[Todd Madson]

If my G5 hadn't recently sustained a power transformer in the neighborhood exploding incident I might not be wanting to upgrade so soon.

The wife suggested I upgrade in the fall before all that happened - SHE suggested it before I could even open my mouth but maybe that's
because she got her new iMac a couple of months back and was feeling like "you've had that five years already?"

Just waiting and seeing at the moment. 433 days is a lot but I've been waiting a lot longer before.

The beauty of it is: what once was state of the art becomes "it's not even good enough to refurb" eventually but the high end pulls the low end
up so maybe I can get an 8-core sometime before I become old and decrepit.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

There's a certain humor to this - consider how many world crises have occurred since Apple last updated the Mac Pro.

433 days and counting...

And Bush was president.

Hopefully there's an upgrade before the next presidential elections.

[Todd Madson]

Speed bump late last week but not a architecture change. Incremental. Someday.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

And Bush was president.

Hopefully there's an upgrade before the next presidential elections.

AFAIK, the current line of Mac Pros debuted March 2009, and unfortunately Bush was not president by that date - that is, unless Dr. Who altered the Mac time space continuum.

[Todd Madson]

You can never tell with that Doctor Who character, he's always up to something!

[Veltliner]

Looks like nothing is coming up anytime soon.

[Big Mac]

The Mac Pro updates are usually silent updates. Most Mac updates are these days. . .

[Lateralus]

I'm honestly at the point where seeing Apple release OS X for PCs (either flat-out or through OEM partnerships) would not actually surprise me. I just don't get the impression that Apple cares to push the Mac any further than their hardware monopoly has allowed it to grow.

[Big Mac]

Wow, you really think that Lateralus? I don't think that's the case at all. I don't know if Apple cares that much about Macs or OS X anymore, but one thing that is clear is that the Mac market share trend has been positive for a while. Apple doesn't want to let that revenue stream go. What seems far more likely to me is that Apple will approach the situation in this fashion: Apple will push out new Mac hardware often enough to keep sales up, and Apple will update OS X enough to keep general interest in the platform alive. What Apple won't do is invest much more in the platform to really push the envelope.

Time will tell though. The iPlatforms are more important to Apple than the Mac now. We'll see what happens with Mac marketing going forward. With the end of the Mac and PC guys spots, it will be interesting to see if Apple adopts a new mass media marketing campaign for the Mac or not. The answer to that question will most likely telegraph whether Apple wants to keep the Mac alive and growing or if the company is satisfied with the Mac as a side business.

[Lateralus]

Fair point.

And I guess that's the fork in the Mac-road; either the platform is going to go out with a bang or, as you suggested and may very well be correct in assuming... with a whimper.

[Big Mac]

Thank you. The other consideration is what happens to Apple retail stores if the Mac goes away. The stores would be pretty empty if they were dedicated solely to the iPlatforms, unless Apple has plans to sell 200,000 iPlatform apps in retail packages.

[P]

Given the care with which the latest MBP and iMac have been designed, I don't think Apple is abandoning them just yet - especially as they seem to be making money. They are also required for development for the iDevices, and Apple need something for that.

The MP is increasingly looking like the odd one out, however.

[macaddict0001]

Its only a matter of time. There is no way they are waiting for sandy bridge, as it is my understanding the sandy bridge based Xeons won't be released until the second half of 2011.

[SierraDragon]

Apple's product mix comprises a synergy. At different times different products get more/less attention, and some products may indeed reach EOL at different points in time, but maintaining the entire mix is important to Apple overall (R & D transfer, halo effect, market perception, etc.).

Predicting the death of MPs just because towers are not a huge unit-volume product and have not had great look-at-the-latest-iteration fanfare recently is IMO silly. MPs are solid products as is; even the 2006 MPs like mine still hold their own as pro boxes.

