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

The 2009 (Gainestown) Mac Pro: Everything We Know

Status
Not open for further replies.
nanofrog said:
I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem to coincide with Apple's statement of "reduced margins". ;) :rolleyes:

Check out the performance page.

They're using the 3.2GHz '08 as the baseline, and comparing it to the 2.93GHz '09 model.

I don't see the 2.26GHz model beating the 2.8GHz '08 myself, but I would like to see the comparison. ;)
Click to expand...

http://www.barefeats.com/nehal01.html

Based on our extrapolations from Apple's published performance tests, the "early 2009" 2.26GHz 8-core will equal the "early 2008" 3.2GHz 8-core on many benchmarks and the "early 2009" 2.66GHz 8-core will beat it on all benchmarks. In other words, you don't have to spend $6K+ on the 2.93GHz version to beat the fastest "early 2008" Mac Pro.

:apple:
 
Setmose said:
http://www.barefeats.com/nehal01.html

Based on our extrapolations from Apple's published performance tests, the "early 2009" 2.26GHz 8-core will equal the "early 2008" 3.2GHz 8-core on many benchmarks and the "early 2009" 2.66GHz 8-core will beat it on all benchmarks. In other words, you don't have to spend $6K+ on the 2.93GHz version to beat the fastest "early 2008" Mac Pro.

:apple:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. I need to read through it, as I really want to see how the 2.26GHz part stacks up. :)
 
I just called my local apple store and none have any of the new macs available in store...

Anyone here have any of the new macs available in their stores as of today??
 
Setmose said:
http://www.barefeats.com/nehal01.html

Based on our extrapolations from Apple's published performance tests, the "early 2009" 2.26GHz 8-core will equal the "early 2008" 3.2GHz 8-core on many benchmarks and the "early 2009" 2.66GHz 8-core will beat it on all benchmarks. In other words, you don't have to spend $6K+ on the 2.93GHz version to beat the fastest "early 2008" Mac Pro.

:apple:
Click to expand...

This is why i dont get why so many people are so offended with the prices (they are high but not astronomically) i was expecting a price bump when this was adopted anyway..., was hoping for a higher graphics option though one with 1gb+ of memory but underworkstation ... oh well ... I am actually happy that i could not afford a mac pro a month ago when i wanted to get one, its looking like i will be able to afford ordering one within a week now and with the performance upgrades with the cpu I will be quite happy. (wonder if there will be any other graphics cards coming out though ... that i could upgrade to down the road). On a side note does anyone know when we'll be seein a 30in led ACD? most had said with a mac pro release ... Thx in advance
 
KBS756 said:
This is why i dont get why so many people are so offended with the prices (they are high but not astronomically) i was expecting a price bump when this was adopted anyway..., was hoping for a higher graphics option though one with 1gb+ of memory but underworkstation ... oh well ... I am actually happy that i could not afford a mac pro a month ago when i wanted to get one, its looking like i will be able to afford ordering one within a week now and with the performance upgrades with the cpu I will be quite happy. (wonder if there will be any other graphics cards coming out though ... that i could upgrade to down the road). On a side note does anyone know when we'll be seein a 30in led ACD? most had said with a mac pro release ... Thx in advance
Click to expand...
I looked at the extrapolations. Hard to tell, but I'm not sure 2.26GHz parts will quite make it, as equal performers to the 2.8GHz Harpertowns.

I'd prefer to wait for Rob to finish up the actual comparison. Hard numbers beats extrapolations any day. ;) :D
 
I got to feel with you apple people.
Seems the older versions of mac pro are a bargin now.
Single Nehalem xeon processor? whats the point of that anyway? Way to expensive ram. Also extremely bad options for ram configuration. 6x1gb ? wtf is with that. Isnt the point of ddr3 the tripple channel ?

Im also really disapointed at the graphic card selection. All the rest of the world is playing with cuda and their 4870 x2, quadros, dont get me started on teslas. Here there is virtually no progress.
I really thought apple will make something really impressive this time as well, but this was a complete miss.
 
nanofrog said:
I looked at the extrapolations. Hard to tell, but I'm not sure 2.26GHz parts will quite make it, as equal performers to the 2.8GHz Harpertowns.

I'd prefer to wait for Rob to finish up the actual comparison. Hard numbers beats extrapolations any day. ;) :D
Click to expand...

Remember that you stand to get a significant performance boost when you slap on Snow Leopard. :apple:
 
Meh, I'm keeping my 2.8ghz octo.

These updates seem crappy.

Yeah yeah they might be faster.

But on paper they look slower and they cost more.

I can't justify upgrading in my head.


Could wait for Barefeats to do it's thing, but by that time the price of the 2008 machines will drop.
 
Schrei said:
I got to feel with you apple people.
Seems the older versions of mac pro are a bargin now.
Single Nehalem xeon processor? whats the point of that anyway? Way to expensive ram. Also extremely bad options for ram configuration. 6x1gb ? wtf is with that. Isnt the point of ddr3 the tripple channel ?

Im also really disapointed at the graphic card selection. All the rest of the world is playing with cuda and their 4870 x2, quadros, dont get me started on teslas. Here there is virtually no progress.
I really thought apple will make something really impressive this time as well, but this was a complete miss.
Click to expand...

