It is, you'd be paying $800 more for the newer system, 6% processor performance and a better graphics card, but you could have a better system overall for your budget with the 09.
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.
So... the low end Mac Pro is being phased out?
- Thread starter Ravich
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is, you'd be paying $800 more for the newer system, 6% processor performance and a better graphics card, but you could have a better system overall for your budget with the 09.
Sorry, I got lost in your posts a little. I thought you were talking about either buying a new current gen Mac Pro or waiting for to buy a new next gen Mac Pro in August. $2700 actually sounds a little high to me for a second hand 2.26GHz Octo Mac Pro. That's pretty much what they were going for (stock at least) in recent weeks whereas their value should drop now that they're going to be old models in a month's time and straight from Apple refurbished (more likely to be old stock) will probably be available in August for less than that anyway.
the 2009 8 core 2.26 goes for 3299 right now..but i can get one for 2700..or maybe less the new one 2010 2.4ghz 8 core will be 3499... thoughts????
Yes the current one goes for $3299 but when you say you can get one for $2700 do you mean a new one or a used one. Used ones went for $2700 a week ago and will likely drop in value now. If it's new then it could well be a deal worth taking but its value is guaranteed to drop within a month anyway. I would expect Apple to be selling them off at that price or lower within a month.
Well... one of the appeals of lightpeak is that it provides power, right? I have a seriously difficult time imagining a situation where a 2.5'' SSD with a single wire clutters up your desk. I mean, we're talking about professional users who want to be able to swap out hard drives on a whim. This is it, isnt it?
Also what am I missing about connectivity? You are saying that PCI Express v3.0 can already reach 128 Gbit/s, but you still need an interface dont you? SATA III would still bottleneck that wouldnt it? And SATA III isnt even standard yet.
Also what am I missing about connectivity? You are saying that PCI Express v3.0 can already reach 128 Gbit/s, but you still need an interface dont you? SATA III would still bottleneck that wouldnt it? And SATA III isnt even standard yet.
ok.... thanks for info.... i will wait it out... its going to be a long month without my mac...haha...take care
I don't pretend to know anything about business loopholes, but perhaps Apple clocked that the biggest purchasers of Mac Pros were not individuals, but companies, and I heard (correctly or incorrectly) that at least in the UK that computer purchases can be written off against the companies annual tax bill. It would make price a much smaller factor in decision making for the business. Of course it screws over consumers and the self employed, but since when did Apple care about every one of its users?
Freelancers (i.e. the self-employed) would be silly not to form business entities for themselves. Along with some of the legal perks, we can and do write off business purchases (like our computers) on our tax returns in the United States. I'm pretty certain something similar would apply in the UK.
Additionally, when you buy a computer as a freelance business expense, it is also reasonable to note that granted its potentially high initial cost, it would ideally pay for itself over your next few gigs.
Yes, a singe 2.5" SSD with one wire would clutter up my desk. I'd rather have that drive inside my computer. I've got one external drive (a 2.5" one that can be powered with one wire) for the occasional transfer but that spends most of its time in my laptop bag and hardly used. SSD transfer speeds would bottleneck SATA III connections which in turn would bottleneck PCI Express or Lightpeak connections. Unless Lightpeak ends up being used for internal drives (thus nuking SATA backwards compatibility), I doubt hard drives will come standard with lightpeak connections so external drives would have to use SATA->Lightpeak controller cards.
While the iMac finished the change to a new chipset and CPU line, the Mac Pro just did a feature/spec update with no real price changes.
So why aren't you complaining? You will be right before the next update.
It'll still be another year-18 months for the next big Mac Pro update to the next chipset.
So why aren't you complaining? You will be right before the next update.
It'll still be another year-18 months for the next big Mac Pro update to the next chipset.
correct me if I'm wrong (I very well may be) but don't these newer Xeon processors have the multi threading that is in the Core i series processors?
Wouldn't the availability of virtual cores then make the performance bump more than that 5.88%?
