[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think many people are skeptical to get an iMac instead of a Mac Pro, because they feel like it's a downgrade, it's less pro and only suitable for workloads that are `less professional.' Most of it is just psychological with no basis in reality. Especially many graphics professionals (- photographers using Aperture or Lightroom) still feel as if their workloads push the envelope when in comes to computing.

That's nice. Benchmarks are wonderful. I remember Apple's G4 benchmarks, showing that a dual 500 MHz G4 could beat a 3 GHz P4. That wasn't close to the truth.

I've been using Mac towers since the Quadra 710. I've used just about every Mac tower, and every iMac, since they were introduced. And, whether you like it or not, my day in and day out (and decade in and decade out) experience shows me that, for serious professional use, the a Mac Pro will beat an iMac. I'm sorry if this upsets your benchmarks and pedantic googling, but that is just the case.

I have nothing against iMacs: they're wonderful machines. If it weren't for their glossy screens every art director would have one on his or her desk, as they're perfect for those tasks. But there's a reason that the studios for print production, video editing, audio production and the rest are filled with Mac Pros: they are faster in the real world.

If you don't believe me, come to work with me and find out for yourself.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

That's nice. Benchmarks are wonderful. I remember Apple's G4 benchmarks, showing that a dual 500 MHz G4 could beat a 3 GHz P4. That wasn't close to the truth.

I'm pretty sure they didn't claim any such thing. The 3GHz Pentium4 arrived almost 3 years after the 500MHz G4s. Those G4s were fully capable of spanking much faster P4 chips that were running much higher clock speeds when it came to certain tasks. Mostly due to the Altivec units.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm pretty sure they didn't claim any such thing. The 3GHz Pentium4 arrived almost 3 years after the 500MHz G4s. Those G4s were fully capable of spanking much faster P4 chips that were running much higher clock speeds when it came to certain tasks. Mostly due to the Altivec units.

I don't remember if it was P3s or P4s, but it was when Motorola couldn't get the G4 past 500 MHz and the x86 megahertz race had left Apple in the dust. I remember Apple's ads.

And the G4s were only capable of "spanking" the x86 chips in a few, select Photoshop tests and some other specialized areas. In terms of general purpose performance x86 was far ahead, and would stay that way until the G5 appeared. This is also a larger point I'm trying to make: benchmarks are fine, but they often don't correlate to real world performance.

[P]

Apple's ads mocking Intel (the snail and the like) were back when the G3 and 604e were competing with the Pentium II, and those were quite accurate at the time (the 604e hit 350 MHz when the PII was at 266 or something like that). One of the later ones were when the G4 was considered a "supercomputer" and had export restrictions, when they mentioned "oh by the way, Intel PCs are still considered safe". After that Apple stopped mocking Intel in the ads, but they kept on doing Photoshop bakeoffs live. These were really shady - tests selected to show off Altivec (Altivec had several features, such as three operand instructions, that Intel is only now adding to Sandy Bridge under the name AVX) and completely ignore the superior memory bandwidth and integer performance of the Pentium 4. I don't remember if they did those tests in the G5 era, but if they did, they were justified: The G5 absolutely killed the Pentium 4 on floating point (the Opteron was fairly close, though).

I've been using Mac towers since the Quadra 710. I've used just about every Mac tower, and every iMac, since they were introduced. And, whether you like it or not, my day in and day out (and decade in and decade out) experience shows me that, for serious professional use, the a Mac Pro will beat an iMac. I'm sorry if this upsets your benchmarks and pedantic googling, but that is just the case.

Well, I've used Macs since the 512K, if that matters, and I don't think I've seen the all-in-ones be this close to the towers since the SE/30. For the most common performance cases, single-threaded integer or floating point, the iMac is just as fast or even a little faster. It retains this advantage up to 4 threads, which is a lot of regular use. The MP can go wider and it can use GPUs that are much more powerful - that last will be a big deal if processing on the GPU takes off in mainstream apps - but in simple CPU power, it just doesn't have an advantage right now, and Sandy Bridge-EP isn't going to change that. A better design - more memory slots! - is needed if the MP is going to be worth considering in the future.

[angelmb]

I use ID, IL, PS and Lightroom everyday. In fact, all three are always open on my machine. It's common that I have at least two of them doing something simultaneously. How would an iMac vs. a MP handle the payload?

