So, was it worth the wait?

[Icaras]

Seems either too little and too late, or just too damned expensive. And because of this I think I've decided to get the new iMac. What stopped me before were the lack of hard drive options but since now that you can get both an SSD and an HDD, I think I'm sold.

The quad core Mac Pro model is a joke at $2499 with it's seemingly anemic RAM and HD configuration.

 

[keriksen]

Yes and no.

The 12 core machine is essentially what I was waiting for. However, that price point puts it over the $5K barrier that comes along with educational institution budgets. ($5K is the dividing line between "equipment" and "supplies", which are different budget line items, and carry different overhead rates.)

So, it looks like a great machine, but I can't buy it, and the 8 core is an incremental bump (though the extra L3 cache appears to be nice). All in all, I shouldn't have waited.

 

[sparkie7]

Sorry, but where was the drop in Toaster option?

 

[johnnymg]

I have a feeling that some people looking for a 6-core Mac Pro will be disappointed.

Oops, my bad, looks like there is a 6-core
snip............

Any guestimate on the price for the single 6 core BTO option?

thanks
JohnG

 

[Ravich]

Well, yay for 6 core options, but if it's still limited to 4 memory slots... the added price is going to be bleh.

 

[phaedarus]

What "most wanted features"??

- No USB 3.0
- No FireWire 3200
- No SATA 6 Gbps
- No SAS
- No eSATA ports
- No Blu Ray

CPU speedboost, faster memory speeds, lower base price and especially access to faster GPUs seem to be the primary concerns for most "generic" users (if this forum is any indication).

The aforementioned list are nice-to-haves but in the end, merely details (Pro users aren't necessarily crippled in the absence of external solutions). Blu-Ray in the age of Netflix and torrenting? Come on now.

 

[hannahwildcat]

Screw this $#!t, Lets go bowling!

A story was written in my college newspaper a few years ago after Blu-Ray won the format war. The commentator's expression made by the makers of HD-DVD was this.

Screw this $#!t, Lets go bowling!

Well, this is my response to the new mac pro

Screw this $#!t, Lets go iMac!

I am not going to spend this much money on a pittance of upgrades.

 

[Topper]

.
Isn't this pretty much what was to be expected?

We knew there could be no light Peak.
We knew there would be no Blu-ray. Steve doesn't like Blu-ray.
We pretty much knew there would be no USB 3.0. It's not even on the Intel motherboards.
I didn't think there would be FW1600 or FW3200. FW800 isn't all that popular. I like it but third party vendors don't use it except for external hard drives.

It does have the 6 core Westmere processor that a lot of people wanted.
It does have the HD 5870 which a lot of people wanted.

The only thing I am surprised about is it does not have a workstation video card.

 

[Ravich]

Yeah.... it didnt register until just now, but the high end iMac still outperforms the low end Mac Pro, and now the iMac can hold an additional internal HDD.

 

[deconstruct60]

Any guestimate on the price for the single 6 core BTO option?

Since the press release has base prices for the QUAD/OCTO being the same as they are now, a reasonable guess would be that the top end "single processor package" version would be the same as the current top end of that subproduct: $3699.

The new dual package octo will be $3499 and likely with twice as much memory.

Really boils down to whether your application workloads are much more single core and high GHz bottlenecked or have workload that can spread out and consume all cores/memory bandwidth. That $400 difference will probably buy a SSD that makes the octo system better in the latter case.

 

[J the Ninja]

Yeah.... it didnt register until just now, but the high end iMac still outperforms the low end Mac Pro, and now the iMac can hold an additional internal HDD.

The HDD+SSD option makes the iMac damn tempting in a way it never was before. I'm just not sure what I'd do for a monitor for my gaming PC. Target display mode is a bit sketchy with PC graphics cards, as I understand it.


But, guyz, the iMac has a desktop quad core and a dedicated scratch disk! I mean, %&$%!!!!

 

[deconstruct60]

The long awaited update for the Mac Pro is finally in.

So, was it worth the wait?

The graphics GPUs are almost a year old.
The CPU updates range from being 8 to 4 months old.

What were they waiting for? The Magic Trackpad ? Software drivers for GPUs ?

 

[maflynn]

The graphics GPUs are almost a year old.
The CPU updates range from being 8 to 4 months old.

Apple has steered clear of the cutting edge, so much so that newer processors do not hit the apple platform until several months have transpired.

 

[CaptainChunk]

Hmmm... the 2010 Mac Pro seems to be nothing more than a 2009 with a microcode update to support newer processors. Aside from processor and graphics card options, NOT A SINGLE THING is different. My thoughts:

1. Apparently, Apple still doesn't think there's anything wrong with 4/8 DIMM socket arrangement on computers that are optimized for triple-channel memory. Is it REALLY that hard to squeeze in a 6-DIMM arrangement for single CPU and a 12-DIMM one for dual CPU? Really?

2. Admittedly, I'm glad that they'll finally be shipping a base graphics card that isn't a total turd. But where are the NVIDIA cards? I guess we're not getting those after all...

3. I pretty much already knew we wouldn't be getting Blu-ray in this update. It's become pretty clear that Apple doesn't want to pay the licensing fees - like EVER.


Funny, my 2008 8-core Mac Pro STILL doesn't feel like a dinosaur. Weird. And now that we know for a fact that 5770/5780 cards will be shipping, it's only a matter of time before we can flash these puppies.

The graphics GPUs are almost a year old.

Ummmm....I guess you could blame ATI on that one. The 5770/5870 are still current cards in their lineup. Their only faster card is the 5970, which probably wouldn't fit in a Mac Pro anyway (seen the size of that thing?).

 

[slughead]

I pretty much already knew we wouldn't be getting Blu-ray in this update. It's become pretty clear that Apple doesn't want to pay the licensing fees - like EVER.

It's not just fees. From what I gather, the bluray jerks want DRM built into the OS to ensure some level of copy protection.

Otherwise you could just get a 3rd party bluray disc player program for mac.

 

[dgookin]

I'm glad that they announced the new machines, but I'm replacing my old G5 PowerMac with the top-of-the-line iMac. I really can't justify the high price for the newer processors in the MacPro.

Perhaps in the future I'll return to the MacPro design. I've had a Mac in my office since 1987 (Mac SE), and I've gone between the prosumer and high-end Macs for years. I think the iMac will suit me well for the next few years, then I'll look into a MacPro again.

 

[CaptainChunk]

It's not just fees. From what I gather, the bluray jerks want DRM built into the OS to ensure some level of copy protection.

Otherwise you could just get a 3rd party bluray disc player program for mac.

Ummmm...no. DRM is easy to implement in an OS. While virtually every GPU supports HDCP for DRM, none of Apple's displays actually do, and that's another problem. So even then, a legal Mac-native Blu-ray player app would be impossible. All your hardware would need to be HDCP-compliant and so does the OS (which it's not).

My solution? I boot into Windows for Blu-ray. It works.

Steve thinks Blu-ray is a big bag of hurt because of licensing fees and (the part he won't admit) the fact that Blu-ray would potentially cut into iTunes movie sales. It's not about starting a moral rebellion, it's about profits. Plain and simple.

 

[Topper]

I'm replacing my old G5 PowerMac with the top-of-the-line iMac. I really can't justify the high price for the newer processors in the MacPro.

A Mac friend of mine with a G5 feels exactly the same way.

Two PC friends of mine are going with Dell. Truth is they already bought their Dell workstation computers. They couldn't wait any longer for the Mac Pro.

I think I'll wait for Sandy Bridge with Light Peak and a HD 6870 card.

 

[xgman]

I think for both the imac and these Mac pros, that Apple did the bare minimum to qualify as updates to the line and added zero innovative style features, you know, the innovative ones that we see on ipads and iphones. They didn't even add any more usb ports let alone usb 3. I'll buy one, but really, nothing new here.

They could have really hit one out of the park here and gained some serious market share. I just don't get their marketing choices in the mac line. It's discouraging.

 

[xgman]

I think I'll wait for Sandy Bridge with Light Peak and a HD 6870 card.

you're kidding right? see you in 2015. seriously.

 

[CaptainChunk]

I think for both the imac and these Mac pros, that Apple did the bare minimum to qualify as updates to the line and added zero innovative style features, you know, the innovative ones that we see on ipads and iphones. They didn't even add any more usb ports let alone usb 3. I'll buy one, but really, nothing new here.

Well, in all fairness, I think the Mac Pro enclosure itself is still a timeless work of art. That itself doesn't need updating, IMHO. Besides, the Mac Pro is a workstation-class machine and products of that type aren't intended to be trendsetters. Form over function isn't something that plays well with the professional market.

I can deal with 5 USB ports. I use USB for two things: the mouse and keyboard. And on rare occasions, to plug in a USB thumb drive. That's about it. I use FireWire and eSATA for everything else. Regarding the absence of USB 3.0, you can blame both Intel and Apple for that one. None of Intel's chipsets support USB 3.0 (PCs only support it through add-on motherboard chips and expansion cards). And Apple would need to write drivers to enable USB 3.0 operation. Neither one of those things have happened yet.

 

[VirtualRain]

You raise some good points... here are my thoughts...

Hmmm... the 2010 Mac Pro seems to be nothing more than a 2009 with a microcode update to support newer processors. Aside from processor and graphics card options, NOT A SINGLE THING is different. My thoughts:

Although that's not what most were wishing for, I believe that's what everyone was expecting.

1. Apparently, Apple still doesn't think there's anything wrong with 4/8 DIMM socket arrangement on computers that are optimized for triple-channel memory. Is it REALLY that hard to squeeze in a 6-DIMM arrangement for single CPU and a 12-DIMM one for dual CPU? Really?

I'm sure they believe that 4GB DIMMS are a viable option. They're not that expensive.

2. Admittedly, I'm glad that they'll finally be shipping a base graphics card that isn't a total turd. But where are the NVIDIA cards? I guess we're not getting those after all...

High-end NVIDIA cards require 6+8pin PCIe power thereby disqualifying them.

3. I pretty much already knew we wouldn't be getting Blu-ray in this update. It's become pretty clear that Apple doesn't want to pay the licensing fees - like EVER.

Apple believes that Blu-ray is a dead format already and that online content is the way of the future. They don't want to support a format which competes with their model of content delivery.

Funny, my 2008 8-core Mac Pro STILL doesn't feel like a dinosaur. Weird. And now that we know for a fact that 5770/5780 cards will be shipping, it's only a matter of time before we can flash these puppies.

It seems the 2008 will go down in history as one of the best value Mac Pro's ever. If it wasn't for it's antiquated FSB and FBDIMM memory architecture, the Nehalem/Westemere would have little on it. However, I think Turbo Boost is a highly underrated feature of the new architecture given the number of apps which remain single or dual-thread.

Ummmm....I guess you could blame ATI on that one. The 5770/5870 are still current cards in their lineup. Their only faster card is the 5970, which probably wouldn't fit in a Mac Pro anyway (seen the size of that thing?).

The 5970 also requires 6+8pin PCIE power, disqualifying it from the Mac Pro.

 

[NathanCH]

Can someone please explain to me what anyone would pay $2500 for a quad core computer with only 3GB of ram? :S

 

[xgman]

It seems the 2008 will go down in history as one of the best value Mac Pro's ever. If it wasn't for it's antiquated FSB and FBDIMM memory architecture, the Nehalem/Westemere would have little on it. However, I think Turbo Boost is a highly underrated feature of the new architecture given the number of apps which remain si

This is my reasoning and a single 6 core 3.33 with turbo boost would probably suit me better than the 2008 8 core with slower memory. I still think that 5 usb outlets in today's world is absurd and hubs are not the best solution if you can avoid them. As far as the really expensive SSD, is the lack of TRIM a big factor? Is it still worth the premium and lower capacity?

I so wanted this update to have a snall bit of the 'wow' impact, but alas . . . .

 

[CaptainChunk]

It seems the 2008 will go down in history as one of the best value Mac Pro's ever. If it wasn't for it's antiquated FSB and FBDIMM memory architecture, the Nehalem/Westemere would have little on it. However, I think Turbo Boost is a highly underrated feature of the new architecture given the number of apps which remain single or dual-thread.

True, but given my primary use (editing and rendering video), TurboBoost isn't necessarily a deal breaker for me (I really do use all 8 cores quite a bit). While it would be nice to have more memory bandwidth, I still don't think it's a lucrative enough reason to hock my 2008 to get a new 2010 model, especially at today's prices.