 from 2008's pricing?

Because you touch yourself at night

But in all seriousness, call or write Apple and ask. You might get an interesting answer.

 

[sejanus]

The Mac Pro and XServes are, in my opinion, more expensive because of the type of customer who buys them. Creative professionals (Mac Pro) or businesses building their IT Infrastructure (XServe). In both cases, computers are a money making tool - a fixed asset.

I agree with this. I'm a pretty heavily booked photographer and just bought a 8x2.93 box to replace my old macpro (a 06 model). It cost the most outrageous amount of money and I can still barely believe I spent that much on a computer but it doe pay for itself.

I still think it's a bit of a rip off though Bloody nice computer though.

 

[daneoni]

Yeah, OK. Those may be givens. But why did the prices of Mac Pro go up by $2,000 in 2009 from 2008's pricing?

Not just Mac Pros...the entire lineup has seen a hike in price in late 08/early 09 which is why i think the "its a high end machine for high end buyers" argument is complete BS

 

[matthew.russo]

Not just Mac Pros...the entire lineup has seen a hike in price in late 08/early 09 which is why i think the "its a high end machine for high end buyers" argument is complete BS

With bad exchange rates for some other countries and shipping costs...american apple prices aren't to bad. Go to store.apple.com/au and look at the prices there, it is really a joke!

edit: an Example. The mac pro base model in the US is $2499 USD vs $4499 AUD. $1USD = $1.40 AUD direct conversion is $3499. $1000 apple tax :S

 

[rylin]

With bad exchange rates for some other countries and shipping costs...american apple prices aren't to bad. Go to store.apple.com/au and look at the prices there, it is really a joke!

edit: an Example. The mac pro base model in the US is $2499 USD vs $4499 AUD. $1USD = $1.40 AUD direct conversion is $3499. $1000 apple tax :S

Exchange rate reason is insanely BS.

I can understand having to pay more if the exchange rate is crap.
It would, however, require the prices to be much better when the exchange rate is actually good, and that didn't happen.

Despite the USD having been at almost half the cost of the 5 year high, only to go up to almost the same levels as the 5 year high, both scenarios made it cheaper to fly to the US, stay in a reasonable (i.e. $300/night) hotel, buy an MP there and fly home, instead of buying the machine in my local store.

In other words, there is no logical justification for the shafting the international markets have received.

 

[Igantius]

....In other words, there is no logical justification for the shafting the international markets have received.

Wouldn't say that's the case in the UK - e.g. if VAT is applied to the standard US price of the base iMac, then the amount is £10 less than the UK street price.

There was a discussion about the Mac mini pricing at The Register recently - the site's hardly a mecca for fanbois, but the general opinion was that if you looked at the figures, the UK wasn't being fleeced.

In terms of the Mac Pro, the UK price for the base model works out about £90 more expensive.

 

[barkmonster]

I know some fan boy with wads of cash is going to shoot me down on this or point out, "at least it's not a dell" or something like that but it's a FACT that they're over priced even if their performance scales with the price increase compared with the previous models

There should be 6 or 12 RAM slots. There were even pictures of a new Mac Pro design with 12 RAM slot being circulated but Apple used the old version. I can only assume it's because the "real" mac pro's are going to be coming out later in the year and this is a similar stunt to what apple pulled with the transition from the B & W G3s to the Graphite G4s.

Anyone who wants a tower is out of luck unless they'd spend £1,300+ on something used that isn't even a 2008 model or have close to £2,000 to spend new.

It gets even worse when the old quad system was a build to order downgrade of the 2 x Quad Core 2.8Ghz system so there's no chance of finding any old stock or refurb versions of it.

I spent a long time looking at the Mac Pro line up as I was hoping they'd stay at a similar price point for the 4 core system + Wi-fi I would eventually like to own one day so here's the basic info that speaks for itself:



2008: £1,459 for a system with a quad core 2.8Ghz CPU, Wi-Fi and sufficient RAM slots for the chip set to not only achieve it's maximum bandwidth but take up to 4 x 2 DIMMS.

12Gb costs: £168 incl. VAT ($217.47) for 6 DIMMS

6032 Geekbench Score with 8Gb.

£1,627 total for a base configuration, downgraded to only 1 Quad Core CPU with 12Gb additional RAM at OWC prices including VAT

£ per performance point £0.24 or £0.27 once you add the cost of the 12Gb RAM upgrade.




