Updated Mac Pro Benchmarks and Video of Internals

[mchalebk]

There are two types of Mac Pro users -- those who buy them as status symbols but don't really need it, and those who actually use the machines as business tools to make money. For the latter, the Mac Pro is still a good investment because the cost will be amortized over several years while the machine is used to create far more income than it costs. For the former, however, the Mac Pro is obviously "overpriced" because it's becoming more and more difficult to justify the Mac Pro as an ego buy.

This is ludicrously simplistic, insulting and just plain wrong. There are many reasons why someone might buy a MacPro other than to make money. If you think the only reason (besides business) is as a “status symbol”, you have no clue. What if you need multiple hard drives, but don’t want a stack of externals? You need a MacPro. What if you do video rendering? You don’t have to be a Pro to appreciate the power that a MacPro gives you.

Some of us have reasons for wanting a MacPro that have nothing to do with status, ego or making money. It would be appreciated if you could abstain from making grossly inaccurate generalizations in the future.

 

[Goona]

MacBook Air is thinner at its thinnest point, and only .1" thicker at its thickest point, weighs 25% less, has a 30% faster CPU, and costs $200 less. I suppose you have to pick your battles.

Don't make me laugh, the Adamo looks like a brick compared to the Air, go and watch some of the side by side pictures, it doesn't even look thinner.

 

[awulf]

Because you are not Apple's competition, Dell and HP are. If you can build the same Mac Pro configuration for $1,000 less using off-the-shelf parts, then go for it, but your hardware won't be supported by Apple and you could lose your entire investment if Apple changes its OS in a way that breaks your hardware. No business in its right mind would take the approach you are suggesting by purchasing totally unsupported hardware.

1. The hardware will not "break", it will just not boot into Mac OS X.
2. Before updating can check out on forums to see if it works, not like the latest OS update is a must. The latest OS updates have rendered some Apple Macs "broken" in the past, search this forum and you shall find.
3. The probability is that it will continue to work, if not, hack updates will be imminent.

There are two types of Mac Pro users -- those who buy them as status symbols but don't really need it, and those who actually use the machines as business tools to make money. For the latter, the Mac Pro is still a good investment because the cost will be amortized over several years while the machine is used to create far more income than it costs. For the former, however, the Mac Pro is obviously "overpriced" because it's becoming more and more difficult to justify the Mac Pro as an ego buy.

No there are more types, the types who:

• Wants more than 1 hard drive, and doesn’t want a bunch of slower external ones.
• Who likes to upgrade their machine when the time comes; better graphics, better CPU.
• Likes to dual screen
• Wants more performance than from a Mac mini and wants to use their own monitor.

There are plenty of these types around. I was happy to buy the low end Power Macs in the past since they were reasonably priced, but the current low end Mac "Pro" is not. If it were not for the Hackintosh, I would have bought a second hand Mac Pro.

When I had a design studio in Seattle, my paltry $5,000 Mac Pro investment allowed me to generate over $150,000 my first year. I could never justify spending that kind of money for something that would just sit on my desk as a status symbol. Today I'm a successful real estate agent, and even though I desperately want a Mac Pro because it would be "cool", I could never justify the purchase because it won't be used to generate income. An entry level iMac is enough for someone in my business.

I finally understand for a Pro who makes a lot of money with their machine the relative cost of the machine is negligible. Although if *I* were a Pro who'd need the *single CPU* Mac Pro, I'd still get the Hackintosh, I don't know, I just couldn't throw AU$2500 out the window, so much more I could do with that.

It all depends on your perspective. I think Apple has done its homework and knows that more Mac Pros end up in the hands of professionals who can use the additional horsepower and can justify the added expense versus those who just want to have bragging rights.

I think you are right, most consumers will be fine with an all-in-one or a laptop.
The Pros will go with the top notch Mac Pro.
The technical enthusiasts who want a Mac will either settle with an all-in-one or shell out a lot of cash on the low end Mac Pro. And if Apple did make a Consumer tower, some sales would be lost from the low end Mac Pro, which should have a huge profit margin at the moment.

