Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > 8 Core Mac Pros Arrive

8 Core Mac Pros Arrive (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2007, 09:47 AM
 
PowerBook 15" 1.25G/1G/80G | iMac G5 17" 1.6G/1.5G/300G | MacBook Pro 15" CD2.0G/1.5G/120G | MacBook C2D 2.2G/4G/160G
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2007, 09:53 AM
 
So indeed Intel did cut Apple a special deal. They're selling limited production Xeons to Apple ahead of an official release. I'm wondering if this deal is exclusive to Apple - it sounds like it is. I guess the the two companies really like each other.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Live at the BBQ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2007, 10:13 AM
 
Well, I guess people can't bitch about the prices being so high if Apple is the only place you can get this product from... I think it's called free market economics.

I damn well can't afford one, but I'd say these are very reasonably priced. Especially considering that two folks on this thread priced out two similarly configured 8-core Dells with inferior processors, and the MacPro was still less expensive.

Is it me, or have Apple's ram prices come down a bit recently? I haven't looked there since about a month ago.
"Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows... how can you guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2007, 10:31 AM
 
Often times, a "limited production CPU" for Apple means higher wattage. Fortunately, these are big towers so they can handle the extra heat, but it will still be interesting to see how much louder these Mac Pros are compared to the quads.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2007, 10:58 AM
 
Ok so the wait was a waste of time .. I thought they finally upgrade the GFX .. so I guess I won't even order .. So you got 8 cores with 16 GB and you still cannot play decent games on it .... (used a 7300 on a PC and had to turn down details on F.E.A.R for example and not to mention the upcoming UT3)
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2007, 11:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by utw-Mephisto View Post
Ok so the wait was a waste of time .. I thought they finally upgrade the GFX .. so I guess I won't even order .. So you got 8 cores with 16 GB and you still cannot play decent games on it .... (used a 7300 on a PC and had to turn down details on F.E.A.R for example and not to mention the upcoming UT3)
WTF? Just get a decent GPU for your PC and be done with it (if your CPU is half-decent).
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2007, 11:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
WTF? Just get a decent GPU for your PC and be done with it (if your CPU is half-decent).
I don't have a normal PC anymore .. just Macs ...
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 12:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug
Often times, a "limited production CPU" for Apple means higher wattage. Fortunately, these are big towers so they can handle the extra heat, but it will still be interesting to see how much louder these Mac Pros are compared to the quads.
Intel in Italy simplly calls the chip Apple is using a X5365, not some special version of the chip. So, I wonder if this could be a 120 Watt chip (like the 2.66) after all.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The armpit of North London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by utw-Mephisto View Post
Ok so the wait was a waste of time .. I thought they finally upgrade the GFX .. so I guess I won't even order .. So you got 8 cores with 16 GB and you still cannot play decent games on it .... (used a 7300 on a PC and had to turn down details on F.E.A.R for example and not to mention the upcoming UT3)
If you intended to purchase an 8 core Mac Pro as a games machine then you must have more money than sense.......Geeezzzuuss!!
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by pantie sniffer View Post
If you intended to purchase an 8 core Mac Pro as a games machine then you must have more money than sense.......Geeezzzuuss!!
Lol. I love how a bunch of gamers are gonna buy it. Oh well, more sales for my favorite company
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 04:20 PM
 
Mac Pro for games? You can build a much better gaming PC for half the price.
Buy online Tramadola and watson Soma.
Best credit card applications, apply for a credit card.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by fmalone View Post
Mac Pro for games? You can build a much better gaming PC for half the price.
1209 (2418) - Quad Core 2.66
500 - Supermicro dual Socket 771 Motherboard
25 - ATX Case
145 - 700 Watt PowerSupply (after 30 rebate)
105 - 1GB RAM FB-DIMM
70 - 250GB 7200RPM SATA (after 20 rebate)
210 - 512MB HIS Radeion X1950 Pro (after 30 rebate)
30 - CD/DVD

Well, this isn't a gaming machine, but it's a computer similar to that of the Apple. It is $500 cheaper, but the CPU isn't as fast and there's no warranty (except for the parts individually) plus there's no tech support. with the $25 case it looks like ass.