I have configured an iMac which would sort of fit your needs:

3.4 GHz Quad-Core i7
4 GB RAM
2 TB HD plus 256 GB SSD.
AMD Radeon HD 6970 2 GB RAM.

Whooping $3049 and that's just the to cover the basics as it comes with hidden costs. Let's break these choices down.

– CPU wise you want the fastest you can get as you are not going to be able to upgrade it, that's the hidden cost here.

– RAM, a mere 4 GB RAM as you want to buy the RAM cheaper from a reputable seller. Sadly, those sweet 32 GB RAM go for $2070. Those 32 GB RAM for a Mac Pro would mean $350. Peanuts. A hidden cost of Biblical proportions. (RAM prices from macsales.com)

– Hard Disk drive. With 2 TB you're just covering the basics, this is not a teenager's iMac after all. Wish you had at least twice the storage and twice the hard drives instead of some anemic 256 GB HD SSD no matter how fast it might be. So you would need to add another if not two external hard drives, be it WD, LaCie… No matter the brand, I fear it is going to be more expensive than adding internal hard drives to a Mac Pro which are as easy to add or swap as getting a match from a matchbox.

– Radeon with 2 GB RAM. This is due to the need for an external display suited for your needs. Prices for such a display would range from $1600 (LaCie 26 inches) to $2500 (Eizo ColorEdge 27" display), add $300 and you get the top 30" model from Eizo.

To sum up: $3049 iMac + $2070 RAM + $1600 display + additional hard drives… somewhat tells me a Mac Pro is a better choice.

I don't remember if it was P3s or P4s, but it was when Motorola couldn't get the G4 past 500 MHz and the x86 megahertz race had left Apple in the dust. I remember Apple's ads.

And the G4s were only capable of "spanking" the x86 chips in a few, select Photoshop tests and some other specialized areas. In terms of general purpose performance x86 was far ahead, and would stay that way until the G5 appeared. This is also a larger point I'm trying to make: benchmarks are fine, but they often don't correlate to real world performance.

I still have those ads from Macworld. Thing is back in the day, an alarming percentage of pros were switching to the PC world as intel boxes were faster and much cheaper; to add insult to the injury, Adobe CS worked as great (see? way back in the day) under Windows as under the Mac OS. But most analyst overlooked that as they were busy reporting how many colorful iMacs Apple was selling, then iPods, then iPhones, then iPads…

I have nothing against iMacs: they're wonderful machines. If it weren't for their glossy screens every art director would have one on his or her desk, as they're perfect for those tasks.

I agree. In fact, I use to joke about how a MacBook Pro with glossy screen is the `iMac to go´, whereas a MacBook Pro with matte screen is the `Mac Pro to go´. You get the idea.

Well, I've used Macs since the 512K, if that matters, and I don't think I've seen the all-in-ones be this close to the towers since the SE/30

We know. But for better or worse, the main benchmark for not a small number of people is its display color reproduction area. Which means the iMac is not a feasible option at all. A pity.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

I have nothing against iMacs: they're wonderful machines. If it weren't for their glossy screens every art director would have one on his or her desk, as they're perfect for those tasks. But there's a reason that the studios for print production, video editing, audio production and the rest are filled with Mac Pros: they are faster in the real world.

You've cast a pretty wide net here, Don. The processing and storage needs of video production and print production are worlds apart.

I work on a lot of TV and video production – I don't edit, I leave that to people who focus on the art. In every video production facility I work with iMacs outnumber MacPros. Let me clarify this statement:

The actual editing is done on MPs but iMacs are in large supply for converting and posting files while the editor goes back to cutting on his / her MP. Same can be said for audio production facilities – more iMacs than MPs with the MPs doing the heavy lifting while the cost-effective iMacs get the grunt tasks that require less processing power.


On the matter of art directors, which I happen to be ...

In recent years agencies have made a steady shift with the machines given to art directors and designers. Today many, if not most, are using MBPs and iMacs. For an AD the MBP is a great option due to the fact that it's portable. Read an AD can take it on the road for shoots, edits, etc. Sure, you lose some speed and storage but the convenience far outweighs the drop in those areas.

My situation is different for a few reasons. First, I'm hired thug, a freelancer. I have my MP in my office and a MBP I travel with. My clients often call my when their team dropped the ball or they're overloaded. IOW, I specialize in tight turn projects. To work fast I need some muscle. And some storage. And a gloriously HUGE monitor.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

In fact, I use to joke about how a MacBook Pro with glossy screen is the `iMac to go´, whereas a MacBook Pro with matte screen is the `Mac Pro to go´. You get the idea.