2009: £1,938.99 for a system with a quad core 2.66Ghz CPU, Wi-Fi and insufficient RAM slots for the chip set to achieve it's maximum bandwidth without leaving one of them dormant AND it only has 4 RAM slots.

12Gb costs £547.18 incl. VAT ($699.99) for 3 DIMMS.

9365 Geekbench score with 6Gb

£2,486.17 total for a base configuration with Wi-Fi fitted + 12Gb additional RAM at OWC prices including VAT

£ per performance point £0.21 or £0.27 once you add the cost of the 12Gb RAM upgrade.

Fanboys really don't HAVE an angle unless you look at the price to performance point ratios but who cares? It's not going to get you an quad core system with 12 Gb and Wi-fi for just over £1,600. You can't even buy the top end iMac for that now!

I like having room to expand and being able to swap out my system drive for one of my own choosing so if the iMac had a Core i7 CPU, twice the RAM slots and 2 user upgradable drive bays it might fill the void left by no "entry" tower in any sense of the word but charging 8 core prices for a crippled 4 core system is not on at all and neither is the minor upgrades to the previously much cheaper iMac that don't justify it's extremely high cost for a system built on a CPU that's being around since 2006 and superceded by 2 quad core ranges since then too.

It makes me this angry:

 

[rylin]

Wouldn't say that's the case in the UK - e.g. if VAT is applied to the standard US price of the base iMac, then the amount is £10 less than the UK street price.

There was a discussion about the Mac mini pricing at The Register recently - the site's hardly a mecca for fanbois, but the general opinion was that if you looked at the figures, the UK wasn't being fleeced.

In terms of the Mac Pro, the UK price for the base model works out about £90 more expensive.

Right now, the difference is roughly 40 bucks if you compare straight off.. which you can't do, if you want a fair representation of what something actually costs.

How many McDonalds BigMac meals can you buy for £1900, vs. how many BigMac meals can you buy for $2499 (plus tax)?

Purchase Parity is more important than exchange rate.

 

[-js-]

LOL! Neither the new, nor the old MP's are "green". The greenest thing about the new MP is the reduced power vs. the old one, and I think that's definitely not insignificant. Depending on your cost per kWh and how long you run your MP per day, that could really add up over a years time.

 

[iMacmatician]

There should be 6 or 12 RAM slots. There were even pictures of a new Mac Pro design with 12 RAM slot being circulated but Apple used the old version. I can only assume it's because the "real" mac pro's are going to be coming out later in the year and this is a similar stunt to what apple pulled with the transition from the B & W G3s to the Graphite G4s.

Hopefully the real Mac Pro also gets more GPU options, faster RAM, and the 3.2 GHz CPU. But I doubt we'll see this; I expect the existing Mac Pro to go until ≈Q2 2010.

I like having room to expand and being able to swap out my system drive for one of my own choosing so if the iMac had a Core i7 CPU, twice the RAM slots and 2 user upgradable drive bays it might fill the void left by no "entry" tower in any sense of the word but charging 8 core prices for a crippled 4 core system is not on at all and neither is the minor upgrades to the previously much cheaper iMac that don't justify it's extremely high cost for a system built on a CPU that's being around since 2006 and superceded by 2 quad core ranges since then too.

Penryn's a 2007/2008 CPU. If Apple had used the 65 W desktop quad-cores for the iMac, quad-core for similar prices to mobile dual-core. The iMac would be much better than it is now (although not as good as Core i7, 4 RAM slots, etc.).

 

[barkmonster]

Hopefully the real Mac Pro also gets more GPU options, faster RAM, and the 3.2 GHz CPU. But I doubt we'll see this; I expect the existing Mac Pro to go until ≈Q2 2010.

Penryn's a 2007/2008 CPU. If Apple had used the 65 W desktop quad-cores for the iMac, quad-core for similar prices to mobile dual-core. The iMac would be much better than it is now (although not as good as Core i7, 4 RAM slots, etc.).

I just did a quick search on wikipedia to find out when the Core 2 Duo mobile series first came out and just went off the information for the entire family of mobile C2Ds I found on wikipedia

I've thought of a simple way Apple could add more room for the cooling required for faster CPUs, provide an extra internal drive expansion bay and solve one problem anyone who wants to use a second screen with the iMac and put them side by side without ever having to move the iMac to get to the optical drive:

1) Make it 1 inch thicker. It doesn't make a difference with a desktop, It would still be as thin as a lot of LCDs.