IMO maintaining its stake in the high end tower market (read: graphics) will remain important to the synergy of Apple's overall product mix. High end graphics users look to real competence rather than glitzy bells/whistles, and the Mac pro design is so competent that Apple does not have to do much to remain in the world of tower high end, so folks should not forecast the demise of the MP just because dramatic announcements do not come out every few months.

-Allen

[Veltliner]

After the iPhone/iPad iHype we'll see a new Mac Pro after the summer.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

high end tower market (read: graphics)

Actually, high-end is heavy audio and video production.

Photoshop et al. are comparatively low-end by today's standards, no?

Now that the iMacs eat 16 GB of RAM, is there really ANY need for a pixeljockey to buy a Mac Pro - aside from a matte display (which can be hooked up to an iMac)?

[reader50]

Multiple displays, requiring extra graphics cards.
More internal drives.
eSATA / fiber channel cards for those needing 20+ HDs.
Hardware capture cards.
CPU upgrades down the road.
Anyone who needs more/different ports than the iMac has.

There is another advantage. Should you need to throw a computer at someone, an iMac is just not as impressive as a Mac Pro.

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Should you need to throw a computer at someone, an iMac is just not as impressive as a Mac Pro.

Exactly.

[Todd Madson]

Right.

People walk into our office and they look at my computer and my wife's iMac and they think my G5 2.5 is more impressive since it's
that solid chunk of billet aluminum. It just looks like it means business even though my wife's computer technically has more horsepower.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Multiple displays, requiring extra graphics cards.
More internal drives.
eSATA / fiber channel cards for those needing 20+ HDs.
Hardware capture cards.
CPU upgrades down the road.
Anyone who needs more/different ports than the iMac has.

None of those really apply to graphics guys, though.

I'm not knocking graphics work, mind you - it just strikes me that graphics pros have this attitude of "high-end", when their actual needs seem - to me (hence the question) - fairly low-end, as Macs go.

Video and (somewhat less so) audio are the actual high-end for desktops.

[Doofy]

All you peeps wondering when the new MP is going to be released seem to be missing a vital point: Most of the people using MPs aren't going to go running to a Windows machine even if the next MP doesn't come out until 2012.

Not until you can get Final Cut Studio, Logic and Digital Performer on a PC anyways.

MP users simply don't need the update frequency that the ADHD-addled gadget geeks need. Sure, a speed bump might get that video file rendered a little quicker, but since pro users actually bother to figure out a proper workflow and do this kind of thing overnight, who gives a toss whether it takes 4 or 8 hours?

[Big Mac]

Cutting processing time in half is a very attractive upgrade.

You have a good point Doofy, but I'm sure a lot of creative professionals are also gadget geeks who don't want to pay top dollar for last year's technology. Apple has to try to remain competitive with the market regardless of whether or not core MP buyers care about the latest technology.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Actually, high-end is heavy audio and video production.
Photoshop et al. are comparatively low-end by today's standards, no?
Now that the iMacs eat 16 GB of RAM, is there really ANY need for a pixeljockey to buy a Mac Pro - aside from a matte display (which can be hooked up to an iMac)?

...None of those really apply to graphics guys, though.
I'm not knocking graphics work, mind you - it just strikes me that graphics pros have this attitude of "high-end", when their actual needs seem - to me (hence the question) - fairly low-end, as Macs go.
Video and (somewhat less so) audio are the actual high-end for desktops.

Actually, heavy hardware needs do apply to many "graphics guys." Pro still photogs like me using Aperture do need high end capability: the latest mid-high end graphics card (though not the power that video needs) for multiple large displays, multiple internal drives in RAID, etc. Personally I find even my 4 internal 1-TB drives significantly limiting.

Even non-photog PS users today can get involved in handling large batches of 20-100 MB-sized RAW files and RAW file conversion. Even though PS itself is not all that demanding once a decent GPU and lots of RAM are available, handling batches of largish images takes horsepower not well met via a single internal drive and the other engineering compromises that define lower end designs.