You may be right about a gaming computer, but as a workstation, the MacPro is reasonably priced.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by fmalone View Post
Mac Pro for games? You can build a much better gaming PC for half the price.
We're computer enthusiast here. If it was so easy to build a system why didn't you give us some specs and prices? Ahhh see below.

Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
1209 (2418) - Quad Core 2.66
500 - Supermicro dual Socket 771 Motherboard
25 - ATX Case
145 - 700 Watt PowerSupply (after 30 rebate)
105 - 1GB RAM FB-DIMM
70 - 250GB 7200RPM SATA (after 20 rebate)
210 - 512MB HIS Radeion X1950 Pro (after 30 rebate)
30 - CD/DVD

Well, this isn't a gaming machine, but it's a computer similar to that of the Apple. It is $500 cheaper, but the CPU isn't as fast and there's no warranty (except for the parts individually) plus there's no tech support. with the $25 case it looks like ass.

You may be right about a gaming computer, but as a workstation, the MacPro is reasonably priced.
Ah yes and you had to use some "questionable" product as well. We all know you cannot get Mac Pro casing quality for $25. The "I can builld a PC for half the cost" is the early warning shriek of an idiot.

I know I can virtually ignore future posts from fmalone. There will be little actual content and much too much bluster.
http://hmurchison.blogspot.com/ highly opinionated ramblings free of charge :)
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brushton, New York (middle of nowhere)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 06:17 PM
 
I am happy about this. But I am still not satisfied on the consumer line:

1) There is no consumer tower, and no desktop form factor (The Mac Mini doesn't count!)
2) MacOS X is still hardware tied.
The Mac Collection:

Power Mac G4 Sawtooth at 450MHz, Power Mac G4 Gigabit Ethernet at 400MHz, three Power Mac FW800's at 1.0GHz, MacBook Pro at 2.0GHz, my late father's G3 iMac at 350MHz, an iMac at 500MHz, a PowerBook G4 (12-inch VGA) and a PowerBook 170
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brushton, New York (middle of nowhere)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 06:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
1209 (2418) - Quad Core 2.66
500 - Supermicro dual Socket 771 Motherboard
25 - ATX Case
145 - 700 Watt PowerSupply (after 30 rebate)
105 - 1GB RAM FB-DIMM
70 - 250GB 7200RPM SATA (after 20 rebate)
210 - 512MB HIS Radeion X1950 Pro (after 30 rebate)
30 - CD/DVD

Well, this isn't a gaming machine, but it's a computer similar to that of the Apple. It is $500 cheaper, but the CPU isn't as fast and there's no warranty (except for the parts individually) plus there's no tech support. with the $25 case it looks like ass.

You may be right about a gaming computer, but as a workstation, the MacPro is reasonably priced.
Problem is that it cannot run OS X.
The Mac Collection:

Power Mac G4 Sawtooth at 450MHz, Power Mac G4 Gigabit Ethernet at 400MHz, three Power Mac FW800's at 1.0GHz, MacBook Pro at 2.0GHz, my late father's G3 iMac at 350MHz, an iMac at 500MHz, a PowerBook G4 (12-inch VGA) and a PowerBook 170
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Northeastern292 View Post
Problem is that it cannot run OS X.
Yes it can. You can put OSx86 on it.

It's a hackintosh after all.
MacBook Pro T2500/1.5GB/100GB/256MB  iPod 20GB B&W  Mac mini 1.25/256MB/40GB/32MB  Dell 2.66/2GB/80GB/Intel Extreme Gfx
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brushton, New York (middle of nowhere)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 07:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by cherry su View Post
Yes it can. You can put OSx86 on it.

It's a hackintosh after all.
After working with BitTorrent, along with the lack of updates, I would prefer to have Apple release a legal version.

But it does help to think across those lines.
The Mac Collection:

Power Mac G4 Sawtooth at 450MHz, Power Mac G4 Gigabit Ethernet at 400MHz, three Power Mac FW800's at 1.0GHz, MacBook Pro at 2.0GHz, my late father's G3 iMac at 350MHz, an iMac at 500MHz, a PowerBook G4 (12-inch VGA) and a PowerBook 170
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 08:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Northeastern292 View Post
After working with BitTorrent, along with the lack of updates, I would prefer to have Apple release a legal version.

