[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Huh? That chart shows me you can save 25% on memory costs (6GB instead of 8GB) and get the same performance.

Absolutely. Because 6 GB means more bandwidth than 8 GB. So in that case cheaper is also faster.

The interesting thing with the AE benchmark is that most of the examples shown are RAM-starved. So even though bandwidth drops with more memory, you don't see the performance hit you'd expect because the additional amount of memory is making up for it.

Other benchmarks w/o the capacity issue (read where 6GB is sufficient) will be interesting. What we know for sure though is that populating 4 slots (or 8 slots on the octo) rather than 3 (or 6 on the octo) means you have to give up one memory channel. IOW you drop your bandwidth by 33%.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Would sensitivity to LATENCY mean that information has to travel fast across a computer system? What application would be sensitive to that? Monitoring scientific experiments? Video editing?

BANDWIDTH would be the amount of data? Would that be the realms of statistics and number crunching?

And sensitivity to CAPACITY would be bigger chops of data, like big Photoshop files?

In very simple terms, latency is how fast you can move and bandwidth is how much you can move. Capacity is how much total space you have to move from/to.

I have a code here that suffers from many cache misses (the CPU has to go fetch data in RAM rather than in its cache to perform a calculation). This is expensive because access to cache is much faster than having to go across the memory bus. However, the CPU doesn't need large chunks of data so for this code I am mainly sensitive to memory latency (how quickly can it transfer that small chunk from RAM to the CPU?). But I have another code here that relies on a steady flow of lots of data from RAM. The CPU needs to sequentially sift through huge amounts of data. For that operation I am sensitive to bandwidth much more than latency.

In all these discussions about latency vs. capacity you can safely assume capacity has already been dealt with. If you have insufficient memory capacity you will end up swapping. This is a much slower process (at least three orders of magnitude) than fetching data in memory. Once swapping starts, all other considerations become irrelevant. If you're interested in max performance you first have to make sure you have enough capacity. An example seems to be the RAM hungry AE as you can see in the plot I posted above for the 2.26 octo MP. AE spawns processes for each of the cores and grabs a chunk of memory for each of them (1.6GB in this test). That's why the 8GB system still performs 25% better than the 6 GB system even though the 6 GB system has 50% more bandwidth. Likewise with other AE tests. Even though mem bandwidth is reduced by using 4/8 slots, AE seems to rely more on capacity than on bandwidth.

Latency, btw was mainly an issue on the 2008 MP because of its FB-DIMMs. Compared to the new MPs with their integrated memory controller and their DDR3 DIMMs latency was much higher on the old MP. For some tasks this is of no concern, for others latency is crucial (video encoding).

[mduell]

Dell's Nehalem workstation lineup leaked..

Low end single socket starts at $999 and supports 24GB RAM.
Midrange dual socket starts at $1620 and supports 72GB RAM.
High end dual socket starts at $1800 and supports 192GB RAM.

I'm sure the base models will be lower clockrate (1.86Ghz or 2Ghz) and have smaller hard drives than the Mac Pros, but Apple missed the mark by a mile.

[Simon]

Apple's specs are fine. It's the prices. The quad-core config should start at $1699.

Dell prices really don't mean much in Apple world.

[Big Mac]

i think the clear thing to take away from this experience is that Apple has ceded the regular desktop market completely to Hackintosh. The company isn't actively targeting the Hackintosh community for a reason - it believes that allowing Hackintosh to exist solves a problem for Apple. Apple doesn't have to compete in that market anymore.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Apple's specs are fine.

The only Apple spec I think is misguided is memory capacity; it has been flat for years, and was just downgraded at the $3000 price point.

Originally Posted by Simon 

It's the prices.
The quad-core config should start at $1699.

Agreed.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

i think the clear thing to take away from this experience is that Apple has ceded the regular desktop market completely to Hackintosh. The company isn't actively targeting the Hackintosh community for a reason - it believes that allowing Hackintosh to exist solves a problem for Apple. Apple doesn't have to compete in that market anymore.

If this were the case, it would make more sense for Apple just to start licensing official clones again for the desktop market. The last time they did this, it hurt them financially by taking away a lot of their desktop sales, but nowadays it does seem like they don't care about desktop sales as much, and are focusing more on laptops, so perhaps it wouldn't be such a bad idea this time around. And unlike with Hackintosh, they would make money in licensing fees from each machine sold.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

i think the clear thing to take away from this experience is that Apple has ceded the regular desktop market completely to Hackintosh.