Also for many graphics pros the glossy display is an absolute dealbreaker. And adding a real external display to an iMac is not a solution to the iMac's (IMO unacceptable for pro photo work) glossy display, because in images work one often displays images on both displays concurrently, and it does not visually work to be comparing images on both glossy and matte displays at the same time.

Personally when I say "graphics" I usually mean to include video imagery as well as still imagery as subsets of "graphics." I am ignorant as to what demands audio makes.

-Allen

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Actually, high-end is heavy audio and video production.

Photoshop et al. are comparatively low-end by today's standards, no?

Now that the iMacs eat 16 GB of RAM, is there really ANY need for a pixeljockey to buy a Mac Pro - aside from a matte display (which can be hooked up to an iMac)?

Check out how expensive it is to max out a current iMac. It's around $1600 (Crucial.com).

The display is a really important issue. This and the RAM are the two arguments that will keep me from buying another iMac (even though I truly like them as machines and also their appearance. For color critical work - especially if you have to give it to paying clients - you need displays that don't fool the eye with reflection. You can't do everything by the numbers using the info panel in PS. You also have to use your eye and here's where the reflections are a big no-no.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by reader50 

There is another advantage. Should you need to throw a computer at someone, an iMac is just not as impressive as a Mac Pro.

Not sure about this one.

Breaking an iMac screen over somebody's head can lead to ugly cuts and streams of blood.

Much more impressive in my opinion than the bumps you'd get from a Mac Pro.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Actually, heavy hardware needs do apply to many "graphics guys." Pro still photogs like me using Aperture do need high end capability: the latest mid-high end graphics card (though not the power that video needs) for multiple large displays, multiple internal drives in RAID, etc. Personally I find even my 4 internal 1-TB drives significantly limiting.

Even non-photog PS users today can get involved in handling large batches of 20-100 MB-sized RAW files and RAW file conversion. Even though PS itself is not all that demanding once a decent GPU and lots of RAM are available, handling batches of largish images takes horsepower not well met via a single internal drive and the other engineering compromises that define lower end designs.

Also for many graphics pros the glossy display is an absolute dealbreaker. And adding a real external display to an iMac is not a solution to the iMac's (IMO unacceptable for pro photo work) glossy display, because in images work one often displays images on both displays concurrently, and it does not visually work to be comparing images on both glossy and matte displays at the same time.

Personally when I say "graphics" I usually mean to include video imagery as well as still imagery as subsets of "graphics." I am ignorant as to what demands audio makes.

-Allen

Agree.

I wonder why there is always this perception large Photoshop files would not need a speedy processor and a lot of RAM (especially with 64-bit CS5).

Since I upgraded to a 5DII my iMac is simply overwhelmed by the large files.

DPP just slows down considerably.

Bridge high quality previews take forever (sure, it's not recommended, but I like it in my workflow and haven't ever gotten around using Expression Media 2 even though I bought it almost 2 years ago).

Opening and saving large TIFF files... etc..

[Cory Bauer]

Did Apple forget that the Mac Pro existed? MacRumors buyer's guide says the average update is 236 days, and it's been more than double that since the last Mac Pro update. Seriously, what could possibly be the holdup?

[mduell]

They don't care. What are you going to do, switch platforms away from all the software you own and know and like for a marginal price/performance gap?

[Veltliner]

Maybe professional grade workstations don't need a yearly upgrade.

Many of the consumer product upgrades are very slight. Nobody needs that.

But if there's an upgrade, I expect a real upgrade.

I wish Apple would do better pricing. And do away with wanna-be workstations like the Quad.

[P]

If I had to guess, I think that Apple's support structure for things like testing and logistics is buckling under the load of the iPad and iPhone 4 launches. Combining this with rumored availability problems for Gulftown and the MP is the logical Mac to delay an update of.

Note that the iMac and Xserve are also overdue for updates.

[Todd Madson]

Guys: I figured it out. I have money to upgrade so an upgrade doesn't come out. If the money gets spent on bills or something else equally responsible the updates will be available and I won't be able to afford them. Simple Murphy's Law.