Anyone who does color work on a MBP, or any other laptop, is clueless and not fit for the industry. Color work cannot easily be taken on the road and should always be done in a light-controlled environment.

One car shooter I know travels with a retoucher who creates a solid light environment in every hotel in which they stay. He carts a MP all around the world, flags windows and lives much like a troll, it's a sight to behold.

I needed to buy my MBP when the only option was a glossy screen. Reluctantly I bought it and have been pleasantly surprised. It's easier to work on than I expected. I still wouldn't think of doing serious color work on it.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

... benchmarks are fine, but they often don't correlate to real world performance.

Well said, Don. Well said.

[OreoCookie]

@angelmb
I think you're manufacturing a situation here that is rather artificial.

Originally Posted by angelmb 

– CPU wise you want the fastest you can get as you are not going to be able to upgrade it, that's the hidden cost here.

How is that a hidden cost? Most people do not upgrade their cpu, even when they do own Mac Pros. Xeon cpus are not exactly cheap, the E5620 used in the Mac Pro is one of the cheaper ones at 360 € -- a piece. If you want an upgrade, you can easily pay twice, e. g. a 6-core Westmere Xeon costs about 900 € per cpu. Which means upgrading a Mac Pro easily gets very expensive to the point where you could simply sell your Mac Pro and buy a new machine.

Originally Posted by angelmb 

– RAM, a mere 4 GB RAM as you want to buy the RAM cheaper from a reputable seller. Sadly, those sweet 32 GB RAM go for $2070. Those 32 GB RAM for a Mac Pro would mean $350. Peanuts. A hidden cost of Biblical proportions. (RAM prices from macsales.com)

8 GB modules are rare and expensive right now, but a 4 GB module costs $40 which means you can have 16 GB in your iMac for $120 (if Apple uses a single 4 GB module, otherwise you get either 14 GB for $120 or add another $40). I suppose almost all users are fine with 16 GB RAM.

Originally Posted by angelmb 

– Hard Disk drive. With 2 TB you're just covering the basics, this is not a teenager's iMac after all. Wish you had at least twice the storage and twice the hard drives instead of some anemic 256 GB HD SSD no matter how fast it might be.

The purpose of the SSD is the same as that of the WD Raptors which also had tiny capacities compared to other hard drives: you use it for the OS and for scratch space, but not for storage.

Originally Posted by angelmb 

– Radeon with 2 GB RAM. This is due to the need for an external display suited for your needs.

Actually, you don't need so much graphics memory to drive big displays.

Originally Posted by angelmb 

Prices for such a display would range from $1600 (LaCie 26 inches) to $2500 (Eizo ColorEdge 27" display), add $300 and you get the top 30" model from Eizo.

If you get a Mac Pro, you also need a display.

If someone upgrades from a Mac Pro, it stands to reason that person already owns one or two displays they were happily editing photos/doing other work with. You can connect those either to a new iMac (thereby getting another screen that you can use for palettes, mail or browser windows if you don't trust its color accuracy) or to a new Mac Pro.

[angelmb]

I needed to buy my MBP when the only option was a glossy screen. Reluctantly I bought it and have been pleasantly surprised. It's easier to work on than I expected. I still wouldn't think of doing serious color work on it.

Same here but with a different outcome. Mine is a Unibody MBP 15", months ago I posted a topic wondering about its battery performance and added some screenshots; people told me 'hum, that app is not reading the battery status right, it shows three charge cycles for a two years old laptop…'; well, the info was right as I can barely use it due to its glossy display. I gave it out to my younger brother.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

... I can barely use it due to its glossy display. I gave it out to my younger brother.

Interested in how you use the machine.

Last week I was shooting on location. While away I created several ads, a logo and tweaked a website on my MBP without issue. I'm a power user who makes my living with my computer machines and it did fine by me. Granted, support staff handled color correction.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Anyone who does color work on a MBP, or any other laptop, is clueless and not fit for the industry. Color work cannot easily be taken on the road and should always be done in a light-controlled environment.

Exactly, and that has nothing to do with the finish. My Eizo monitor is a lot better than the screen of my current MacBook Pro (which is the best screen of any notebook I've used to date).

[art_director]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Exactly, and that has nothing to do with the finish. My Eizo monitor is a lot better than the screen of my current MacBook Pro (which is the best screen of any notebook I've used to date).

Totally agree on the MBP monitor, it's divine.

