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 > New Xeons are finally here

New Xeons are finally here (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2012, 02:02 PM
 
Some kind of mini render farm with a built in hotplate? You could even oil-cool it with sunflower oil.

Its a Lean, Mean Fileservin' Machine™.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Don Pickett  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2012, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Some kind of mini render farm with a built in hotplate? You could even oil-cool it with sunflower oil.

Its a Lean, Mean Fileservin' Machine™.
I'm rendering Wall-E 2 and making burgers for the entire animation team!
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2012, 06:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
I'm rendering Wall-E 2 and making burgers for the entire animation team!
I'm rendering Cars 3 and melting the models down to be fed back into the 3d printer
     
euphras
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Germany, 51°51´51" N, 9°05´41" E
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2012, 08:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
I know Apple was on to this early with the G5, but they ruined it with the Intel transition.
i do remember those last attempts using "water"-cooling to keep the overclocked G5s in business.


Macintosh Quadra 950, Centris 610, Powermac 6100, iBook dual USB, Powerbook 667 DVI, Powerbook 867 DVI, MacBook Pro early 2011
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2012, 08:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by euphras View Post
i do remember those last attempts using "water"-cooling to keep the overclocked G5s in business.
The quad-cores they had to extend the warranty on because the coolant started leaking after two years or so and ruined the MLB?

Oh yeah, I remember those.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2012, 02:17 PM
 
For graphics users (we need quiet and reasonably attractive) it would be hard to make the existing MP case "better." Give the recent Ive interview where he stated Apple only does "better" it gives me hope that the existing MP case will still be available. After all it took iterations and failures (G5 leaks) to get to the existing quiet, powerful, attractive MP case and new CPUs/GPUs Thunderbolt, RAM and SSDs hopefully are doable w/o passing the heat removable capabilities of the existing external case design.

I could see some cool super-power things being done with fiber optics and some sort of parallel-type processing among cases.

-Allen
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 01:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
For graphics users (we need quiet and reasonably attractive) it would be hard to make the existing MP case "better." Give the recent Ive interview where he stated Apple only does "better" it gives me hope that the existing MP case will still be available. After all it took iterations and failures (G5 leaks) to get to the existing quiet, powerful, attractive MP case and new CPUs/GPUs Thunderbolt, RAM and SSDs hopefully are doable w/o passing the heat removable capabilities of the existing external case design.

I could see some cool super-power things being done with fiber optics and some sort of parallel-type processing among cases.
It would be extremely easier to make the case better.

I'd buy one in a heart beat if it wasn't so ginormous and so damn expensive. I'm still on an iMac, but have always wanted something in between the iMac and the Mac Pro. For a lot of graphics users, that would suit them too.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 08:17 AM
 
It's expensive, we all know that, but that has nothing to do with the case. A smaller case would mean cutting back on something. What would you lose - the big heatsinks (meaning slower CPUs), all the optical and HDD slots, smaller PSU (meaning fewer/weaker GPUs)?
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 08:40 AM
 
Most of the money goes on the CPUs doesn't it? Pretty much any PC mobo these days has a dozen or more SATA ports, built (albeit probably crappy) RAID, plenty of fast PCI-E (usually supporting SLI and/or Crossfire). They tend not to have FW800 or a second gigabit ethernet, but I'm not sure those justify such a price hike (Mac Pro logic board from apple is about 3 times the price of a high end Wintel board).

Its really the single-proc MP which is poor value I expect. Dual CPU boards are probably much more expensive than singles but as it is you can build a hackintosh that matches or betters the single-CPU MP for a fraction of the cost, look at the iMac which includes a 27" display.

I really think going the multiple box route would be a good idea. One box with just the two CPUs (up to two) and lots of RAM slots plus an iMac/MBP-type GPU and then choices of PCI-E and extra storage in other chassis via thunderbolt. Price the entry level CPU box similar to the 27" iMacs so it won't cannibalise those sales but will still be cheaper for pro users. Apple would probably sell more displays that way too and I bet the margins on those are fantastic.

I still haven't seen anyone try to answer the question of how a full-size PCI-E GPU is going to deal with Thunderbolt though.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 08:56 AM
 
I'm talking about something like a Mac Pro mini with single Core i7 and non-ECC memory, but still with decent expandability. That'd be a heluvalot cheaper.

