Apple Nehalem-based Mac Pro in-depth impressions


Design
- Design wise, you won't notice a single change externally from the previous generation Mac Pro... save for the port selection.
- Speaking of, the old FireWire 400 ports have been done away with; you've now got twin USB 2.0 and FireWire 800 ports on the front (along with a 3.5mm headphone jack), while the rear presents three USB 2.0, two FireWire 800, optical audio (Toslink) in / out, stereo audio in / out and dual gigabit Ethernet ports.
- Internally, Apple has made the eight DIMM slots stupendously easy to access by providing an easily removable tray that slides completely out of the chassis (check out a video of the removal process here).
- You'll also notice that some six feet of cabling has been removed, which makes the installation of additional hard drives and another optical drive much easier than before.
- All in all, the inside of the Nehalem-based Mac Pro is super clean, and it's entirely air cooled; no liquids allowed on this one.
- The bundled Apple Keyboard with Numerical Pad and wired Mighty Mouse were found to be satisfactory and still lame, respectively. We can't help but wonder if Apple will ever add backlight capabilities to its desktop keyboards. Sure, it's novel, but for avid MacBook Pro users, reverting back to a non-backlit keyboard just feels dirty.

Hardware

Update: It should be pointed out that XBench, while an excellent gauge of overall performance in a generic sense, doesn't perfectly demonstrate the potential of these CPUs. The tool doesn't yet test multi-threading, and given that these processors are so new, it'll probably take awhile for it to be re-coded to take advantage. That said, we can tell you from real world use that these fancy new slabs of silicon aren't worth their asking price for menial tasks; you'll only truly appreciate 'em when using true professional applications. You can tell by Apple's own selection of benchmarks -- seen here -- that this machine is tailor made to perform best when working with pro software. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but consumers in general should definitely be aware before expecting the wrong thing.
All in all, we've come to realize that this is a pro-level machine for a reason. It's just marginally faster than much cheaper consumer-level rigs at doing consumer-level things, and it's downright lousy at gaming. In fact, we had to force the resolution to 1,600 x 1,200 and turn anti-aliasing off entirely to get Call of Duty 4 to become playable. The newest Mac Pro has proven once again that it serves a clearly defined niche, and unless you'll be firing up Aperture, Final Cut Pro or similar on a regular basis, you should probably pass. 'Course, you could also slap that ATI card in here along with four 2TB HDDs to create a powerhouse that can't be replicated in any other current Mac form, but we'd propose that it's just not worth the cost. If you're looking to game, there are far cheaper ways to do it. If you're looking to handle web surfing and typical Office tasks, the same is true here. If you're a pro looking to cut down those render times and give yourself lots of room for expansion, this might be your machine. We'd stop by an Apple store to give it a whirl first, though.
- Our review unit was the baseline "8-Core" model listed on Apple's website; it's the $3,299 rig with two 2.26GHz Intel Xeon 5520 processors.
- The new Intel architecture promises big speed gains all around, with inclusions like 8MB of fully shared L3 cache per processor, an integrated memory controller and support for Hyper-Threading. In our tests (we'll explain a bit more later), the fancy CPUs didn't add that much zip when dabbling in basic tasks, though they certainly helped in processor-intensive situations.

- This Mac Pro supports eight DIMM slots, each of which can handle a stick of 1,066MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM. Our system came with 6GB spread over six slots -- thanks for leaving us loads of room for expansion, Apple.
- Bluetooth 2.1+EDR is bundled in, though WiFi (via an AirPort Extreme card) is still a $50 option. Really, Apple? Your $3,299 flagship desktop doesn't include WiFi? We know, 96 percent of these will be attached to a CAT5 / 6 cable, but it's the principle here that's irking us.
- The standard graphics card is NVIDIA's 512MB GT 120, which -- frankly -- is a travesty. This nomenclature may sound new, but really, it's hardly more than a renamed, die-shrunk GeForce 9500 GT with dual-link DVI and mini DisplayPort thrown in. We were seriously underwhelmed by the performance (we'll touch more on it later), and can fully understand why Apple's pushing the more potent ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB (a $200 option) as the real-deal power card for those who'd like to game.
- The 18x SuperDrive still takes too long to eject (around four seconds on average), makes entirely too much noise while sliding out / reading a disc and amazingly, doesn't do Blu-ray. We'd wager that most video professionals haven't made the jump to burning their footage to BD-Rs just yet, but to not provide the option due to some off-the-wall belief by Sir Steve is just farcical. Give your video pros the option to toast to Blu-ray, Apple -- believe it or not, the format is here to stay (at least for a while).
