[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by waxcrash

What I find interesting is the fastest quad Xeon you can buy from Dell has the 3.73GHz dual core 5080, yet Apple only offers the 3Ghz 5050 chip. How long until Apple offers the faster processors?

Those Xeons aren't Woodcrest, the Core 2 architecture chip in the Mac Pro. Intel just confusingly kept the name. The fastest Woodcrest available is 3 GHz.

[waxcrash]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Those Xeons aren't Woodcrest, the Core 2 architecture chip in the Mac Pro. Intel just confusingly kept the name. The fastest Woodcrest available is 3 GHz.

So they make dual core Xeons and dual core Xeons with Core 2 architecture?

[Velocity211]

On the graphics section of the Mac Pro page, Apple says the Quadro is even better than the X1900. But when I check the specs for those cards, the X1900 is superior in every category except for one. http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards....=377&card2=348

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by waxcrash

So they make dual core Xeons and dual core Xeons with Core 2 architecture?

Yes.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by waxcrash

So they make dual core Xeons and dual core Xeons with Core 2 architecture?

The 50xx series Xeons are based on the NetBurst microarchitecture (Pentium 4).
The 51xx series Xeons are based on the Core microarchitecture (Core 2 Duo).

The confusing part is that Core Duo is not a Core microachitecutre part; it's based on the Pentium M.

Originally Posted by Velocity211

On the graphics section of the Mac Pro page, Apple says the Quadro is even better than the X1900. But when I check the specs for those cards, the X1900 is superior in every category except for one. http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards....=377&card2=348

That one catagory (fill rate) is the weakest link in the chain for the two games Apple lists; also note that Apple appears to be using nonstandard clockrates on both video cards.
The Quadro supports a number of additional professional-level features that the X1900 (a "gamer" card) does not.

[SpaceMonkey]

I find it kind of interesting that Bluetooth and Airport Extreme don't appear to be standard. Has that always been the case with the Power Mac?

[BikerJonTN]

Originally Posted by waxcrash

So they make dual core Xeons and dual core Xeons with Core 2 architecture?

The offerings from Dell in your image are the "Dempsey" processors, not "Woodcrest."

Dempsey differs from Woodcrest in the following ways:

Dempsey has 2MB L2 per core, whereas Woodcrest has 4MB shared between two cores.
Dempsey offers FSB no faster than 1066MHz, whereas Woodcrest offers up to 1333MHz FSB.
TDP of Dempsey is higher (95W-130W) compared to Woodcrest's 65W-80W TDP.

There may be other differences, but I didn't design the chips.

[waxcrash]

Originally Posted by mduell

The 50xx series Xeons are based on the NetBurst microarchitecture (Pentium 4).
The 51xx series Xeons are based on the Core microarchitecture (Core 2 Duo).

The confusing part is that Core Duo is not a Core microachitecutre part; it's based on the Pentium M.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I find it kind of interesting that Bluetooth and Airport Extreme don't appear to be standard. Has that always been the case with the Power Mac?

Looking back at Apple's Power Mac G5 page, it looks like it.

[MaxPower2k3]

as of the Late 2005 (dual core) G5s, Airport/BT were available only as a technician-installable communications board. Every G5 before that used a standard airport extreme card and a separate BT board, but for some reason they combined them into one non-user-installable part with the last G5s. The Mac Pro seems to differ in that they're separate modules, so you can have one, the other, or both, but they still look like they're only technician-installable, judging by the little picture on the Design page.

[krillbee]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

No, Apple could please such people. They've already explained what they want. These people are looking for a single dual core MacPro at a sub-$1800 price tag. Apple just does not want to provide it because Apple would rather get fat margins than many extra sales. Dude, I ended up getting an Inspiron because of Apple's stubborness in refusing to put a graphics card in the MacBook.

the problem is that apple is basically a monopoly when it comes to macs.

i dont think its fair or right that apple is the only company that can make hardware for their O/S, because it basically puts them in complete power over everyone who likes OS X.

the processor price differences (explained earlier, the small drop for the 2.0 ghz, and large increase for 3.0 ghz) are not reasonable or fair. Apple is clearly taking advantage of the consumer.

