Updated Mac Pro Benchmarks and Video of Internals

[50548]

This update still looks like a price increase and a downgrade to the base (non BTO) model.

And don't forget the ram limitation in the new quad, that's a deal breaker for many pro users and unquestionably another downgrade.



Um, what?

The benchmarks show that the new machines ARE more expensive and less of a value. Are you looking at the same benchmarks as the rest of us?

And based on the benchmarks, these are NOT the fastest machines in the world by any stretch of the imagination, there have been faster benchmarks posted on other machines.

1 - I've looked at the same benchmarks, and they OBVIOUSLY show that a much-lower clocked MP beats the pants out of the 2008 models. If this is not better, I don't know what it is. As for prices, they are competitively priced with any other branded PC out there...frankenmacs and acme chinese PCs don't count, of course.

2 - They ARE the fastest and most powerful machines in the world right now, regardless of whether you believe it or not as a PC fanboy. There is NO OTHER personal workstation that is faster than the new MPs, especially because there is NO OTHER PC using the newest chips.

3 - Blu-Ray is a BORNDEAD technology, as others have already explained. So unless you wanna be stuck with a deluxe backup solution (as useful as HD-DVD for that matter), they serve no other purpose than to make a machine more expensive and full of DRM hurt. And no, I don't wanna watch slightly better movies on a computer screen.

Again, negative comments are only admissible for those that can't or don't wanna afford it. The new MPs are the cream of the crop right now.

MS IS DEAD. DELL IS DEAD. BLU-RAY IS DEAD.

 

[drsmithy]

The 7400 series hasn't gone Nehalem yet. I ordered two servers with the 7400 series in them. Cost you guys (Americans) 18k per server. 16 Core (no HT) 2.4 Ghz rig with 24GB of ram. It is pretty sweet. Now, for the price you paid, we could have gotten the same speed with 24 cores (at the time only the 16 core option existed).

Seems an awfully small amount of RAM for that much CPU power. What's it for ?

 

[diamond.g]

Seems an awfully small amount of RAM for that much CPU power. What's it for ?

Ironically? We run a bunch of servers off of it virtually. Luckily enough we aren't really stressing the RAM nor CPU's in the system (8 VM's running so far). We were originally going to put in 64GB of RAM, but got permission after the order had gone out (because the config we went with was seen as cheap).

If we order any more for our site here, it will be 128GB, 24+ Core as fast as we can buy.... I actually had support for taking my little network here all Mac, but lack of decent server hardware kinda killed that dream.

EDIT: Our power draw has gone down since we started consolidating the servers.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

You're still not getting it. You price a product according to what you think the market will bear, factoring your competition into the equation. Sometimes that means keeping your prices the same, other times lowering prices, and sometimes raising prices. It's a commodity like anything else.

You cannot claim the Mac Pros are overpriced unless you give an apples-to-apples comparison (pardon the pun) of similar Nehalem based products from other mainstream manufacturers. Saying that today's Nehalem Mac Pro is overpriced simply because it is higher priced than last year's model, without any direct comparisons to other vendors' products, is just not a valid argument. Using your logic, a better statement might be "the Mac Pros are priced higher than last year's models" instead of injecting a value judgment by saying they are "overpriced". If you are going to make that assertion, you should back it up with comparisons to other PRODUCTS, not just links to component costs.

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.

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

 

[Umbongo]

You're still not getting it. You price a product according to what you think the market will bear, factoring your competition into the equation. Sometimes that means keeping your prices the same, other times lowering prices, and sometimes raising prices. It's a commodity like anything else.

You cannot claim the Mac Pros are overpriced unless you give an apples-to-apples comparison (pardon the pun) of similar Nehalem based products from other mainstream manufacturers. Saying that today's Nehalem Mac Pro is overpriced simply because it is higher priced than last year's model, without any direct comparisons to other vendors' products, is just not a valid argument. Using your logic, a better statement might be "the Mac Pros are priced higher than last year's models" instead of injecting a value judgment by saying they are "overpriced". If you are going to make that assertion, you should back it up with comparisons to other PRODUCTS, not just links to component costs.

Are we forbidden from using the retail cost of individual components for comparison then?

 

[50548]

Are we forbidden from using the retail cost of individual components for comparison then?

Of course you are forbidden...individual components have never represented the sole value of the whole...otherwise everybody would be priced the same way.

 

[Flavioparentiq]

Are we forbidden from using the retail cost of individual components for comparison then?

From when the individual components reflects the FULL cost of a computer system? What about the build engineering, the primary material costs, the shipping cost (related to fuel), in a word, the derivative cost. You can't say an item is overpriced looking only the individual components and not the full drawing...

 

[iMacmatician]

2 - They ARE the fastest and most powerful machines in the world right now, regardless of whether you believe it or not as a PC fanboy. There is NO OTHER personal workstation that is faster than the new MPs, especially because there is NO OTHER PC using the newest chips.

For the next few weeks…

 

[Umbongo]

Of course you are forbidden...individual components have never represented the sole value of the whole...otherwise everybody would be priced the same way.