No:
• Hackintosh is so small as to be irrelevant.
• Apple goes after the highmid-priced desktop market with Minis and iMacs.
• Apple chooses not to go after the intensely price-competitive, low margin, shrinking low end desktop market.

It all makes sense to me except the ridiculously high 2009 MP prices. And I see no use whatsoever for the RAM-limited 4-core MP.

-Allen Wicks

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

If this were the case, it would make more sense for Apple just to start licensing official clones again for the desktop market.

After the earlier fiasco what vendor would ever trust an Apple license?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

• Apple goes after the highmid-priced desktop market with Minis and iMacs.

I agree with all of what you said except for that line. The problem with the iMac is that performance-wise it's a low-end desktop. But price-wise it's at the high-end. People are asked to a pay a huge amount for design. That's fine if there are choices. But there really aren't. The mini is not mid/high-end and the quad MP is priced way out of desktop area. Apple has pushed themselves out.

This whole issue would be easily be solved if the quad MP started at something like $1699. Unfortunately Apple missed that by almost 1k. In times like these.

[Simon]

Dell's Nehalem workstation lineup leaked..

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Dell's Nehalem workstation lineup leaked..

Low end single socket starts at $999 and supports 24GB RAM.
Midrange dual socket starts at $1620 and supports 72GB RAM.
High end dual socket starts at $1800 and supports 192GB RAM.

I'm sure the base models will be lower clockrate (1.86Ghz or 2Ghz) and have smaller hard drives than the Mac Pros, but Apple missed the mark by a mile.

Looks like Apple has to give as a good update soon.

[Veltliner]

Apple needs a workstation in the 2000 - 2500 dollar area.

But no joke versions with lilliputian Ram capacity.

Apple could lose quite a few customers who don't want to jump the wallet for 3300$.

Interesting would be this (but I don't know if it's feasible): have a single 4-core work station, but leave room open to upgrade it to an 8-core. Can they use the same motherboard? And the bus?

If the MP line would have a more modular approach (if this is technically possible), people could get hooked to getting a workstation, and beefing it up over the years. Apple will get their money this way, too, and will not scare customers away with high entry prices.

[P]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Interesting would be this (but I don't know if it's feasible): have a single 4-core work station, but leave room open to upgrade it to an 8-core. Can they use the same motherboard? And the bus?

Yes, they can use the same motherboard, but you'd need both CPUs to be 5000 series CPUs. Right now, Apple uses a 3000 series CPU (no DP support) in the quad, as that saves a lot of money. You could sell the octo mobo with one 5000 series CPU (and thus half the RAM capacity disabled), but it would be unnecessarily expensive.

[P]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Dell's Nehalem workstation lineup leaked..

Low end single socket starts at $999 and supports 24GB RAM.
Midrange dual socket starts at $1620 and supports 72GB RAM.
High end dual socket starts at $1800 and supports 192GB RAM.

I'm sure the base models will be lower clockrate (1.86Ghz or 2Ghz) and have smaller hard drives than the Mac Pros, but Apple missed the mark by a mile.

Eh... Sanity check? The first one has 3 channels, so 8 gigs per channel. 2 slots per channel is 4 gigs per slot - 24 gigs is right on the money. The second one has 3 channels per CPU, so 36 gigs per CPU and 12 gigs per channel. Odd - that implies 3 slots per channel, but I guess it's not completely impossible if you can stand the latency.

The third one, however: 192 gigs in total means 96 gigs per CPU or 32 gigs per channel. Even assuming 4 slots per channel - which is a LOT, and would kill latency - you'd still need 8 gig DIMMs to do it.

No, this doesn't make sense. The only way it works is with more sockets and/or FB-DIMMs. I think that if there is such a beast in the pipeline, it's either a Beckton machine or some sort of Dunnington derivative, Beckton making more sense. With 4 sockets and FB-DIMMs, 192 gigs is suddenly very reasonable.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Looks like Apple has to give as a good update soon.

Nope, you won't see another update at least for a year. The Mac Pro lineup we have is what we're stuck with.

[AppleGirl1990]

Processors, Ram...... important! But, what Apple really needs to do is support BLU-RAY in it's Desktop Lineup!
I have a ton of HD video footage on my computer in iMovie and i have no way of burning these movies to Blu-ray discs and giving them to my friends who have blu-ray players.

Instead, i can only show them by posting it on the internet or streaming it to my AppleTV.

I'm sorry, had to get that out. phew.
Ok, keep venting about processors......