Don't get me wrong, I love the new Mac Pro. The machine is awesome, and the way they've made it very expandable, and how nice the inside is, is really cool. The hardware on the inside looks very solid. Indeed it seems very powerful. And I think if someone has a lot of money and little technical know-how for upgrading, then the topline Mac Pro, may be a good machine for them.


But at this point there is some fishiness going on with their powermac upgrades. its like they are trying to take in bigger margins on the higher end models, so that they can make up for other expenses (like R+D) or maybe just to rake in fat profits. either way, its sick.

at least they are more customizable though. now if only the upgrade prices were fair.

[MaxPower2k3]

here's something else i just thought of... The Mac Pro's hard drive trays with built-in SATA connectors are going to make hardware RAID impossible. There's no way to put a SATA drive in the case without connecting it to the onboard SATA controller, so using a controller card isn't an option. That's kind of a bummer for people who want to do video work that benefits from a RAID without relying on software to handle it.

edit: this is obviously speculation as i haven't actually seen a Mac Pro yet, but it seems to be the case from what i can gather from pictures.

[kamina]

Originally Posted by BikerJonTN

The offerings from Dell in your image are the "Dempsey" processors, not "Woodcrest."

Dempsey differs from Woodcrest in the following ways:

Dempsey has 2MB L2 per core, whereas Woodcrest has 4MB shared between two cores.
Dempsey offers FSB no faster than 1066MHz, whereas Woodcrest offers up to 1333MHz FSB.
TDP of Dempsey is higher (95W-130W) compared to Woodcrest's 65W-80W TDP.

There may be other differences, but I didn't design the chips.

I think you are looking at it from a wrong angle (marketing)...

What you should be doing, is comparing similarities. Both processors are called Xeons and are made by Intel. They don't have alot in common, the whole architecture is new (like comparing a G4 and G5 by looking at L2, FSB and TDP).

[mduell]

Originally Posted by MaxPower2k3

here's something else i just thought of... The Mac Pro's hard drive trays with built-in SATA connectors are going to make hardware RAID impossible. There's no way to put a SATA drive in the case without connecting it to the onboard SATA controller, so using a controller card isn't an option. That's kind of a bummer for people who want to do video work that benefits from a RAID without relying on software to handle it.

edit: this is obviously speculation as i haven't actually seen a Mac Pro yet, but it seems to be the case from what i can gather from pictures.

The Intel 631xESB/632xESB ICHs (which are mated with all Intel 5000x chipsets AFAIK) support hardware RAID 0 and 1 if Apple included the appropriate ROMs. For internal hardware RAID 5 I think you're SOL, and you'll have to go with an eSATA/SCSI/FC solution.

See 5.18.1.5 in this PDF.

[Apfhex]

Originally Posted by MaxPower2k3

That's kind of a bummer for people who want to do video work that benefits from a RAID without relying on software to handle it.

I'm not sure, but Apple's Mac Pro pages mention RAIDs (1 and 0) several times. Are they referring to software RAIDs?

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I find it kind of interesting that Bluetooth and Airport Extreme don't appear to be standard.

They also appear to give a BTO configuration a 2-4 week ship time. -_-

[generationfourt]

why does everyone want SFF so badly?? I've owned a SFF before and will never go back. Too much noise from one fan running as hard as it can. Way too much heat generated for such a small area. The only way to keep the cpu from averaging 55 C temps is to throw it in a bucket of water. Very limited room for upgrades and expansion (ram, vid card, hd). The only right way to do it is to underclock and integrate some parts via "integrated" and laptop parts. Oh wait Apple already does that! the mac mini folks.