However, I'd see it totally cannibalizing the Mac Pro market.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 09:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Most of the money goes on the CPUs doesn't it? Pretty much any PC mobo these days has a dozen or more SATA ports, built (albeit probably crappy) RAID, plenty of fast PCI-E (usually supporting SLI and/or Crossfire). They tend not to have FW800 or a second gigabit ethernet, but I'm not sure those justify such a price hike (Mac Pro logic board from apple is about 3 times the price of a high end Wintel board).
This was a while ago, but a good friend specced a dual-processor workstation equivalent to the 2010 octa-core Mac Pro, and building one that fit the needs of his studio would have come within a few hundred dollars of just buying the Mac Pro off the shelf. And that machine would have been running Windows, which he was rather fed up with.

Its really the single-proc MP which is poor value I expect. Dual CPU boards are probably much more expensive than singles but as it is you can build a hackintosh that matches or betters the single-CPU MP for a fraction of the cost, look at the iMac which includes a 27" display.
Yep.

But the single-processor Mac Pro is not the reason the line exists. The Mac Pro line exists for massive horsepower, which generally comes with need for expansion.

The single-processor model is for those who NEED the expansion slots but not the horsepower. Now that the iMacs and MacBooks Pro are quad-core i5/i7, It's pretty much redundant and will probably die. Thunderbolt and external chassis provide an option for *almost* all usage scenarios that don't automatically mean a multi-processor model, anyway.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 09:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
I'm talking about something like a Mac Pro mini with single Core i7 and non-ECC memory, but still with decent expandability. That'd be a heluvalot cheaper.
This again? The BOM for it wouldn't be particularly cheaper than the current single-socket MP, we did this a million times already. The only reason for the inflated price of the MP is that Apple adds a lot of margin.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 09:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
I'm talking about something like a Mac Pro mini with single Core i7 and non-ECC memory, but still with decent expandability. That'd be a heluvalot cheaper.
Here you go (since you missed it on the last page):



     
Don Pickett  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 10:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
This was a while ago, but a good friend specced a dual-processor workstation equivalent to the 2010 octa-core Mac Pro, and building one that fit the needs of his studio would have come within a few hundred dollars of just buying the Mac Pro off the shelf. And that machine would have been running Windows, which he was rather fed up with.
Whenever I've tried to spec out a Windows machine to compete with the Mac Pro I've had the same result: I think I'll be able to get it a lot cheaper but I always end up with within $200-$300 of the Mac Pro.

Personally, you can have my 3.33 six-core when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 10:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
Whenever I've tried to spec out a Windows machine to compete with the Mac Pro I've had the same result: I think I'll be able to get it a lot cheaper but I always end up with within $200-$300 of the Mac Pro.

Personally, you can have my 3.33 six-core when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
He opted for the octa-core, despite the lower clock speed. Audio production is probably one of very few market segment where threading can make a bigger difference than clock speed.
     
Don Pickett  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 11:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
He opted for the octa-core, despite the lower clock speed. Audio production is probably one of very few market segment where threading can make a bigger difference than clock speed.
Yep.

Just spec'd an equivalent six-core Xeon at Dell.com. Came out at ~$5,000.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 11:12 AM
 
That would be the other benefit of the external expansion chassis, you wouldn't need to have a Mac Pro in order to use it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Don Pickett  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 11:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
That would be the other benefit of the external expansion chassis, you wouldn't need to have a Mac Pro in order to use it.
Won't happen unless Apple kills off both the Mac Pro and the iMac. Desktops are down to 24% of Mac sales, and falling, so I don't think Apple would cannibalize such a small percentage of overall sales unless they intended to kill it entirely.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 11:18 AM
 
Yeah but only most of the people who would want to use it use Mac Pros and as Spheric keeps pointing out, someone already makes one. So your talking about a fraction of a fraction with an existing supplier.
     
Don Pickett  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
The only reason for the inflated price of the MP is that Apple adds a lot of margin.
Inflated? Just spec'd a Dell to match as closely as possible to the entry-level Mac Pro: $3,600. I can get it to $2,200, but that's with 2.26 GHz vs. 2.8 GHz Xeon.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 11:27 AM
 
It is commonly assumed (with enough circumstantial evidence from supplier sources to make it likely) that the iMac is far and away the biggest desktop seller. It's much more likely that they kill the mini than the iMac.
This was a while ago, but a good friend specced a dual-processor workstation equivalent to the 2010 octa-core Mac Pro, and building one that fit the needs of his studio would have come within a few hundred dollars of just buying the Mac Pro off the shelf. And that machine would have been running Windows, which he was rather fed up with.
This is true, but there are two notable points:

* Dual socket CPUs are much more expensive (at least for the current Xeon 5500/5600 series, honestly didn't check the E5 prices yet)
* Workstations, even single socket ones, are more expensive from everyone for testing and long-term support reasons. Since Apple isn't so much about the long term support for the MP (Mountain Lion supports older iMacs than MPs), that excuse can't be used for the single socket MP.