Have not seen the Eizo monitors. How's the color and contrast? Like my Apple display but wish I had more control over the settings. Looking into replacements for when the time comes.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Totally agree on the MBP monitor, it's divine.

I actually use it to do a lot of rough edits on the road (I spend about 2.5 months/year travelling). And to display the list of photos in Aperture which works just fine.

BTW, I have the glossy finish as well, just to try it. (The glass is much easier to clean and the black bezel looks much nicer IMO.)

Originally Posted by art_director 

Have not seen the Eizo monitors. How's the color and contrast?

I like it a lot. Keep in mind, I have an `older' and `cheaper' screen (the S2231W to be precise). The blacks are not as sep as on the MacBook Pro, but everything else is divine. The gamut of more modern wide-gamut monitors is larger, but for my intents and purposes, it's a great screen. Although there are plenty of ways to tweak the screen, I've used the factory default and then calibrated it.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Although there are plenty of ways to tweak the screen, I've used the factory default and then calibrated it.

Thx, I need to look into those. Who carries?

[angelmb]

I suppose almost all users are fine with 16 GB RAM.

I would rather be 2x fine at 1/6 the price.

The purpose of the SSD is the same as that of the WD Raptors which also had tiny capacities compared to other hard drives: you use it for the OS and for scratch space, but not for storage.

Most hard disk space nowadays is used as storage, isn't it?. Anyhow, as long as my Mac Pro boots up faster than my iPhone 3GS 32GB I don't see a reason to go SSD. Not saying this makes sense at all, just my particular weird benchmark. People can laugh at me now, no problem at all.

Actually, you don't need so much graphics memory to drive big displays.

Well, I mistakenly assumed than that was the justification behind it. So, what purpose does the 2 GB RAM version serve, if any?

If you get a Mac Pro, you also need a display.

Unheard of !!! -joking-

I hate clutter over all things. I don't need nor want two displays over my desk. Having to add a 'second' display due to the 'main' display lack of performance is not my idea of great thinking. This doesn't mean it has to be the way I like it.

The gamut of more modern wide-gamut monitors is larger …

I guess yours is still better than iMac 27" 's. Apologies for the screenshot being in spanish.

Interested in how you use the machine.

It's the reflections, gives me eyesore. That alone meant I was unable to use it no matter what.

Besides that, the screen quality, viewing angles… was terrible, a fit for a MacBook maybe, but never for a MacBook Pro. Mine was the 2008 Unibody MBP 15", yours?

Like my Apple display but wish I had more control over the settings

Yeah, besides brightness you have no control at all. No UGRA certification either. But if you don't need any of that, the matte aluminum Cinema Displays are wonderful. I have both, the 23" and the 30" models.

Thx, I need to look into those. Who carries?

EIZO

Resellers
EIZO / Resellers

Distributors
EIZO / Distributors

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

Most hard disk space nowadays is used as storage, isn't it?. Anyhow, as long as my Mac Pro boots up faster than my iPhone 3GS 32GB I don't see a reason to go SSD. Not saying this makes sense at all, just my particular weird benchmark. People can laugh at me now, no problem at all.

Measuring boot times is for posers. I had the pleasure of taking a 2010 MacBook Air for a spin. That machine just obliterated mine, even though it had half the RAM and half the CPU power. Launching apps became instantaneous. You can launch several at the same time and it doesn't really slow down the launch. It takes two-three minutes for me to log in, because I restart all of my standard apps right away. That's one reason why the new MacBook Airs compare so favorably in many benchmarks.

Originally Posted by angelmb 

Well, I mistakenly assumed than that was the justification behind it. So, what purpose does the 2 GB RAM version serve, if any?

The additional video RAM can be useful for certain games (to save more textures, for instance), but it will not help you at all in every-day apps. Or 2D graphics apps. Paying through your nose for an expensive graphics card won't make Photoshop run any faster.

Originally Posted by angelmb 

I hate clutter over all things. I don't need nor want two displays over my desk. Having to add a 'second' display due to the 'main' display lack of performance is not my idea of great thinking.

I also hate clutter -- on my computer screen. That's why I have two

A second display drastically improves my productivity, e. g. I can edit a photo full screen on my second screen in Aperture while having a list of the other pictures and palettes on the other. Or a coding window on my main screen and the compiled pdf on the second screen. I want two displays if possible, not sure if I could make use of three. (I thought the philosophy of having two screens if possible was pretty much universally adopted in the graphics world?)