I mean seriously think about it here. Think about the noise issues, heat, and upgrade complaints people had with the G5 and mdd G4's and multiply that by two. I thought my shuttle was great at first but you sacrifice so much and gain that little bit of space. It's not worth it at all.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by generationfourt

why does everyone want SFF so badly?? I've owned a SFF before and will never go back. Too much noise from one fan running as hard as it can. Way too much heat generated for such a small area. The only way to keep the cpu from averaging 55 C temps is to throw it in a bucket of water. Very limited room for upgrades and expansion (ram, vid card, hd). The only right way to do it is to underclock and integrate some parts via "integrated" and laptop parts. Oh wait Apple already does that! the mac mini folks.

I mean seriously think about it here. Think about the noise issues, heat, and upgrade complaints people had with the G5 and mdd G4's and multiply that by two. I thought my shuttle was great at first but you sacrifice so much and gain that little bit of space. It's not worth it at all.

The Mac mini is one tenth the volume of a Shuttle XPC; a lot more compromises have to be made to get there, and those compromises (2.5" HDD, slim optical, low-power CPU, no PCIe slots) are the ones that I don't want.
A Shuttle XPC is less than half the size of the Mac Pro, and it would be priced to match (half the CPUs, half the RAM, half the drives, half the price).

[pyrite]

anyone who complains about the price of this machine is clinically insane.. sure we dont all have $2,500 around for a new mac, but anyone who does has to appreciate the hardware they're getting for the money. this thing is ridiculous, for the quad 2.66 i was expecting at least 3k+

[generationfourt]

Originally Posted by mduell

The Mac mini is one tenth the volume of a Shuttle XPC; a lot more compromises have to be made to get there, and those compromises (2.5" HDD, slim optical, low-power CPU, no PCIe slots) are the ones that I don't want.
A Shuttle XPC is less than half the size of the Mac Pro, and it would be priced to match (half the CPUs, half the RAM, half the drives, half the price).

Give me half the cpu power, half the ram, half the drives, half the price but for the love of god give me the room to upgrade as the time comes.

Im talking strictly from experience. A lot of things are sacrificed to fit something in a shuttle sized pc. Yes they are bigger than the mini but everything still has to fit like a damn puzzle peice. A lot of heat is generated because of the proximity. You will have only 2 slots for ram. Space for 1 hd. A psu that has to be handicapped. A cpu that runs too hot. I owned a shuttle for a while. All you are really doing is fighting a never ending battle against heat and noise.

And you aren't saving very much space at all.

[WizOSX]

.....

Originally Posted by MaxPower2k3

The Mac Pro seems to differ in that they're separate modules, so you can have one, the other, or both, but they still look like they're only technician-installable, judging by the little picture on the Design page.

So will the Airport Extreme module that comes with the machine perform differently than buying a card and installing it yourself?

[MrForgetable]

perfect. by next summer bugs will be worked out and i'll be set for college.

[rnicoll]

Originally Posted by pyrite

anyone who complains about the price of this machine is clinically insane.. sure we dont all have $2,500 around for a new mac, but anyone who does has to appreciate the hardware they're getting for the money. this thing is ridiculous, for the quad 2.66 i was expecting at least 3k+

It's great value for money, sure, but.... my stuff is single threaded. One core will run my stuff, another will run all the background tasks and I'd have a whole CPU just sitting around consuming electricity for kicks. I'm not looking for a completely different cut down version of the Mac Pro, I just want the ability to buy one with only one CPU!

[samslaves]

The processors used in the new Mac Pro is the Woodcrest 5150 as you ca see from dell.it under Piccole Aziende -> Workstations

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally Posted by WizOSX

.....

So will the Airport Extreme module that comes with the machine perform differently than buying a card and installing it yourself?

You can't buy a card and install it yourself. According to the Mac Pro Developer Note:

The Mac Pro computer has an optional, internal AirPort Extreme module connected to a dedicated 1-lane PCI Express bus. The AirPort Extreme module is available as a fully-integrated configure-to-order option or as an Apple Authorized Service Provider kit, which can be installed by an Apple retail store or an Apple Authorized Service Provider.