That's a good solution for you, but not for the vast majority of Mac buyers who want a product that won't be broken with the next OS update... or Mac buyers who use their machines to generate income... or Mac buyers who want support from Apple... or Mac buyers who aren't technically savvy and want something that just "works".

Yes it is indeed a good solution for me.
Mac buyers who aren't technically savvy and want "just works" will go for the all-in-one.
Mac buyers who aren't technically savvy and want a value for money tower, will still try out the Hackintosh, if they know about this solution.

Hackintosh, now that's a word that inspires confidence...

Can call it Mac Clone if you prefer

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

This is ludicrously simplistic, insulting and just plain wrong. There are many reasons why someone might buy a MacPro other than to make money. If you think the only reason (besides business) is as a “status symbol”, you have no clue. What if you need multiple hard drives, but don’t want a stack of externals? You need a MacPro. What if you do video rendering? You don’t have to be a Pro to appreciate the power that a MacPro gives you.

Some of us have reasons for wanting a MacPro that have nothing to do with status, ego or making money. It would be appreciated if you could abstain from making grossly inaccurate generalizations in the future.

The last time I checked, this was an open forum to express opinions. It would be equally appreciated if you could abstain from telling others what to say or think.

Using your own words, if you "need" multiple hard drives but don't "want" a stack of externals, then isn't your desire for a Mac Pro a "want" and not a "need"? And what if you do video rendering? As a hobbyist, the iMac doesn't afford you enough processing power to do this? Is it also a "need" for a hobbyist to require his video be rendered at the fastest possible speed at a proportionally higher cost, or can you get by with less? In my opinion, these are still ego purchases because it still seems that you simply can't live without the biggest and the best even though a less expensive, albeit less perfect product would suit your requirements just fine.

If the iMac can give you 75% of what you want at 35% of the cost, it doesn't make sense to spend 2x-3x the price for that extra 25%. But if that last 25% is such a big deal for you, then you will find a way to justify the purchase and pay Apple what it's asking. It's all about whether you can justify the purchase, and that was the point I was trying to make.

Apple seems to think, and probably with good cause, that the majority of its Pro users can justify the purchase. Whether that justification is for financial or emotional reasons is up to the individual buyer.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

Don't make me laugh, the Adamo looks like a brick compared to the Air, go and watch some of the side by side pictures, it doesn't even look thinner.

I agree, Dell couldn't design its way out of a paper bag. I'll take a breath of fresh Air any day!

 

[BenRoethig]

I suspect that the new post-Jobs Apple won't be so dogmatic about things.

I wouldn't hold by breath until he officially retires and even then remember that we are talking about Steve's hand picked people and Ive's still the lead designer.

I'll wager an xMac that we'll see a Blu-ray announcement from Apple by 1 July.

They announced it on March 3rd, they're just charging $1000 more for it than they used to.

 

[mchalebk]

The last time I checked, this was an open forum to express opinions. It would be equally appreciated if you could abstain from telling others what to say or think.

I’m sorry, but when you express an opinion that is clearly inaccurate and insulting to others, I don’t believe I’m out of line by asking that you “abstain from making grossly inaccurate generalizations.”

Using your own words, if you "need" multiple hard drives but don't "want" a stack of externals, then isn't your desire for a Mac Pro a "want" and not a "need"? And what if you do video rendering? As a hobbyist, the iMac doesn't afford you enough processing power to do this? Is it also a "need" for a hobbyist to require his video be rendered at the fastest possible speed at a proportionally higher cost, or can you get by with less? In my opinion, these are still ego purchases because it still seems that you simply can't live without the biggest and the best even though a less expensive, albeit less perfect product would suit your requirements just fine.

Just because something is a “want” and not a “need” does not make it an “ego purchase”. This is the kind of unwarranted conclusion I’m referring to. There is no basis in fact for this conclusion and the way you state it is an insult to people who may have legitimate reasons for buying a pro-level machine that are not based on making money.

If the iMac can give you 75% of what you want at 35% of the cost, it doesn't make sense to spend 2x-3x the price for that extra 25%. But if that last 25% is such a big deal for you, then you will find a way to justify the purchase and pay Apple what it's asking. It's all about whether you can justify the purchase, and that was the point I was trying to make.