Yes but the 2.26GHz (2009) Mac Pros also have that stuff. It's called Hyperthreading and is present in most (all?) Xeon Nehalem chips and in all Core i7 desktop chips. That's the biggest difference between the Core i7 and the Core i5 in the top end iMac - the Core i7 has 8 virtual processors whereas the Core i5 doesn't. It's not useful to a lot of applications but it can really give a boost in others.
oh so the hyperthreading was on the older Xeon chips as well...thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't aware of that. Thought it was a new feature in the Core iX series
so the iMac Core i5 doesn't have the Hyperthreading?
I work in Easytech at staples, and for the most part, all the laptops with i5 processors that we sell have Hyperthreading...strange that mid range laptops have Hyperthreading mobile processors, while the iMac i5 does not
havn't taken the time to read it yet, but ars technica is a good source, and at least based on the title this seems like it might have some answers
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2002/10/hyperthreading.ars
To my knowledge, the only Nehalem-based desktop chips that DON'T have HyperThreading are the Lynnfield Core i5 quad-cores. So in essence, no, the i5 iMacs do not have HyperThreading.
That's because they are different. HyperThreading is a technology that allows a CPU core to run two threads at once instead of just one, thereby giving say, a quad-core CPU 8 total "logical" cores. It's the not the same as having 8 physical processing cores, but it does yield performance advantages with certain software.
In contrast, CPU multi-threading refers to ability of software applications to utilize multiple CPUs or cores for improved performance.
That's because they are different. HyperThreading is a technology that allows a CPU core to run two threads at once instead of just one, thereby giving say, a quad-core CPU 8 total "logical" cores. It's the not the same as having 8 physical processing cores, but it does yield performance advantages with certain software.
In contrast, CPU multi-threading refers to ability of software applications to utilize multiple CPUs or cores for improved performance.
It's confusing but the mobile versions do have hyperthreading. It's basically something Intel uses to make a processor a little more attractive and to tier models.
Core i7 desktop CPUs have 4 physical cores, 8 virtual cores and fast CPU speeds
Core i5 desktop CPUs have 4 physical cores, 4 virtual cores and fast CPU speeds
Core i3 desktop CPUs have 2 physical cores, 4 virtual cores and fast CPU speeds**
Core i7 mobile CPUs have 2 physical cores, 4 virtual cores and fast CPU speeds*
Core i5 mobile CPUs have 2 physical cores, 4 virtual cores and medium CPU speeds
Core i3 mobile CPUs have 2 physical cores, 4 virtual cores and slow CPU speeds**
* (Core i7 mobiles can also have 4 physical cores, 8 virtual cores and slow CPU speeds)
** (Core i3 CPUs do not have a Turbo boost feature)
In other words, Intel use number of physical/virtual cores to differentiate between models in their desktop line whereas they use clock speed to differentiate in the mobile line.
Of course, it's a bit more muddled than that but that's the jist of it. It looks like the 21.5" and 27" entry level iMacs are using some special i3/i5 chips. They have much higher clock speeds than standard mobile CPUs but they have the same limitations in physical cores that the mobile CPUs have. It looks to me like they're basically mobile chips running at desktop voltages and heat levels - official overclocking if you like from Intel.
Not really IMO. For a price difference of $700USD, you get ~6% increase in CPU performance, a larger HDD, and a better graphics card.
You could take that $$$ and put it into upgrades on the refurb, and end up with improved performance in areas that would actually benefit you, such as additional RAM (depending on what you need) and/or better GPU than that of the base '10 models (HD5770).
We don't know what the graphics cards will retail yet, but upgrades are cheaper using 3rd party sources (assumes your budget limitations outweigh the need for a single point of contact for warranty issues if an upgrade goes DOA).
Thats true, if my post came off as a price gripe, I didnt mean it to. UK businesses, and as you mention US businesses can write off the high cost of these machines, which does sit them comfortably in the high end, Pro market.
Though I have an old Pro that I use supplementary to my work in the office, so upgrading it is getting a bit pricey for me