- We'll take this opportunity to lament the fact that not a single FireWire 400 port is included. We know, times change and all must eventually move forward, but loads of professional AV equipment has been and still are based on FW400. To not even provide a single front-mounted port just seems snobbish, and to not toss in a complimentary FW800-to-FW400 adapter just seems dumb.
- One of the most pressing concerns from previous Mac Pro owners is noise / heat. We're happy to say that even when taxed, our test system never got overly raucous or forced us to flip on the air conditioning. In fact, we were shocked at just how quiet it remained until we really pressed it in Final Cut Pro; we had to seriously stress it in order to get those fans to be super audible, which is a great, great thing.

- Both Mac Pro systems come loaded with a single 640GB SATA hard drive with three open HDD slots; we asked Apple why there was no option for SSD storage (or even a Fusion-io ioDrive), and it simply stated that users with a need for more speed should consider the $700 Mac Pro RAID card, which can utilize 15,000RPM SAS hard drives. The lack of optional flash-based storage isn't a deal breaker, but we can't understand why Apple would pass up the opportunity to give well-endowed speed freaks the option to indulge in PCI-based SSD RAID storage.
Update: It should be pointed out that XBench, while an excellent gauge of overall performance in a generic sense, doesn't perfectly demonstrate the potential of these CPUs. The tool doesn't yet test multi-threading, and given that these processors are so new, it'll probably take awhile for it to be re-coded to take advantage. That said, we can tell you from real world use that these fancy new slabs of silicon aren't worth their asking price for menial tasks; you'll only truly appreciate 'em when using true professional applications. You can tell by Apple's own selection of benchmarks -- seen here -- that this machine is tailor made to perform best when working with pro software. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but consumers in general should definitely be aware before expecting the wrong thing.
All in all, we've come to realize that this is a pro-level machine for a reason. It's just marginally faster than much cheaper consumer-level rigs at doing consumer-level things, and it's downright lousy at gaming. In fact, we had to force the resolution to 1,600 x 1,200 and turn anti-aliasing off entirely to get Call of Duty 4 to become playable. The newest Mac Pro has proven once again that it serves a clearly defined niche, and unless you'll be firing up Aperture, Final Cut Pro or similar on a regular basis, you should probably pass. 'Course, you could also slap that ATI card in here along with four 2TB HDDs to create a powerhouse that can't be replicated in any other current Mac form, but we'd propose that it's just not worth the cost. If you're looking to game, there are far cheaper ways to do it. If you're looking to handle web surfing and typical Office tasks, the same is true here. If you're a pro looking to cut down those render times and give yourself lots of room for expansion, this might be your machine. We'd stop by an Apple store to give it a whirl first, though.


















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Dead_Rebel @ Mar 18th 2009 1:35PM
Should be a Pro-Tools only rig. No consumer needs all that.
ImaYam @ Mar 18th 2009 1:37PM
I never
required @ Mar 18th 2009 1:45PM
What the expletive are you talking about? This thing doesn't even have a Blu-Ray drive.
Michael Scrip @ Mar 18th 2009 2:07PM
Read up on what professionals use a Mac Pro for... Hollywood movies.
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/action/
You're right... no consumer needs a Mac Pro. But does that mean that a Mac Pro does not need to exist?
In a related story... Caterpillar makes a $100,000 bulldozer. No consumers need that either.
Sam @ Mar 18th 2009 2:13PM
And their bulldozers aren't freely available to consumers in their own branded garages....
Mental Issues @ Mar 18th 2009 2:23PM
Who DOESN'T need a bulldozer?
Nicholas @ Mar 18th 2009 2:39PM
As a designer, I use an iMac. It is perfectly acceptable for just about everything. Hell, I do my iPhone design and development on an Air. They have their place, and are damn lovely. Boy, would I love to max one out in the store!
David Austin @ Mar 18th 2009 3:24PM
PRO TOOLS only?