But it does help to think across those lines.
And that's not going to happen, because if it did the PC box stuffers would eat Apple's hardware division alive.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 09:02 PM
 
A strange and somewhat disappointing upgrade... they could have offered chips 90% as fast as a drop-in upgrade like this one months ago... and no change to memory ceiling, memory prices, stock disk/memory capacity, video card options, so many things that have improved in the last 8 months.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 09:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
A strange and somewhat disappointing upgrade... they could have offered chips 90% as fast as a drop-in upgrade like this one months ago... and no change to memory ceiling, memory prices, stock disk/memory capacity, video card options, so many things that have improved in the last 8 months.

Upon first reflection it's strange but then when logic sets in it's easier to realize that:

1. Bensely is all we have. The next motherboard refresh doesn't hit until late 2007 with Stoakley featuring Penryn procs. We can't expect Apple to reinvent the wheel here. Memory configs are going to stay the same. PCI Express lanes will stay the same.

2. GPU...now Apple certainly "could" deliver 8600/8800 class GPU for Tiger and today's Mac Pro. However this is Apple and they are conservative about many things. I expect that we'll see the nextgen Nvidia stuff when Leopard is out because Apple doesn't want to develop OpenGL 1.4 and OpenGL 2.x drivers. Makes sense from a standpoint of QA and saving resources but makes little sense to consumers naturally.

I think the push to move to Leopard will be spurred by Leopard only applications as well as Leopard only GPU and Leopard only support for HD DVD and Blu-ray.
http://hmurchison.blogspot.com/ highly opinionated ramblings free of charge :)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 09:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by cherry su View Post
Yes it can. You can put OSx86 on it.

It's a hackintosh after all.
Hack OS X : Mac OS X :: picture below : woman

Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 09:34 PM
 
EDIT: WTF? I didn't hit the button that many times.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 09:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Hack OS X : Mac OS X :: picture below : woman

<le image>
lolz.

That's like the Mac vs PC commercial when they have the Home Movie showdown
MacBook Pro T2500/1.5GB/100GB/256MB  iPod 20GB B&W  Mac mini 1.25/256MB/40GB/32MB  Dell 2.66/2GB/80GB/Intel Extreme Gfx
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 09:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Northeastern292 View Post
I am happy about this. But I am still not satisfied on the consumer line:

1) There is no consumer tower, and no desktop form factor (The Mac Mini doesn't count!)
2) MacOS X is still hardware tied.
PC makers don't "design" towers. The tower case exists for one purpose only--as a generic enclosure for commodity components. That's not Apple's style. It has been shown that while consumers say they want expandability, very few of them ever take action to expand their machines. Instead, they just buy new machines.

And why don't the minis and the iMacs count as desktops?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 10:08 PM
 
The comment on PCs is something of a generalization. Most don't (it's cost-prohibitive when your margins are low), but a few have gone to the trouble of custom-engineering their cases.

You could say the iMac and Mac mini are desktops in the most literal sense. But there's a definite gap between them and the Mac Pro. Apple doesn't use Intel's desktop Core 2 Duo: your choice is either a mobile chip (albeit a fast one) or two dual-core Xeons, very little expandability versus quite a lot. I'm not going to argue in favour of a middle system, but even the iMac is more like a desktop replacement notebook on its side.

Originally Posted by chabig View Post
PC makers don't "design" towers. The tower case exists for one purpose only--as a generic enclosure for commodity components. That's not Apple's style. It has been shown that while consumers say they want expandability, very few of them ever take action to expand their machines. Instead, they just buy new machines.

And why don't the minis and the iMacs count as desktops?
24-inch iMac Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 10:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Northeastern292 View Post
Problem is that it cannot run OS X.
THANK YOU ... I was first WTF .. First, everyone is bitching about Windows machines etc., then YOU, the apple community has finally converted me to Mac (REALLY since I don't even have a PC anymore) and now people tell me to build a normal PC because I mentioned the word gaming ?
This is just weird ... Regarding money ; Everybody who buys a MacPro for private use, I don't mean like depend on it to make a living, has obviously too much money or doesn't mind saving a long time anyway ...