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by AppleGirl1990 

Processors, Ram...... important! But, what Apple really needs to do is support BLU-RAY in it's Desktop Lineup!
I have a ton of HD video footage on my computer in iMovie and i have no way of burning these movies to Blu-ray discs and giving them to my friends who have blu-ray players.

Instead, i can only show them by posting it on the internet or streaming it to my AppleTV.

I'm sorry, had to get that out. phew.
Ok, keep venting about processors......

Or you could buy a third-party blu-ray burner and a copy of Toast 10 Titanium with the Blu-Ray Authoring Plug in and be able to burn your movies to blu-ray discs right now. Yes, it wouldn't have the ease of use of an all-Apple solution but I think Apple is waiting for Blu-Ray licensing terms to become less onerous before plunging into that market.

[AppleGirl1990]

Nobody has attempted to use Toast to do HD Movies. Have you? I think you can burn files to a blu-ray disc but it's not in the format needed to view the movies on disc. You can talk about this furthur in a topic i started specifically regarding blu-ray. post there.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by P 

Eh... Sanity check? The first one has 3 channels, so 8 gigs per channel. 2 slots per channel is 4 gigs per slot - 24 gigs is right on the money. The second one has 3 channels per CPU, so 36 gigs per CPU and 12 gigs per channel. Odd - that implies 3 slots per channel, but I guess it's not completely impossible if you can stand the latency.

The third one, however: 192 gigs in total means 96 gigs per CPU or 32 gigs per channel. Even assuming 4 slots per channel - which is a LOT, and would kill latency - you'd still need 8 gig DIMMs to do it.

No, this doesn't make sense. The only way it works is with more sockets and/or FB-DIMMs. I think that if there is such a beast in the pipeline, it's either a Beckton machine or some sort of Dunnington derivative, Beckton making more sense. With 4 sockets and FB-DIMMs, 192 gigs is suddenly very reasonable.

It appears Apple's incredibly weak memory offerings (max 4GB modules and $800 for each ) have skewed your point of view. Samsung started shipping 16GB DDR3 modules last week ($1800/ea) so 192GB in 12 slots (2 sockets, 3 channels/socket, 2 slots/channel) is no problem without FB-DIMMs or 4 slots per channel or any other shenanigans. The 72GB limit on the midrange machine could be 6 slots on one socket and 3 on the other.

[P]

Originally Posted by mduell 

It appears Apple's incredibly weak memory offerings (max 4GB modules and $800 for each ) have skewed your point of view. Samsung started shipping 16GB DDR3 modules last week ($1800/ea) so 192GB in 12 slots (2 sockets, 3 channels/socket, 2 slots/channel) is no problem without FB-DIMMs or 4 slots per channel or any other shenanigans. The 72GB limit on the midrange machine could be 6 slots on one socket and 3 on the other.

I wasn't aware - newegg doesn't even stock 4 gig DIMMs yet. In that case the RAM ceiling on the MP jumps up as well. 8 gig DIMMs at least work in the top MP, so there doesn't seem to be any artificial limitation on RAM sizes in that model. I still haven't had any confirmation that even the quadcore is nerfed, even though it seems very likely.

[Simon]

Newegg is slow to update as usual. But, OWC has already started selling 4 GB DIMM kits for the quad-core 2009 MP. So the RAM limit on the quad-core is definitely 12 GB (or 16 GB if you don't care about mem bandwidth).

Of course having only four slots on a $2499 MP is still a really stupid decision. High-density DIMMs are always more expensive. Upgrading to 12 GB costs you $749 this way. If the quad had six/eight slots so you could use 2 GB DIMMs, you'd reach the same 12 GB for just $175.

[P]

But the main reason for a high RAM ceiling is part lifetime. Even if 4 gig DIMMs are expensive now, they will be the prize of a hamburger a few years down the line. If there really isn't a hard lock on maximum DIMM size, that is very encouraging.

Dell launched its Nehalem servers, btw. The top-of-the-line actually has 3 slots per channel at a reduced memory clockspeed, but even that "only" brings the reported max to 144 GB.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

But the main reason for a high RAM ceiling is part lifetime. Even if 4 gig DIMMs are expensive now, they will be the prize of a hamburger a few years down the line.

That's not the point. Even if 4 GB DIMMs will one day end up costing only a hamburger, that same day 2 GB DIMMs will cost ~ half a hamburger.

Apple made an expensive quad-core, but went cheap when it came to slots. Now in addition to paying too much for their quad-core, MP customers will also end up paying too much for their memory upgrades. There is simply zero advantage for the customer here.