The single socket MP is just overpriced for no good reason, and a new box etc will not make a difference on the price. The dual socket is more reasonable.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Don Pickett  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 11:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
The single socket MP is just overpriced for no good reason, and a new box etc will not make a difference on the price. The dual socket is more reasonable.
See above: just spec'd a Dell to the entry level Mac Pro. As, or more expensive.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 11:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
The single socket MP is just overpriced for no good reason, and a new box etc will not make a difference on the price. The dual socket is more reasonable.
The single-socket MP will also be the first of Apple's desktop offerings to go, and I'm pretty sure it will disappear in the next revision.

As described above, there's simply no real justification for its existence, now that Thunderbolt has been implemented across the entire (rest of) Apple product lines.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
This again? The BOM for it wouldn't be particularly cheaper than the current single-socket MP, we did this a million times already. The only reason for the inflated price of the MP is that Apple adds a lot of margin.
It could be significantly cheaper, since the components in the current single-socket machine are more expensive than a Core i5/i7 based machine, but yeah a big reason the Mac Pro is so expensive is because Apple cranks up the margin on it, when in reality the base model Mac Pro with Core i7 would actually cost less than the iMac since it has no screen.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
But the single-processor Mac Pro is not the reason the line exists. The Mac Pro line exists for massive horsepower, which generally comes with need for expansion.

The single-processor model is for those who NEED the expansion slots but not the horsepower. Now that the iMacs and MacBooks Pro are quad-core i5/i7, It's pretty much redundant and will probably die. Thunderbolt and external chassis provide an option for *almost* all usage scenarios that don't automatically mean a multi-processor model, anyway.
Yes, there are some people who would seriously appreciate the expandability of the Mac Pro, who don't need the horsepower of the high end Mac Pro. The thing about the iMac is I'm constantly fighting with it because of its limited expansion options. It's really irritating. And no, Thunderbolt alone isn't a viable solution because the Thunderbolt options are extremely limited, and extremely expensive.

However, things will improve greatly later this year, when the USB 3 + Thunderbolt machines are out. Such a machine is more suitable than the current iMac for a number of people who would otherwise consider a single-CPU Mac Pro, myself included. I've considered buying a Mac Pro many times, but every time decided not to succumb to Apple's overpricing practices with these machines.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
Won't happen unless Apple kills off both the Mac Pro and the iMac. Desktops are down to 24% of Mac sales, and falling, so I don't think Apple would cannibalize such a small percentage of overall sales unless they intended to kill it entirely.
I don't see it that way. iMacs are already cannibalising the Mac Pro, have been for years since they spend half the upgrade cycle being more powerful then the entry Pros and they have the 27" ACD built in for a fraction the cost of the external one.
This solution does no work for the subset of people who don't like glossy displays.

The Mini is doing very well I'd wager. I sell a lot of them, particularly the server model which I think is being used to replace quite a few old Xserves.

My multiple enclosure proposal gives you the choice of an energy efficient, low horsepower, high expandability server (Mac Mini + expansion box), a medium power machine with high expandability and your choice of display (My version of the entry MP) a highly expandable iMac or the full monty machine with all the horsepower and RAM and whatever expansion you want.