I keep going "I really could use a 27" iMac with a Corei7" but I have too many external drives and I want even more power
than the Corei7. Sigh.

[Veltliner]

Apple is floating in cash.

They could easily hire a bunch of people to bring their Mac Pros and their pro applications up to speed.

Probably some internal war going on in regard to shape the future of the Apple brand as a multimedia company which also produces gadgets and computers.

[amazing]

Out of curiosity I checked to see when the thread started: Nov 28, 2009, when the rumors first started being discussed here in the MacNN forums. We're now going on 7 months.

When does a rumor become classified as vaporware?

[P]

Originally Posted by Todd Madson 

I keep going "I really could use a 27" iMac with a Corei7" but I have too many external drives and I want even more power than the Corei7. Sigh.

Not sure I understand your complaints here. External drives fit as well on the iMac as on the MP - did you mean that you want to put them inside the box?

A Gulftown MP will of course have more cores than the iMac has now, but it will not be more powerful otherwise. Not sure what your workload is, but do you really think that you can pin more than 4 cores?

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by P 

External drives fit as well on the iMac as on the MP... A Gulftown MP will of course have more cores than the iMac has now, but it will not be more powerful otherwise.

Not true. The engineering of iMacs is severely compromised to achieve form factor and price points. Top Mac Pros are far more powerful than iMacs, literally in every regard:

• CPU
• GPU
• Up to 4 SATA internal drives, RAID-configurable
• Easy SSD installation
• SATA connectivity possible for external drives
• Twice the available RAM

Gulftown by definition will be an even more powerful beast. Note that the operation of many if not most apps that really need high-end power already benefit from additional cores, and by 2011 it is safe to expect almost all such apps to benefit from added cores.

Primate Labs has interesting tests at <http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/mac-benchmarks/>. The superior graphics and hard drives performance available to MPs makes the actual superiority of MPs over iMacs even more dramatic.

[P]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Not true. The engineering of iMacs is severely compromised to achieve form factor and price points. Top Mac Pros are far more powerful than iMacs, literally in every regard:

The top model, certainly, but that one costs a LOT more than the top iMac.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

• CPU

More cores, but lower performance per core unless you pick the top BTO version of each. The iMac has a higher turbo and a faster cache, and the memory bandwidth advantage is irrelevant with DDR3-1333 RAM (according to Intel, who ought to know - the third lane was for Gulftown all along). Gulftown doesn't change this, it only adds cores and a bigger but even slower cache.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

• GPU

BTO, yes. The default model GT 120 model is pathetic, and no match for the 4850 Mobility.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

• Up to 4 SATA internal drives, RAID-configurable
• Easy SSD installation
• SATA connectivity possible for external drives

Um... Yes? Not what the post was about.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

• Twice the available RAM

Only in the octocore. The quad has the same 16 gig RAM ceiling as the iMac.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Gulftown by definition will be an even more powerful beast. Note that the operation of many if not most apps that really need high-end power already benefit from additional cores, and by 2011 it is safe to expect almost all such apps to benefit from added cores.

I certainly don't feel safe to assume that, that's why I asked about the workload. If it can make use of more cores, then an MP makes sense, but that is the only case. Gulftown will not improve general per-thread performance - the only exception is the encryption instructions.

The default configuration of the quadcore MP is slower than the default config of the top iMac. This is a point worth repeating, as it is almost unique in Apple's history that it is this way.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Primate Labs has interesting tests at <http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/mac-benchmarks/>. The superior graphics and hard drives performance available to MPs makes the actual superiority of MPs over iMacs even more dramatic.

Very interesting tests indeed. The Core i7 iMac is the fastest quadcore, and it even beats the default octocore! This is excluding the fact that the top two results are from 16-core Macs - where did they find those? Did some cram a Beckton into an MP, or do they have engineering samples of Sandy Bridge?