My point is that it’s not an “ego” thing to want to pay a premium for that “extra 25%”. In addition to gaining extra capability, you can also gain a computer that will do its job for a longer period of time. Some of us don’t like to buy a new computer every few years. If I spend more now, it means I’ll likely get more years out of the machine, which means it will be worth the extra money.

, Apple seems to think, and probably with good cause, that the majority of its Pro users can justify the purchase. Whether that justification is for financial or emotional reasons is up to the individual buyer.

The problem with your conclusions is that you cannot grasp the fact that there are reasons other than “financial or emotional” that factor into the decision to buy a machine like the MacPro. There are a great many practical reasons why someone might want or need a MacPro that have nothing to do with status or making money. Just because you don’t understand that is no reason to insult these people by claiming they’re making an “ego purchase”.

 

[AidenShaw]

They announced it on March 3rd, they're just charging $1000 more for it than they used to.

A crippled, humonguous Mac Pro with an outrageous price tag is not the xMac.

Think mid-priced, mid-sized, mid-tower with desktop chips - that's an xMac.

You can't put a 4 cylinder engine in a Hummer and call it a compact !!

 

[BenRoethig]

A crippled, humongous Mac Pro with an outrageous price tag is not the xMac.

The only thing crippled is that Ive wouldn't make it wider for two extra DIMM slots. Its as capable as any high end desktop/low end workstation on that market. It just costs twice as much. When it comes to size, its very close to studio XPS 435.

Also, the original term for xMac was a workstation above the PowerMac which the Mac Pro is.

Think mid-priced, mid-sized, mid-tower with desktop chips - that's an xMac.

You can't put a 4 cylinder engine in a Hummer and call it a compact !!

What you seem to want is the Mac version of a middle end mATX machine. Sort of a modern equivalent to the cube.

 

[AidenShaw]

The only thing crippled is that Ive wouldn't make it wider for two extra DIMM slots. Its as capable as any high end desktop/low end workstation on that market.

8 GiB RAM support is "crippled". Lack of full tri-channel support is "crippled".

When it comes to size, its very close to studio XPS 435.

Yes, it's about the same size as the humonguous Dell Studio XPS 435.

They both are about twice the size of the "Studio XPS" though...

What you seem to want is the Mac version of a middle end mATX machine.

No, a small mid-tower ATX like the Studio XPS would be fine.

- 36 x 17 x 44 cm (compared to 51 x 21 x 48 for MP).
- 5 disk bays - 3 3.5" + 2 5.25" (compared to 4 + 2)
- $799 with 2.66 GHz Nehalem quad, 3 Gib (compared to $2499)

http://www.dell.com/content/product...desktop-studioxps-435mt?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

Sort of a modern equivalent to the cube.

You almost made me throw up a little....

 

[GodWhomIsMike]

Is there a way to still buy the 2008 (8-core) Mac Pro? I'd love to snag one at ~ $2100 and be able to add Apple Care to it.

 

[drsmithy]

What you seem to want is the Mac version of a middle end mATX machine. Sort of a modern equivalent to the cube.

No. The Cube was an overpriced fashion accessory.

What people want is a machine that sits between the Mac Mini/iMac, and the Mac Pro. Most seem like they would be happy with "half a low-end Mac Pro":

• Core i7 920 CPU
• 3-4 DIMM slots
• 2 hard disk bays
• 1 optical drive bay
• 2-3 expansion slots (x16, x8, x4 or x1 - all mechanically x16)
• $1299

Machines like that would walk off the shelves faster than Apple could ever hope to manufacture them, even at that relatively high price. Of course, they'd also slaughter higher-margin, low-end Mac Pro sales, which is why it hasn't happened.

 

[BenRoethig]

Yes, it's about the same size as the humongous Dell Studio XPS 435.

They both are about twice the size of the "Studio XPS" though...

And twice the capability in some areas. You get half the number of hard drives and only one x16 (regular height) slot and 3 x1 slots. In a lot of ways, the Studio XPS is trying to simulate an i5 setup by not using the i7/x58 combo to their potential.

No, a small mid-tower ATX like the Studio XPS would be fine

Its Micro ATX. Four expansion slots instead of seven.

 

[BenRoethig]

No. The Cube was an overpriced fashion accessory.

