This'll help!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136033
Especially if you put it in a striped RAID.
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.
Updated Mac Pro Benchmarks and Video of Internals
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This'll help!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136033
Especially if you put it in a striped RAID.
I wonder where users are getting this as well.
Every time new hardware comes out someone asks if it'll run Snow Leopard or if it'll run it better than the previous hardware. OpenCL gets tossed around as well. I haven't seen it be nothing more than a nice sticker to slap on just like CUDA/PhysX and ATI Stream.
I have hopes for the new operating system but not until it's actually shipped and tested. We've seen plenty of WWDC/MacWorld demos that never evolve beyond that or a gimmick.
So... we are assuming the Mac Pros are "overpriced" because today's low-end Mac Pro offers about the same performance as last year's mid-level Mac Pro for $500 more?
The only valid basis of comparison for pricing of the Mac Pro is to compare it to machines using identical processors and subsystems from folks such as Dell and HP. Only then can you assess whether the Mac Pro is "overpriced" or not. You have to compare the Mac Pro to its mainstream competition, not to previous Mac Pro price history. Obviously the Nehalem architecture has changed things a little bit in terms of pricing. We assume that we know the whole story, but we don't.
Do Dell and HP have Nehalem yet? If so, what are their prices? If not, shouldn't we wait for the competition to at least CATCH UP before condemning the Mac Pro?
No Blu-ray, no sale.
You can't add a third-party Blu-Ray drive to a Mac Pro? Huh?
I just did a quick Google search and found a $449 La Cie external Blu-Ray drive. You'd rather hold off on buying a Mac Pro until there is a BTO option for Blu-Ray rather than get one now and buy a third party drive?
You make absolutely no sense my friend. You're obviously not someone who has a need for a machine like this, with that kind of attitude, so you shouldn't even be looking at a Mac Pro. Cut off your nose to spite your face.
Very true.
Also, I found it strange (not really
that the new h264 decoding improvements on newer macs/drivers are using opengl (like all those gsoc projects) and not opencl or any 'full' gpu solution. Ignoring the cpu, I'm not sure people understand that the gpu isn't another cpu and the g doesn't stand for general Even if it was, there's some serious drawbacks to sending data back and forth to the gpu.
No Blu-ray, no sale.
Just don't buy a Mac. You'll complain with or without Blu-ray.
I'm going to hazard a guess: it comes from Apple's penchant for secrecy. Technologies like Grand Central (and, until the spec was relased, OpenCL) were painted with only the broadest of brush strokes. This created a void that fans fill with optimistic imagination. This, in turn, creates a wave of hype that benefits Apple, but for which they are not responsible. As soon as SL is released and we discover that these things don't magically parallelize serial applications, the amateur hype volunteers will do a 180 with cries of "[citation needed]" whenever an Apple detractor says that Apple promised that they would.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
... and don't forget that 40% faster memory (that phrase has to be accompanied by a
All of the Mac Pros have Turbo Boost which increases clock speeds by 10-15% as dictated by workload. How does today's top-end Mac Pro at 3.3 GHz qualify as a "pitifully low clock speed" if, clock cycle for clock cycle, offers significant performance benefits over the last generation? Does the competition offer faster clock speed Nehalems? What is your basis for this assertion?
Wah wah wah
If the desktop update didn't prove to them that this is the wrong course of action, they are beyond hope at this point.
Omg
Wow ... I just pretend-configured a quad-core with one, 1 TB HD and the ATI Radeon HD 4870, no display, along with the Apple Care. That demon costs $3227 before tax!
It's such a beautiful design ... I kinda wish I hadn't pimped out my DELL XPS 1710 a while ago. I'd have saved money and been far happier with the Mac Pro and a Mac Book!
BTW, sorry if this was already mentioned, but what is the difference between the ATI HD 4870 and the nVidia GT 120 - besides price?
Wow ... I just pretend-configured a quad-core with one, 1 TB HD and the ATI Radeon HD 4870, no display, along with the Apple Care. That demon costs $3227 before tax!
It's such a beautiful design ... I kinda wish I hadn't pimped out my DELL XPS 1710 a while ago.
I'd have saved money and been far happier with the Mac Pro and a Mac Book! BTW, sorry if this was already mentioned, but what is the difference between the ATI HD 4870 and the nVidia GT 120 - besides price?
Just because it is an "HD" download doesn't mean it is even close to comparable with BD. The quality difference is big.
Wow ... I just pretend-configured a quad-core with one, 1 TB HD and the ATI Radeon HD 4870, no display, along with the Apple Care. That demon costs $3227 before tax!
It's such a beautiful design ... I kinda wish I hadn't pimped out my DELL XPS 1710 a while ago.
BTW, sorry if this was already mentioned, but what is the difference between the ATI HD 4870 and the nVidia GT 120 - besides price?
The 4870 is a far more powerful card.
...both in terms of performance and how much juice it sucks down and how much waste heat needs dissipation. As with everything: tradeoffs.
Right, when we're getting this much news from developer seeds and Apple is more than happy to show off their operating system at MacWorld/WWDC, etc.I'm going to hazard a guess: it comes from Apple's penchant for secrecy. Technologies like Grand Central (and, until the spec was relased, OpenCL) were painted with only the broadest of brush strokes. This created a void that fans fill with optimistic imagination. This, in turn, creates a wave of hype that benefits Apple, but for which they are not responsible. As soon as SL is released and we discover that these things don't magically parallelize serial applications, the amateur hype volunteers will do a 180 with cries of "[citation needed]" whenever an Apple detractor says that Apple promised that they would.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Software isn't the profit maker for Apple either.