I am a geek and therefore want to have at least the option to play games ... I would love for example to finally bring all my favorite DVD (countless seasons from Friends, to Star Trek and God knows what) to my NAS in a decent quality .. but since you need a good PC (or D'ah .. Mac maybe) I think its great to have 8 cores, EVEN if this is nothing to make money with and if it means to blow the annual bonus ...

It is just common sense (at least for me) : When you can easily spend like 13 grand for full blown Mac, you want to have the best .. its the same as you build a highend PC and can only use a Voodoo GFX with additional 3d controller card which doesn't even have divx .. obviously exaggerated ... but I hope you get my point, I simply don't HAVE TO buy an additional 8800 for example and MUST dual boot IF I want to play a gfx intensive game (even with dualboot you won't be able to SLI - just in case you are really crazy and think about it even)..
chmod a+x /bin/laden -- Allows anyone the permission to execute /bin/laden
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2007, 10:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by hmurchison2001 View Post
Upon first reflection it's strange but then when logic sets in it's easier to realize that:

1. Bensely is all we have. The next motherboard refresh doesn't hit until late 2007 with Stoakley featuring Penryn procs. We can't expect Apple to reinvent the wheel here. Memory configs are going to stay the same. PCI Express lanes will stay the same.

2. GPU...now Apple certainly "could" deliver 8600/8800 class GPU for Tiger and today's Mac Pro. However this is Apple and they are conservative about many things. I expect that we'll see the nextgen Nvidia stuff when Leopard is out because Apple doesn't want to develop OpenGL 1.4 and OpenGL 2.x drivers. Makes sense from a standpoint of QA and saving resources but makes little sense to consumers naturally.
1. 5000x already supports 32G RAM; other OEMs offer it in their workstations and Apple offers it in their servers. No reason why the Mac Pro shouldn't support it.

2. I don't see much of a change in architecture between the 8 series and the nextgen stuff from nVidia; they may as well develop the driver now. But even a X1950XTX would offer a decent bump (~20%) over the X1900XT they have now.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2007, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by brokenjago View Post
I agree. It's so important that Apple support a brand new Microsoft technology that benefits people who use Mac OS X in no tangible way!
Apple is trying to market their hardware as a cross platform capable machine. If you don't support the technologies used in windows then you're not going to have a competitive cross platform computer. Not to mention the fact that the new DX10 cards are FAR faster than anything available for the mac pros. If Apple could give us some decent drivers to support PC cards then I, and most others would be very pleased.

I'm glad that you can't understand that other people have different computing needs than you do.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2007, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by bballe336 View Post
I'm glad that you can't understand that other people have different computing needs than you do.
I can't say I understand why that would please you.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2007, 04:01 PM
 
I have a Quad Mac Pro 2.66, purchased around August. Upgraded to 4Gb RAM, added a 750gb external drive, but still have the GeForce 7300 video card with a cinema display and a Dell 2001fp. I waited a long time to sell my Power Mac G5, thinking 8 core machines would come out and be around the same price as the quads at the time. Right now this isn't the case. I plan to keep this machine till 2009 unless something radically impressive comes to market. I'm thinking 16 core machines will be out by then.

Does anyone think at some point it will be cost effective to just swap our dual core modules out for quads at one point? They use the same ram and from what I can tell the motherboards are the same. Any thoughts here?
It is in the moments of decision that your destiny is shaped.
www.therealmac.net
MBA Graduate, Creative Thinker, Nice Guy
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2007, 05:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by RealMac View Post
I have a Quad Mac Pro 2.66, purchased around August. Upgraded to 4Gb RAM, added a 750gb external drive, but still have the GeForce 7300 video card with a cinema display and a Dell 2001fp. I waited a long time to sell my Power Mac G5, thinking 8 core machines would come out and be around the same price as the quads at the time. Right now this isn't the case. I plan to keep this machine till 2009 unless something radically impressive comes to market. I'm thinking 16 core machines will be out by then.