But as a buyer that is irrelvent to me. If I can build a system that has the exact same features and performance to me as a Mac Pro would but for $1000 less then the Mac Pro is "overpriced" from my perspective. Why do I care if Apple are the same price as Dell or HP if all of them are charging $1,000 more for the same hardware I can easily obtain?

 

[suderman]

3 - Blu-Ray is a BORNDEAD technology, as others have already explained. So unless you wanna be stuck with a deluxe backup solution (as useful as HD-DVD for that matter), they serve no other purpose than to make a machine more expensive and full of DRM hurt. And no, I don't wanna watch slightly better movies on a computer screen.

I think those who really want Blu-Ray in their machines are probably involved in video creation and want to be able to offer their clients a high def product. Instead a work-around solution, it would be nice if Apple offered an "official" means to distribute our own high def content.

 

[Flavioparentiq]

But as a buyer that is irrelvent to me. If I can build a system that has the exact same features and performance to me as a Mac Pro would but for $1000 less then the Mac Pro is "overpriced" from my perspective. Why do I care if Apple are the same price as Dell or HP if all of them are charging $1,000 more for the same hardware I can easily obtain?

Ehm... no.. you can't. Why? Because xeon nehalems are not yet in the market. Of course, as soon as they will come out, you can run to ebay and get a super cheap powerful computer. Then if it breaks, well, you can use the plenty of time you have to find the components and replace them. Or even upgrade them again! How I miss those good old "do-it-yourself" days...

In the meantime why don't you buy yourself a xbox360? It sounds like it could be more suited for you than a mac pro.

 

[50548]

But as a buyer that is irrelvent to me. If I can build a system that has the exact same features and performance to me as a Mac Pro would but for $1000 less then the Mac Pro is "overpriced" from my perspective. Why do I care if Apple are the same price as Dell or HP if all of them are charging $1,000 more for the same hardware I can easily obtain?

This is at the core of the concepts of welfare and "willingness to buy"...how many people obtain enjoyment from assembling their own computer, or have their demand satisfied by such hobbyist actions? 1%? 2%?

That's exactly why Apple is SO successful in the mainstream market nowadays...they anticipate demand and create it with a measure of welfare that is way beyond geeky needs manifested in this forum.

 

[Flavioparentiq]

I think those who really want Blu-Ray in their machines are probably involved in video creation and want to be able to offer their clients a high def product. Instead a work-around solution, it would be nice if Apple offered an "official" means to distribute our own high def content.

As an indipendent film maker, i find the blu-ray burners very useful for festival (if you shot in full Hd 1080p, or if you work on hi-def animation projects).

But then again, you can buy them for 400$ and plug them in the mac pro

 

[Tallest Skil]

But then again, you can buy them for 400$ and plug them in the mac pro

Yow, from where are you being ripped off?

I bought a BD-RE DL/HD DVD-ROM drive in March 2007 for $327 (6x BD-R burn), and that same drive was $100 on Black Friday last year.

 

[Umbongo]

Ehm... no.. you can't. Why? Because xeon nehalems are not yet in the market. Of course, as soon as they will come out, you can run to ebay and get a super cheap powerful computer. Then if it breaks, well, you can use the plenty of time you have to find the components and replace them. Or even upgrade them again! How I miss those good old "do-it-yourself" days...

In the meantime why don't you buy yourself a xbox360? It sounds like it could be more suited for you than a mac pro.

I can preorder everything and have them arrive before some of the custom configs from Apple so I don't think that argument holds much weight and some of the stories of dealing with the genius bar and Applecare aren't exactly that of a trouble free purchasing experience. And you have absolutely no idea of my computing hardware needs, but thanks for the insulting tip anyway.

This is at the core of the concepts of welfare and "willingness to buy"...how many people obtain enjoyment from assembling their own computer, or have their demand satisfied by such hobbyist actions? 1%? 2%?

That's exactly why Apple is SO successful in the mainstream market nowadays...they anticipate demand and create it with a measure of welfare that is way beyond geeky needs manifested in this forum.

But it is those with geeky needs who mostly are discussing this, or do they have no right to voice their opinion?

 

[Flavioparentiq]

Yow, from where are you being ripped off?

I bought a BD-RE DL/HD DVD-ROM drive in March 2007 for $327 (6x BD-R burn), and that same drive was $100 on Black Friday last year.

Didn't buy any, i just google mac pro blu ray and the FIRST link was :

http://www.mcetech.com/blu-ray/

Obviously you can find cheaper

 

[Flavioparentiq]

I can preorder everything and have them arrive before some of the custom configs from Apple so I don't think that argument holds much weight and some of the stories of dealing with the genius bar and Applecare aren't exactly that of a trouble free purchasing experience. And you have absolutely no idea of my computing hardware needs, but thanks for the insulting tip anyway.



But it is those with geeky needs who mostly are discussing this, or do they have no right to voice their opinion?

You are questioning everything, mac pro, apple care, apple's marketing, apple itself. What's the point? The thread's title is: "Updated Mac Pro Benchmarks and Video of Internals". Not Mac vs. Pc.

Again, Apple is a style of life. I've been assembling pc since 286, and I wouldn't go back to pc for anything, too much time lost in stupid tasks, stupid conflicts, stupid "do it yourself" jobs.

