Uh, no...
Included on the spec-sheet of almost every computer is it's upgraded specification. It will say things like "4GB installed - Upgradable to 32GB". And so on. Apple is a slight exception here as they sell "Apple Only Kits" but that doesn't mean the machine isn't upgradable beyond that. And that IS part of it's spec. This has been true since the very 1st personal computer sold. To think otherwise is self dilution. Of course Apple's very motto is just that... Think different... Think the Apple way... So we can maximize profits... It still self dilution to accept that tho.
A MacPro1,1 is 8-core 3.0GHz, 64GB RAM, 24TB, Quadro 4000, multi-channel (surround++) sound, capable system with (list of I/O ports and open PCIe bays here). Don't believe anything less or you will be believing a lie (err, marketing agency?). And if you further accept the idea of fudging things a little here and there then add higher GFx card options, full 100% 64bit, and whatever else to the list. Of course if we start doing that I suppose we open a door with potentially no limits in either direction... Like someone might claim a MacMini with a different motherboard and processors is still a MacMimi, or etc...
If most of your apps are not MP where possible then you're in the wrong sub forum. I think 80% of my (over 30 major) apps are MP aware. And many of the small/cheap/free ones which aren't can be instanced for near 100% linear scaling across the number of cores I have. The later is mostly a matter of user competence.
Furthermore if the app isn't MP aware then it sees the MacPro as a single processor system... not a dual.
Well, you can't really say faster motherboard so I'll assume you mean faster MB-level or "native" components. And no, for most pro applications the difference between the MP1,1 native components doesn't make enough advantage to place a MM or MBA ahead speed wise. I doubt it's much over about a 20% advantage even when the results are skewed and biased for MM/MBA. A single extra X5365 core will leave the stated competition in the dust - and there's not one extra, but 4 extras. The newest MM/MB_ does have faster RAM I/O. And as a result of this those machines will feel a little zippier under the mouse so to speak but for pro-app horsepower they all fall notably short of the mark. Maybe we compare it using sea vessels (as I'm tired of the car analogies). It's similar to the difference between small speedboat and military cutter. The small speedboat can get out beyond the shore-break faster but once there sinks. Meanwhile the MP Cutter is safely halfway round the Cape of Good Hope with no signs of trouble. The jobs I and most workstation users hand off to their machines can take days to complete. Weeks on a MacMini if it doesn't die of heat prostration or choke because it had to start in with heavy VM use.
Hehe, synthetic benchmarks... LOL.. Well those can be fun for sure. I like to play at that too. But I recognize they are nearly 100% useless in discussions like these where we are talking about environment mission critical application (bringing a system to task for the task(s) it was designed to handle).
Included on the spec-sheet of almost every computer is it's upgraded specification. It will say things like "4GB installed - Upgradable to 32GB". And so on. Apple is a slight exception here as they sell "Apple Only Kits" but that doesn't mean the machine isn't upgradable beyond that. And that IS part of it's spec. This has been true since the very 1st personal computer sold. To think otherwise is self dilution. Of course Apple's very motto is just that... Think different... Think the Apple way... So we can maximize profits... It still self dilution to accept that tho.
A MacPro1,1 is 8-core 3.0GHz, 64GB RAM, 24TB, Quadro 4000, multi-channel (surround++) sound, capable system with (list of I/O ports and open PCIe bays here). Don't believe anything less or you will be believing a lie (err, marketing agency?). And if you further accept the idea of fudging things a little here and there then add higher GFx card options, full 100% 64bit, and whatever else to the list. Of course if we start doing that I suppose we open a door with potentially no limits in either direction... Like someone might claim a MacMini with a different motherboard and processors is still a MacMimi, or etc...
If most of your apps are not MP where possible then you're in the wrong sub forum. I think 80% of my (over 30 major) apps are MP aware. And many of the small/cheap/free ones which aren't can be instanced for near 100% linear scaling across the number of cores I have. The later is mostly a matter of user competence.
Furthermore if the app isn't MP aware then it sees the MacPro as a single processor system... not a dual.
Well, you can't really say faster motherboard so I'll assume you mean faster MB-level or "native" components. And no, for most pro applications the difference between the MP1,1 native components doesn't make enough advantage to place a MM or MBA ahead speed wise. I doubt it's much over about a 20% advantage even when the results are skewed and biased for MM/MBA. A single extra X5365 core will leave the stated competition in the dust - and there's not one extra, but 4 extras. The newest MM/MB_ does have faster RAM I/O. And as a result of this those machines will feel a little zippier under the mouse so to speak but for pro-app horsepower they all fall notably short of the mark. Maybe we compare it using sea vessels (as I'm tired of the car analogies). It's similar to the difference between small speedboat and military cutter. The small speedboat can get out beyond the shore-break faster but once there sinks. Meanwhile the MP Cutter is safely halfway round the Cape of Good Hope with no signs of trouble. The jobs I and most workstation users hand off to their machines can take days to complete. Weeks on a MacMini if it doesn't die of heat prostration or choke because it had to start in with heavy VM use.
Hehe, synthetic benchmarks... LOL.. Well those can be fun for sure. I like to play at that too. But I recognize they are nearly 100% useless in discussions like these where we are talking about environment mission critical application (bringing a system to task for the task(s) it was designed to handle).