I'd really love to see Apple use this concept to replace the Xserve RAID as well as the Xserve and MP and extand XSan to use Thunderbolt. Its probably too late now but if they had launched TB with this kind of setup it would have made some big inroads by now IMO.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Don Pickett  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 12:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
. . .a big reason the Mac Pro is so expensive is because Apple cranks up the margin on it, when in reality the base model Mac Pro with Core i7 would actually cost less than the iMac since it has no screen.
Would one of you please show me a similarly spec'd Windows machine which is significantly cheaper than the entry level Mac Pro? I can't find one.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
It could be significantly cheaper, since the components in the current single-socket machine are more expensive than a Core i5/i7 based machine, but yeah a big reason the Mac Pro is so expensive is because Apple cranks up the margin on it, when in reality the base model Mac Pro with Core i7 would actually cost less than the iMac since it has no screen.
They aren't! i7-2600, to pick the fastest non-unlocked version, costs $294. The equivalent Xeon, E3-1270, costs $328 and adds support for ECC while disabling the IGP. Add $11 to add back the GPU - a faster version than what is in the i7-2600. ECC RAM is not particularly expensive, and the rest of it is general desktop parts. Further down in the spectrum, you have something like an i5-2400 at $184 - but then there is an E3-1220 at only $5 more, which gets you not only ECC but a bit more L2. The i5 line doesn't go much lower, $177 seems to be the floor. The way to save on the BOM is not to drop the Xeons for equivalent CPUs, it's to drop everything to lower performing parts.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 12:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
See above: just spec'd a Dell to the entry level Mac Pro. As, or more expensive.
I know. I addressed that - that thing will in all likelihood have long term support deals, while Apple won't even support its own OS on a 5 year old model. That's the difference when you go to workstations. If you drop the Xeons, you can spec something equivalent or faster.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Don Pickett  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I know. I addressed that - that thing will in all likelihood have long term support deals, while Apple won't even support its own OS on a 5 year old model. That's the difference when you go to workstations. If you drop the Xeons, you can spec something equivalent or faster.
That doesn't matter. If you're going to call the Mac Pros overpriced, you need to show something similar which is cheaper: you can't. Obviously, saying the Mac Pros are overpriced is a piece of conventional wisdom which just isn't true.

Or, put another way, you may feel they're overpriced, but then so are all Xeon workstations.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 01:30 PM
 
The nature of overpricing with the Quad is the restriction to only 4 RAM slots. That hamstrings the box (8-GB DIMMs being so expensive).

Modern processors are so powerful that other parameters become limiting to workflows. The Quad as is would be fair value except for the intentional RAM limitation.

All many folks need in a new MP is one of the lesser priced Xeons, T-bolt, and 8 RAM slots. The existing case architecture rocks. A value Apple SSD option (like in the top MBPs) would be nice too, but that can be retrofitted third-party if need be.

While my wish list is being filled Apple could make matte an option on all displays. Throw the graphics pros a bone.

-Allen
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
They aren't! i7-2600, to pick the fastest non-unlocked version, costs $294. The equivalent Xeon, E3-1270, costs $328 and adds support for ECC while disabling the IGP. Add $11 to add back the GPU - a faster version than what is in the i7-2600. ECC RAM is not particularly expensive, and the rest of it is general desktop parts. Further down in the spectrum, you have something like an i5-2400 at $184 - but then there is an E3-1220 at only $5 more, which gets you not only ECC but a bit more L2. The i5 line doesn't go much lower, $177 seems to be the floor. The way to save on the BOM is not to drop the Xeons for equivalent CPUs, it's to drop everything to lower performing parts.
So basically you're confirming the Xeons are more expensive. Thanks for illustrating my point.

Everything adds up, and yes, ECC is more expensive too. BTW, saying that a Xeon gives you ECC and more L2 completely misses the point. The point is the CPUs are already fast enough and some of us don't want ECC anyway, esp. if we need to buy it in threes.

--

BTW, I'm actually seriously considering going from my 27" 2.93 GHz non-Thunderbolt iMac to a new 21.5" iMac when it comes out. Why? I suspect the low Mac Pro will remain the odd machine out in terms of value, but having both Thunderbolt and USB 3 on the same machine would go a long way toward future-proofing the machine for the near to mid term. Also, the problem with my 27" is that pixel density is too high for my liking, and it's too tall for good ergonomics. The 21.5" is shorter and has a much nicer 102 ppi pixel density, although I'd prefer something like 98 ppi or lower.
( Last edited by Eug; Mar 14, 2012 at 01:46 PM. )
     
Don Pickett  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
The nature of overpricing with the Quad is the restriction to only 4 RAM slots. That hamstrings the box (8-GB DIMMs being so expensive).

-Allen
Now we're picking nits. I still say the Mac Pros aren't overpriced. In fact, compared to comparable Wintel offerings, they're often less expensive.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 01:42 PM
 
For what feels like the billionth time: It is stupid to make a computer that could be easily rack mountable not rack-mountable. End of story.