Whether an MP makes sense is all about the workload, and quite frankly the MP is weak in many areas today:

* Only 4 DIMM slots - same as iMac. Bloomfield accepts 6.
* Only 7200 rpm drives - again, same as the iMac. There are 10000rpm and 15000rpm and better yet SSDs out there.
* Default GPU is a GT 120, aka 9500 GT, aka very similar to the 9600M GT in the last gen MBP. That's right, the default 15" MBP has a better GPU than the MP. Wonder how the 320M does? It has more shaders, but shares the memory bandwidth with the CPU. Would be highly ironic if the mini had a better GPU than the MP.

[Big Mac]

How could a mini possibly have a better GPU than a MP?

[P]

Well, isn't that the million dollar question? The MP uses a GT 120 in the default config. That card has 32 shader processors compared to the 48 in the 320M. The GT 120 is clocked higher at 500/1400 compared to 450/950 (core/shader) in the 320M. Taken together, that probably leaves them about equal in shader power, and the GT 120 obviously has an advantage in that it doesn't have to share its memory bandwidth (slightly larger than the GT 120 at 17.6 vs 16 GBps) with the CPU, so it likely still has a small lead. It's embarrassing enough that the 330M in the MBP 15" is faster (same core config as 320M, 575/1265 clocks, and a 25.6 GBps dedicated bandwidth).

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by P 

The quad has the same 16 gig RAM ceiling as the iMac... The default configuration of the quadcore MP is slower than the default config of the top iMac...
MP is weak in many areas today:
* Only 4 DIMM slots - same as iMac. Bloomfield accepts 6.
* Only 7200 rpm drives - again, same as the iMac. There are 10000rpm and 15000rpm and better yet SSDs out there.
* Default GPU is a GT 120.

The Quad-Core MP is flat unacceptable at its price point; I have said that many times. However, basing a generic comparison of MP power vs. iMac power using the (IMO unacceptable) Quad and stock componentry is misleading:
"A Gulftown MP will of course have more cores than the iMac has now, but it will not be more powerful otherwise."

"Powerful" represents the ability of the box to perform heavy apps at the high end, typically things like video, Aperture, etc. Users of those apps configure their boxes to suit their workflows. And we do it via third-party when feasible. E.g. my MP is filled with third-party drives including RAID, as well as a graphics card that did not come from Apple. A lower end "stock" card is not a negative feature in a box designed for easy card changeout.

MP vs. iMac for high end work
• Usage of SSDs and 10k drives internal SATA or external SATA is easy for a MP buyer, impossible for iMac owners.
• Custom selecting an ideal GPU is easy for a MP buyer.
• MPs (except the admittedly sucky Quad) have eight DIMM slots, not four
• The iMac restriction of one internal drive and no eSATA is a HUGE performance limitation to most folks actually running apps needing high end performance
• My guess is that most high end MPs are used for images processing of one kind or another. Most (not all) pros in those fields find the iMac glossy display unacceptable.
• IMO the apps that folks at the high end of power needs use will largely be able to take advantage of the cores of Gulftown - - soon if not immediately.

The various iMacs are great boxes, and I recommend them to many folks. Not, however, for high end graphics work.

-Allen

[P]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

The Quad-Core MP is flat unacceptable at its price point; I have said that many times. However, basing a generic comparison of MP power vs. iMac power using the (IMO unacceptable) Quad and stock componentry is misleading:

Why? Obviously it can be more easily expanded and modified - that goes without saying!

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

"A Gulftown MP will of course have more cores than the iMac has now, but it will not be more powerful otherwise."

"Powerful" represents the ability of the box to perform heavy apps at the high end, typically things like video, Aperture, etc.

Your last post was about how they were more powerful on a number of points, CPU, GPU etc. Now it's about how the entire concept is expandable, and thus more powerful. I'm not going to argue that they're not expandable, and if that's important to you you can call that "power", but I will argue when you claim that an (undefined) MP is more powerful than an (undefined) iMac on each and every point: GPU, CPU, etc - it just isn't.