What people want is a machine that sits between the Mac Mini/iMac, and the Mac Pro. Most seem like they would be happy with "half a low-end Mac Pro":

• Core i7 920 CPU
• 3-4 DIMM slots
• 2 hard disk bays
• 1 optical drive bay
• 2-3 expansion slots (x16, x8, x4 or x1 - all mechanically x16)
• $1299

Machines like that would walk off the shelves faster than Apple could ever hope to manufacture them, even at that relatively high price. Of course, they'd also slaughter higher-margin, low-end Mac Pro sales, which is why it hasn't happened.

I think it would do well with the medium end mATX crowd, but honestly to me, it would be a slight improvement over the cube. You'd also probably have to deal with the SFF C2Qs instead other i7.

 

[AidenShaw]

Let's look at the Studio XPS in comparison:

Dr. Smithy's xMac        Dell XPS Studio
---------------------    --------------------------
Core i7 920 CPU          Core i7 920 CPU
3-4 DIMM slots           [B]6 DIMM slots[/B]
2 hard disk bays         [B]3 hard disk bays[/B]
1 optical drive bay      [B]2 optical bays[/B]
2-3 expansion slots      [B]4 slots[/B]
 (x16, x8, x4 or x1,      (1 x x16, 3 x x1,
  [B]all x16 sockets[/B])         1 x x16, 3 x x1)
$1299                    [B]$799[/B]

Machines like that would walk off the shelves faster than Apple could ever hope to manufacture them, even at that relatively high price. Of course, they'd also slaughter higher-margin, low-end Mac Pro sales, which is why it hasn't happened.

I can't imagine that Apple wouldn't make more total profit with the mini-tower. Sales of the quad MP can't be very good.

By the way, don't hope for 4 DIMM slots. If you have 3 or 6, you can run full tri-channel. With 4, the 4th slot is unbalanced. Not a huge hit, and once 4 GiB DIMMs are out you'll be able to do 12 GiB with 3 DIMMs (but probably cost a fortune at first).

 

[purfledspruce]

another reason for Mac Pros

This is ludicrously simplistic, insulting and just plain wrong. There are many reasons why someone might buy a MacPro other than to make money. If you think the only reason (besides business) is as a “status symbol”, you have no clue. What if you need multiple hard drives, but don’t want a stack of externals? You need a MacPro. What if you do video rendering? You don’t have to be a Pro to appreciate the power that a MacPro gives you.

Some of us have reasons for wanting a MacPro that have nothing to do with status, ego or making money. It would be appreciated if you could abstain from making grossly inaccurate generalizations in the future.

The previous Mac Pro was the cheapest computer around. I figure it would last for at least 6+ years for desktop use, what with its speed and its higher-quality parts. If you amortize $2699 over six years and compare that cost to buying 2 or even 3 PCs, your per month cost is significantly lower with the Mac Pro. It can be as much as 25% cheaper depending on how long you expect the Pro to last, or what your experience with PCs is (mine is that they last 2.5 years, but YMMV.)

And that's not even including the time loss dealing with viruses, spyware, reinstalls, upgrades, and data transfer and program installations when buying a new computer, all of which take longer on PCs than on Macs.

Too bad Apple changed the equation by $500++, the new computer is not close to the value that the previous generation had...

 

[AidenShaw]

You get half the number of hard drives and only one x16 (regular height) slot and 3 x1 slots.

Umm, the XPS has 5 drive bays - you can put an optical and 4 3.5" drives in it. (you'll need a SATA controller for the 5th drive, there are 4 SATA ports on the mobo).

The majority of popular consumer cards are PCIe x1 - so that's reasonable in a $799 system.

In a lot of ways, the Studio XPS is trying to simulate an i5 setup by not using the i7/x58 combo to their potential.

It's $799 - sounds like a great value.

If I want SLI/Cross
fire I'll get a different system.

Its Micro ATX. Four expansion slots instead of seven.

Actually it's neither - Dell uses custom form factor boards in most of its systems. Only in a few low end systems do they put standard ATX boards.