[citation needed]
I thought the recipients of the seeds and those who saw Grand Central at WWDC were still under NDA. Since I wasn't among them, all I have is the broad brush strokes. I'd love to hear of any leaked details, though.
Keep in mind I did say "this much news from developer seeds".[citation needed]
I never said anything about NDAs being broken or that we're getting everything. Nice try though.
CPU Tray
The most interesting thing about the new MacPro is the CPU tray.
It's an excellent idea, not only for Apple, which will allow them to build a standard chassis and then merely slot in the requisite CPU tray on the production line (It also allows them to change the CPU architecture without having to re-engineer the chassis).
It also gives the possibility that in future Apple may sell CPU trays as an after-market upgrade.
For those disputing the cost of the memory. Remember, this is not your bog-standard DDR3 memory, it's got error correction/detection. This stuff is server grade and costs an arm and a leg.
The most interesting thing about the new MacPro is the CPU tray.
It's an excellent idea, not only for Apple, which will allow them to build a standard chassis and then merely slot in the requisite CPU tray on the production line (It also allows them to change the CPU architecture without having to re-engineer the chassis).
It also gives the possibility that in future Apple may sell CPU trays as an after-market upgrade.
For those disputing the cost of the memory. Remember, this is not your bog-standard DDR3 memory, it's got error correction/detection. This stuff is server grade and costs an arm and a leg.
I guess I'm still not clear on how much is "this much"; I can't tell if you're expressing agreement or disagreement. For what it's worth, I confess that I'm among the optimists that I'm making fun of a few posts ago.
Can only get the movies in HD if you do it from an AppleTV. AFAIK even then it is only renting, not owning.
Amen.
I totally agree with you.
It's incredible how many whiners there are.
At last, but not least, it's uselss to be anxious about your performances compared to newer systems. There will always be a bigger dick around. Sitck with yours and learn how to use it
LMAO!!!
So true...
Comparison between CPU pricing between generations is a perfectly valid comparison simply because that is precisely how Intel does things. Intel has fairly stable price points and when new models are released they directly replace processors in existing price points. Often older models remain at the same price point, alongside their replacements, and don't drop in price.So... we are assuming the Mac Pros are "overpriced" because today's low-end Mac Pro offers about the same performance as last year's mid-level Mac Pro for $500 more?
The only valid basis of comparison for pricing of the Mac Pro is to compare it to machines using identical processors and subsystems from folks such as Dell and HP. Only then can you assess whether the Mac Pro is "overpriced" or not. You have to compare the Mac Pro to its mainstream competition, not to previous Mac Pro price history. Obviously the Nehalem architecture has changed things a little bit in terms of pricing. We assume that we know the whole story, but we don't.
Do Dell and HP have Nehalem yet? If so, what are their prices? If not, shouldn't we wait for the competition to at least CATCH UP before condemning the Mac Pro?
Case in point is the new 2.66GHz T9550 Core 2 Duo processor that Apple just introduced in the 15.4" MacBook Pro to replace the previous 2.53GHz T9400. Apple didn't put in a more expensive processor, the 2.66GHz T9550 costs $316 and directly replaces the 2.53GHz T9400, which Intel is continuing to sell at $316. So Apple gets the 2.66GHz T9550 for no additional cost and they just decided to pass that on to consumers.
Regardless of factors in performance, the raw CPU value of a system is based on what price point of CPU you choose to put in.
In the case of the Mac Pro, the previous standard configuration offered 2 x 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown Xeon at $797 each for $1594 worth of processors in a $2799 system. The new standard Mac Pro configuration offers 1 x 2.66GHz 3500 series Nehalem based Xeon, most likely the W3520 Bloomfield which costs $284. It's basically a Core i7 920 with additional verification. So before you had a $2799 system with $1594 worth of processors and now you have a $2499 system with $284 worth of processors. Apple reduced the price by $300, but they are still using $1000 cheaper processors.
Now Nehalem may be more expensive to design for, and the new Mac Pro does have layout changes, but is it worth $1000? Keep in mind that the new Nehalem processors have the memory controller bundled into the price now since it's on chip. Thermal requirements are also reduced since the old Mac Pro had to deal with 2 x 150W TDP processors, while the new ones only have to deal with 2 x 95W TDP processors. ECC DDR3 is also cooler than FB-DIMMs. The new CPU tray design is also enabled by Nehalem since the memory controller is on the CPU allowing a simple combined CPU/memory tray and would have been a lot more expensive and difficult to due before with Harpertown and an off-chip memory controller.
The previous 2.80GHz E5462 Harpertown remains at the $797 price point and it's direct replacement in it's price category is the 2.53GHz E5540 Gainestown which sells for $744 and is capable of dual processor configuration unlike the 3500 series Nehalem that Apple uses in the $2499 Mac Pro. The 2.26GHz E5520 only costs $373 each. Regardless of performance, so even if the new configuration is faster, Apple is now using processors at significantly lower price points than before, without a corresponding drop in Mac Pro pricing. Granted Intel may be charging Apple more for first dibs on Nehalem, but the difference isn't 20% or even 50%, it's several fold.
The evidence:
Price for 2.80GHz E5462 on last page and remains unchanged from the original $797 launch price even after the most recent Feb 09 price adjustments:
http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...1EA-87F8-410F752F12EF/Feb_22_09_1ku_Price.pdf
Launch pricing for 2.66GHz W3520 at $284:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-product-roadmap-2009,6384.html
Regarding the hardware itself, has anyone taken some pictures of the mac pro in detail? (like taking the case apart exposing the motherboard top to bottom)
that fan/bottom cage hides so much
that fan/bottom cage hides so much