2) Make both sides of the iMac symmetrical with a removable/re-locatable optical drive on one side and a removable multi-drive bay cover on the other.

3) Make the system drive accessible from the back of the iMac via a slide out panel near the ports at the bottom so it doesn't ruin the overall look of the system.

You now have the option of manually changing the location of the DVD/RW on either side of the iMac to solve the problem of locating an iMac directly next to a second display.

The multi-drive bay cover would allow either a 3.5" or 2.5" SATA II drive to easily be slotted into it then just snapped back into the case.

3 Problems solved in 1 and faster core i7 systems for everyone.

 

[iMacmatician]

I just did a quick search on wikipedia to find out when the Core 2 Duo mobile series first came out and just went off the information for the entire family of mobile C2Ds I found on wikipedia

Core 2 Duo was released in 2006, although it had a die shrink and other improvements in the Penryn revision in late 2007 / early 2008.

I've thought of a simple way Apple could add more room for the cooling required for faster CPUs, provide an extra internal drive expansion bay and solve one problem anyone who wants to use a second screen with the iMac and put them side by side without ever having to move the iMac to get to the optical drive:

1) Make it 1 inch thicker. It doesn't make a difference with a desktop, It would still be as thin as a lot of LCDs.

Knowing Apple, they won't do that. The other way to increase internal space would be to use a larger display (28"?).

 

[jjahshik32]

Man I just had the urge to just go down to the damned Apple Store and just pick up a 2.26GHz model and just use it and be done with my decision making~! But damnit the price sucks...

 

[vultureparade]

so there's no chance of finding any old stock or refurb versions of it.

I actually saw a refurb of the single 2.8 quad on the apple store last night, for what it's worth. They wanted 2,000 for it.

The dual 2.8 2008 quad seems to be the way to go as far as price/performance goes, if one can be found.

 

[miggitymac]

I actually saw a refurb of the single 2.8 quad on the apple store last night, for what it's worth. They wanted 2,000 for it.

The dual 2.8 2008 quad seems to be the way to go as far as price/performance goes, if one can be found.

OT question, but where is that quote from? or is it just some random quote you made up like I'm doing?

EDIT: Nevermind! Found it! It's from Barkmonster, post #113...would've saved me some time if you just quoted properly...GOSH!

 

[vultureparade]

Nevermind! Found it! It's from Barkmonster, post #113...would've saved me some time if you just quoted properly...GOSH!

Sorry, I didn't realize that you were fact checking every quote in the entire thread

 

[Tesselator]

Because you touch yourself at night

No, but that's probably why they added Parental Control system.

Not just Mac Pros...the entire lineup has seen a hike in price in late 08/early 09 which is why i think the "its a high end machine for high end buyers" argument is complete BS

Right. He was answering a completely different question. He addressed why high-end systems are expensive. He did not address why the Mac Pro line saw a $2,000 price hike in 2009 - which to me is the actual question at hand.

LOL! Neither the new, nor the old MP's are "green". The greenest thing about the new MP is the reduced power vs. the old one, and I think that's definitely not insignificant. Depending on your cost per kWh and how long you run your MP per day, that could really add up over a years time.

Yeah, assuming they tally up a total savings of $100 a year over last year's system you would only have to run it for 20 years before it paid off the price difference between the two machines.

Hmm, that might not be a bad idea after all. By then the Smithsonian Institute might pay you handsomely to display it as an antique and the last MacPro ever made. I mean with this price hike and all they don't have much of a future.


.

 

[RebootD]

I was bored this afternoon on the apple store checking out refurb MP and the chat came up, so I talk with a rep and told him I needed it for print/web and video secondary, then he said 'don't get the new Quad, get the refurb 2.8)

I was really taken by surprise, shouldn't they tell me to buy the newer model?!

 

[Saladinos]

I was bored this afternoon on the apple store checking out refurb MP and the chat came up, so I talk with a rep and told him I needed it for print/web and video secondary, then he said 'don't get the new Quad, get the refurb 2.8)

I was really taken by surprise, shouldn't they tell me to buy the newer model?!

I don't think it really matters to the reps. They don't get commission. We had some Russian dude with a black titanium AmEx come by the store and load £150k in gear. Just 1% would have bought me a new laptop.

EDIT: £s, not $s. Pfft.