(And, by the way, ATX specifies dimensions and connections - not the number of slots. ATX boards can have up to 7 slots - including 4.

http://developer.intel.com/design/motherbd/atx.htm )

 

[drsmithy]

I think it would do well with the medium end mATX crowd, but honestly to me, it would be a slight improvement over the cube. You'd also probably have to deal with the SFF C2Qs instead other i7.

It would become a cornerstone of Apple's presence business market. While, as others have said, the maths are different if you're using the hardware to generate income, no finance department enjoys paying $2500 for a task ~$1000 worth of hardware could do just as well.

I also fail to see any reason why this machine would need to use Core 2 instead of i7. Particularly at the price point I specified (which is significant higher than the Dell equivalent, but I figure lots of people will be prepared to pay a 50% "Apple tax").

 

[BenRoethig]

It would become a cornerstone of Apple's presence business market. While, as others have said, the maths are different if you're using the hardware to generate income, no finance department enjoys paying $2500 for a task ~$1000 worth of hardware could do just as well.

I also fail to see any reason why this machine would need to use Core 2 instead of i7. Particularly at the price point I specified (which is significant higher than the Dell equivalent, but I figure lots of people will be prepared to pay a 50% "Apple tax").

The Mac Pro SP uses the Xeon 3500 which is the i7 with ECC support enabled. Differentiation of lines. Besides, the majority of potential buyers of a smaller mid-grade machine aren't going to be in the high end i7 market but rather want a bit of power on a budget. Most i7 class users are looking for a full tower.

 

[AidenShaw]

The Mac Pro SP uses the Xeon 3500 which is the i7 with ECC support enabled. Differentiation of lines.

It amazes me how so many people defend Apple's shenanigans to boost margins and segment (that is, upsell) to higher profit systems.

In the rest of the world, it seems that customers try to get what the want, and at a good value.

Besides, the majority of potential buyers of a smaller mid-grade machine aren't going to be in the high end i7 market but rather want a bit of power on a budget.

Earth to Ben - Dell is selling the Core i7 for $799 - that's a "bit of power on a budget" in my book.

The mini-tower will be for people who want more power than the laptop-based systems.

Most i7 class users are looking for a full tower.

Link?

 

[BenRoethig]

It amazes me how so many people defend Apple's shenanigans to boost margins and segment (that is, upsell) to higher profit systems.

In the rest of the world, it seems that customers try to get what the want, and at a good value.

I'm not, the quad Mac Pro is $800-1000 overpriced.

Earth to Ben - Dell is selling the Core i7 for $799 - that's a "bit of power on a budget" in my book.

$799 is nearly at cost with the cheapest components they could find.

The mini-tower will be for people who want more power than the laptop-based systems.[/quote]

A SFF core 2 quad wouldn't be more power? They seem to be good enough for HP Voodoo's firebird gaming system. What if you want less or more power or a machine that is a little more quiet? With a core i7 in a small case you really don't have any of those options, its 2.66ghz or bust.

Link?

You've been around the cultists too long, you're starting to pick up their mannerisms. There's not going to be a detailed database of all i7s sold and how they're going to be used. The question is why would anybody want a 130w CPU in a shoebox like that, the fan would be going constantly as the case isn't designed to cool it.

 

[drsmithy]

The Mac Pro SP uses the Xeon 3500 which is the i7 with ECC support enabled. Differentiation of lines.

They'd be differentiated by the "Xeon" name, greater internal expansion capacity, substantially higher bus bandwith (eg: four full x16 slots), and the like, just like every other vendor does for their "pro" workstations.

Besides, the majority of potential buyers of a smaller mid-grade machine aren't going to be in the high end i7 market but rather want a bit of power on a budget. Most i7 class users are looking for a full tower.

I disagree. I think a machine that can take two hard disks and has a replaceable video card, would easily capture the vast bulk of people who aren't happy with either a Mac Mini or an iMac. A couple of extra expansion slots is some gravy to get most of those who would be left.

The problem Apple has is that most people buying the Mac Pro, aren't doing so because it has 8 cores and gobs of bus bandwidth. They're doing it because they want only a bit more power than an iMac and/or want to attach multiple monitors (the latter is certainly the only reason we buy Mac Pros for our radiologists - for everything else they do, a Mini would be sufficient). Hence, a machine that provided that, would have a very noticable negative impact on Mac Pro sales.