Also the current case is 9 years old, it couldn't hurt to freshen it up a little bit.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 01:45 PM
 
OK, if you want to settle for a $30 difference, fine - they're that much more expensive. What I can see on newegg, you can save about $10-15 for each 4 gig stick that doesn't have ECC. You'll be hard pressed to even gain $100 saving at this rate, and the MP is about $700 too expensive.

The nature of overpricing with the Quad is the restriction to only 4 RAM slots. That hamstrings the box (8-GB DIMMs being so expensive).
That used to be true, but current 8 gig prices seem to have a premium of about $10-15 over 2x4 GB. The 16 GB DIMMs are expensive, though.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Don Pickett  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
. . .and the MP is about $700 too expensive.
Too. Expensive. For. What?
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 01:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
OK, if you want to settle for a $30 difference, fine - they're that much more expensive. What I can see on newegg, you can save about $10-15 for each 4 gig stick that doesn't have ECC. You'll be hard pressed to even gain $100 saving at this rate, and the MP is about $700 too expensive.
If Apple wanted to make a value Pro (which they don't), they could easily drop the price $400, with the drop in price in components and losing unnecessary ones (like WiFi and dual Ethernet), along with the drop in margin on top of those components. With a $400 lower price point, I'd actually consider buying a value Mac Pro.

I don't need 8 RAM slots by the way.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
Would one of you please show me a similarly spec'd Windows machine which is significantly cheaper than the entry level Mac Pro? I can't find one.
Something like this?. It doesn't match exactly, because Apple has stayed on the previous gen Xeons, but it's a quad Xeon at a higher frequency. The GPU is a bit wimpier, but you have 4 figures to upgrade that. Or did I miss something?
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Don Pickett  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 01:55 PM
 
Oh, I get it. This is about MPs being more expensive than their WIntel counterparts. This is about the theoretical MP Apple could make.

Snooze.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I don't see it that way. iMacs are already cannibalising the Mac Pro, have been for years since they spend half the upgrade cycle being more powerful then the entry Pros and they have the 27" ACD built in for a fraction the cost of the external one.
This solution does no work for the subset of people who don't like glossy displays.
For all the shouting on the internet, I've found that many professionals choose their set of compromises, shut up, and deal with the trade-offs of their tools.

For one, as with any content-creation business, the rooms are built to suit the tools that are to be used, and not vice versa. I'm not gonna complain that my monitor speakers are boomy around 85 Hz, because the damn things are linear down to 60 or so, and the boominess is a function of the room that needs to be counteracted with sound baffles.

For another, any tool has pros and cons. I'm also not gonna complain about reflections in a glossy display that can be counteracted by a set of $30 curtains and controlled lighting, or just hooking up a second, matte monitor. If I don't care about the superior image quality of the glossy display, the path of least resistance may be a matte display foil. Looks like shit, but hey!—no reflections.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 02:00 PM
 
We already know you are always ready to accept compromises without complaint Spheric, as long as they're dished out by Apple.
     
Don Pickett  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 02:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Something like this?. It doesn't match exactly, because Apple has stayed on the previous gen Xeons, but it's a quad Xeon at a higher frequency. The GPU is a bit wimpier, but you have 4 figures to upgrade that. Or did I miss something?
Closer. But when I add ECC RAM and a comparable video card I'm at $2,234, with no wireless or Firewire 800.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 02:15 PM
 
^^^ Which is why we don't want ECC or wireless. Hell, at this point I'd even be fine if they dropped FW 800 completely even though I have FW 800 devices.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 02:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
We already know you are always ready to accept compromises without complaint Spheric, as long as they're dished out by Apple.
As long as Apple continues to surpass my expectations and needs with what complete packages they DO deliver, I have little problem with accepting a compromise and paying them good money for it.

As for the implicit fanb0i accusation: I dunno.
I was pretty vocal about hating Logic prior to v. 8.
I still think Apple completely botched the Final Cut Pro X introduction, though the product itself was necessary in the form it was revealed in.
Apple has pulled a bunch of head-scratchers.
And apart from getting a great deal on a used Core Duo iMac, I average about four years on a Mac, so it's not like I'm eating everything they throw at me.

And on the glossy vs. matte issue, I'm strongly influenced by a single pro who once rushed through the store I was working at, found what he was looking for, and before he rushed back out, took the time to explain that the whole discussion was complete bogus. He was a sports photographer and used the unibody MBP at fieldside, outdoors, all the time, and it was the best machine he'd ever owned.

