New Mac Pro Announced

So what do we make of these specs: http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html for $2499?

Anyone know how Core 2 Duo chips compare to Xeon Dual Core?

 

Xeon 5100 and Core 2 Duo (or Core 2 Extreme) are very nearly the same--both are Core Microarchitecture chips (not like the old Pentium-4-based Xeons).

But the Xeons (Woodcrest) can be used in pairs, for a total of quad cores.

Bottom line: they are the fastest desktop chips on planet Earth.

And if Apple's claims are true, the same specs from Dell will cost you $1000 more!

I like the new machines--especially the all-new interior design.

 

I went and priced a Dell Precision immediately after the announcement and the price quickly got above $3K.

 

3ghz, 2tb storage, 16gb ram, 2 super drives and a quadro fx 4500, no monitor or wirless etc...

$12,149... such teases!

 

Can 64 bit apps access 16 GB of RAM? Why would you want two Superdrives in a machine? You could probably lower the price $100 or so.

 

I'm guessing that the second optical drive bay is there for two reasons:

1) There was space, so why not? Some people want dual opticals.

2) People can then add Blu-Ray when it's available, and not have to wait on the computer itself

 

>>1) There was space, so why not? Some people want dual opticals.
>>2) People can then add Blu-Ray when it's available, and not have to wait on >>the computer itself

yes! and just this weekend i had to dupe 16gb of shtuff that i had to copy to my hd then burn. sure would have been nice to just dupe a dvd. took like 5+ hours. ok mostly because my machine is lame but still it would have saved a bunch of time...

 

So you can read from one and burn from another. Duplicating discs is pain for me.

Dunno if I would spring for it, but it is nice to know I could put a Blu-Ray and HD-DVD burner in the new MacPros if I needed to.

(I do a lot of DVD work).

 

sweet, now i can scarf a g5 quad on the cheap...

 

A nice machine except again the gfx-card. Can anyone explain to me what a 90€ low mainstream gfx-card has to search in such a machine? Next built-to-order relevant step is just too far away. Why is there nothing between the 7300gt and a x1900xt?

 

i heard a rumor that any PCI-E pc gfx card can be used in the new macpros... I guess time will tell.

cheers.

 

Yup this would be nice.

And then offering the system with a built to order option where there is no ram and no gfx-card included. I mean 300$ for another 1 GB of RAM... ;O) Or 350$ for the jump to the x1900xt. I can get the card alone for that without counting in the 7300gt.

I like this machine but it's sad to see that Apple still tries to rip you in their online store.

So much for the myth...

 

Well, as i've read it doesn't seem to be able to use current pci-e cards from the pc in da mac due to the efi firmware. But maybe we'll see new cards which will take this into account and work on both systems.

 

Hi,
it is not a myth. In my eyes, it's a fact that Macs aren't more expensive. The actual cost of a computer is its price minus the money you get back when you sell it.

I've just sold my Dual G5 (original price 2700€) after almost 3 years. At ebay I got 1300€ for it. So I just lost approx. 50% of it's original value.

Please don't try to get 50% for a 3 years old PC. I guarantee you you won't succeed.

Bye,
Martin

P.S. Apple RAM is dam expensive. That's true. But who cares. Just go to the next electronic retailer and buy some cheap PC RAM. Absolutely no problem and works perfectly. That's like buying motor oil directly at Mercedes or BMW.

 

Hi,

now this is really a subjective definition of what a price is! :O) I prefer going with the standard definition that the price actually is what i have to pay for when buying something as you have no idea what happens to the computer in the meantime and so on. What if you computer get's broken, stolen, the market alters...nah...

Hey mum look at this porsche. It's really cheap. You only have to think of what i might be able to get for it when i might sell it. What you don't have the money right now? Come on it's so cheap if you think of... ;O)

Anyway obviously you don't buy your RAM in the Apple store but why is it such a drag? What's the strategy behind selling a RAM at almost 300% of the normal price? Don't you think this might piss off new customers who aren't familiar with this? I think it's a cheap behaviour from Apple. Same with the gfx card, although it's not such a large difference.