At work we use the kit for design and animation. While a rig like this SHOULD be perfect, it honestly is appalling. The stability when running CS3 (not tried CS4, sorry) is terrible. Constant beach balls, out of cache errors in After Effects, files dissappearing. Along with the quirks in Leopard (I feel Tiger was far more stable). it is almost unusable sometime. Often the machine will beach ball with multiple apps open yet only 2 cores are operating with any intensity? (we have 8 core models with 16GB of RAM) and not all memory used. The apps can handle multi-processing ok (few problems with AE) yet the OS can't seem to spread the load of CPU and memory, all very odd. None of the apps are 64 bit so all we have here is an overly powerful PC with an OS that cannot keep up with the hardware. This is the same on all of our machines (about 15). Oddly my macbook running 10.4 is ok (beach balls a lot but only have 1gb RAM) hence my conclusion. There are many issues and quirks not mentioned but these machines just irk me. This is a first gen mac pro. Sometimes the OS shows previews of JPGs, sometimes not, never seems to remember my views as I left it.
My machine at home atleast FEELS far quicker just from the fact it has a quicker boot drive setup, so apps load quicker, cache is quicker, temp files etc.
Why is it £500 for a RAID card for one of these? Stick two velociraptors in at home with RAID 0 on the motherboard!
iphonerulez @ Mar 18th 2009 3:28PM
Damn, that is one bad-ass machine. It's time to jizz. Why even bother with Windows PCs when this Nehalem multi-cored aluminum-clad mofo is around.
This is to you, Dell.... uhhh.
:-()...
Let's all build our own high-end Windows machines so we can put Apple out of business. This is the call of the brainless. Everyone put up their hands that can build the equivalent of a Mac Pro for under $500 worth of parts. Unanimous. I dumpster-dived in 200 dumpsters in Silicon Valley and managed to scrounge up everything except the processors for absolutely nothing. Now I just have to wait for someone to throw away a couple of slightly-used Xeon Nehalem processors and I'll be home free.
Most Windows PC users can't even plug-in their keyboards without on-line support.
RattyUK @ Mar 18th 2009 3:31PM
@ David Austin
"At work we use the kit for design and animation. While a rig like this SHOULD be perfect, it honestly is appalling. The stability when running CS3 (not tried CS4, sorry) is terrible. Constant beach balls, out of cache errors in After Effects, files dissappearing. Along with the quirks in Leopard (I feel Tiger was far more stable). it is almost unusable sometime. Often the machine will beach ball with multiple apps open yet only 2 cores are operating with any intensity? (we have 8 core models with 16GB of RAM) and not all memory used."
So you spend tons of money to run a machine that is running powerpc apps in emulation? See what you are doing there that is wrong? Go and buy current versions of Creative Suite and THEN complain it doesn't do the job.
David Austin @ Mar 18th 2009 3:37PM
@ratty
I did not buy anything, I merely work on such machines. CS3 is not running in emulation however, it is universal binary. Fair point had I mention CS2.
David Austin @ Mar 18th 2009 3:46PM
Forgot to ad ratty, did you not read where I stated that the OS was not distributing resources correctly, not just the software. If I have 6 apps open and rendering in one, surely the others should be using different cores? The OS is technically behind. I have every belief this will change with snow leopard, but the changes should have been in place for the hardware.
You do get equally powerful PCs and frankly, they seem to handle everything much better. In another department I was shown some work, RAM previewing in after effects while at the same time 3ds max was rendering. Doing the same on the mac but with Cinema 4D is a sure way to crash something.
More OS issues: You can see a window but you cannot click on it! Have to hide the app and unhide!
Folders dissappearing and reappearing as you click on them (problem with our fibre share, which we hope is fixed now we have intel server, though I feel they should just work together anyway)
John @ Mar 18th 2009 4:00PM
You can buy dual xeon workstations from HP and Dell you know. They just don't aggressively market them because no run of the mill consumer needs them. They're also INCREDIBLY more customizable. For reference, the T7400: http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/precn_t7400?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04
kccboy2004 @ Mar 18th 2009 5:15PM
I kinda agree with the OP. The stark reality, regardless as to whether you prefer an Apple PC or a Custom built PC, is that the components within the box, (and it is JUST a box), will be pretty well half as powerful as the equivalent offerings this time next year.
Here is the deal; if you paid top whack for this Apple PC then you are a corporation who has a bent towards Graphic dependent activities, or you are an individual ENTHUSIAST. BUT.... you most likely will not be swapping out the components this time next year. (else you have a very unique Finance Director who truly is shagging the IT Director).
On the other hand.... if you built your own PC, with say a Coolermaster Cosmos 1000 case (which seems to be rather pleasing to the eye and receives great reviews), including the same components as found in the Apple PC, then this time next year, you can swap out your chip etc, for the latest offering (remember we are talking about an enthusiast), and still be quite a long way ahead of the game in terms of cost.