What I need is a fluid workflow, and that's all what apple is about.

You will always find cheaper equivalent hardware, you can use efix, you can build a super powerful hackintosh, whatever. For me (and i guess many others) it's just a loss of time. I can't be bothered anymore in this. I'd rather work 10 hours more a week and afford a Mac than working less and getting a pc (or assembled) equivalent.

But I understand that not anyone is as passionate as me about his work.

 

[FunkyChicken]

The internet is meant for whinging!

I thought the "internet is for porn"?? Man I'm sooo confused....

 

[50548]

You are questioning everything, mac pro, apple care, apple's marketing, apple itself. What's the point? The thread's title is: "Updated Mac Pro Benchmarks and Video of Internals". Not Mac vs. Pc.

Again, Apple is a style of life. I've been assembling pc since 286, and I wouldn't go back to pc for anything, too much time lost in stupid tasks, stupid conflicts, stupid "do it yourself" jobs.

What I need is a fluid workflow, and that's all what apple is about.

You will always find cheaper equivalent hardware, you can use efix, you can build a super powerful hackintosh, whatever. For me (and i guess many others) it's just a loss of time. I can't be bothered anymore in this. I'd rather work 10 hours more a week and afford a Mac than working less and getting a pc (or assembled) equivalent.

But I understand that not anyone is as passionate as me about his work.

This post sums it all up nicely...PC users, hobbyists and the assorted acmebrand-fanboys that populate this forum always try to convince us that the XSED-456464 box out there is cheaper and more powerful than a Mac...I am glad Apple doesn't see things this way, as a company DRIVEN by design, not profit; otherwise we would be participating in DellRumors now.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

3 - Blu-Ray is a BORNDEAD technology, as others have already explained. So unless you wanna be stuck with a deluxe backup solution (as useful as HD-DVD for that matter), they serve no other purpose than to make a machine more expensive and full of DRM hurt. And no, I don't wanna watch slightly better movies on a computer screen.

Except, of course, for the countless video professionals that apple professes to target with Final Cut Studio and the Mac Pro.

Right now Apple has a whole HD workflow that does not include the major HD media of this time.

Will streaming/download be the future of movies? yes.

Does streaming, at its current state in US markets, match the resolution, bitrate or compression of blu-ray for professional/presentation purposes?

Hell no. Not even close.

If you can't see the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD, than not only do you need to get off your high horse, you also need your eyes checked.

It sounds like you do not need Blu-Ray and that is fine. But do not pretend to speak for the professional market that can readily find Blu-Ray solutions on the PC (when we'd rather use a mac!).

 

[Flavioparentiq]

This post sums it all up nicely...PC users, hobbyists and the assorted acmebrand-fanboys that populate this forum always try to convince us that the XSED-456464 box out there is cheaper and more powerful than a Mac...I am glad Apple doesn't see things this way, as a company DRIVEN by design, not profit; otherwise we would be participating in DellRumors now.

I agree. But apple is driven by profit more than by design Let's say that they follow the design to make more profit and not vice versa...

 

[pohl]

The Castle(1997)

This post sums it all up nicely...PC users, hobbyists and the assorted acmebrand-fanboys that populate this forum always try to convince us that the XSED-456464 box out there is cheaper and more powerful than a Mac...

...and whenever they do, it always reminds me of how proud this man is of his house. (Except he's a lovable character because he doesn't troll forums.)

 

[thogs_cave]

So, any "pundits" or PC fanboys still saying that the new MPs are more expensive and less of a value than the previous ones? The new MacPros are simply the most powerful personal workstations in the world...there is simply no room for negative comments.

Sure there are. And I'm quite loyal to Apple, I've owned Macs for a very, very long time. I've also spent a good deal of money with Apple.

These are good machines, and bloody fast. But, there is no compelling reasons for any of us owning "older" (I have a 2008 8-core 2.8GHz) systems to upgrade, and given the price differential, if you can find an "older" machine (as one of my coworkers did after seeing the new ones), you get much more in the bang-for-the-buck.

Plus, I don't like Intel's decision to go to triple-channel, as it doesn't jibe well with eight RAM slots. Losing bandwidth when you max out memory is counter-intuitive.

Overall, it's a nice increment. But I don't see it as world-shattering, like the first G3, G5 or Pros were. (I skip the G4 because the software wasn't there to take advantage of it, and for some time the G3 seemed just as fast. Not to mention that whole clock-speed issue.)

It's fine to criticize. I still buy the hardware, it's excellent. But there is always room for improvement.

 

[pohl]

These are good machines, and bloody fast. But, there is no compelling reasons for any of us owning "older" (I have a 2008 8-core 2.8GHz) systems to upgrade...

I'm actually surprised that this isn't a foregone conclusion. Don't most people always skip at least one generation, if not more?

 

[iMacmatician]

Plus, I don't like Intel's decision to go to triple-channel, as it doesn't jibe well with eight RAM slots. Losing bandwidth when you max out memory is counter-intuitive.

The board actually has 12 or so RAM slots but Apple apparently gimped it to 8 slots because it was too big to fit in the case.