[P]

That's not the point. Even if 4 GB DIMMs will one day end up costing only a hamburger, that same day 2 GB DIMMs will cost ~ half a hamburger.

Well, a 512 meg DIMM costs half of a 1 gig DIMM, but that wasn't what you meant, right? It costs the same to get 1 gig from one DIMM as from two right now (example calculated for DDR2 regular DIMMs). That's usually the way when DIMMs have gone commodity. It's only when they're new that the big ones are expensive enough to make a difference

Apple made an expensive quad-core, but went cheap when it came to slots. Now in addition to paying too much for their quad-core, MP customers will also end up paying too much for their memory upgrades. There is simply zero advantage for the customer here.

Of course there's zero advantage for the consumer, but the problem isn't as large as it seemed at first. Apple could have, should have, gone with 6 slots per socket instead of 4. They didn't - maybe next revision. 8 (or 9) slots per socket is not possible without underclocking memory, like the Dell example shows. If they had really nerfed the upper RAM limit artificially, that would have been so much worse.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by P 

Apple could have, should have, gone with 6 slots per socket instead of 4. They didn't - maybe next revision. 8 (or 9) slots per socket is not possible without underclocking memory, like the Dell example shows. If they had really nerfed the upper RAM limit artificially, that would have been so much worse.

Intel's spec here is 1333Mhz with 1 slot/channel populated (regardless of how many exists), 1066Mhz with 2 slots/channel populated, and 800Mhz with 3 slots/channel populated. Apple appears to have pushed the limits to do 1333Mhz with 2 slots/channel but that may have limited them to 4 slot/socket config (3 channels and 1 slot/channel or 2 channels and 2 slots/channel).

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

That's usually the way when DIMMs have gone commodity.

I'll say it again: It costs over $749 to get 12GB into the current quad. Had Apple been more sensible it would cost $125. Why are you trying to argue this makes any sense? It obviously doesn't. It's a crappy decision with not a single benefit to the end user.

And when we extrapolate to the future it doesn't get better even though you seem to imply it does. It's really very simple. It will always be cheaper to populate with the most common DIMM size. Being forced to use the highest capacity DIMM on the market is a guarantee you'll always be paying more than everybody else.

Of course there's zero advantage for the consumer...

Hence bad call on Apple's behalf.

Apple doesn't have to do what Dell did. Dell likes big numbers and low prices and doesn't give a rat's ass how it gets there. And then people get what they paid for. With Dell anybody who has half a clue knows what to expect. Fine by me. But this is Apple we're talking about. On their one single expandable desktop Mac you'd think they would put expansion first. Especially after overcharging so much for it.

[P]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Intel's spec here is 1333Mhz with 1 slot/channel populated (regardless of how many exists), 1066Mhz with 2 slots/channel populated, and 800Mhz with 3 slots/channel populated. Apple appears to have pushed the limits to do 1333Mhz with 2 slots/channel but that may have limited them to 4 slot/socket config (3 channels and 1 slot/channel or 2 channels and 2 slots/channel).

Apple supports 1333 MHz RAM? Where did you see that? They report only 1066 MHz support in the tech specs, and I thought you needed the top 3.2 GHz Xeon for 1333 MHz RAM support.

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I'll say it again: It costs over $749 to get 12GB into the current quad. Had Apple been more sensible it would cost $125. Why are you trying to argue this makes any sense? It obviously doesn't. It's a crappy decision with not a single benefit to the end user.

I don't argue it makes particularly good sense, I'm arguing that it's less of a deal than I thought at first. I don't know why they did that, but I doubt it was a case of intentional nerifing, since they did the same on the top-of-the-line. Perhaps it was a case of running out of space - any disassembly pics I've seen show a very crowded motherboard with two humongous heatsinks.

Originally Posted by Simon 

And when we extrapolate to the future it doesn't get better even though you seem to imply it does. It's really very simple. It will always be cheaper to populate with the most common DIMM size. Being forced to use the highest capacity DIMM on the market is a guarantee you'll always be paying more than everybody else.

It does get better down the line. Say that I have an iMac C2D with DDR2 RAM, and I want to max it at 4 gigs. Having 2 more slots doesn't help me at all, pricing-wise - getting 4x1 GB costs the same as or more than getting 2x2 GB.

[Simon]

Sure because 2 GB is a common DIMM size. Everybody's buying it so they're cheap.