Lets not get into the question of OSX vs other OS's (I think we all know that we really are talking about similar products).
Despite all of the enthusiasm provided by some of the posters here, I suspect that there are VERY VERY VERY few who are actually going to splash the cash on this Apple PC.
Coolermaster:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119138
why not the LS2LS7? @ Mar 18th 2009 8:07PM
There is no way for an average user to tell whether instability is with the OS or an app. If you want a more stable app, maybe the latest offering from Adobe would do better? For starters, CS3 isn't even listed as compatible with Leopard.
The thing about not being able to click a window in the background is also not something you can be sure is an OS or app problem.
The 64-bit thing is because Adobe used Apple's Carbon APIs and Apple did not make it possible for developers to make 64-bit Carbon apps. Adobe has to port to Cocoa to make that work. I blame Apple for this as much as Adobe, personally.
henry earl @ Mar 18th 2009 9:35PM
@David Austen
i have had a chance to use a friend's original 2.66 Mac Pro and i had a lot of the same issues you described. Weird slowdowns, beachballs, and the like, and that was just in general use. I didnt have that problem though with a newer 2.8 at the office.
David Austin @ Mar 18th 2009 10:12PM
@hy not the LS2LS7?
"There is no way for an average user to tell whether instability is with the OS or an app. If you want a more stable app, maybe the latest offering from Adobe would do better? For starters, CS3 isn't even listed as compatible with Leopard."
You can tell when the system is unstable using finder, more than one app and from multiple developers. I would try CS4 if I could, though I can't. Works choice not mine. My main point about the OS was not even stability, but the fact it cannot seem to spread the load of multiple apps over multiple cores. Memory management is also poor, but nowhere near as bad. I also expect an OS upgrade to work with my software. If I bought CS3, which works perfectly under Vista and it didn't work under Win 7, there would not only be an outcry, but probably a solution at the end of it.
I cannot comment on apple service in other countries, but in the UK they are terrible. I can take a system to a store, but they are not even in every city. Warranties are only a year long, 3 years costs even more. I expect a laptop to last atleast 3 years. I am about to get my third macbook replacement in as many years. Any problems I have with hardware or software, they cannot guarantee a reply, it's really hard to contact them. Still no reply about the fact the latest but one itunes update ruined my NAS itunes share... It now keeps dropping off and I have to close itunes and re-open. Compare this to when I had a problem with MS software I bought OEM, a guy respinded to my email with a phone call to talk me through the issue. Probably from within UK but had an American accent and I emailed their main .com site. Apples stuff is great for net and office, even some media, but want to do anything powerful and they have lost their way. Also peeved that the Airport Extreme has no Airtunes! Other than that it is amazing. Saying that though, the update is another £20 more than the old one. I can buy a good pre N router for £40-£50. Extreme = £140!!!. Express is now £85????? Waaaay over priced. They are good and worth a premium I admit, but not at the new prices.
"The thing about not being able to click a window in the background is also not something you can be sure is an OS or app problem."
I can if I am only in finder!!!
Also, using search, how do I get it to only search in a specific folder?? We have huge shares at work and also targa sequences which we want to avoid searching. I also hate how if you try to scroll down while it is still searching it just pops back up to the top! I want to open a file AND let it continue searching.
"The 64-bit thing is because Adobe used Apple's Carbon APIs and Apple did not make it possible for developers to make 64-bit Carbon apps. Adobe has to port to Cocoa to make that work. I blame Apple for this as much as Adobe, personally."
Fair point, I just feel that touting the power of this machine without the software to make it worthwhile is ridiculous. It really annoys me the blind saying 'it's better for xxx cos it's a mac'. Even if that was true in the past, these systems are anything but solid and mature.These are bought for those reasons, places that already run macs. Come CS5 and snow leopard I imagine things will be very different.
while I am ranting, I hate all ipods... Except the ipod touch. I think it is ace. Only I wish it had either DAB or FM radio built in.
billy bob thorton @ Mar 18th 2009 11:32PM
well I think the engadget staff should learn how to do proper benchmarks. However macpros are prissy little things. The only time I could get my money's worth out of it was doing compressor renders. No other software could take full advantage of it. Nothing wrong with the hardware (xeons), it's just I think the programmers don't code specifically for it. I could work all day on an 8 core xeon based system, save my files on a drive, go home and pop them into a OC Q6600 and not notice a difference (AFX CS3).