The quad MP has a slower CPU, a slower GPU, a smaller HD and less RAM than the top iMac, which is much cheaper despite including a huge gorgeous display. That is not more powerful. The octocore MP still has a slower GPU and a smaller HD, and the CPU is clocked so low that you need at least 5 simultaneous threads to beat the iMac there.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Users of those apps configure their boxes to suit their workflows. And we do it via third-party when feasible. E.g. my MP is filled with third-party drives including RAID, as well as a graphics card that did not come from Apple.

Great, but that's not "far more powerful in literally every regard".

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

A lower end "stock" card is not a negative feature in a box designed for easy card changeout.

A $40 card in a $3,300 machine is not a negative feature? Really?

There are many reasons why the MP might be better suited than the iMac to certain tasks, but it is not "far more powerful in literally every regard", and I think that it's important to list exactly when the MP is a good choice and when it isn't. Expandability is one such reason. Raw CPU power isn't, not unless you have a very specialised workload.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by P 

...I think that it's important to list exactly when the MP is a good choice and when it isn't. Expandability is one such reason. Raw CPU power isn't, not unless you have a very specialised workload.

I fully agree. And I concur that the top iMac at $2k is overall good value with a hella powerful CPU.

When we are evaluating higher-end performance I do feel that expandability to use things like fast drives, eSATA, SSDs, advanced/multiple graphics cards, max RAM, etc. is a very important parameter, literally a defining characteristic of how "powerful" a given platform is; generally more important than raw CPU power. Note too that by and large only folks with very specialized workloads actually need highest end power (which, to stay fully on-topic, I guess is why we have gone so long since the MP has been updated...).

-Allen

[mduell]

The Mac Pro can be configured into a far more powerful machine than the iMac can be. Nobody disagrees.

The base Mac Pro models are a joke. Nobody disagrees.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The base Mac Pro models are a joke. Nobody disagrees.

Except apparently Apple marketing. <sigh>

[P]

I wish I understood their motivations for the MP. They must know that it's overdue and overpriced.

[macaddict0001]

well, someone at apple has to know that, just not the right person it would seem

[Todd Madson]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Items snipped for brevity...

MP vs. iMac for high end work
• Usage of SSDs and 10k drives internal SATA or external SATA is easy for a MP buyer, impossible for iMac owners.
• Custom selecting an ideal GPU is easy for a MP buyer.
• MPs (except the admittedly sucky Quad) have eight DIMM slots, not four
• The iMac restriction of one internal drive and no eSATA is a HUGE performance limitation to most folks actually running apps needing high end performance
• My guess is that most high end MPs are used for images processing of one kind or another. Most (not all) pros in those fields find the iMac glossy display unacceptable.
• IMO the apps that folks at the high end of power needs use will largely be able to take advantage of the cores of Gulftown - - soon if not immediately.

The various iMacs are great boxes, and I recommend them to many folks. Not, however, for high end graphics work.

-Allen

-I just read a thread over at macrumors.com's forum regarding people who were installing SSD drives inside the Corei7
iMac 27" model.

The lack of eSata is a problem IMO but I'm using FW800 to my old G5 tower using it as a BBD. My purpose is music production primarily.

The glossy display does seem to be a bone of contention for some graphics professionals. My desk setup has an
overhang that seems to block incoming light so I don't have any of these issues.

My main issue is that I own lots and lots of digital audio interfaces of various kinds and so far I've not run into any
issues but I wish there was an eSata port on this thing.

I have 30 days, what sold me on this was the performance with a huge session in Logic. This machine geekbenched
at a higher level, and ran Logic better than the entry level MP (not too hard from what I hear anyway).

That being said, I suppose there are tradeoffs everywhere. This screen is astonishing.

[pixelmason]

Originally Posted by P 

Not sure I understand your complaints here. External drives fit as well on the iMac as on the MP - did you mean that you want to put them inside the box?

A Gulftown MP will of course have more cores than the iMac has now, but it will not be more powerful otherwise. Not sure what your workload is, but do you really think that you can pin more than 4 cores?

