New Mac Pro Goes Eight-Core Before Macworld Expo

>Looks good for those who need it, of whom I am not one.

What I find interesting is that the new Mac Pro is actually more
machine than many people who previously bought Power Macs and Mac
Pros need (like me). I haven't figured out what I want to replace my
current Power Mac G5 with, but a Mac Pro seems like overkill. The
current iMacs can drive an additional monitor, which was my main
reason for using a pro Mac in the past.

cheers... -Adam

Adam wrote:

> Graphics processing is also important for the professional crowd,
 > and although I'm not deep in that world, the specs sound impressive.
 > The standard video card is an ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT with 256 MB of
 > video memory, but build-to-order options include the Nvidia 8800 GT
 > with 512 MB of memory or Nvidia Quadro FX 5600 with 1.5 GB of memory.
 > You're not limited to just one of these cards (each of which can
 > drive a pair of DVI monitors) - the Mac Pro provides a total of four
 > PCI Express slots, making it possible for a Mac Pro to drive a total
 > of eight 30-inch monitors running at 2560 by 1600.

I wonder if this is quite right - or rather I'm sure the facts are right, but
there's an implication in there that I question.

In our experience with the previous Mac Pro, it emerged that while you could
have up to four of the low-end card, you could only have one of the higher-end
options; and if I recall correctly, the maximum configuration with either of
these, then included only two of the low-end cards.

Certainly the build-to-order options on the Apple Store don't offer more than
one high-end card, and if the image library on the site is accurate, it
doesn't look as if the physical arrangements have altered sufficiently to make
it possible.

Just when I was getting excited....

- Ben

--On 1/10/2008 11:46 AM -0800 Adam C. Engst wrote:

> What I find interesting is that the new Mac Pro is actually more
> machine than many people who previously bought Power Macs and Mac
> Pros need (like me). I haven't figured out what I want to replace my
> current Power Mac G5 with, but a Mac Pro seems like overkill.

Well, there is a version with a single quad-core.

Typically in the past, the Apple Store listed Mac Pros as something like
"From $2499", which would be the price of the lowest-end configuration.
Now, while most other products are listed "From $xxx", Mac Pros are listed
"At $2799"--but that is NOT the lowest price.

If you use the "Configure" button, the first option lets you drop to a
single quad-core processor and takes $500 off the price to make it $2300.

Somewhere in Apple's marketing department, they concluded that the slogan
"8 cores standard" was powerful enough to make up for any sales lost
because the cheaper single quad-core option is now hidden as a
"configuration" option.

So the price of the cheapest Mac Pro actually dropped from $2500 to $2300,
it's just that for marketing reasons that machine is not considered
"standard".

Dave

At 11:46 AM -0800 1/10/2008, Adam C. Engst wrote:

>>Looks good for those who need it, of whom I am not one.
>
>What I find interesting is that the new Mac Pro is actually more
>machine than many people who previously bought Power Macs and Mac
>Pros need (like me). I haven't figured out what I want to replace my
>current Power Mac G5 with, but a Mac Pro seems like overkill. The
>current iMacs can drive an additional monitor, which was my main
>reason for using a pro Mac in the past.
>
Adam:

I buy a Mac and expect to use it for 4-5 years. I would not feel
comfortable without expansion slots to provide a way to add some new
feature. When I needed USB 2 or wanted SATA, those slots came in
handy. Not to mention the ability to access old scsi drives which
were not so old back when I got a G4.

The current iMacs only hold 4 GB of RAM. And if you buy the 2GB
configuration, you have to remove both chips to replace with the
larger ones. So I want extra RAM slots. And I want more than one
internal HD. Every HD I have ever owned has proven to be too small
for my needs before I expected. (OK, I'm a packrat.)

So what hardware resources will OS X 10.7 or 10.8--or whatever they
will be calling it a few years down the road--need? I don't know but
I think the MacPro will be closer to it than the iMac.

Would be nice if there was an in between Mac but I guess Apple thinks
the single CPU version fills that niche.

--Jim

--

Jim Carr
jimcarrmac.com

Adam C. Engst wrote:
>> Looks good for those who need it, of whom I am not one.
>
> What I find interesting is that the new Mac Pro is actually more
> machine than many people who previously bought Power Macs and Mac
> Pros need (like me). I haven't figured out what I want to replace my
> current Power Mac G5 with, but a Mac Pro seems like overkill. The
> current iMacs can drive an additional monitor, which was my main
> reason for using a pro Mac in the past.

I work with architects. We put in RAM and dual displays. Never use any of the other expansion options inside the box. Not even the extra Ethernet ports. The problem with the Mac Pro line up is that is is built to be the server for those who do not want to buy XServes for whatever reason. 4 drive bays, dual ethernet, etc...

I'd love a MacPro Lite with no extra card slots, one hard drive bay, one CD/DVD drive, and one graphics card supporting 2 displays. Shrink the volume in half and chop $500 to $1000 off the price. But Apple's profits would tank so I don't expect to see it. Oh, well.

David

On 17-Jan-08 17:38, "David Ross" <drdavidrossconsultant.com> wrote:
> I'd love a MacPro Lite with no extra card slots, one hard drive bay, one
> CD/DVD drive, and one graphics card supporting 2 displays. Shrink the volume
> in half and chop $500 to $1000 off the price. But Apple's profits would tank
> so I don't expect to see it. Oh, well.

Sounds like an iMac.

"lewisGmail" wrote:
> On 17-Jan-08 17:38, "David Ross" <drdavidrossconsultant.com> wrote:
>> I'd love a MacPro Lite with no extra card slots, one hard drive bay, one
>> CD/DVD drive, and one graphics card supporting 2 displays. Shrink the volume
>> in half and chop $500 to $1000 off the price. But Apple's profits would tank
>> so I don't expect to see it. Oh, well.
>
> Sounds like an iMac.

Nooooo. An iMac has a slower bus, way less powerful video even before you add upgrades, and ties the computer to a display. Our displays last 3 to 5 years. Our computers get swapped out every 2 to 3 years.

David Ross

On 27-Jan-2008, at 22:17, David Ross wrote:
> "lewisGmail" wrote:
>> On 17-Jan-08 17:38, "David Ross" <drdavidrossconsultant.com> wrote:
>>> I'd love a MacPro Lite with no extra card slots, one hard drive
>>> bay, one
>>> CD/DVD drive, and one graphics card supporting 2 displays. Shrink
>>> the volume
>>> in half and chop $500 to $1000 off the price. But Apple's profits
>>> would tank
>>> so I don't expect to see it. Oh, well.
>>
>> Sounds like an iMac.
>
> Nooooo. An iMac has a slower bus,

800Mhz compared to the Mac Pros.... 800Mhz.

> way less powerful video

Well, as of a couple of weeks ago you can get a MacPro with the same
video as the iMac, or upgrade to a 8800GT. The 2600HD Pro that is in
both the iMacs and Mac Pros is perfectly capable of driving the iMacs
monitor and an external for anything but high-end games.

> even before you add upgrades, and ties the computer to a display.

Yes, but supports ANOTHER display.

--
and I lift my glass to the Awful Truth / which you can't reveal to the
Ears of Youth / except to say it isn't worth a dime