Does anyone think at some point it will be cost effective to just swap our dual core modules out for quads at one point? They use the same ram and from what I can tell the motherboards are the same. Any thoughts here?
Even if it did work, it'd probably need a firmware upgrade, and I don't see Apple releasing such firmwares.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2007, 06:53 PM
 
Any PC that is to be built to compete against the Mac Pro should also include a 4 hard-drive SATA backplane. The usual drive installation regime on a $25 'white' box includes all sorts of screws and nastiness. The driver carriers included with the Mac Pro housing are much much easier to deal with. This requirement alone could easily eat up the $500 cost difference WITHOUT asking for the white-box to be as 'pretty' as the Mac Pro.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2007, 07:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by RealMac View Post
Does anyone think at some point it will be cost effective to just swap our dual core modules out for quads at one point? They use the same ram and from what I can tell the motherboards are the same. Any thoughts here?
I'm not sure what is cost effective for you, but the lower clocked quads are pretty cheap ($350 for 1.6Ghz, $485 for 1.86Ghz). If your application is heavily threaded, doubling the number of cores may help performance even if you take a slight clockrate hit. Depending on how much your time is worth, the 2.66Ghz parts ($1200 each) may be a worthwhile upgrade for you. The stock 2.66Ghz duals are still $700 new, so selling them would certainly ease the cost of the upgrade.

Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Even if it did work, it'd probably need a firmware upgrade, and I don't see Apple releasing such firmwares.
Anandtech upgraded their Mac Pro to quads in September 2006; no problems reported.

Originally Posted by tadd View Post
Any PC that is to be built to compete against the Mac Pro should also include a 4 hard-drive SATA backplane. The usual drive installation regime on a $25 'white' box includes all sorts of screws and nastiness. The driver carriers included with the Mac Pro housing are much much easier to deal with. This requirement alone could easily eat up the $500 cost difference WITHOUT asking for the white-box to be as 'pretty' as the Mac Pro.
You can get an ATX case with screw-free drive rails (for 5.25" and 3.5" drives) for about $50.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2007, 07:08 PM
 
Yeah, I was just coming back to post that. The dual quad-core upgrade worked in OS X, at least for 2.4 GHz parts. The bus speed tested was 1066 though.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2007, 07:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I can't say I understand why that would please you.
Huh?

If you are trying to ask why Apple supporting better graphics cards would be a good thing, well I really don't even need to explain that at all (I mean everyone likes to have options right?). If not, then your response is pretty nonsensical to me right now.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2007, 07:58 PM
 
I think he just missed the sarcasm in your last sentence.
Linkinus is king.
     
voo
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Way up there!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2007, 08:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by z0ne81 View Post
Just put in my order for the 8 core Mac Pro
Added a 750 gig drive and the radeon graphics card. I left the ram at 1 gig as they charge a lot for extra ram

Any suggestions where I can get some extra ram cheap? (I'm in the UK)
Crucial. http://www.crucial.com/uk/store/list...?model=Mac+Pro You'll save a ton compared to Apple.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2007, 12:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Northeastern292 View Post
I am happy about this. But I am still not satisfied on the consumer line:

2) MacOS X is still hardware tied.
As the Eagles so quaintly put it "Get Over It!". MacOS X will always be tied to the hardware Apple sells, Apple makes it's money off the hardware and always will.
Mac Pro Dual 3.0 Dual-Core
MacBook Pro
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2007, 12:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by hmurchison2001 View Post
Upon first reflection it's strange but then when logic sets in it's easier to realize that:

1. Bensely is all we have. The next motherboard refresh doesn't hit until late 2007 with Stoakley featuring Penryn procs. We can't expect Apple to reinvent the wheel here. Memory configs are going to stay the same. PCI Express lanes will stay the same.

2. GPU...now Apple certainly "could" deliver 8600/8800 class GPU for Tiger and today's Mac Pro. However this is Apple and they are conservative about many things. I expect that we'll see the nextgen Nvidia stuff when Leopard is out because Apple doesn't want to develop OpenGL 1.4 and OpenGL 2.x drivers. Makes sense from a standpoint of QA and saving resources but makes little sense to consumers naturally.

