Apple Updates Mac Pro With Up to 12 CPU Cores

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually I am going to buy the high end 27" iMac and sell my current Q9650 gaming rig but it will be a year or two. I will wait for the iMacs to move to the new USB 3.0 standard then bootcamp Windows 7 for gaming on a external USB 3.0 HD instead of dividing the internal one in the iMac.
I know some people love to slam Apple but until you have actually experience OS X (not 2 minutes at Best Buy either) couple with the hardware you should not just blindly slam them.
 
It seems a lot of people are confused in here. The Apple store hasn't put the 6 cores Xeons for sale yet. The 2500$ and 3300$ are for the old Quad-Core and 2x Quad-Core configurations.

The starting price for the base Mac Pro with 2x 6-Core Xeons is...

****5000$ US*****

Yikes.
 
Its like taking your car to the mechanic. Sure you could do it yourself for much cheaper, even free. But not everyone browses Tom's Hardware, not everyone can build a PC.

Like most people in the US, you drive a car that you know operates well with low maintenance. Even if the price in doing is substantially higher than maintaining or building it yourself.
 


1. I'm not sure I would call unix with a nice GUI "Great". An OS that has been around for 30+ years that you can get for free....

2. $1,100 is enough to build a system (with the same major specs as the iMac) that can play ANY game I want. Do ANY graphic work I want (you know..3ds max, maya, adobe CS5..)

 
why not buy a Wintel box with better specs for half the price and then go the Hackintosh route if you really want to use OS X?
 
[citation][nom]regulas[/nom]Actually I am going to buy the high end 27" iMac and sell my current Q9650 gaming rig but it will be a year or two. I will wait for the iMacs to move to the new USB 3.0 standard then bootcamp Windows 7 for gaming on a external USB 3.0 HD instead of dividing the internal one in the iMac.I know some people love to slam Apple but until you have actually experience OS X (not 2 minutes at Best Buy either) couple with the hardware you should not just blindly slam them.[/citation]
I admit that the price-point on the 27" iMac isn't too bad. But you can get the Dell u2711 for about $895 from retailers other than Dell. So, that would leave you with $1300 to build the computer system. I'm not a big fan of the all-in-one design and think a 27" all-in-one, especially if it doesn't have external HDMI or DVI inputs, would be even less appealing to me. I just can't get past the thought of what I would wind up with in the event that the integrated computer craps out.

If I were going to go with an all-in-one, I would go with the Dell Studio One 19 because it's a better form factor for an all-in-one, is only ~ $600-$700, and it's touch screen. Smaller and cheaper just seems to make for since for all-in-one to me.

But, I would opt to buy the monitor separately and a separate desktop or laptop (with dock) to use with the monitor. I sometimes move my system between monitor/TV/etc or even move my monitor between systems. A perfect example is that when I upgraded from my 19" LCD to 24" LCD, subsequently replaced the 17" LCD on my wife's system with my old 19" LCD and sold (or gave away) the 17" LCD. With $1300 to spare to hit the $2200 price point, you could get a nice Core i7 gaming rig with probably money to spare. My current Q9550 gaming rig w/ Antec P180 mini, Radeon 5770, and 6GB of PC2-800 couldn't have cost more than $600-$700. I wouldn't expect a comparable Core i7 w/ similar mid-grade to premium parts to be more than ~ $900.

OSX and dual-booting Win7 is not a big selling point for me either. I use OSX within a VM for general Xcode tinkering and such and don't find it all that appealing. It's always refreshing when I get back to my Win7 system.

I agree with you though. Is the 27" Core i7 iMac too expensive? Not really .. Could you get more for your money, though? Yes.
 
[citation][nom]hotchrisbfries[/nom]Its like taking your car to the mechanic. Sure you could do it yourself for much cheaper, even free. But not everyone browses Tom's Hardware, not everyone can build a PC.Like most people in the US, you drive a car that you know operates well with low maintenance. Even if the price in doing is substantially higher than maintaining or building it yourself.[/citation]
That's exactly why I limited my price comparisons to OEM pre-assembled / built systems rather than buying and assembling from discrete components when comparing workstation prices.
 