Hmmm when i think about it i still miss the mac You which is smaller, less powerful version of the mac Pro. Imagine a smaller mac Pro chassis, less space, less slots, a normal core due (maybe two of them) and selling this in a pricerange of the iMac. This would be machine i would consider buying, as i would have reasonable performance, i would be able to upgrade the system to my needs and plugin a new gfx card once i need a better one for instance. Actually this would be so much better than the iMac, where you can't updgrade such components and where you're also tied to the monitor. There for sure are enough customers who want something like the iMac but looking at the PC market there also is a large userbase who would favor a system like the the mac You.


Regards,

taumel

 

You are right my definition probably was more the cost. Nevertheless I'm still sure that my Macs didn't cost me so much more than PCs. And that is what counts. The actual price of the Mac might be a little bit irritating on that point. Even although the Mac Pro compares very well against a DELL for example.

OK that could happen to all your goods. What is if someone makes a hit-and-run with your car. Life is not risk free. A solution might be a 15 years old car with zero value :wink:

Also please don't understand my few Macs buys and sells as a statistic. It is just my own experience which makes me a happy Apple customer.

Funny example, but true of course.

Some for sure. I also don't understand that. But as I said it is not a argument not to buy a Mac. I can tell you a dozend of other companies which do the same.

For example why is Espon inc so much more expensive than no name inc. ?

Why does the original Canon Accu for my digital camera costs 49€ while I can get it for 7€ from a no name company.

They just try it and it looks like that it works. That's sad but it seems to be a quite common practice. Not just evil Apple. :wink:

The price for the grafix card is ok if you consider that it was tested from Apple. And that Apple might also test future OS's on it. A few extra dollars for a solution which actually works.

I've updated just once the grafix card of my windows PC (some years ago) and I had the biggest problems. The unbelievable work around the support offered me was to remove my sound card, which surprisingly worked. Now I had nice graphics but no sound. Cool. :cry:

Once again that it no static just my experience. You might have never encountered a comparable problem with your PC.

I think that is just a business decision. They are probably just worried to cannibalize the iMac and Mac Pro sales.
In general I think it is better to have just a few profitable product lines instead of many unprofitable or less profitable ones.

Bye,
Martin

 

Regarding <the RAM>

Okay agreed, other try this as well but they do it a little bit more subtile in my opinion.

For instance they would buy standard RAMs and brand them with their own logo. My Sony accu also isn't worth it's money but they at least try to cheat me the way that they put it into some sony design and put it into a large package (not that i need that at all). I just can see a little bit of effort trying to blend me... ;O)

The way Apples does it scares me more away and i think of if they do this with the RAM maybe they also do this with the other components as well. Result is that i less trust them. Now how much marketing does it cost to get the lost confidence back?


Regarding <the gfx card>

Hmm what are they testing there? Actually every computer is tested for certain things when running through the manufacturing process. This is standard...

As for your graphics card experience. I've never encountered such problems and i suspect that nowadays these things aren't a big issue anymore. I've heard such stories in earlier days but not the last years anymore. Get a reasonable pc and everything is fine - hopefully! ;O)


Regarding the <mac You>

This depends on where you see more market potential. Personally i see a lot of potential if they would offer a open system for a reasonable price. They could still sell the Pro to those who really need the power of the xeons. But at the moment there does not exist a sensible solution between the mini and the pro and if i'm ever again to get a mac then i will probably go for a new mini due to this. Otherwise i would prefer the mac You. I know some other people beside of me who would like such a system as well and if they wanna fish in the pc market than this would be a good way to do.

Anyway Apple for sure knows what they are doing, right?! ;O)


Regards,

taumel

 

I have not read the thread in detail, but I wanted to offer 2 things.

1. RAM pricing - On reason to price the RAM, or any addon more is that you can This is actually considered good business in that helps maximize your profit. However, a more common reason for a business to price something substantially more is that they do not really want to provide that product or service. Why wouldn't a business want to carry as much as possible? Simply focus. Companies focus on different things, and off load the non-focus areas to other supporting businesses. This allows the business to optimize for their focus area. For complex products with multiple, upgradable components, the market often "forces" companies to provide options. However, the providing of options can cause an overall innefficiency. The solution is to charge an amount that will encourage consumers to use other supplies for that non-standard part. This also makes the business attractive as a partner for other businesses. There is more but I will stop my rambling on this point.