I think the push to move to Leopard will be spurred by Leopard only applications as well as Leopard only GPU and Leopard only support for HD DVD and Blu-ray.
1. stoakley or seaburg as it's also called will bring a 1600Mhz FSB, possibility of 2 16x PCIe lanes and much more. I saw a sample PC motherboard with these feature is a Cebit article.

2. I hope you're right on both the graphics cards and HD-DVD/Blu-ray drives.
Mac Pro Dual 3.0 Dual-Core
MacBook Pro
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2007, 03:22 AM
 
Well, I just jumped over to the Alienware website and saw some impressive specs for a gaming PC. Apple needs to get on the SLI bandwagon. The pricing was as high as a Mac Pro and came with Blu-Ray drives and some awesome GPU's with the SLI technology. Apple just doesn't want to press hard on gaming, I don't know why. That really sucks cause I play COD, Doom3, Quake4 and Second Life on my dualie G5 and the Radeon X800 chokes at high settings on these games.
Now to be fair, Apple generally has overall better specs than almost any PC on the market and all of their Macs ship with faster processors than any other competitor in the same class but Apple started out with gaming first and they let Microsoft covet that and now they need to take that market back. I'm not holding my breath.
( Last edited by hldan; Apr 8, 2007 at 03:30 AM. )
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2007, 03:36 AM
 
Sure, if it is for the money, you are probably better set with a machine like the one below ..

I don't get why even some Mac enthusiasts keep telling me to get a PC if I want gaming instead to admit that Apple has to do something ....
At one point they try to convert WIndows user to Mac, which they did with me, on the other hand they want me to buy a PC *confused*


chmod a+x /bin/laden -- Allows anyone the permission to execute /bin/laden
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2007, 04:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Of course they reported problems! The FSB dropped from 1.33 GHz to 1066 MHz.
( Last edited by Simon; Apr 8, 2007 at 04:45 AM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2007, 04:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by utw-Mephisto View Post
At one point they try to convert WIndows user to Mac, which they did with me, on the other hand they want me to buy a PC
Am I the only one here who finds this OT blathering tiresome?

Look, nobody wants you to buy anything or actually cares what you do buy. You can come here, ask questions, and get advice. What you do however, is your own responsibility. If you're not happy with what you got, get something else. Stop acting as if you were deceived. Stop blaming others for your decisions. And please, get back on topic.

(No offense intended, but your gaming PC/Mac really has nothing to do with the new MP.)
( Last edited by Simon; Apr 8, 2007 at 04:40 AM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2007, 09:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Of course they reported problems! The FSB dropped from 1.33 GHz to 1066 MHz.
The pre-production 53x0 Xeons that Anandtech tested only supported 1066Mhz FSB; remember, this was about a month and a half after the Mac Pro launched. The newer 53x5 series support 1333Mhz FSB and work fine in other 5000x based systems.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Jose
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2007, 09:26 AM
 
The problem with these comparisons is that the Mac Pro is targetted at pros, not gamers. It doesn't make sense to say "PC x costs more than the Mac Pro" or "PC x costs less than the Mac Pro" when PC X is directed at a whole different audience.

The problem, same as its been for the last 3-4 years, is that there is no mid-range Mac for people who want expandability but not all the extra fancy stuff. An 8-core Mac Pro certainly won't change that.

Hopefully, as PCs begin to use EFI, the graphics card issue will become a moot point.

Incidentally, I love how on Apple's benchmark sight, the 8-core MP is MIA in half the graphs. Guess those extra 4 cores don't always come in so handy.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2007, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by mfbernstein View Post

Incidentally, I love how on Apple's benchmark sight, the 8-core MP is MIA in half the graphs. Guess those extra 4 cores don't always come in so handy.
Notice how the apps that aren't benchmarked for eight cores are the Apple programs?

It's a reasonably safe assumption that Apple didn't want to put up benchmarks for current versions of Final Cut Pro and Logic when at least one of those is likely to be updated on the 15th. Not the least of which is that I suspect Apple may start pushing 2K and 4K HD video editing, which is a more impressive feat than even handling 1080p.
24-inch iMac Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2007, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Am I the only one here who finds this OT blathering tiresome?