[citation][nom]mrjeff[/nom]dear lord. these arn't your custom built gaming machines. these are wonderful WORKSTATIONS. anyone that uses workstations everyday is drooling over these specs for the small amount of money they cost. businesses usually buy these. not pimply teenagers who play SC2.get over the whole I HATE APPLE THING guys. they are an evil tech company just like the next.from a "technical" perspective, go on newegg right now and try to build one for that cost. you can't. oh, and remember, xeon, not core.[/citation]

A workstation is a very broad term. I have CAD workstations that would rip any MacPro apart, with a 4.00GHz OCed i7. I wouldnt buy these because they are MACs. You cant do sh*t with them. Just name me one field were a UNIX/Linux/Windows PC is inferior?
 
[citation][nom]silenkiller[/nom]LOL you apple nutthuggers are idiots. All of those "workstations" can be build as a pc for 40% less.Idiots are idiots all the way.[/citation]
Well, you got the part about the idiots right. Here's the part you Microsoft nuthuggers don't seem to comprehend: This is a complete integrated workstation solution, from a single vendor, with full warranty and support. It's not some cobbled together frankenstein rig that you have to assemble yourself, deal with 12 different companies for warranty work, 12 different companies for drivers and compatibility problems, and have zero support.

If you want to make a fair comparison, you need to compare a complete workstation, like from Dell, IBM, HP, etc. Not some cobbled together discount parts from the internet.
 
[citation][nom]TommySch[/nom]A workstation is a very broad term. I have CAD workstations that would rip any MacPro apart, with a 4.00GHz OCed i7. I wouldnt buy these because they are MACs. You cant do sh*t with them. Just name me one field were a UNIX/Linux/Windows PC is inferior?[/citation]
Actually, Mac's are favored in many industries, aside from the obvious publishing, artistic, creative, and design industries. The big attraction for the Mac, at least in the scientific community, is the low price point. Make no mistake, OSX is real industrial UNIX. It is POSIX compliant, and is a piece of cake to port software over from way more expensive ($50k+) SGI, AIX, or HP-UX workstations. Mac is real UNIX, but far cheaper.

Porting software from commercial UNIX to Mac is a piece of cake. Porting from commercial UNIX to Windows is an absolute nightmare.
 
[citation][nom]wotan31[/nom]Well, you got the part about the idiots right. Here's the part you Microsoft nuthuggers don't seem to comprehend: This is a complete integrated workstation solution, from a single vendor, with full warranty and support. It's not some cobbled together frankenstein rig that you have to assemble yourself, deal with 12 different companies for warranty work, 12 different companies for drivers and compatibility problems, and have zero support.If you want to make a fair comparison, you need to compare a complete workstation, like from Dell, IBM, HP, etc. Not some cobbled together discount parts from the internet.[/citation]
That was exactly what I compared (except it was Linux based, not Windows). In fact, the warranty on the system I mentioned was standard 1 year parts and labor on ALL components. But, it could be extended to 3-years. To recap, the Apple price was 1.83x more expensive.

What's your next fallacious argument?
 
[citation][nom]smlong426[/nom]That was exactly what I compared (except it was Linux based, not Windows). In fact, the warranty on the system I mentioned was standard 1 year parts and labor on ALL components. But, it could be extended to 3-years. To recap, the Apple price was 1.83x more expensive.What's your next fallacious argument?[/citation]
First of all, site your source or GTFO. Making up numbers is easy to do. Secondly, compare the base configurations, not the ones inflated with overpriced memory and hard drives. Apple gouges you on the memory and hard drives (just like HP, IBM, and all the other tier-1's).
 