That single, albeit anecdotal, experience weighs more to me than a hundred instances of the same six people who obviously have time on their hands repeating the same mantra over and over.

In real life, almost nobody cares. The six people who do can buy external Eizos or matte MacBooks Pro. If they can't, they're not effective enough at whatever they do that requires it.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
^^^ Which is why we don't want ECC or wireless. Hell, at this point I'd even be fine if they dropped FW 800 completely even though I have FW 800 devices.
That'd make it useless for studio work, which is a significant part of its market.

At least, until Thunderbolt stuff is readily available, as you fairly pointed out above.
     
Don Pickett  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 02:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
^^^ Which is why we don't want ECC or wireless. Hell, at this point I'd even be fine if they dropped FW 800 completely even though I have FW 800 devices.
It doesn't matter what you want. If you're going to call the MP overpriced, you can only compare it to other, similar products. If you don't do this you're not talking about real world products, but the theoretical machine you want Apple to make using parts you order from New Egg.

Which is fine. But take that discussion to the Lounge, so people coming here don't think the MP is overpriced when, in the retail world, it just isn't.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 02:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
That'd make it useless for studio work, which is a significant part of its market.

At least, until Thunderbolt stuff is readily available, as you fairly pointed out above.
I know. I don't think they should drop FW800, as that would make the machine pointless for a lot of people. I'm just saying that I'd personally take that compromise if they offered it with the other features I'd want. I have some FW 400 and FW 800 hardware, but I'm not heavily dependent on it like some people.

Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
It doesn't matter what you want. If you're going to call the MP overpriced, you can only compare it to other, similar products. If you don't do this you're not talking about real world products, but the theoretical machine you want Apple to make using parts you order from New Egg.

Which is fine. But take that discussion to the Lounge, so people coming here don't think the MP is overpriced when, in the retail world, it just isn't.
Stop with the armchair moderating already.

Anyways, I'm with P. The low end Mac Pro is overpriced, for what it should be. The higher end Mac Pros make much more sense in terms of pricing. I personally have no interest in the higher end Mac Pros. I'm only interested in the lower end Mac Pro, but it doesn't provide a decent value IMO so I won't buy it.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
Too. Expensive. For. What?
Too expensive for a tower with only 4 RAM slots. The folks who need towers use apps that over the life of the tower (and towers have long lives) are typically wanting to utilize more and more RAM. For many years Photoshop, for instance, has been able (under OS X) to take indirect advantage of at least 32 GB RAM. RAM costs prevented most of us from going there, but additional slots allow use of cheaper DIMMs.

Speaking only for myself, that is the only thing that makes the Quad "overpriced." Like selling a full size pickup truck that allowed only 13" diameter wheels: the rest of the truck could be great but the value for real work would be dramatically decreased by the tiny non-upgradable wheels. The same truck would be good value at essentially the same cost-to-build if it simply had basic 16" wheels.

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Mar 14, 2012 at 02:37 PM. )
     
Don Pickett  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 02:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Stop with the armchair moderating already.

Anyways, I'm with P. The low end Mac Pro is overpriced, for what it should be.
I'm not moderating, I'm making a point: calling the MP overpriced is plain, flat-out wrong, as it is no more expensive than comparable Wintel machines. It is only overpriced if one is playing source-the-parts, which isn't about any real product.

You can say you think/wish Apple would make a cheaper machine. You can't say it's overpriced if you can't show me a comparable machine for considerably less.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
I'm not moderating, I'm making a point: calling the MP overpriced is plain, flat-out wrong, as it is no more expensive than comparable Wintel machines. It is only overpriced if one is playing source-the-parts, which isn't about any real product.

You can say you think/wish Apple would make a cheaper machine. You can't say it's overpriced if you can't show me a comparable machine for considerably less.
I wish Apple would make a cheaper Mac Pro, but I don't think they will any time soon because they have heavy marketecture restrictions.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2012, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Don Pickett View Post
I'm not moderating, I'm making a point: calling the MP overpriced is plain, flat-out wrong, as it is no more expensive than comparable Wintel machines. It is only overpriced if one is playing source-the-parts, which isn't about any real product.

You can say you think/wish Apple would make a cheaper machine. You can't say it's overpriced if you can't show me a comparable machine for considerably less.
No you're not moderating. You just wish you could be.

And I wish Apple would make a cheaper Mac Pro, but I don't think they will any time soon because they have heavy marketecture restrictions.
     
 
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
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:18 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,