4870 X2 may be supported, just not CTO from Apple. I've sent a note to Rob at Bare Feats asking for clarification on that. It's already working and massively benchmarked by Bare Feats in Boot Camp -- see my earlier post. :apple:
 
I'm confused about the memory speeds on the new Mac Pro. Hopefully someone can help me...

The speed that is currently offered is 1066. Why did Apple not choose the faster 1333 memory speeds?

Also, I was under the impression that each new CPU could access up to 3 channels (DIMM slots), and if 3 slots are populated, this would give the best performance. Is this correct? Why is Apple offering 8 memory slots, and will performance be affected by the amount of memory modules used?

Thanks!
 
KBS756 said:
This is why i dont get why so many people are so offended with the prices (they are high but not astronomically) i was expecting a price bump when this was adopted anyway...
Click to expand...

I, for one, was expecting the 8x2.66 model to be where the 8x2.26 model is in terms of price. When I saw the 8x2.26 model number last night, I hoped that it would be at the previous 8x2.8 price, with the 4x2.66 at the 4x2.8 price (I guess it is in the US (??), but we got price increases in Canada).


Setmose said:
Remember that you stand to get a significant performance boost when you slap on Snow Leopard. :apple:
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't Snow Leopard apply equally to the last bunch of Mac Pros? they're all multi-core 64-bit systems.
 
DCIFRTHS said:
I'm confused about the memory speeds on the new Mac Pro. Hopefully someone can help me...

The speed that is currently offered is 1066. Why did Apple not choose the faster 1333 memory speeds?
Click to expand...
Is it because they have the 2.27 GHz CPU, which is DDR3-1067 rated?
 
NoNameBrand said:
I, for one, was expecting the 8x2.66 model to be where the 8x2.26 model is in terms of price. When I saw the 8x2.26 model number last night, I hoped that it would be at the previous 8x2.8 price, with the 4x2.66 at the 4x2.8 price (I guess it is in the US (??), but we got price increases in Canada).




Why wouldn't Snow Leopard apply equally to the last bunch of Mac Pros? they're all multi-core 64-bit systems.
Click to expand...

Grand Central is optimal on Nehalem hyper-threading architecture. :apple:
 
NoNameBrand said:
I, for one, was expecting the 8x2.66 model to be where the 8x2.26 model is in terms of price. When I saw the 8x2.26 model number last night, I hoped that it would be at the previous 8x2.8 price, with the 4x2.66 at the 4x2.8 price (I guess it is in the US (??), but we got price increases in Canada).




Why wouldn't Snow Leopard apply equally to the last bunch of Mac Pros? they're all multi-core 64-bit systems.
Click to expand...

everywhere got price increases. i guess that is because of the economy and because the updates in terms of performance are better then before..
 
Setmose said:
Grand Central is optimal on Nehalem hyper-threading architecture. :apple:
Click to expand...

Is it really? Or is this just "conventional wisdom"?

The last version of hyperthreading gave a 20-30% boost compared to turning it off. I assumed hyperthreading was already accounted for in the benchmarks between Nehalem and earlier Xeons.
 
NoNameBrand said:
Is it really? Or is this just "conventional wisdom"?

The last version of hyperthreading gave a 20-30% boost compared to turning it off. I assumed hyperthreading was already accounted for in the benchmarks between Nehalem and earlier Xeons.
Click to expand...

There are benchrmarks out there with it on and off.
 
DCIFRTHS said:
I'm confused about the memory speeds on the new Mac Pro. Hopefully someone can help me...

The speed that is currently offered is 1066. Why did Apple not choose the faster 1333 memory speeds?

Also, I was under the impression that each new CPU could access up to 3 channels (DIMM slots), and if 3 slots are populated, this would give the best performance. Is this correct? Why is Apple offering 8 memory slots, and will performance be affected by the amount of memory modules used?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
As Umbongo indicated, 1066 is what the CPU's support. The 2.93GHz part, OTOH, does use the 1333 variety.

As for the 8 memory slots, my guess is they didn't have the room for more. There's other Core i7 boards that have done the same per se, (4 DIMM slots), and one of them is shared. That is, 1 channel has 2 DIMM slots, and the other two are 1 DIMM/channnel. Now double this up for the additional CPU. This would make sense, as to how it's wired at least. ;)
 
Eidorian said:
While true even the few machines that they convince someone to buy are going to make record profits.
Click to expand...

Yea this is the reason why Apple raised prices.. you have to in a bad economy for businesses.

Even small businesses raise a little in their products that they sell and in this case Apple's Mac Pros are equivalent in the inflations.. I wished the 2.66ghz was $3299 though..*sigh*

I can sell my 15" 2.53ghz mbp and still have to shell out $2800 more for the 2.66ghz mac pro. :(
 
how long

nanofrog said:
I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem to coincide with Apple's statement of "reduced margins". ;) :rolleyes:

Check out the performance page.

They're using the 3.2GHz '08 as the baseline, and comparing it to the 2.93GHz '09 model.

I don't see the 2.26GHz model beating the 2.8GHz '08 myself, but I would like to see the comparison. ;)
Click to expand...

How long will it take to run the benchmarks. I have to return the 2.8 at some point so I need to know if its the same as the 2.26. Any ideas?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back