Originally Posted by angelmb 

I don't know, but the iMac's panels are actually quite good. If you attach a screen shot of the profile in Color Sync Utility, I'll post mine and we can compare whose is bigger

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by art_director 

You've cast a pretty wide net here, Don. The processing and storage needs of video production and print production are worlds apart.

Depends. I often have to create and/or edit large Photoshop files--4 feet by 4 feet @ 300 dpi and the like. Not exactly the same as video, but straining on a system nonetheless. And what I do is nothing compared to what our retouchers do.

The actual editing is done on MPs but iMacs are in large supply for converting and posting files while the editor goes back to cutting on his / her MP. Same can be said for audio production facilities – more iMacs than MPs with the MPs doing the heavy lifting while the cost-effective iMacs get the grunt tasks that require less processing power.

This is true in the print world as well. Heavy lifting done on MPs while other machines can be used for other tasks. It's quite common to have an iMac or two hanging on the network hosting Acrobat's hot folders, making and posting PDFs. We also have some iMacs around for emergency overflow work.

In recent years agencies have made a steady shift with the machines given to art directors and designers. Today many, if not most, are using MBPs and iMacs.

I know: I said, earlier, our IT people would gladly put all the ADs on iMacs if it weren't for the glossy screens. As of now most of them are on MBPs with external monitors.

As for color: I never trust the monitor, even when it's well-calibrated. That's why we have tens of thousands of dollars in proofers and RIPs around the place.

[P]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

I have configured an iMac which would sort of fit your needs:

3.4 GHz Quad-Core i7
4 GB RAM
2 TB HD plus 256 GB SSD.
AMD Radeon HD 6970 2 GB RAM.

Whooping $3049 and that's just the to cover the basics as it comes with hidden costs. Let's break these choices down.

– CPU wise you want the fastest you can get as you are not going to be able to upgrade it, that's the hidden cost here.

The iMac CPU is socketed and has been for the last two years (and frequently in the past, but the first aluminum iMacs were soldered). This means that it is possible to upgrade but completely unsupported - ie, the same as a Mac Pro. Except the regular Core i7 processors are way cheaper than Xeons.

In practice, the sockets and VRM standards etc change often enough that it is rarely any point to do so, but still.

Originally Posted by angelmb 

– RAM, a mere 4 GB RAM as you want to buy the RAM cheaper from a reputable seller. Sadly, those sweet 32 GB RAM go for $2070. Those 32 GB RAM for a Mac Pro would mean $350. Peanuts. A hidden cost of Biblical proportions. (RAM prices from macsales.com)

Are you comparing to the two-socket version now? Otherwise the price difference is nowhere near that large.

Your arguing reminds me of when MS was doing ads against the iPods, saying that "you'll want a display" as a general statement to get people off the Shuffle. Why do you need 32 GB RAM? For comparison, the only consumer Windows version that supports that much is Ultimate - the far more common Home and Home Premium are capped at 16 GB even if you get the 64-bit version.

Originally Posted by angelmb 

– Hard Disk drive. With 2 TB you're just covering the basics, this is not a teenager's iMac after all. Wish you had at least twice the storage and twice the hard drives instead of some anemic 256 GB HD SSD no matter how fast it might be. So you would need to add another if not two external hard drives, be it WD, LaCie… No matter the brand, I fear it is going to be more expensive than adding internal hard drives to a Mac Pro which are as easy to add or swap as getting a match from a matchbox.

More expensive? Maybe, but not very much so. Since external HDs are often on sale at consumer electronics stores (e.g. Best Buy), they might not even be more expensive at all.

Originally Posted by angelmb 

– Radeon with 2 GB RAM. This is due to the need for an external display suited for your needs. Prices for such a display would range from $1600 (LaCie 26 inches) to $2500 (Eizo ColorEdge 27" display), add $300 and you get the top 30" model from Eizo.

You need the bigger RAM for the framebuffer for the second display? Let's see here... 2560*1440*4 bytes per pixel comes to just under 15 megabytes. I dare say that there's space for two of those in 1 GB. The 2 GB version is there for high performance gaming, when you might need the space for the texture buffer.

And as Oreo already mentioned, you need a display with the MP as well.

[angelmb]

As for color: I never trust the monitor, even when it's well-calibrated. That's why we have tens of thousands of dollars in proofers and RIPs around the place.

Totally. But then not everyone can afford those.