^^^ Your original post.

1. external drives:

Originally Posted by P 

Originally Posted by SierraDragon
• Up to 4 SATA internal drives, RAID-configurable
• Easy SSD installation
• SATA connectivity possible for external drives

Um... Yes? Not what the post was about.

Um... Yes it was. The Mac Pro is superior. You're the only one who disagrees.

2. "power":
Intel thinks it's faster...
The world's fastest, smartest PC processor

those were the original questions and now they are answered.

how would one avoid using all 4 [or 6,8,12,24] cores? it's called grand central dispatch, new feature in OS X.6. there are plenty of uses for more cores and faster graphics... there will always be a need for more. particularly when you isolate the creative field. this should never be a question. more!

[pixelmason]

Why would I:

buy an iMac27i7 that has maxes out the potential of the hardware. meaning an upgrade consist of ebaying the old machine and buying a new one.

buy the base model MP8core2.26, which is way overprice [even on an absolute scale with other macpros]. as the price drops on the now ever-so-pricey x5580 down to sub-1k range, this would yield an opportunity to increase the computing power by nearly 33%. video card is easy to update. drive options, bluray [owc], raid.

seems like the mac pro is the way to go, but it represents more initial investment. there's no question that the rendering and 3d modeling software i use will humbly dominate the fastest mac pro i could throw at it. the question... is it worth it? i need a minimum of 3 years out of it.

[P]

Originally Posted by pixelmason 

^^^ Your original post.

1. external drives:

Um... Yes it was. The Mac Pro is superior. You're the only one who disagrees.

2. "power":
Intel thinks it's faster...
The world's fastest, smartest PC processor

those were the original questions and now they are answered.

how would one avoid using all 4 [or 6,8,12,24] cores? it's called grand central dispatch, new feature in OS X.6. there are plenty of uses for more cores and faster graphics... there will always be a need for more. particularly when you isolate the creative field. this should never be a question. more!

This is the type of post I probably shouldn't even answer, but:

1) External does not equal internal. External drives are connected to the outside of the computer using USB, Firewire or eSATA. Both the iMac and the MP have USB and Firewire, neither has eSATA. Internally is a different story, there you need an MP.

The usage patterns are quite different. If you want to archive stuff, or just add storage capacity, or transfer files between computers, you use external drives. If you need scratch disks and access latency is critical, you use internal drives or possibly eSATA. If you specify external, that means the first use case, where an iMac is just fine.

2) The Intel CPU you linked to is an i7-980X. That CPU is not used in any shipping MP, nor is it rumored to ever be included. If you meant the hexacore Xeons, they are called Xeon 5600 and 3600, here. Note that the language is a little less over the top. The actual CPU in the MP today, the one you can buy, is the Xeon 3500 and Xeon 5500. That one is a lot less impressive compared to the i5-750 and i7-860 in the iMac.

3) Grand Central Dispatch is a tool for programmers to make multithreaded code more easily. It is not a magic tool that makes all old code multithreaded. We'll see how much it is used in the future.

Again: It depends on the workload how useful those extra cores are - or might be, if/when Apple gets around to shipping them. In much the same manner, the other advantages of the MP might be of more or less use to you. The point is that for most of Apple's history, the top Powermac/Mac Pro was faster than the consumer Macs at everything. That is no longer the case. If you go totally eighties in your benchmarking and run a single thread on all shipping non-BTO Macs, the fastest machine will be the Core i5 iMac. That is, as far as I know, unique in Apple's history. If you permit BTO models and include up to 4 cores, the Core i7 iMac will be essentially tied with the top quad MP.

[P]

Originally Posted by Todd Madson 

-I just read a thread over at macrumors.com's forum regarding people who were installing SSD drives inside the Corei7
iMac 27" model.

I think ifixit.com sells a kit where you put an SSD in the optical slot. You can then use an external optical - latency isn't critical there, and horizontal tray-loading drives can run faster anyway.