MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Expensive... I bet the last gen 3's are going to be hot sellers. It will be interesting to see photoshop performance against the new $3200 2.26 machine vs. the old top of the line workstation. Probably faster in Video and 3D (new tower) but i bet not so much in 2D/Photoshop.

no mention of the 8-core 2.8 -- 3.0 -- or the 3.2 ..
Are these being EOL ?

Now we're talking. Love that Apple used Call of Duty 4 for tests. More power less price. Is this the tiny silver lining to the recession, in a pretty silver box?

Mar 03, 09 - 09:58 am Comment from: jocknerd

Phil Schiller is a complete liar. The price is not less than before. For $2499, you get a single processor. On the previous Mac Pro, if you downgraded to a single processor, you knocked $300 off the $2799 price which means it was also $2499. Bite me Phil!

Very nice, but still no Blu-Ray disk. :-(

Mar 03, 09 - 10:09 am Comment from: jonahan

Why can't I make it have less than 6GB in the 8 core machine?! I don't want to pay Apple RAM prices. Damn thing would have been $2799 if I could buy my own RAM.

This won't be cheap if completely maxed out. But once Snow Leopard comes out, you will see this amazing piece of hardware completely come into its own. Up to 32 Gigs of RAM? Count me in!

yesterday, you could get a minimum config 8 core 2.8 for around $3100 - and today, you can get a minimum config 8-core 2.26 for $3300 -

Sounds like a good deal to me !

Sweet! The big* bad one with all the trimmings is mine! Uh... the 30-inch display is where?

MW: "big" - (lol)

Mar 03, 09 - 10:38 am Comment from: jocknerd

It just feels like the gap is continuing to grow between the Mac Pro and the iMac. The Mac Pro is out of the ordinary users budget now and the iMac still is not what a lot of people want. The Mac mini is fine for an entry level type machine, but is inadequate for serious users. How can I love and hate a company at the same time? Simple, OS X. Without OS X, I would have no interest in Apple at all. I just wish Apple would produce the hardware I wanted. Its so frustrating.

Mar 03, 09 - 10:50 am Comment from: _Bill_

This is perfect, Nehalem and you can get a 4870 with it. If you spec a new machine on Newegg, this would be one of the best you could buy. Apple really did it right this time; I hope game companies continue to take Macs more and more seriously. Vista would scream on this machine, but I've come to realize that you don't need the best machine in the world to run OS X b/c it's much more efficient.

And so ship the last of the Macs from the Steve Jobs era.

Looking at the specs it's more like something Dell would roll out silently as an update.

It must really irk Steve to be going our with a whimper rather than a bang.

F*ck Off!
Apple just announced (again) at their annual meeting that Jobs plans to return in June, so you have zero basis for that statement. May Jobs remain at the helm of a healthy Apple for a good long time!
Go Apple!!
Jake

Mar 03, 09 - 11:13 am Comment from: Jubei

That is one gorgeous and powerful Mac. Its well engineered desktop. Fit and finish is exemplary.

Mar 03, 09 - 11:17 am Comment from: Zune Tang®

@End of an Era

Now that's what I'm talkin' about! Great post. That will get the MAC sheep riled up for sure. Did you write that on your Gateway or your boyfriend's Dell?

Your potential. Our passion.™

Oh my word is that sucker expensive. Seriously mind blowing. Almost $6k for a top of the line 8 core. O.o

Configure a quad core machine and bump the processor from 2.66 to 2.93. It's an extra $500. Now configure an octo core machine and bump the processors from 2.66 to 2.93. It's an extra $1200. Last I knew, 2 x 500 was 1000. Why the $200 Apple? You're making money off of these. No need to blatantly gouge us. I was going to get a Nehalem Mac Pro. I've changed my mind. Used it is.

Apple needs to get the price of that baby down as fast as possible. Back in the G3/G4 days they would release high and come down as a chip became cheaper to make. They need to get back into that idea.

They also need a 1 GB version of the 4870. And a 2 GB X2. RAM slots in a multiple of three would be cool too.

Don't get me wrong. I love the new machines. I'm just never going to afford one.

(MDN word: thirty. As in, it'll be thirty years before I can afford a used one of these.)

Mar 03, 09 - 11:27 am Comment from: G4Dualie

Pearls before swine.

The pretenders are being culled from the herd... buh-bye.

"Apple just announced (again) at their annual meeting that Jobs plans to return in June"

Before that they announced that Steve wasn't even sick and then that Steve's illness was not the reason they withdrew from the Macworld keynote.

Right now if Apple's board tells you anything about Steve, it's more likely exactly the opposite is true.

Following from that, Apple's board said he'd be back. Based on their history of being 180 degrees wrong in their public statements, that makes it almost certain he never will.

In June you'll get some vague statement about it all being worse than they imagined and that they only learned last week that he isn't coming back.

Mar 03, 09 - 11:55 am Comment from: Spark

Yeah, not cheap, but considering that I paid over $5K for a Mac IIvx 20 years ago, I'd say it's certainly a better value. The reality is that with the Nehelam processors and the new memory architecture, you've got some seriously powerful computing hardware here. The clincher for me, however, will be Snow Leopard, with Grand Central. I will be waiting to see what that beast will do to better advantage of 8 cores.

These are great machines. All reports on the Nehalem say they are amazing at the lower speeds.

However why only 8 gig Ram on the 4-core model? Seems like an artificial limitation to me.

"I just wish Apple would produce the hardware I wanted. Its so frustrating."

Silly Macolyte; don't you know Stevie Jobs knows best? Just drink your Cupertino Kool-Aid and be happy.

Choice is for...those other people.

Mar 03, 09 - 12:31 pm Comment from: Phytonix

The quad-core 2.66 Ghz Xeon cost only 288 on newegg. Apple must be buying them for less than 200 a pop. Then this new Mac Pro is incredibly overpriced, in contrast to earlier Mac Pros when they first came out, they basically all used >600 per processor Xeon.

Apple is losing its mind!

Well, the mac mini update is alright. Low end 24" iMac is alright. But this Mac Pro, s*cks.

Stop your whining, you frigtards. This tower is not for you if you are. First, buying this now is premature, as Apple is setting the stage for Snow Leopard, which will really be able to exploit the inherent power of this new Mac. Until the upcoming 64-bit OS is available, and there are apps that really take advantage of it, the thought of buying this fabulous new tower is a dream unrealized. And by then, we'll likely see cheaper hard drives, RAM and pricing. So stop your whining - you make my head hurt.

Second, this tower is probably not for you rail birds. It's become something way beyond what you need or could conceive. Four terabytes of hard drive space, 32 gigs of RAM, capacity for RAID, virtualization, fibre channel and more - these are things you probably will never need. But if you are serious about rendering complex CGI animation, gene sequencing, predictive neural net models, complex engineering or other high-demand needs, this new tower will be fantastic.

For the rest of us chuckleheads, take a serious look at the new Mini or the iMac. It's impressive what's being packed into these too. But you probably haven't noticed, because you tifosi are too busy making noise.

Mar 03, 09 - 01:23 pm Comment from: PeterGunn

The old Mac Pro with one quad processor was $2,299 for the last few months, or $200 cheaper than the new machines. As much as I have loved all 6 of my Macs, it still just grinds me that they don't have an mid-range tower. They aren't going to force me to buy a $2,500 machine and I won't buy an iMac. There is a recession going on and Apple needs to be a little less greedy right now.

Ebay - here I come with my MacPro

Yes, saying that the new Mac Pro is $200 cheaper when referring to a quad core (rather than eight) is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. Apple owes the market an apology on that one.

Mar 03, 09 - 01:58 pm Comment from: jarrettdailynews

@ Jocknerd,

Exactly what is it that you need that Apple isn't giving you? Other than a cheap tower. We all know Apple isn't going to give us a cheap tower, just isn't going to happen. Deal with it or whatever, switch platforms. Apple really doesn't give two shits about what you need. They have tens of millions of customers who probably all want something a little different. There are three desktops, with different configs. Get what you need, or don't, you can always go use windows.

Mar 03, 09 - 02:04 pm Comment from: theloniousMac

My existing 8 core runs at 3.0Ghz.

Slower bus speed, slower memory speed, but not enough to make me go through the trouble of selling it for the new machine. I can still get up to 32GB of RAM, though 8 has done me quite well.

"The quad-core 2.66 Ghz Xeon cost only 288 on newegg. Apple must be buying them for less than 200 a pop. Then this new Mac Pro is incredibly overpriced..."

Right, because the computer is nothing but the processor. The case, RAM, logic boards, ports, I/O, and all of the other little parts are free.

Mar 03, 09 - 02:37 pm Comment from: Roberto

Writers write. And whiners whine.

Mar 03, 09 - 03:11 pm Comment from: Willie G

I was initially happy to see that the Pros got an update. But after looking closer, I am a little put off by a few things.

First, they sure did up the price. In December I got a top of the line Mac Pro with 4 BTO options: a 1TB HD, Nvidia GeForce 8800GT, Airport card, and wireless Mighty Mouse (for my wife) for $5,099.00. Today, just selecting the top-end processor and leaving everything else stock is $5,899; and in my world (3D Motion Graphics) the speedup is only 1.3x. The RAM is the same speed, as is the capacity (I run 16GB, but the machine is capable of 32).

It is also a bit miffing that the graphics card has one regular and one Mini-DVI connection. It is annoying that I would need to buy an adapter to run my current displays (2x23" Apple Cinemas). Also, last I heard, there were issues with said adapter, so that would give me pause.

Finally, it is irksome that they have dropped FW400. It is nice to have 4 FW800 ports, but for capturing video... again, I would have to get an adapter (FW800 -> FW400).

So, what I am left with is an update that sees prices going up about 15% and requires at least 2 adapters to work within the confines of most of the world's current standards.

I was expecting to get all envious when the new Mac Pros came out, but as it sits right now, I am in no hurry to upgrade.

Mar 03, 09 - 03:30 pm Comment from: Mel Gross

I don't see any high performance graphics board for the new machine, which I just ordered.

There are just gaming boards available.

I hope this changes in the near future.

Mar 03, 09 - 04:14 pm Comment from: Mac-nugget

This is a meager update. I am glad I bought my Mac Pro last year when I did. These bring very little as far as real performance, specially after one year.

@Impressed, I can install 32 GB of RAM on my 2008 Mac Pro, so I don't understand why you are so impressed.

The advantage comes in the form of Hyper-threading, but your applications need to be updated for it. Probably with Grand Central in Snow Leopard we will see these new Mac Pros shine, but I am sure that my 8 core will still be very viable, even against these.

Mar 03, 09 - 04:22 pm Comment from: eMax

"The new Mac Pro is a significant upgrade and starts at $300 less than before,"


This is not true. The "standard config" used to be 2799 however you could customize it to have a single CPU which reduced the price to 2299.

the NEW price is MORE than the OLD price.

Mar 03, 09 - 06:18 pm Comment from: Brau

"best-ever graphics options to deliver a faster, more powerful system that our professional customers are going to love"

Don't bet on it. Having discontinued producing print-proof displays (true matte) across their entire lineup, not many graphics pros will be considering buying Macs at all.

"Don't bet on it. Having discontinued producing print-proof displays (true matte) across their entire lineup, not many graphics pros will be considering buying Macs at all."

Yeah, that'd be a brilliant decision. Give up the work flow efficiency (and other advantages) of OS X and buy a Windows machine, instead of realizing that you could just buy matte displays from vendors like NEC or Eizo.

Almost all the comments above were read by mistake. I regret reading them at all. The "experts" above are weighing in without having seen or tested the new Mac Pro or seeing any benchmarks. In short, you're assuming, you know-nothings.

I will prefer to withhold judgment for one year. Why? Because this new Mac Pro was designed for tomorrow, not today. It has hardware and hardware options that won't be truly realized until 10.6 is on the market, and until apps are created or upgraded to take advantage of both the power of the hardware (and optional hardware, such as maxing out the RAM, filling the drive bays, adding video cards, fibre channel, etc.), and for the era of 64-bit computing to come.

Revisit this article a year from now, and maybe, just maybe, it will make sense to you losers. You are all so short-sighted. Price is what you pay. Value is what you get. I'm with value. And a year from now, I am confident that my comments will ring true.

Mar 03, 09 - 07:21 pm Comment from: Willie G

@ One more

You come off as a total and complete jackass at best. You open with the claim that none of us have seen any benchmarks...

http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html

How's that for you, genius?

I stand by my statements that the updates, while nice are relatively minor compared to the previous generation, and the price hike is disproportionally high when using the improvements as a metric.

Besides, in about 6 months the 8-core versions of these processors are scheduled to be released. At that time, we will see 16-core Mac Pros, and THAT is a worthy upgrade.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and from the looks of the comments above - many have already expressed. As for myself, I have been waiting for an update to the Mac Pro October. I have a long history of investing in the newest, fastest, coolest, or geek-iest technology when I choose to spend my money. This goes way back to my Windoze daze, and the super fast 486-DX2-66 (remember that one?).
Anyway, am I thrilled with the price change - no, except for the ability to config w/16GB Ram straight from Apple for a reasonable amount. Would I like a Blue-Ray drive? Sure. Are the display options a problem? No - I use a 30" dell Dual Link DVI display, no need for a second monitor. I am happy with a speed increase, as modest as it may be, and I look forward to quite a few years with my new 16GB RAM, 4TB HD, Dual 18x Superdrive, 2.93Ghz 8 core Mac Pro (delivery in 2-3 weeks due to RAM upgrade - bummer).

"At that time, we will see 16-core Mac Pros, and THAT is a worthy upgrade."

Nah, on that day PC users will see 16 core PCs. 6-12 months later you'll see 16 core Macs. Apple - Yesterday's Processor Tomorrow.

@Slooow

Seriously? Apple just released their Core i7 Xeon workstation before Intel even released the chip. How is 3 weeks before the processor announcement 6-12 months later?

"Apple just released their Core i7 Xeon workstation before Intel even released the chip."

Just a reality check the Core i7 was released in November 2008.

And almost 5 months later you see a single CPU Mac Pro which can finally hold a candle to (but not beat) PC systems using that chip.

Ok, I know you're going to whimper "but but but that chip won't support dual processors, Apple needed to wait to get the dual processor chip to ship almost as fast a single processor machine". Then you'll think to yourself how stupid that statement is going to sound. It doesn't make much difference if you're buying the single processor Mac Pro does it?

Mar 04, 09 - 12:47 pm Comment from: DreamTheEndless

@Slooow

When the 3.2 quad core xeons came out the MAC Pro was the ONLY way you could buy them. You couldn't buy them OEM or retail as a CPU and you couldn't buy them configured in anyone elses hardware. (HP, Dell, IBM, SUN, etc...)

6 months later you could get one in an hp. But - You're obviously an expert who knows what he's talking about when it comes to CPU architecture, MAC Pro models, Intel product release dates, and...
or were you just talking out your rectum and being an obnoxious troll?

Mar 04, 09 - 01:55 pm Comment from: Willie G

@ Slooow,


Well, others have already pointed out what a misinformed douche bag you are, but since your reply was directed at something I wrote, I feel like I should chime in.

The newly announced Mac Pro is the first computer to tout Intel's Nehalem processors. Don't believe me?

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/03/notes_of_interest_on_apples_desktops_mac_pro_gets_xeons_early.html

Or, if you are too much of a lazy git to click on the link - as I suspect you are - here is an excerpt.

"People familiar with the matter say the new Nehalem-based Xeon processors in the Mac Pro are the same chips not due until late March for virtually all other customers, including powerhouses like Dell and HP."

Lastly, just to show you what a completely clueless tool you are, here's another excerpt, refuting your idea that this is any different from the previous generation..

The early access fits a historical pattern that has seen Intel give Apple early access or non-standard parts: the 2007 Mac Pro update used a special 3GHz Xeon that didn't appear in shipping products from competitors until weeks later, while the just-replaced iMacs had the same Core 2 Duo system buses and clock speeds of notebook processors in April 2008 that weren't widely available until that summer.

So, you see, every word you stated is 100% false. If your going to come in and tussle with the big boys, you need to be better prepared than that.

Still, I thank you... nothing I like better at the start of my day than to kick a little moron ass.

Mar 04, 09 - 04:52 pm Comment from: Mel Gross

@Me, why don't you check your facts?

It's tiring reading comments about the i7. The Nehalem Xeon is NOT an i7.

The i7 is Intel's brand name for their cheaper, poorer performing mainstream desktop chip lines.

The Xeon is Intel's branding for their more expensive and better performing workstation and server chip lines. that chip hasn't been released yet, except to Apple.

Both are Nehalem chips.

Please do get it right before criticizing others.

@@Me

"Ok, I know you're going to whimper 'but but but that chip won't support dual processors, Apple needed to wait to get the dual processor chip to ship almost as fast a single processor machine.' Then you'll think to yourself how stupid that statement is going to sound. It doesn't make much difference if you're buying the single processor Mac Pro does it?"

Sure, I'll "whimper" that Apple was waiting for the server grade Core i7 processor capable of dual processors. I'm not going to say your fictional statement sounds stupid though because it does make a difference; namely to Apple. They are not going to release the single processor machine way before the rest of the line, and it is stupid to think they would.

Fact is that Apple didn't release the Mac Pro until they had the processor they wanted in it. Then they released that chip before Intel even had. Again.

Go reread Willie G's reply to yours, if you're still a moron. (which I suspect you are)

@Mel Gross

I apologize Mel. I am aware of the fact that Intel's server line of processors are all referred to as Xeons and not Core i7. They are Xeons built off of the Core i7 architecture though, and that's what I'm referring to. The architecture, not the chip. I assumed that people would understand we're talking about Xeons because that's what are in Mac Pros. Instead of using a name, that is the same name as the vastly different previous generations, I use the architecture type.

Yeah, they're not exactly like Core i7s, but they are build off the same technology. And, yeah, I could say Nehalem, but I don't remember the previous Xeon code names and they're not worth looking up, so I stay consistent and go with architecture.