Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Macpro lame graphics!

Mav451 said:
Unbelievable. 3 pages, and no mention of a headless iMac/Cube

I'm disappointed.
Click to expand...

Your right, the only thing that is headless on this forum is that guy. Do entry level $800 dell's come with quad Xeons?

Apple gives you a base model which is acceptable for most and offer higher end upgrades for those whom require it. It's called mass customisation. Enabling the consumer to get his/her desired product. Which may be Dual 3.0ghz Xeons 16GB ram and a 7300gt if that is the optimal solution or Dual 2.0ghz Xeons 1GB ram x1900 if that is the desired outcome. Different people want different things and you a criticizing Apple for providing choice, and not making the Mac Pro a competitor to the XBOX
 
Emrtr4 said:
A LOW END DELL today, one for $800 ships with 7300s.
Click to expand...

I configured a Dimension E510 (on Dell.com) for $937, the Core 2 Duo is not even an option.

The video card choices are the X300 and X600, both inferior to the 7300GT.



...They don't even tell you how much VRAM they have :eek:
 
Dr. No said:
I configured a Dimension E510 (on Dell.com) for $937, the Core 2 Duo is not even an option.

The video card choices are the X300 and X600, both inferior to the 7300GT.

...They don't even tell you how much VRAM they have :eek:
Click to expand...
Try configuring a dual CPU socket Dell with a 5000x server chipset or a Intel Server Board S5000XVN ... then you will be comparing the Mac Pro to the same low end machine that everyone thinks the Mac Pro is.
 
If there is a complaint, if any, it's that dropping from the "sweet spot" 2 x 2.66Ghz Woodcrests to the 2 x 2.0Ghz only nets you a paltry $300 in savings. And that's for quite a substantial drop in performance.
Some benches done by GamePC illustrate the large gap between the 2.0Ghz and 2.66Ghz chip:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=xeon5160&page=6

Judging from the MSRP's of the Core 2 Duo series, the difference between even a single 2.66GHz Conroe to a 2.0Ghz is nearly $330 alone. Considering that often times server chips retail for a whole lot more than desktop counterparts, that difference is probably over $700.

But just like with the G5's...the "bang-per-buck" for low-ends just plain sucks. Remember the 1.6Ghz G5 at launch 3 years ago? Terrible bang-per-buck value compared to the 1.8 or 2.0Ghz. In that sense, Apple discourages such a configuration pretty effectively.
 
It is a good thing that apple offers a low cost option as the graphics card in the Mac Pros. Not everybody needs it, and should the need arise some day, the card can easily be upgraded.

Looking at the apple web site, they don't even offer default models, but rather recomend a base configuration, which can be fully customized in many ways. This is substancially different from what they did in the past. They basically provide as a starting point a minimum configuration (except for the CPUs) and offer all the possible customizations.

If people say for $2500 the machine should have a better GPU, then they can get it by trading the GPU for the worse CPUs. If they just complain about the price point of the machine, then they should also see that a 2x2 Xeon setup is just that expensive.
 
Hello, Long time lurker first time poster. I've read all three pages of this post but no one has mentioned that the 7300GT is an 8 pixel card. It should have been called the 7600LE. I just wanted to point that out.
 
EricChunky said:
I'll only buy a MacPro if it uses all standard PC Components, i.e.

I can plug a Core 2 Duo Extreme in
Get my own 7900xtx
Get say 4 x 1 gig ram at half Apple price...

anyway.. all i want to keep is the motherboard that allow me to install decent 10.4 not osX86 AND the fancy casing.

Apple is SOOOOO lame...........
and it has been a shame to be a mac fans.
Click to expand...

Looks like you're getting a Dell!!! Congrats :rolleyes:
 
A $79 graphics in a machine that costs $2500? Apple has done a fantastic job getting a great CPU into all of its machines but at the same time they have gone backwards chasing after the cheapist video they can find. Integrated graphics and even a sub 100 dollar video in a ProMac. Still amazing,just amazing:rolleyes:
 
Super Macho Man said:
Really, everyone who wants reasonably fast 3D graphics can afford to upgrade to the X1900? I just checked my pocket and no, there is not $350 more in it than last time I checked. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between people who WANT a graphics card for gaming, and people who NEED a graphics card for realtime compositing and animation. If you can't afford the extra $350, they it's not something you need and maybe you need to take a look at your income situation. If you're dropping the cash on a machine like this to do production work and can't spring the extra $$$ for a graphics card you NEED, either you can't manage your business properly, your rates are too low, or your priorities are all wrong. If you require a system like this for your livelihood and can afford to pick one up in the first place, you can afford the extra $350 if it's really important. :rolleyes:
 
Mav451 said:
If there is a complaint, if any, it's that dropping from the "sweet spot" 2 x 2.66Ghz Woodcrests to the 2 x 2.0Ghz only nets you a paltry $300 in savings. And that's for quite a substantial drop in performance.
Some benches done by GamePC illustrate the large gap between the 2.0Ghz and 2.66Ghz chip:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=xeon5160&page=6

Judging from the MSRP's of the Core 2 Duo series, the difference between even a single 2.66GHz Conroe to a 2.0Ghz is nearly $330 alone. Considering that often times server chips retail for a whole lot more than desktop counterparts, that difference is probably over $700.

But just like with the G5's...the "bang-per-buck" for low-ends just plain sucks. Remember the 1.6Ghz G5 at launch 3 years ago? Terrible bang-per-buck value compared to the 1.8 or 2.0Ghz. In that sense, Apple discourages such a configuration pretty effectively.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the benchmarks. I think I might be picking this thing up in store then instead of ordering the 2.0 GHz model online.
 
tipdrill407 said:
WTF?? Video editing puts very little to no stress on the gpu.
Click to expand...

Not yet...with more and more implementation of Core Video and now Core Animation in conjunction with apps within the Final Cut Studio, I find it very stressful on the GPU. Video editors are expected to know and do more and more these days such as Motion and Shake. Much of our titling, particle effects, and simulations/keyframing go much faster with a good GPU as the GPU is treated like a primary CPU with these programs. YOu can almost guarantee we'll see some of that Core Animation from the keynote demo implemented in the next Motion or Shake/Phenomenon.
 
milozauckerman said:
To what end? That's well and good - but the question here is really 'should Apple have offered a configuration with one Xeon or a 2.4GHz Core 2 instead?' (Place it in the future tense if you want to argue what should come later.)

A 2.4GHz Core 2 costs the same as a single 2.0 Xeon and performs essentially the same. It takes RAM that costs half as much and has no downside.
QUOTE]

If they had gone with the Core 2 Duo instead of the Xeon chip there would be no way to have the one configuration set up they have now. They would have had to split the product line into dual core and quad offerings in different chips. I think many will agree consolidation of the line and more upgrade options are a good trade off. And one Xeon wouldnt make sense, the chip is meant to run in dual processor configurations, why should a more pricey chip be placed inside without using it to its full potential (a quad config)
Click to expand...
 
This was an amusing thread. Thanks for the intertainment I got out of it (5 min. or so) You know more expensive items are not always better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back