I challenge anyone to get these machines running at full boar on anything but a compressor run. I even had all 4 drives in a raid-0 config as the system drive in addition to the 12 bay FC RAID the project was based on to feed the xeons with 16GB of ram which was never fully utilized either (even though it should have been)
They really should have just released a version that came with the consumer chips in them. People who need Xeons know they need Xeons and will buy them regardless of cost because usually the software running on them costs way more than the hardware.
I think $1800 would be the sweet spot for a prosumer level tower. But until you know who steps down, it will never happen.
derrick773 @ Mar 18th 2009 1:36PM
Nobody in their right mind would buy something this expense especially because you would have to buy a real keyboard to go along with it, a DVI adapter, amongst other things. If you buy this computer, you're the kind of person who would buy the new Shuffle. An idiot in my opinion.
Patriks7 @ Mar 18th 2009 1:40PM
Well obviously Apple is not targeting this machine at your average based consumer (an idiot like you), so of course not everybody will buy it. Also, the keyboards are awesome and much better than your average keyboard that you can buy for all PCs.
Hawkman @ Mar 18th 2009 2:17PM
Not to mention that someone who pays several grand for a new computer isn't likely to suddenly change their mind upon realising that they might want to buy a $30 mouse or something.
UnixSystemsEngineer @ Mar 18th 2009 2:51PM
Yes, those buying a $3000ish computer are really worried about paying for a DVI adapter and real keyboard.
In related news, I hook my Dell display to my Mac Pro's DVI output (yeah, did you miss that in the pictures?) and my Mathias TactilePro keyboard that I already owned.
Ian @ Mar 18th 2009 3:36PM
Based on processing power, this thing is the best desktop around based on Cinebench scores. Problem is that you need apps that can really take advantage of 8 cores, and those apps are currently lacking. However, once Final Cut gets updated to recognise this many cores, this thing really will fly. But by then, perhaps faster models will be out.
I'm a realistic Apple user. Yes, this thing is expensive, but for those who need it, it really isn't expensive unless you're going for the uber pro, top-of-the-line model.
Ordeith @ Mar 18th 2009 3:43PM
Well obviously Apple is not targeting this machine at anyone in their right mind.
Leindurstit @ Mar 18th 2009 1:37PM
Next up: What would you change about the Nehalem-based Mac Pro?
required @ Mar 18th 2009 1:49PM
Too true. You know what would be fun is if they made a post about packing stuff up to be sent back. It would be sort of like their unpacking posts but different. That way instead of a dozen posts on some new iThing we could get a bakers dozen.
Ben @ Mar 18th 2009 1:39PM
This machine is over kill. And by over kill I mean absolutely f***ing ridiculous. I like a Mac like the next guy but no average Joe is gonna be able to put this machine to its full potential. Not even when testing its hardware.
Patriks7 @ Mar 18th 2009 1:41PM
Well, guess what! This is not targeted at your average Joe but at professionals who actually use the power! (gasp!)
bobogoobo @ Mar 18th 2009 1:57PM
you sir and an idiot. this is a pro machine meant for pro users, not the average joe.
eipxen @ Mar 18th 2009 2:05PM
@Patriks7
Apple Defense Force Go!
The apple keyboards seem pretty good/not bad, I used some and they're nice and quiet, felt better too, nothing to complain about
but really man? an idiot like him? don't get defensive just because we aren't all professional photographers or filmmakers
I'm curious to see if these crush AutoCAD processes and their like as well; never seen macs running in more of an engineer's environment
dave @ Mar 18th 2009 2:00PM
ever wonder how long it takes something like open office to be compiled?
well on my 2x xeon 2.4ghz, 2 gb ram, 74 gb 10000 rpm scsi (all of which is about 5.5 years old now), somewhere between 3 and 5 hours depending on what needed to be changed/what else i was running...so trust me when i say, i'm sure there are a few of us here that could put all that horsepower to good use. :)
Aaron @ Mar 18th 2009 2:02PM
I frequently use video applications that would easily tax this system. I have several multi-threaded video compression applications that love running on the 16 virtual processors.
Anyone got $3K to spare? Obama? Care to bail me out?
decapitor @ Mar 18th 2009 2:35PM
I do everyday. I run numerical fluids models on them that max out all 8 cores and use 14 GB or RAM no problem. Also I network several together and max them all out. Just depends on what you're doing.