If you had only one slot you'd be forced to insert a 4 GB DIMM and that would actually be a whole lot more expensive. That's exactly the situation quad-core MP buyers are faced with. They won't be able to use the most popular DIMMs because they lack slots. So after being ripped off on the MP they also get to pay an extra tax for RAM. Tell us how that's not a bad thing.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

Apple supports 1333 MHz RAM? Where did you see that? They report only 1066 MHz support in the tech specs, and I thought you needed the top 3.2 GHz Xeon for 1333 MHz RAM support.

Actually none of the quad-core MP's CPUs (W3520, W3550) support 1333 MHz. They only support 800/1066 MHz RAM.
For the octo MPs it's the X5570 and X5550 that have support for 1333 MHz RAM. The low-end 2.26 GHz octo (E5520) only support 800/1066 MHz RAM.

In terms of actual max bandwidth it's a bit more spread out. The W35x0 has a 4.8 GT/s QPI (25.6 GBps max. mem bandwidth, 24 GB max mem). The E5520 in the low-end octo has a 5.86 GT/s QPI (25.6 GBps max. mem bandwidth, 144 GB max mem). The X55x0 in the more expensive octo have a 6.4 GT/s QPI (32 GBps max. mem bandwidth, 144 GB max mem).

[mduell]

I think the most popular/economical DDR3 module size is going to move up rapidly (in the next half year to year). With 16G already available I expect 8G will be affordable ($200) and 4G will be cheap ($75?) in 9 months.

Originally Posted by P 

Apple supports 1333 MHz RAM? Where did you see that? They report only 1066 MHz support in the tech specs, and I thought you needed the top 3.2 GHz Xeon for 1333 MHz RAM support.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Actually none of the quad-core MP's CPUs (W3520, W3550) support 1333 MHz. They only support 800/1066 MHz RAM.
For the octo MPs it's the X5570 and X5550 that have support for 1333 MHz RAM. The low-end 2.26 GHz octo (E5520) only support 800/1066 MHz RAM.

Man I need to lay off the crack pipe.

[revMedia]

Originally Posted by Simon 

The quad core is actually a worse deal than I thought.

Considering Nehalem's triple memory channels and the 2 GB DIMM limit, if you're looking for best performance you will likely end up with a 6 GB RAM limit rather than 8 GB. A 6GB limit in a 2009 workstation is outright laughable.

...it will take at least 4GB DIMMS, although right now those are expensive.

Still doesn't make it a great deal, though.

[Simon]

That quote's really old. The effective 12/16GB RAM limit was established a while ago in this thread. Of course with Apple limiting the quads to four instead of six slots, the price owners pay for RAM expansions was simply increased. As if the quad MP itself was not expensive overpriced enough.

[P]

Looking at the disassembly photos of the MP again, it seem clear that the problem is space. By putting the mainboard at an odd angle in the case, to make it a drawer, Apple has limited itself in how many slots it can fit on the mainboard. I'm not sure they could fit 12 slots on there if they wanted to (and I think they do). There is one option, however: SO-DIMMs. Out of curiosity: would a switch to SO-DIMMs be acceptable if it got us 2 more slots per socket?

[Simon]

The quads have no space problem. They could fit at least another four slots in there and then some more where the second CPU is on the octo. IOW six slots for the quad models would have been easily feasible. There's no technical reason here. It's simply a stunt to force upsell.

[P]

Yes, if they wanted to do a completely unique motherboard, obviously, but I don't think they want to do that. The actual board - minus the socket and the DIMM slots - is likely to be identical.

[Simon]

You've got it backwards. So far they have always used the same board design and then they populated it with either one or two CPUs. Only now did they start having two different daughterboards with separate designs.

Unfortunately the quad daughterboard has four DIMM slots less and a whole lot of other extra wasted space. Had Apple stuck to the previous strategy the qaud daughterboard would have one CPU and eight slots. Instead they chose to castrate the daughterboard and force upsell to the octo. Had the quad been priced at $1799 nobody would mind, but since the new quad is even more expensive than the old one, people don't appreciate the crippling.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by P 

There is one option, however: SO-DIMMs. Out of curiosity: would a switch to SO-DIMMs be acceptable if it got us 2 more slots per socket?

Half the capacity and a very niche part with ECC? No way!

[maximusbibicus]

I am looking to get a new rig to last me a few years, and really want the expandability of the Pro.

Just can't make up my mind between the last version which is now selling in the Apple Refurbished Store or the new model.