2) On the graphics card testing - I think what Martin was getting at was that Apple in essence guarantees that the card will work with future OS versions. Although there is standard testing, focus is given to those paths that are deemed most important by the company. In the case of a stock graphics card, Apple would have substantial service issues if something was released which caused problems with that standard card. However, if some off-brand card is used then only a few users are impacted and the problem can be pointed at the off-brand card. Replacing that card fixes the problem. Easy to demonstrate, easy to solve. Perhaps not what that consumer wanted, but that consumer assumed certain risks by going nonstandard. Good thing about the Internet is that communities spring up that, in effect, support the more popular nonstandard options.

 

I've never bought Apple RAM in my life. Granted, I've only bought three Macs in my life. (Occasionally the math works out to Apple RAM being cheaper, because 3rd-party RAM can mean "wasting" an Apple module.)

Apparently the Apple Mac Pro RAM has really big heat sinks, causing better cooling, lower fan speed, and less noise. But you're free to use cheaper RAM, and if it doesn't meet the same cooling standards, the fan simply runs more.

I'll be watching for reports of 3rd-party RAM than can provide the same fan/noise performance as Apple's modules.

 

Actually the good shops here offer you to give you a discount for the already inserted RAM if you wish to replace it from scratch. This also was the fact in my case. Bought a mini with a Gig and got the amount subtracted which the absurd 256mb module was worth - they used them for the guys who wanted to have 512mb in their minis.

In most cases heatsinks on RAM modules are like spoilers for cars. Some like it but the temperature on the chips is the same if not even worse than without heatsinks. Less noise because of the ram modules sounds like a markting joke to me. Remembering some nice c't articles on this on.

 

Could be, but I bet the articles weren't specifically about what Apple's engineers have done in this machine. All companies have marketers, but it doesn't sound like Apple to add a heat sink with no effect--especially not in a tower with such outstanding internal design.

 

Let's just put it this way: You're an outstanding Apple fan! ;O)

 

Not so outstanding that I won't call Apple a liar if they're lying about the heatsinks improving cooling

 

Actually, aren't the heatsinks necessary because the extra circutry that exists on FB-DIMMS, specifically the AMBs? Anandtech has a pretty interesting discussion on this.

 

Yup, you're right, i forgot that they went with the whole server infrastructure. So a little speed more, more power consumption, more heat, more expensive.

 

Just took delivery of my new Mac Pro. Installing Unity now

Unless something dramatic happens, I'm never buying another PC.

As for the price issue: Apple is a business that tries to run at a profit and usually succeeds. If they were to sell a smaller less-expandable (but still expandable) Mac Pro to suit your needs (or mine) then they would cannibalize sales of highly profitable Mac Pros. As it is you have this choice:

Buy a Mac Pro for $2500 or an iMac for $1500. Either will serve you well and is a fine PC as a bonus. Unless you'd rather use a PC (why are you reading this?!) you can have your cake and eat it now.

If you want to develop games on a PC, Microsoft is about to start giving away XBox 360 developer tools for the PC (see the other thread on this) ... yet another reason why Unity3d should focus on the Mac and not Windows.

 

Hmm my assumption but i think that the canibalizing wouldn't be an issue. A lot of people i know are asking after such a machine and so they could sell it for sure. iMac and pro are each for a different audience (easy beasy and max performance no matter of the costs - quad core perspective).

So beside of that i can't see canibalizing their sales it's also a questionable strategy to not deliver what people want as others will do it for you (taking a affordable configureable pc system).

Beside of the high power consumption, the low gfx-performance, $2500 for a computer system is way too much for what i wanna spend. I've no money to burn and if i prefer investing it elsewhere.

So i hope you enjoy it and there is a power plant next to you! ;O)

If otee would decide to not go a windows route they will never lift off. I think i got a licence to sell then. But i think this will not happen! :OP

 

I agree, a mid-range headless Mac would sell well. It would cannibalize a few sales, but a cannibalized sale is STILL a sale, and such a machine would generate a LOT of new sales as well. Especially to people who have never owned a Mac and are not comfortable with all-in-ones.

(BTW, the Mac Pros aren't as power-hungry as Pentium 4-era (and G5) machines I don't think.)

 

>>>
(BTW, the Mac Pros aren't as power-hungry as Pentium 4-era (and G5) machines I don't think.)
<<<

I meant this more in a comparison with meroms. Actually they provide enough cpu power for me with a thermal design range of 31W. Pretty nice...would be fantastic if we could come back to passive cooling and get rid of the fans, no matter if they are cooling the air or some liquid.


Regards,

taumel

 

Agreed--computers have gotten so fast that the "slowest," coolest of the latest generation chips OUGHT to be the best sellers. Silent, very fast machines (as opposed to quiet, less-efficient, insanely fast machines) would be great for most people, if they only thought that way.

Of course, the GPU adds heat... but one could also argue that more polygons does not = more fun

 

Did you get two optical drives? I'm really wondering how they work since there is only one eject key on the keyboard.

-Jon

 

@Morgan

I'm sure that nVIDIA/ATI will take the same route like the cpu makers. For the next generation it will be too late (dunno about nVIDIA exactly) but i'm pretty sure that the generation after that will go after optimising power consumption and multicore.

 

For example instead of using one chip with 64 pipes, two chips with 32 pipes -> higher yield rate from the wafer -> less production costs. Better scaleability of the product. Instead of designing 3 or 4 chips in a generation for the markets needs just put more or less cores on the chip.

 

Yep it wouldn't be so good as it would be on one chip and add the usual overhead but i am confident that it will turn out like this.

In the end you will get a chip which is faster than the old one and/or cheaper so no one will complain about it. The marketing will do the buzz...

 

There's no question that a barebones box with slots would sell well ... it would also cannibalize sales of Mac Pros. The question Apple has to ask itself is whether it's worth doing the latter to do the former.

I'd *love* Apple to sell a $1000 box with, say, a single Core 2 Duo processor, four PCI-x slots, and two RAM slots (so it could take up to 4GB). If I could get such a machine, Apple would lose a $2500 Mac Pro sale. They'd also probably lose a bunch of $1500+ iMac sales. What would they gain? Gaming enthusiasts aren't going to buy those boxes to play PC games on, and Apple isn't going to make much money selling them.

Dell sells those $1000 PC boxes -- and they have wafer thin margins on them.

This is why Dell also sells XPS gaming rigs for north of $1500 that, upon examination, are piles of steaming crap.

 

I think it would be worth as a lot of people ask after such a system. Beside of that some who would have bought an iMac or a mac Pro they would get new customers which aren't fond of their actual product line. Personally instead of maybe going for another merom mini i would go for such a machine.

As for the price it's up to Apple to define what's needed. If they gonna make this a $1000 or $1300 thing is up to them. I'm sure that Apple will come up with a proftiable price for them...

By the way doesn't a 17 inch iMac sell for $1300?

I sometimes wonder if there are also Apple people on this list... :O)

 

The argument for the headless mid-range mac has been going on for years (lately it's trendy to call it the xMac but Apple would NEVER call it that I hope! lol)

The argument against it is always about cannibalizing sales of other models. I've tended to agree in the past, but Apple has really changed their focus with this Intel transition. They seem to realize that it's not just making Apples Intel's but that they have actually entered into a different market. They are in the same playing field with Dell and the others now and they seem to want to score a goal or two.

Plus, Apple has had great success with low-margin hardware like the Shuffle's and the Nano's. Dell is even beginning to focus on wider profit margins right now, leaving a nice competitive spot open for APple. They have a real opportunity to significantly increase market share.

So, looking at their recent decisions, what they've talked about in the keynote, the little bones they throw (like trying to convince people about how configurable the Mac Pros are and nixing the "Good, Better, Best" configurations) I'd guess that we may very well be in for a mid-range headless mac within a year's time.

There seems to be a clear space in their product matrix for it to fit now, too. Here's hoping.

 

My thinking:

* "Cannibalizing" is not such an awful thing--every new product does some of that. It's still a sale. (And trying to "force" someone into a higher model is still possible--it's just a marketing challenge to make the higher models tempting.)

* Every NON-cannibalized sale counts for a lot: it's not just one Mac Apple would not have sold without that model, it's a new Mac user, who will go on to buy other Macs and tell other people.

* Mac sales are growing--that means they can increasingly afford more models without any one model hitting unacceptably low volume.

* Once upon a time a low-end headless Mac was unthinkable. Then the Mac Mini came out.

So I think the objections aren't strong enough--and I think Apple knows it.