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.
Why is everyone so Dissappointed?
- Thread starter thelongmorrow
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I looked through a few of those apps (Cinema 4D, Illustrator, Poser); none of that stuff requires a pro card, and as best as I can tell it does not even benefit from it. What you want is not a pro card, but instead you want a faster card. Any high-end GeForce or Radeon would work for you as pro cards do not come with higher clock speeds; in this case the best you could do is a GeForce GTX285.
Now there is an issue with memory sizes, but given the handful of products involved, it's practically trivial. 2GB cards like the 4870X2 you mentioned aren't actually 2GB, but instead 1GB replicated to 2 GPUs. If you actually needed more than 1GB of VRAM, your only options would be FireGL variants of the very slow Radeon 3870, or the Quadro variant of the GTX285, the Quadro FX5800. The FX5800 packs 4GB of VRAM but again is slower than the GTX285 since it uses high density GDDR3 that doesn't clock nearly as high, as such it only has 66% the memory bandwidth.
My point being, that unless you are running something that is VRAM limited and absolutely needs 2GB or 4GB of VRAM and will not in any way be impacted by the reduced speed of such cards, you do not want a pro card. What you want is a high-end general use (i.e. gaming) card like everyone else.
Well judging by this post it looks as though the old base Mac pro out performs the new base Mac pro.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7206034/
And in the UK the new base model costs more that the previous, so if the above post proves to be correct you'd be paying more for less, and I think that's a valid reason to be disappointed
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7206034/
And in the UK the new base model costs more that the previous, so if the above post proves to be correct you'd be paying more for less, and I think that's a valid reason to be disappointed
It's hard to have an issue with something we know nothing about.
Thermal issues will only surface when the machines get out there.
Looking at the pullout tray picture, I have my doubts about airflow.
But to talk of thermal inadequacies is premature now.
More than plenty for some, not nearly enough for others. What grates
here is that the limit is entirely artificial. There is plenty of room in the
case for more slots. Apple have just left an empty space there. I think
that's what annoys people.
Well judging by this post it looks as though the old base Mac pro out performs the new base Mac pro.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7206034/
And in the UK the new base model costs more that the previous, so if the above post proves to be correct you'd be paying more for less, and I think that's a valid reason to be disappointed
I'm curious how you think that that is a valid comparison.
The Gainestown Mac Pro is NOT CORE i7.
The 3500 series Mac Pro is NOT CORE i7.
Well... okay, the 3500 series is a rebranded Bloomfield with ECC support...
But you can't compare a Xeon to a Bloomfield because Gainestown ISN'T Bloomfield!
Gainestown will be FASTER than Harpertown, which, apparently, is faster than Bloomfield somehow.
And all that that means is that the new Mac Pro is leagues faster than the old one and standard Bloomfield.
That's a near perfect (yet preliminary) comparison, it clearly shows that the early 2008 2.8 8 core base model mac pro out performs a hackintosh that is nearly identical to the current 2.66 quad core base model mac pro.
The 920 is roughly the same (minus the EEC) as the processor that is shipping with the updated base mac pro.
Ergo it would appear that last years cheaper (in the UK) base model mac pro outperforms the current base model mac pro, and it can hold more ram.
Now when the actual mac pro is tested the benchmark results may very well differ, and to all intents it appears that if the new base model mac pro had included 8 cores it would have easily wiped the floor with last years base 2.8 octo system, even at much lower clock speeds, but because they've decided to only include a single quad core it looks at the moment that your getting less for more.
apple.com said:
Maybe not if I already have a dual-Nehalem system (non-Apple) to draw a relative comparison with?
Yes, the 4870X2 would work well in lieu of a professional card. But for 3D I want a Quadro or a FirePro and for a top dollar premium workstation like the MacPro, I should at least have the option to get it.
I only know about C4D, which is using the GPU for live previews in the editor window.
You don't need fast, you need big for that.
Without a 'pro' card for the MP, it isn't first choice for C4D, and I assume for many other 3D apps neither.
It's nice to know that you hold me to a higher standard than a huge percentage of this forum including yourself, but I have good reasons -
I know the airflow through the Pro, and that the cooling hardware is essentially unchanged with the new machine - there's no room for anything bigger. I know the relative thermal profile difference of a dual-nehalem system vs a dual-xeon system, both from the same non-Apple manufacturer. I also see the slot/drive heat mixing hasn't changed in the new machine.
I'd say that results in a better guess than most, don't you?
The heatsinks on the '09 MP look a little lean to me as well.
And I'm not the only one who likes HDD's, and even the PSU separated from the board area?
Separation does seem to work. Thermocouples/IR thermometers don't lie.
Need a "New" Mac Pro... But 2.66 or 2.93?
Hello all... I don't know what to think about the new Mac Pro, but I know that I do need one.
My question is... Is the 2.93 going to perform significantly over the 2.66? Is it worth the cost of upgrade?