 

[AidenShaw]

I'm not, the quad Mac Pro is $800-1000 overpriced.

And at least 50% larger than it needs to be.

$799 is nearly at cost with the cheapest components they could find.

Dell can't afford cheap components. The Intel CPU, disks, memory, chipset are the same name brands that Apple uses.

Dell doesn't spend a lot of money on making the inside of the case a thing of beauty - which is fine by me.[/QUOTE]

A SFF core 2 quad wouldn't be more power? They seem to be good enough for HP Voodoo's firebird gaming system.

I'm not, the quad Mac Pro is $800-1000 overpriced.




$799 is nearly at cost with the cheapest components they could find.

The mini-tower will be for people who want more power than the laptop-based systems.

A SFF core 2 quad wouldn't be more power? They seem to be good enough for HP Voodoo's firebird gaming system. What if you want less or more power or a machine that is a little more quiet? With a core i7 in a small case you really don't have any of those options, its 2.66ghz or bust.



You've been around the cultists too long, you're starting to pick up their mannerisms. There's not going to be a detailed database of all i7s sold and how they're going to be used. The question is why would anybody want a 130w CPU in a shoebox like that, the fan would be going constantly as the case isn't designed to cool it.[/QUOTE]

 

[AidenShaw]

I'm not, the quad Mac Pro is $800-1000 overpriced.

And at least 50% larger than it needs to be.

$799 is nearly at cost with the cheapest components they could find.

Dell can't afford cheap components. The Intel CPU, disks, memory, chipset are the same name brands that Apple uses.

Dell doesn't spend a lot of money on making the inside of the case a thing of beauty - which is fine by me.[/QUOTE]

A SFF core 2 quad wouldn't be more power? They seem to be good enough for HP Voodoo's firebird gaming system.

Why introduce a new line of computers at Apple, and use a processor that's nearly EOL?

Apple would be crazy to not use Nehalem, since the new SSE4.2 instructions do so much for Apple's media users in speeding up encoding/decoding and other media tasks.

What if you want less or more power or a machine that is a little more quiet? With a core i7 in a small case you really don't have any of those options, its 2.66ghz or bust. ... The question is why would anybody want a 130w CPU in a shoebox like that, the fan would be going constantly as the case isn't designed to cool it.

How insulting to Dell that you claim that "the case isn't designed to cool it". Dell systems on the whole have impressively quiet cooling (based on using many of the mid-range and upper systems - there may be some $399 Costco specials that aren't as quiet).

The reviews of the Studio XPS mini-tower all comment on how quiet the system is (although a few people also noted that the power-on test of the fans is impressively loud).

 

[BenRoethig]

And at least 50% larger than it needs to be.

Only if you're at the lower end of the tower spectrum.

They'd be differentiated by the "Xeon" name, greater internal expansion capacity, substantially higher bus bandwith (eg: four full x16 slots), and the like, just like every other vendor does for their "pro" workstations.

Most power users are smart enough to know the only difference between core and xeon 3000-series is marketing. Also, it doesn't have x16 slots, it has four x16 connectors two of which are x4 slots.

I disagree. I think a machine that can take two hard disks and has a replaceable video card, would easily capture the vast bulk of people who aren't happy with either a Mac Mini or an iMac. A couple of extra expansion slots is some gravy to get most of those who would be left.

I would agree with that. Such a machine would please your average mini-tower user.

The problem Apple has is that most people buying the Mac Pro, aren't doing so because it has 8 cores and gobs of bus bandwidth.

They're not doing so because the quad core is astronomically overpriced to what you get and the 8-core is now priced similar to Dell's margins where it used to be a bargin.

They're doing it because they want only a bit more power than an iMac and/or want to attach multiple monitors (the latter is certainly the only reason we buy Mac Pros for our radiologists - for everything else they do, a Mini would be sufficient). Hence, a machine that provided that, would have a very noticable negative impact on Mac Pro sales.

Well, the mini now has the same connectors and capabilities of a Mac Pro. But I know what you're talking about, the more or less average "Best Buy/Staples" type user who wants something without the attached monitor or mobile platform. One of many segments under served by Apple.