The same goes for the Bluetooth module (although that runs off of the USB bus, not directly off of PCI-E)

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally Posted by Apfhex

I'm not sure, but Apple's Mac Pro pages mention RAIDs (1 and 0) several times. Are they referring to software RAIDs?

You're right, I didn't see that before. They mention it twice on the Performance page. In the Video section I'm pretty sure they're talking about software RAID:

Install up to four 500GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drives for up to 2TB of internal storage and stripe them together using Mac OS X RAID for fast access to all of your digital media files.

But in the RAW Shooting section, it sounds like Hardware:

Four hard drive bays give you options. Stripe your drives in a RAID 0 to build an extra large volume of up to 2TB. Or pair two drives in a RAID 1 for redundant reliability and instant backups.

So I'm not sure... I would think they'd advertise hardware RAID support more if it's an option (especially for video), but I guess we'll see once people start getting them and messing around with the settings.

[Abbas]

Not sure about the chipset being used for Woodcrest but most of the Intel chipsets released within the last couple of years offer Software RAID functionality from the Southbridge on the PC side. You can create RAID0, RAID1 and RAID5 as well as Matrix RAID which is combining different RAID arrays together.

-a

[alligator]

All I can say is Woo-hoo! I'm getting a 3.0 GHz machine with an X1900 card and 2 superdrives! I'll load up on Crucial ram when comes, and drop in my old SATA drives for extra storage. I cannot imagine how nice this machine will be on video editing! With an educational discount, this machine's price was very reasonable.

Oh, and did I mention that Apple was kind enough to throw in a 2 GB nano for free? Gotta love that educational discount!

[mduell]

Originally Posted by alligator

I'm getting a 3.0 GHz machine

<snip>

Oh, and did I mention that Apple was kind enough to throw in a 2 GB nano for free? Gotta love that educational discount!

They more than recouped the cost of the nano with the $400 they overcharged you for the 2.66->3.0Ghz upgrade.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by alligator

Oh, and did I mention that Apple was kind enough to throw in a 2 GB nano for free? Gotta love that educational discount!

Are you sure your going to get the ipod for free. While it does come up when you purchase the ProMac, the fine print states all of the acceptable machines that you could buy to receive the rebate and the MacPro is not part of that list.

Also it says 30 days from purchase, if you've included the ATI card, that's a 3-5 week delay so depending on how they view purchase date may push you out of the 30 day windows (if the 5 week delay is realized).

I hate to rain on your parade, but I was debating if its worth the gamble myself.

[Zoom]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Most people do want the speakers built in… (to their TVs)

If it's a simple, standalone, AIO unit - then sure. But for larger TVs, it's almost silly to have cheap little built-in speakers since 90% of people will hook it up to an amp with external (usually surround sound) speakers. In fact, most big TV's these days could really just be monitors in the sense that all they do is display an image - no tuner, no speakers, etc. Anyway, I think the analogy holds - some people what an AIO TV, some people don't - it depends on how it will be used.

[Landos Mustache]

Questions:

Does it come with extra heat syncs for future RAM purchases?

How will retail stores carry these models? Will they only have the 2.66 model and if you want any other speed you have to BTO it online?

[richdean]

I'm looking at the Mac Pro as a way to get rid of my Dell. The Dell serves as a PVR/DVR using a Hauppage TV tuner card. Will I be able to move this card into a PCI slot on the Mac and run it under either BootCamp or one of the virtualization products?

(The Mac products I have seen for DVRs only seem to work with analog cable/tv and cannot control and external set top box, so I don't want to buy something new when the Hauppage/BeyndTV works well. It;s the Dell that sucks.)

Will PC PCI cards work in the new Mac Pros?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by richdean

I'm looking at the Mac Pro as a way to get rid of my Dell. The Dell serves as a PVR/DVR using a Hauppage TV tuner card. Will I be able to move this card into a PCI slot on the Mac and run it under either BootCamp or one of the virtualization products?