Getting the dual 2.8 refurb is already a stretch for my budget so another $400 for the new machine is pushing it. Of course if there is real value in the upgrade i can do it.

The machine will be a heavy iMovie HD/iDVD unit to begin with and then i will branch out into the work of Final Cut at some point. This is all consumer level, this isn't going to be a pro machine.

I like the older model because of the additional RAM slots, 2 firewire 400, and 2 firewire 800 ports. Power is more than i need now, but should still be very capable in 3 years.

The newer model appears to have a much faster architecture, easier RAM install, but no firewire 400. And its more expensive.

Also, food for thought, the refurb store has a single 2.8 machine. Not sure if thats a good bet or not. Double the power for an additional $400 sounds good.

What would you guys suggest?

(prices are in CDN funds)

[Simon]

Do NOT get a refurb Hapertown model. It's much too expensive compared to the new MPs and those are already very pricey.

http://forums.macnn.com/65/mac-pro-a...d/#post3810730

[maximusbibicus]

Its $400 bucks cheaper, which is worth saving. Thats money i can put into RAM.

Is the machine that much worse than the new ones, or is that opinion based on price?

[Simon]

RAM is pricier. Latency is worse. GPU is worse. CPU is really behind compared to Nehalem. It's simply just a really bad deal at Apple's price. If the refurb were 1k less maybe, but this is just not a decent deal.

Check the link I gave. We already discussed it in this very thread.

[Simon]

Scratch that. My bad. I thought you were looking at the 3.2 GHz model for over $4k. The octo 2.8 Ghz for $2499 seems quite reasonable actually.

[maximusbibicus]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Scratch that. My bad. I thought you were looking at the 3.2 GHz model for over $4k. The octo 2.8 Ghz for $2499 seems quite reasonable actually.

Whew....i was sure we talking about different machines.

Yeah, i think i am going to pull the trigger on the dual 2.8. They just had a single 2.8 in the refurb store for $2099.....but i want this machine to have some longevity. Impending fatherhood is going to put the shackles on my wallet for 3 or 4 years.

[Veltliner]

Generally: be careful with the pricing. Apple pricing has never been as crazy as this.

An example: I just got a macmall catalogue.

In this catalogue, a 2.93 Ghz 4-core with 6Gb RAM (and crippled by a RAM cap) only costs 150$ less than an 2.26 Ghz 8-core with 6GB RAM.

A 2.93Ghz 4-core at that price point is probably the most idiotic idea ever in computer pricing.

((to make things even more confusing they included a typo that says the 4-core 2.93Ghz has 2 Nehalem 4-core processors- such a machine actually costs close to 6000$. I just wonder how such "typos" can happen. To increase the fog around Apple's MacPro pricing?))

Maximusbibicus. The best thing is to check your configuration on Apple's website, so you know what you are getting. Be sure NOT to increase RAM there, but get it from crucial or some other supplier. I'm sure you know this already, but I'd really like to prevent your going to a Circus Maximus event of computer buying (you know, with real lions, and all that antique Roman jazz...).

[maximusbibicus]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Generally: be careful with the pricing. Apple pricing has never been as crazy as this.

An example: I just got a macmall catalogue.

In this catalogue, a 2.93 Ghz 4-core with 6Gb RAM (and crippled by a RAM cap) only costs 150$ less than an 2.26 Ghz 8-core with 6GB RAM.

A 2.93Ghz 4-core at that price point is probably the most idiotic idea ever in computer pricing.

((to make things even more confusing they included a typo that says the 4-core 2.93Ghz has 2 Nehalem 4-core processors- such a machine actually costs close to 6000$. I just wonder how such "typos" can happen. To increase the fog around Apple's MacPro pricing?))

Maximusbibicus. The best thing is to check your configuration on Apple's website, so you know what you are getting. Be sure NOT to increase RAM there, but get it from crucial or some other supplier. I'm sure you know this already, but I'd really like to prevent your going to a Circus Maximus event of computer buying (you know, with real lions, and all that antique Roman jazz...).

Thanks for the tip. I would never buy RAM or a HD from Apple. RIP off. I ended up buying the dually 2.8 from the refurb store, so only one configuration possible anyway.

It will be here on Wednesday! Woohoo.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by maximusbibicus 

Thanks for the tip. I would never buy RAM or a HD from Apple. RIP off. I ended up buying the dually 2.8 from the refurb store, so only one configuration possible anyway.

It will be here on Wednesday! Woohoo.

Great! Enjoy your new MacPro! Niiice machine!