The iMac CPU is socketed and has been for the last two years …

Let say the CPU dies, then being socketed is going to be cheaper to replace than being soldered, right?, – I mean getting it serviced by Apple –

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

Let say the CPU dies, then being socketed is going to be cheaper to replace than being soldered, right?, – I mean getting it serviced by Apple –

No, it means that once you've opened the iMac's case, replacing its cpu is no different from replacing one of the cpus of a Mac Pro.

[P]

Exactly. Replacing a soldered CPU is all but impossible - replacing a socketed version is mostly about removing the heatsink and getting it back on with the proper amount of thermal paste. Just removing and replacing the CPU is about as hard as installing RAM.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

Let say the CPU dies, then being socketed is going to be cheaper to replace than being soldered, right?, – I mean getting it serviced by Apple –

Apple will replace faulty CPUs in Mac Pros, they don't in iMacs. They just swap out the whole logic board. CPU is not available as a part to service centres.

[all2ofme]

Strangely, the Eizo I went with (CG303W) was quite a bit cheaper in the UK than the prices I could see in the US. Odd - very seldom works out that way! I'm loving it so far.

Mine:
http://forums.macnn.com/65/mac-pro-a...3/#post4030799

Originally Posted by art_director 

Thx, I need to look into those. Who carries?

[Waragainstsleep]

Those EIZOs are good displays, just a pity they don't make an effort to make them look a little nicer.

[OreoCookie]

Really? My Eizo display is black, and I really like the design: clean geometric shapes, high-quality components, I have no complaints here, quite the contrary.

[Waragainstsleep]

They just look a bit plain and boring to me. Its something that I believe is true of the vast majority of displays however. I realise there is only so much you can really do with the bits that go around the screen and the stand, but Apple Cinema Displays have looked great through a few revisions. The only others with consistently decent looking casings are AOC which are mostly supercheap as far as the panels go.

[Waragainstsleep]

Been thinking some more about these rack mountable Mac Pro rumours.

I'm starting to think that with the right range of peripherals available, the Mac Pro could change into a 2U rack mountable box with a single high speed PCI-E slot for the GPU, then as many RAM slots as possible and as many thunderbolt ports as possible.

If I understand correctly, Pro-Tools no longer requires all the massive(ly expensive) PCI cards to go with it so a good many Mac Pro users now do not require those extra internal PCI-E slots like they used to.

Things like Fibre Channel and video capture and extra ethernet can be added via thunderbolt, as can more PCI-E slots if required. Such a design would allow the use of second (or more) rack mount or desk mount chassis with typical expansion features for different industries. The extra chassis would essentially be a thunderbolt breakout box.

The more I think about it, the more I think it would please everyone. Rack mountable for those who want servers. Not paying extra for features you don't need for Photoshop Pros. Should require less power and might even be cheaper.

Any thoughts?

[P]

Could be - especially if they include that external Thunderbolt chassie from day one.

[mduell]

2U enclosures are loud. They'll stick with a desktop enclosure with larger fans.

[Waragainstsleep]

Getting there.

Magma Announces Three-Slot Expansion Chassis for Thunderbolt™ Technology

[P]

Will be interesting to see the effective latency on that thing.

[kittonian]

Macrumors headline today was regarding the Sandy Bridge E processor series debuting in the new Mac Pro machines, said to be announced and/or on the market sometime in Nov.

[P]

Intel has just confirmed at IDF that Sandy Bridge-EP/Xeon E5 is delayed until the beginning of next year. That's straight from the horse's mouth, folks.

[Peabo]

Well the launch date for consumers is next year but he also said this:

"It's in production this year, and will ship to customers this year. "The launch event is actually next year."

So Apple will likely have the chips sooner than we can buy them in the shops.

[P]

That is possible, but it would have to be a launch in the very last minutes of November or more likely December. Apple hasn't updated a Mac that late in the year for as long as I can remember. Much more likely that we'll see a January update like in the old Macworld days.

[gangster]

Originally Posted by mduell 

2U enclosures are loud. They'll stick with a desktop enclosure with larger fans.

i agree.

on another note, i hope we don't get stuck with an hd6770 video card, but i wouldn't be surprised. an hd6950 would be nice...

[heisetax]

I'm running 5 displays with m Mac Pro. That can go up to 7. This is with a 1st gen Mac Pro. With the new video cards that can be 3 displays per video card. Better than my 2 per card. ThunderBolt may change some of that. That is unless you want to use a 16:10 30" display for its 2560 X 1600 screen resolution as well as having a matte screen. I value the extra 10% in height even more important than the loss of matte screen. My office is on the North side of the building with the backs showing more than any of their fronts.