[citation][nom]wotan31[/nom]No such thing as a peecee with similar specs. Compare a workstation, with Xeon CPU's (or RISC equivalent) and Registered ECC memory, running a UNIX operating system. The Mac Pro is way cheaper than comparable AIX, HP-UX, and SGI workstations. Workstation != Peecee. This machine is not for you, move along and play with your kiddie peecee.[/citation]

Steve will be happy if he see your comment, LOL
you will get a free iphone4 case from stevezzzzz

8~11Gs LOL you gotta be kidding me ~ probably NASA will get one ? LOL

 
[citation][nom]regulas[/nom]If I didn't have my gaming rig (thanks newegg) I would be buying a 27" 2.93Ghz core i7 iMac for $2,200. Does it cost too much, I say no.First try and find a 2560x1440 27" monitor. It is hard. 90+% are at the 1080P (1920x1200) well below the 27" iMac resolution of 2560x1440.None at Newegg but Dell has a 27" monitor at the same specs as the iMac screen for $1,100http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna [...] u=224-8284Now take the balance of the money you have $1,100. OK build a 2.93Ghz core i7 rig with the same specs as the 27" iMac and you will eat this $1,100 up real fast but not have the great iMac design or the great OS X running on it either.I would bootcamp this with Windows 7 for games. Would be the perfect computer, (drooling) Bootcamp into Windows for some gaming then back into OS X for everthing else.[/citation]

I am with you on this one. I was trying to spec out parts to parts Hackintosh with similar specs to the new entry level iMac ($1249 canadian dolloar), with OS, accessaries, etc. I am getting $1150). So $100 saving for all the hassle of Hackintosh one comparing to just buy the iMac entry. I am hesitating...
 
Please stop this, damned PC users. Apples got mysterious PPC Chips that although work on lower frequencies, are better than x86... Oh.. Oh sorry. This is the past decade lie.. 😀 😀 😀 😀
 
[citation][nom]wotan31[/nom]First of all, site your source or GTFO. Making up numbers is easy to do. Secondly, compare the base configurations, not the ones inflated with overpriced memory and hard drives. Apple gouges you on the memory and hard drives (just like HP, IBM, and all the other tier-1's).[/citation]
So, now you're saying that you would not buy the hard-drives or memory from Apple in favor of "cobbling" together an Apple-based frankenstein rig? There goes your warranty argument. Funny how your POV keeps changing to fit your argument.

Making up numbers IS easy. Fortunately, I do not take the easy way out like you Apple fanboys. Not only did I list the prices for the pre-configured systems I priced out, I listed the exact part numbers down to the motherboard make/model.

As for CITING source, I used my OEM of choice which is company called GamePC. Here are their credentials: http://www.gamepc.com/about/index.asp?MSCSProfile=95385A1F52DEA1A229D5B37542054464E012AF72ED2359BF3A488C6462790CC1C21584B62C99464CF0A681E4A601487781C524E5C4170D509F8554817874BB327073A5DB4D083CFCD5CB852904C9CADFA8A0D5F7B53A872F2D6CAC7541CCADF46DF140F1ABBE346728E3FC72C86C08FF0FCB4B7E28F730F254DB0B2BFE025B6FF1F2AD8B361FCC8B

Feel free to try and pick it apart to justify your undying love for overpriced Apple products, but I'm comparing apples to apples here. Other people have already shown similar price-points and comparisons to what I have posted.
 
[citation][nom]regulas[/nom]OK build a 2.93Ghz core i7 rig with the same specs as the 27" iMac and you will eat this $1,100 up real fast but not have the great iMac design or the great OS X running on it either.I would bootcamp this with Windows 7 for games.[/citation]
Actually given the recent price reduction of the S1156 i7 870, the 2.93GHz chip used in the high-end iMac, and Apple's new 27" Cinema Display costing $999 you can have the exact same monitor and a far deal more powerful computer for a lower price.

The iMac not only uses underpowered GPUs but actually uses mobile chips and SODIMMS which further increases price and reduce performance.