(The Mac products I have seen for DVRs only seem to work with analog cable/tv and cannot control and external set top box, so I don't want to buy something new when the Hauppage/BeyndTV works well. It;s the Dell that sucks.)

Will PC PCI cards work in the new Mac Pros?

The Mac Pro has no PCI slots, only PCI Express, so no, you can't use your Hauppauge card.

Even if it did have the correct slot, I don't think there are OSX drivers for the Hauppauge cards.

[beancurd]

This may be of interest to some:

After a loooong time on hold at Apple's tech support, they confirmed that the GeForce 7300 GT is supported for Aperture. The apple.com Aperture spec page does not list it. He only mentioned that a minimum of 2GB RAM be used, but this is probably recommended no matter what GPU is in use. Some references on the net confirm the '7300' moniker may be a slight misnomer as to its heritage. I will keep my fingers crossed.

I would be interested if anyone doubts the claim so I can change my order if need be. I do not play games and only need something sufficiently powerful for Aperture/Photoshop.

[dudesteve]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

Are you sure your going to get the ipod for free. While it does come up when you purchase the ProMac, the fine print states all of the acceptable machines that you could buy to receive the rebate and the MacPro is not part of that list.

Also it says 30 days from purchase, if you've included the ATI card, that's a 3-5 week delay so depending on how they view purchase date may push you out of the 30 day windows (if the 5 week delay is realized).

I hate to rain on your parade, but I was debating if its worth the gamble myself.

Sunny skies, no rain. Read the FAQ.

http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Im...s/bts_faq.html

[gentryfunk]

Did anyone notice that only in the 3Ghz configuration is the Mac Pro "1.6-2 times faster"? I find it fascinating that IBM's 6 year-old technology is still competitive with Intel's latest and greatest. The G5 was a great processor that ran hot....if only IBM had transitioned more effectively we could be in a very different place today.

Hmmmm....

[richdean]

Originally Posted by mduell

The Mac Pro has no PCI slots, only PCI Express, so no, you can't use your Hauppauge card.

Even if it did have the correct slot, I don't think there are OSX drivers for the Hauppauge cards.

Ah, got it, bummer.

But if you're running WinXP Pro under BootCamp, you don't need OS X Drivers, right?

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by gentryfunk

Did anyone notice that only in the 3Ghz configuration is the Mac Pro "1.6-2 times faster"? I find it fascinating that IBM's 6 year-old technology is still competitive with Intel's latest and greatest. The G5 was a great processor that ran hot....if only IBM had transitioned more effectively we could be in a very different place today.

Hmmmm....

Apple's performance claims are always exaggerated anyways. I suspect that once benchmarked in the wild, the Quad Xeon 2.66 wont prove to be a whole lot faster than the Quad G5 2.5.

Depending on what price point the Quad G5s drop to, they could prove to be a very good bang for the buck option.

[ChrisB]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Apple's performance claims are always exaggerated anyways. I suspect that once benchmarked in the wild, the Quad Xeon 2.66 wont prove to be a whole lot faster than the Quad G5 2.5.

Depending on what price point the Quad G5s drop to, they could prove to be a very good bang for the buck option.

You are probably right, at least for the time being. That is because once more apps are Intel native, like Photoshop and Microsoft Office, they you will see more of the everyday performance gains. As long as you are having to run a PowerPC app in Rosetta, you will not see the complete raw power of your processor. We will have a mixed bag experience for at least another year or so until most apps have been switched over to Universal Binaries.

Even so, even the new MacBooks are pretty darn speedy. They don't seem as fast as my Quad G5, but they are screamers.

[Lateralus]

My statement had nothing to do with anything being run under Rosetta. I'm talking native, Universal apps.

Also, I find it funny that so many people claim that their MacBooks and iMac Core Duos 'feel' as fast as a Quad G5. Yet every benchmark I've ever seen conducted shows that the Quad is significantly faster in any SMP aware application.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

My statement had nothing to do with anything being run under Rosetta. I'm talking native, Universal apps.