I use the Final Cut Suite, the Adobe Master Collection (mostly After Effects, Encore, and Photoshop), and then some lesser processor intensive applications.
I have a Mac Pro on order with the following specs...
Two 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon Nehalem
12GB (6X2GB)
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
One 18x SuperDrive
Apple Mighty Mouse
APPLE KEYBD/USERS GUIDE
Country Kit Mac Pro
I will add additional HD's myself. I shoot with Sony SXS at 35 mb/s... Broadcast Quality HD.
Please let me know what you all think... I appreciate your help in advance.
Hello all... I don't know what to think about the new Mac Pro, but I know that I do need one.
My question is... Is the 2.93 going to perform significantly over the 2.66? Is it worth the cost of upgrade?
I use the Final Cut Suite, the Adobe Master Collection (mostly After Effects, Encore, and Photoshop), and then some lesser processor intensive applications.
I have a Mac Pro on order with the following specs...
Two 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon Nehalem
12GB (6X2GB)
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
One 18x SuperDrive
Apple Mighty Mouse
APPLE KEYBD/USERS GUIDE
Country Kit Mac Pro
I will add additional HD's myself. I shoot with Sony SXS at 35 mb/s... Broadcast Quality HD.
Please let me know what you all think... I appreciate your help in advance.
The heatsinks on the '09 MP look a little lean to me as well.
And I'm not the only one who likes HDD's, and even the PSU separated from the board area?
Separation does seem to work. Thermocouples/IR thermometers don't lie.
Yes, all those Apple mechanical engineers don't know what they are doing. After all, all those iMacs, Mac Minis, and Mac laptops all melt all the time. Of course they didn't pay attention to the thermal characteristics of the new Mac Pro.
Come on guys.....
S-
Well you will get 10% more performance. Only you can hope answer how much time that will save you over the lifetime of the system and how much that is worth to you.
I'm not saying they don't know what they're doing. It appeared to me that the space constraints forced some compromises that they otherwise would not have made.
Specifically, the depth of the fin surface (direction of airflow) , as they had to have a minimum surface area, and didn't have the room to widen it, as that would eliminate the board area needed for the DIMM slots.
You drew a good parallel, probably unknowingly. The problem that users like me have come across certainly with the just-superceded and older Pros is that the thermal reserve - if you like, the cooling capability of the system vs the load that it may be subjected to in an uncontrolled environment (but still within the specified parameters) - is in the distinctly consumer range.
If I try and use say a Dell Optiplex - a light business machine - let alone the likes of an iMac in the sort of environments that a professional workstation can be expected to still work in, I'll get instability pretty soon. A Dell Precision for example - a genuine pro workstation - on the other hand will keep on trucking.
Reasonably hostile environments are not actually that hard to find: A non air conditioned office which hits within a couple of degrees below 30C on a regular basis when manned and higher when not, with the machines running (even if idle) all the time will kill - or at least render mysteriously unstable - consumer machines in a fairly short time.
And the issue is that the Pro is not very different from the other Apple - and everyone else's - consumer offerings in that range of tolerance. If - such as in our case - it was impractical to air-condition a mildly hostile facility, the Pros were pretty useless until we wound up the fans to jet engine proportions. And as I said, I don't believe the new Pro will live up to the Pro moniker once again due to the very similar cooling configuration / imposed acoustic profile.
I had a similar problems with HP desktops in the P4 days, so it's certainly not unique to Apple - but the difference was that the HP's were light business PC's, not workstations.
I think everyone and myself is upset because of the pricing of the new Mac Pros.
The pricing has always been the same if not $50 or $100 (I guess this isnt the case of the new mac mini which is a $100 more but I think well worth it for the new upgrade) cheaper here or there. If you compare to the other lineups they all get new cpu, etc bump up in specs yet the prices are the same (in this case not with the new mac pros).
I'm going to wait it out and I have this strong feeling that prices WILL drop in the near future around summer time or back to school time.
Yes you've heard it from me here first, prices WILL DROP!!
The pricing has always been the same if not $50 or $100 (I guess this isnt the case of the new mac mini which is a $100 more but I think well worth it for the new upgrade) cheaper here or there. If you compare to the other lineups they all get new cpu, etc bump up in specs yet the prices are the same (in this case not with the new mac pros).
I'm going to wait it out and I have this strong feeling that prices WILL drop in the near future around summer time or back to school time.
Yes you've heard it from me here first, prices WILL DROP!!
Do you have a flame retardant suit ready at a given moments notice?
No lol but Apple's known to drop the prices with a little speed bump here or there. If anything I can see Apple just doing away with the 2.26ghz Mac Pro and bumping the lowest end now to the 2.66ghz and pricing it maybe at $2999 or even keeping it the same price as the current 2.26ghz and the 2.93ghz being the mid model when an even higher spec comes out in the later months.
I guess similar to as the 15" mbp got the silent bump to the 2.93ghz and 2.66ghz of the mid end models.
The new quads.. I dont even really consider them as workstations... the 8 core is a MUST!