Look, nobody wants you to buy anything or actually cares what you do buy. You can come here, ask questions, and get advice. What you do however, is your own responsibility. If you're not happy with what you got, get something else. Stop acting as if you were deceived. Stop blaming others for your decisions. And please, get back on topic.

(No offense intended, but your gaming PC/Mac really has nothing to do with the new MP.)
Thank you, you beat me to it. As many people on this forum use Macs wholeheartedly we don't know Mephisto from a hole in the ground and it's not our jobs to convince anyone to buy a computer. Contrary to popular belief we don't belong to cults, we are just humans so if you come to this forum and are interested in Macs we will give you good reasons to get one based on your needs.
The same goes if you need to game only on a desktop computer at this point Windows has more games however there are plenty of ways to play those games on a Mac.
If you are a lifelong gamer 24/7 we would recommend an Xbox or PS3.
Most people that want a computer for video, photo and music editing are recommended by many to buy a Mac, even Windows users are told to buy Macs because the software is better.
Don't hold people accountable here as if it's our responsibility to convince you on what to buy. Nobody had to convince me, I was sick of my PC's and I went to CompUSA, looked at the Macs and made my own decision and I haven't been sorry since.

Getting a recommendation and holding people accountable for your decision are two different things and your responses earlier were unfavorable. We don't care what you buy because it doesn't change our lives. That's Apple's job to convince you to buy a Mac, not ours.
( Last edited by hldan; Apr 8, 2007 at 12:45 PM. )
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2007, 11:55 AM
 
Over the next two months we will see upgrades that invalidate much of the commentary in some of the earlier posts above, some as soon as next week. Last week Apple gave the MPs the strongest cpu on the block and I expect very strong graphics too, making the "Macs cannot do games" comments no longer true. Don't look for cheap build-your-own game boxes, but an iMac and maybe laptop for gamers is IMO likely.

The complaint "there is no mid-range Mac for people who want expandability" is easily met in the used Mac tower market but is unlikely to get resolved in a new Mac. Apple is a hardware company, and would be nuts to intentionally create a build-your-own-high-end-box using third party parts which is what the poster really wants. The mid desktop range is nicely met with Minis and iMacs.

-Allen Wicks
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Apr 9, 2007 at 12:07 PM. )
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Carmel, IN, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2007, 12:13 PM
 
Essentially if you want to bring your own monitor, you have to chose between the Mini and the Mac Pro. If you want more than one monitor or any internal expandability beyond swapping components out, you go to the Mac Pro. This is why my mother, who mainly uses email, MS Word and the Web has the base-level Mac Pro. She was able to get it for about $2k after rebates from Mac Mall using the 2.0 chips, so it wasn't so bad. I do think that a $1,200-$1,500 machine would be a sweet spot for many though.

Here's what I think would be nice, with all else as with the Mac Pro:
  • Room for up to three hard drives (they don't take that much space)
  • Single Optical Drive
  • Single CPU (dual-core or quad-core)
  • 4 FB-DIMM Slots (one card)
  • Single Gigabit Ethernet
iMac Late '15 5K 27" 4.0 Quad i7 24/512GB SSD OWC ThunderDock 2 Blu-Ray ±RW MBP '14 Retina 15" 2.6 16/1TB iPhone 6+ 64 iPad Pro 128 + Cellular

FOR SALE: MP '06 Yosemite 8x3.0 24/240GB SSD RAID 0, 240GB SSD, 1.5TB HDD RAID 0, 1TB HDD, Blu-Ray±RW, Radeon HD 5770
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2007, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by schalliol View Post
Here's what I think would be nice, with all else as with the Mac Pro:
  • Room for up to three hard drives (they don't take that much space)
  • Single Optical Drive
  • Single CPU (dual-core or quad-core)
  • 4 FB-DIMM Slots (one card)
  • Single Gigabit Ethernet
With 4 memory slots and a single CPU, you don't need to use (expensive and slower) FB-DIMMs.

But as many others have pointed out, a box like that would take a huge chunk out of the higher-priced Mac Pro sales.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:13 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2