Also, I find it funny that so many people claim that their MacBooks and iMac Core Duos 'feel' as fast as a Quad G5. Yet every benchmark I've ever seen conducted shows that the Quad is significantly faster in any SMP aware application.

True, but for some strange reason the OS still FEELS faster. Perhaps parts of the UI are better suited to intel.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by dudesteve

Sunny skies, no rain. Read the FAQ.

http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Im...s/bts_faq.html

Cool they updated the faq, when I looked yesterday it wasn't there

[ChrisB]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

My statement had nothing to do with anything being run under Rosetta. I'm talking native, Universal apps.

Also, I find it funny that so many people claim that their MacBooks and iMac Core Duos 'feel' as fast as a Quad G5. Yet every benchmark I've ever seen conducted shows that the Quad is significantly faster in any SMP aware application.

If Apple does their job, writing good code, and optimizing it properly, and if application vendors do their job, then it is possible to see the speed improvements that Apple claims.

We won't completely know until we get our hands on the MacPro's and 10.5 at some point.

[Chuckit]

Apple's code has nothing to do with the Mac Pro hardware's capabilities.

[ChrisB]

Actually yes it does - bloated, inefficient code slows down hardware performance. That's why Microsoft Office is affectionately referred to as bloatware.

Inefficient code = more processor cycles, more RAM usage and more read/writes to your hard drive. You better believe it slows down performance.

[Chuckit]

No, it does not slow down the hardware; it simply makes less efficient use of the hardware. A CPU's power basically comes down to how many operations it can do in a given amount of time. Whether those operations are being used wisely is not relevant to the actual hardware.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by gentryfunk

Did anyone notice that only in the 3Ghz configuration is the Mac Pro "1.6-2 times faster"? I find it fascinating that IBM's 6 year-old technology is still competitive with Intel's latest and greatest. The G5 was a great processor that ran hot....if only IBM had transitioned more effectively we could be in a very different place today.

The fact that the older 970MP (in the case of the MP it's not six years btw) can hold up to a current 3.0GHz Woodcrest fairly OK really does speak for the 970's design. Of course it's a power hog though (-> see the Xserve improvements thanks to Woodcrest).

However for us Mac users the 1.6-2x figure can also give a wrong impression. Apple got 1.6-2x when comparing the quad core G5 to the new 3GHz Xeon Mac Pro. Fair enough. But any other G5 would have only half the cores. Any other Mac Pro will still have 4 cores. So while the quad G5 holds up quite well, the dual G5s will get slapped as soon as you use multithreaded apps or multitask.

In short: If you've got a quad G5 there's no reason panic. But if not and you use UBs, the Mac Pros are definitely something to consider rather sooner than later.

[Cadaver]

At 3GHz w/ 4MB cache, I wonder how Rosetta-translated apps will run. Probably pretty darn well, I bet.

[tkmd]

Originally Posted by Cadaver

At 3GHz w/ 4MB cache, I wonder how Rosetta-translated apps will run. Probably pretty darn well, I bet.

There was a test in one of the forums - I'll do some looking, where the presence of a 4MB cache greatly increased rosettas performance. Benches on non-UB apps were almost 1:1 with their PPC counterparts. I wish I could remember where I saw this. People where quite surprised and I think the performance was ultimately attributed to the larger cache.


I cant wait till we see some benches in cocktail and itunes in next couple of days.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by gentryfunk

Did anyone notice that only in the 3Ghz configuration is the Mac Pro "1.6-2 times faster"? I find it fascinating that IBM's 6 year-old technology is still competitive with Intel's latest and greatest. The G5 was a great processor that ran hot....if only IBM had transitioned more effectively we could be in a very different place today.

I think you mean IBM's 1 year old technology; the dual core chips that make the quad G5 possible were only released last year. Intel will double the number of cores again before the end of the year.