A Mobility Radeon 5750 is woefully inadequate for an i7 870 and a screen that size.

I'll grant you that you won't have access to Apple's design, except for the screen, and MacOS X but frankly neither of those are compelling arguments or competitive advantages. Personally I'd be willing to pay a little more for design but not the sums Apple are demanding and MacOS X isn't in any way better than Windows 7 - merely different.

In short, can I build a Windows box beating the specs of a top-end iMac using an Apple Cinema Display and $1200 worth of hardware? Hell yes.
 
Real Mac Pro user here, stop whining, not knowing what you really mean:

I am not concerned about gaming on a Mac Pro. Get a PC or a console for this.

As long as I prefer to work on OSX and I have a PC too and I like a lot W7, but you know, I am an artist... "the weakest link in the IT department" -some may say, so what does he knows... The last time I payed $2,800 for a Mac Pro was in January 2009, But it was to purchase the 8 core from 2008 and replace my last Mac Pro 8 core from 2008, -Yes I sold in december the same model thinking Apple was introducing faster options in January. Estrange enough, at that time, the 8core Mac Pro was among the cheapest workstations from a recognized brand or any brand to include two quad Xeons 2.8 in the 2,800 price segment. It wasn't just me as I know many PC users who did the same I did and went for the bargain, and it was. Well friends (and I am among those who really can say this) I am not crazy enough today to DOWNGRADE my true 8core 2.8 to a 2.8 i7 quadcore and 4 treads. Yes, for single threaded apps the new Xeons are faster. But this is not why I in the first place I opted for the 8 core Workstation. RENDERING is why. And show me any benchmark in which this "NEW" 2010 Mac Pro for $2,800 is FASTER than my 2008 model RENDERING in 3D. APPLE, and INTEL too, get REAL. I wont replace my machine for these pricey underpowered machines. Actually, and thanks to the world for being rounded some options like real un-biased, physically based GPU rendering are available today. I will stick to my current Mac and PC and will invest my money on GPUs and on a OctaneRender license. An order of magnitude faster, still with limitations, but here today and available at a very reasonable price. Is not unusual these days to find great innovation coming from small studios.

2008 + Mac Pro 8 core Xeon = 2,800 2010 + Mac Pro 4 core + 4 treads = 2,500
Intel Xeon W3530 / 2.8 GHz - LGA1366 Socket - L3 8 MB = $321.89 to $373.20

No wonder Apple reduced the price from 2,800 to 2,500. So you "Save $300" and "a lot of performance too".
Bad Apple as there are way cheaper Xeon based machines. And bad Intel too, because today for double performance you need to pay more than double the Intel price, I mean double socket Xeon systems. It wasn't like that in 2008 from Intel and Apple. And it wasn't like this neither in 2006 and 2007.

AMD, come back to the top!

Well, the difference is I actually can say all this because I use and care for these products year after year, I spend my money wisely and is not just a biased or hateful opinion from one side about a specific brand.

Besides all this, desktops and workstations: Not the trend anymore. They will only get pricier on the next years and as a result slower and unreachable for single users. Big companies wont invest the same on these niche products. Get your superphones and tablet PCs. Ouch!!!
 
[citation][nom]TommySch[/nom]They might get 50-60 FPS in CSS now. lol[/citation]

Yea while my dated $800 laptop with a core2duo @ 2.26GHz continues to get 180 fps at 1920x1080 resolution.

It boggles my mind why people even consider buying apple computers. Such a dumb waste of money.
 
Sure the Mac Pros are insanely expensive but the thing you have to keep in mind here is that these computers are running Mac OS. This means that if your line work requires you to work with a Mac because the software you use only runs on Mac, this is still your best bet. Sure you can hackintosh a PC, but realistically, that is not an option as they just aren't as reliable as a real Mac. That said, if you go peek into most high end recording studios, chances are they are using a Mac Pro to run Pro Tools and Logic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom