So, was it worth the wait?

[xgman]

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

I am having a hard enough time justifying this update so don't rub it in. the truth hurts.

It is a fact that you can get way more innovation in lots of PC models at much better pricing. Problem is we are slaves to OSX and I'm not interested in going hack.

 

[xgman]

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.

It would be nice to be able to see some comparative testing based on your comparison above. I assume that it will differ from task to task and program to program somewhat.

 

[RebootD]

I am having a hard enough time justifying this update so don't rub it in. the truth hurts.

It is a fact that you can get way more innovation in lots of PC models at much better pricing. Problem is we are slaves to OSX and I'm not interested in going hack.

Honestly pick up a refurb 2009 Quad if you don't want to pony up for the Octad. I have the base model 2.66 and I somehow doubt the extra 360GB of hard drive space and a 5% speed increase is worth it.

 

[nanofrog]

This is exactly what I was expecting... New Drop-in processors and new GPUs at largely previous pricing resulting in slightly improved value.

That's all that was realistic, given the design implementation of the Tick Tock cycle.

Ummmm...no. DRM is easy to implement in an OS.

It's about control for this particular aspect, as Apple didn't create BR, and have to abide by another organizations directives in order to implement it.

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).

Apple's slipped the parts into the newer monitors (under Windows), so they're actually HDCP compliant (others have tested this out and discovered it works). This may actually have been a "consolation prize" to Apple system owners, as they don't support it under OS X.

Older GPU's and montors are still problems for older system owners though (i.e. '06 - '07 system owners running older ACD's or other non HDCP compliant monitors and the original GPU's).

...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.

This is definitely a big part, if not the largest, of it as well. Combine it all up, and there's not a chance BR will be supported officially by Apple.

 

[deconstruct60]

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?

1. Since using multiple channels slows the memory bandwidth, it is huge stretch to label that as optimized. If don't buy 4GB DIMMs from Apple can go above average sizes on RAM.

If optimized has to do with being able to stuff as many 1GB (or perhaps 2GB ) dimms in as possible. That is effectively optimized for older memory tech.

Apple sticking with 1GB DIMMs is surprising. That's definitely a margin booster move. It may be that most folks want to put 3rd party memory in there. However, the 2GB stick prices have to be approaching what 1GB were at this point.




2. 6 DIMMS would involve changing the case to be inch or so wider. There is a tradeoff between being able to easily do the upgrade and also with better utilization of internal space and better aligning the heat sinks with the fans.

There aren't 6 DIMMs slots for similar reason not 6 PCI-e slots. The number of folks up in the demographics probably don't measure very high to Apple.

But where are the NVIDIA cards? I guess we're not getting those after all...

Doesn't have to be Apple that ships them. Although,

FAnd 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.

Folks wonder why there is no Mac video card market.

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?).

Unless ATI was writing the drives then could blame them. I've seen reports here that they do the work for Apple. It isn't so much that they are not still toward the top of the current line up, but that they hardware was released to market last year ( September). I can see why ATI would assign their driver teams to finish working on Windows ( and Linux perhaps) before releasing on Mac OS X.

The point was more so that Apple seems to have aligned things so that parts hit the market for long time before do release. That somewhat indicates that their software development is lagging. If had used delay to do something that added value that would be one thing. Seems as though just needed delay to catch up.

Won't be surprising to see the two graphics cards get lapped in 4 months time. Neither will be surprising to see better alternatives to the 3530 and 3565 get lapped too.

 

[cube]

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

The RAM is not the problem. The problem is all the current technologies that have not been included.

 

[CaptainChunk]

It would be nice to be able to see some comparative testing based on your comparison above. I assume that it will differ from task to task and program to program somewhat.

I see where you're getting at here... But say I have a render batch (like converting from ProRes to 1080p H.264) running in Compressor with a virtual cluster enabled in QMaster. According to MenuMeters, all 8 processing cores on my machine are consistently crunching at 95-100% loads under such a condition. At that level of CPU utilization across all cores, a similar pair of Nehalem-based CPUs wouldn't even be able to kick on TurboBoost.

Now under conditions where TurboBoost could actually be used (tasks that only require the attention of 1-2 processing cores), I'll grant the performance advantage of similarly-clocked Nehalems versus my Core 2 based Xeons. I'm not arguing that point.

The only point I'm trying to make here is that there isn't a lucrative enough reason for me to hock my 2008 in favor of a similarly-equipped 2010 that might be slightly faster for my intended use. That's all.

Folks wonder why there is no Mac video card market.

There's no Mac video card market because 1) most manufacturers don't care about supporting a small minority of computer users; and 2) the ones that actually do want an enormous price premium for what is essentially a reference card flashed with different firmware.

Case in point - EVGA still sells the Mac version of the GTX 285 for $450. As a PC card (the few that are still on the market), they cost about $300 (never mind the fact that a $200 GTX 460 handily outperforms it with less power consumption). But even if the GTX 285 was still an honest $300 as a PC card, you're paying a $150 price premium for Apple-specific PCI-E cables that cost almost nothing to manufacture. The same was true for Apple's Radeon 4870. $350 for a card that PC users got for around $200.

I'd be all for buying Mac-ready video cards if their prices were at least somewhat in line with reality, but they're consistently not. And this has been an age-old problem, even in the PowerPC days.

 

[fearoftigers]

I 'think' for me it probably was worth the wait.

Hopefully I should get a hex core at 3.33ghz for a similar price to the current quad.

Let's see when they unveil the prices though!

 

[telebox]

for me now it's crystal clear: Apple wants to sell iMacs and NOT Ma PROs

much more pieces sold than a expansive workstation machine that only few guys can affortd.

better make profits with all the iTOYS they developed in the latest 2 years.

i really thinking to build a 12core hackintosh...what about its price ??!

 

[VirtualRain]

for me now it's crystal clear: Apple wants to sell iMacs and NOT Ma PROs

much more pieces sold than a expansive workstation machine that only few guys can affortd.

better make profits with all the iTOYS they developed in the latest 2 years.

i really thinking to build a 12core hackintosh...what about its price ??!

They are two completely different products (all in one vs workstation) aimed at two completely different markets (consumers vs. professional) which value completely different things (simplicity and value vs expandability and power)?! Rest assured, they likely want to sell as many of both products as they can.

 

[nanofrog]

i really thinking to build a 12core hackintosh...what about its price ??!

Not that cheap, but you'd have options not available to you in a MP.

Last I checked however, there wasn't much in the way of tested DP hardware on sites such as insanelymac.com.

It's been awhile though, so additional information may have surfaced. So I'd recommend taking a look.

 

[deconstruct60]

There's no Mac video card market because 1) most manufacturers don't care about supporting a small minority of computer users; and 2) the ones that actually do want an enormous price premium for what is essentially a reference card flashed with different firmware.

In the second case these run with no new drivers? It is not a simply matter of the same hardware. So you have at least 9x fewer folks to spend the software costs over and you want the prices to be the same? Throw on top of that a market where folks pull the firmware and repurpose cards to avoid paying ( which makes it 9+ times as many fewer people paying. )

I'd be all for buying Mac-ready video cards if their prices were at least somewhat in line with reality, but they're consistently not. And this has been an age-old problem, even in the PowerPC days.

So is doing an end-run around paying for the additional work.

 

[CaptainChunk]

In the second case these run with no new drivers? It is not a simply matter of the same hardware. So you have at least 9x fewer folks to spend the software costs over and you want the prices to be the same? Throw on top of that a market where folks pull the firmware and repurpose cards to avoid paying ( which makes it 9+ times as many fewer people paying. )

So is doing an end-run around paying for the additional work.

I understand these points and like I said, I'd be fully prepared to pay even a small premium for a Mac version of a card, but not a 50% premium for say, a GTX 285 just because it has a different ROM and comes with two cables you can buy for around $10 each.

And for the record, NVIDIA wrote the Mac driver for the GTX 285, which is why EVGA instructs users to install the driver from the included disc prior to installing the card. To me, there's little actual product development on EVGA's end. They're simply taking a reference GTX 285 card (and the majority of even their PC-specific cards are based on reference designs, for that matter) and flashing it with an EFI-64 ROM. So in essence, you're paying $150 extra for a different ROM and a couple of PCI-E power cables. And they get away with it because they're the only game in town.

And while I don't condone what companies like AppleCrapcanix are doing either, there's a clear reason why this gray market continues to exist for Mac video cards. The very few people that want to play the 3rd-party game legitimately (EVGA for the GTX 285 and PNY for a couple of Quadro cards) want outlandish premiums to maximize profits. That's the part I don't think is fair.

But I suppose we can agree to disagree...

 

[Donny Jeffcoat]

no

are they seriously charging $2500 an entry level model that is quad core? they couldnt even make an entry level model with a W3680 single 6 core? i was wondering what processor they could be using since it said 8 MB L3 cache and all the new westmeres have 12 ....

come to find out they are still using an old processor: # One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon W3530 “Nehalem” processor


no case redesign. no USB 3.0. no SATA 6 gb/s. old graphics card.

and they are "coming in august" ? LOL

 

[xper]

Why is so many upset that Apple didnt do a case redesign? Why should they do that? Just for the sake of redesign? The current design is good as it is

 

[CaptainChunk]

no case redesign. no USB 3.0. no SATA 6 gb/s. old graphics card.

1. The current case design is fine. To me, that would have been the least of anyone's worries in an overhaul.

2. I'm sure you're also aware that Intel doesn't have any chipsets that support USB 3.0 or SATA-6G natively. The Intel-based PC motherboards that actually do support this do it through add-on chips. No real surprise here.

3. Would you care to point out a newer graphics card from ATI? They don't exist. And before you say 5970, I don't think that card would even fit in a Mac Pro, length-wise (but I could be wrong here). Besides, in all fairness, the 5770 is by far the best base graphics card the Mac Pro has seen since its inception in 2006. A lot of us earlier buyers have had to suffer with truly old 7300 GTs, 2600 XTs and GT 120s.

 

[Gomff]

For a while now, I've been following the numerous threads on these forums based on either (a) "When is product X going to be updated?", "I want it yesterday!", "What's with the delay?" or the other following on thread (b) which inevitably runs along the lines of "It's not good enough", "Why doesn't it have x, y and z", "It's a rip off", "Apple have lost it". I have come to the conclusion that some people here will just never be happy no matter what Apple do....These threads repeat and repeat as sure as night follows day.

Let's face it, they're never going to make a cheaper mid range tower that cannibalizes sales from iMacs and Mac Pro's, it just doesn't make good business sense. Nor are Mac Pro's likely to be competitively priced while Apple use the top line Intel server grade stuff. Maybe if the rumours surrounding AMD and Apple come to something prices might change but it's still probably unlikely. Even if Apple do use AMD chips in the future, another front will open up along the lines of Apple using dud, old or second best processors....Someone here will always be unhappy.

The Apple business model is essentially to charge a premium for a quality product, regardless of whether that quality is real or merely perceived due to clever marketing. With Macs the golden handcuffs of OS X are also well leveraged so that the argument is not just down to hardware. Indeed, only Apple hardware can legitimately run OS X and Windows. Hackintoshes are fun hobbies but are not ideal in professional environments where deadlines are tight and reliability is paramount.

Nobody likes paying the prices, but everybody likes a nice shiny new Mac because there's nothing else out there quite like it.

 

[keewe]

hm... it seems the 6 core gets you most bang for your bug, am i right? assuming its placed somewhere around $3000. the octa core is pretty useless thx to only 2,4ghz. sure... entry 12 core pretty rocks, but about $2000 more is...well...

4 RAM slots still suck, but imo $400 per 8GB module is ok. btw... apple says "up to 16 gig ram" but the mac pro CAN handle 8gb modules, right? just to be sure

 

[Bubba Satori]

For people looking to get the latest, its worth it.

It doesn't have the "latest".

 

[CaptainChunk]

4 RAM slots still suck, but imo $400 per 8GB module is ok. btw... apple says "up to 16 gig ram" but the mac pro CAN handle 8gb modules, right? just to be sure

Unless the logic board is firmware-locked to accepting 16GB maximum (not sure on that one), I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be able to accept 8GB RDIMMs (registered DIMMs). I don't think you can get modules past 4GB in capacity that are unbuffered.

BTW, where are you finding 8GB 1066MHz DDR3 ECC RDIMMs for only $400? The cheapest ones at Crucial are like $550.

 

[strausd]

Unless the logic board is firmware-locked to accepting 16GB maximum (not sure on that one), I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be able to accept 8GB RDIMMs (registered DIMMs). I don't think you can get modules past 4GB in capacity that are unbuffered.

BTW, where are you finding 8GB 1066MHz DDR3 ECC RDIMMs for only $400? The cheapest ones at Crucial are like $550.

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other World Computing/8566D3MPE8GB/

 

[Magaman]

Yes and no for me. I was hoping on a bit more as in USB 3 new FW and what not, since I'm sure that will all get added next year. However I was waiting for the 6 core addition since January when I started looking for a replacement of my windows machine. So once I can order I will be going 6 core, now I'll be able to use my Blackmagic capture card and get some real work done.

Now if only they updated Final Cut to 64 bit.....

 

[keewe]

i live in austria so i found this:

http://geizhals.at/a428795.html

Kingston ValueRAM DIMM 8GB PC3-10667R reg ECC CL9 (DDR3-1333)

right now the only 1333 modules i found but should be fine i guess

 

[rajbonham]

Right now I'm looking at possibly picking up the base 8 core model. I would LOVE to get the 3.33 GHz 6 Core, but I have a BAD feeling about the pricing on that one.

Logic would say it should be around the price of the base 8 core model, but the faster speed scares me. Even though it lacks two cores, I'm sure Apple will find a way to use the faster speed as justification for a very high price. I'm thinking no less than $4,000.

I would love to be wrong, but I don't see it happening.

 

[nanofrog]

hm... it seems the 6 core gets you most bang for your bug, am i right? assuming its placed somewhere around $3000.

The 2009 3.33GHz Quad is $3699USD. As the W3680 is the same cost (published quantity pricing) as the W3580, the MSRP will hopefully stay the same (or at least similar).

Even at that price point, if you can utilize SMP software, but it's not used enough to justify a dodeca (i.e. say less than 50% of the user's time), then it is a sweet spot IMO (based on the higher clock speed running without Turbo Boost). This speeds up both single and multi-threaded applications. If the SMP applications used can utilize the RAM system well, the 1333MHz DDR3 would help out as well.