Scott @ Mar 18th 2009 4:39PM
I work in the pro film world doing compositing and these computer are more then necessary with big scenes with programs like shake. I cant really see a great use for one as a personal computer for the home office. But im sure people who feel they need the most power they can afford will pick them up. Lol
And I don’t understand what the outrage is for not having a blueray burner. Its would be a silly option at best on a machine like this. Real output files are delivered uncompressed. And I have never heard anyone around here say “I wish I had a blue ray burner to burn this”
billy bob thorton @ Mar 18th 2009 11:45PM
@scott
What are you talking about? You send uncompressed files to your clients for review?
The blu-ray burner we got has been as useful as cd burners were in the day. We use it as a tape library replacement (Raw P2 footage archived to blu-ray stored off site). Also everyone works in at least 720p these days and blu-ray client reviews are 100% necessary. I had to hook ours up externally (USB) because internally it would just make lots of $10 coasters.
Apple is stupid for not officially supporting it.
derrick773 @ Mar 18th 2009 1:39PM
OOO My bad, it has a real DVI port
HAHA, and a real keyboard.
Well, I still wouldn't buy it.
WallStSk8r @ Mar 18th 2009 1:55PM
Stick with your P.O.S. Dell. Much more your style.
ZaxCG2 @ Mar 18th 2009 3:36PM
Sub 1,000$ is also much more my style! :D
djTA630 @ Mar 18th 2009 1:39PM
..."We know, 96 percent of these will be attached to a CAT5 cable"...
Wouldn't CAT6 be better for Gigabit ethernet?
Just wondering...
EGOvoruhk @ Mar 18th 2009 2:02PM
Cat5 can do Gigabit just fine
jpullen581 @ Mar 18th 2009 2:11PM
Funny enough CAT5e and CAT6 are the exact pin outs when terminated. The only real difference is their shielding and the distance you can go at full speed transmission. You can actually use CAT5e, semi-stably, with in a hundred or so feet at Gigabit speeds. Although if you want a clear connection with less distortion it's better to go with CAT 6... it's cheaper than fiber and can go up to 2000 feet.
Jason @ Mar 18th 2009 2:19PM
There is no "shielding" on either CAT5 or CAT6. What changes is the twists per meter, termination specs (stranded vs. solid conductor, termination jack quality), etc.
You can get shielded CAT5 or CAT6 cable but it's not part of the core spec, and it's not needed for Gig-E speeds.
Bootleg Zani @ Mar 18th 2009 1:40PM
Looks pretty nice.
B3astofthe3ast @ Mar 18th 2009 1:40PM
for that price, i could build a super computer out of 8 PS3s...or buy a used car..or hire an upscale prostitute for a night...
ill shut up now.
Timerider @ Mar 18th 2009 1:43PM
My MacBook Pro cost more than my car. Guess you can tell where my priorities are.
Patriks7 @ Mar 18th 2009 1:43PM
Wow, they sell used computers for 3k$? Damn, you either get really cheap cars or very expensive prostitutes.
KGB @ Mar 18th 2009 1:56PM
Or take photography lessons and take a vacation.
Shame you only get 1 DVI port... .. what a rip off.
K2 @ Mar 18th 2009 1:58PM
@Patriks7
do not try to pretend that u have a good sense of humour.
stop trolling and get some rest.
BTw, 3k$ for a prostitute is really an overkill, better get urself that mac, it will serve u fr more than 1 night.
charles.alexander.khaikin @ Mar 18th 2009 3:23PM
I agree with this sediment. I posted something similar down the line, but honestly, Apple, give us the real sh*t and stop selling us nice cavities, that we then, have to take apart and put the right stuff in it.
Video card is junk. Shame on Apple.
The jump should have been like the G4 to G5 jump. Jaw dropping design and scale, this thing is a wet paper towel dried out and ironed and re-rolled up.
Sisyphus @ Mar 18th 2009 1:41PM
"Unless you'll be firing up Aperture, Final Cut Pro or similar on a regular basis, you should probably pass."
Unless you are required to use those, you should probably pass. That is a ridiculous price for the hardware.
I know its a tired adage now, but you can build a computer with comparable performance for much less and still do the same things on it.
I've used Macs for video editing, and honestly, if you're concerned with budget, this isn't even a great option for the "clearly defined niche." Right now I'm editing 1080p files from my Canon 5D Mark II using Vegas Pro 8 (converting w/ Cineform), on a custom-built $2,700 machine, and I'm blazing through it.
I've used both platforms, and I still don't understand why people cling to the notion that Mac is the "industry standard." Yeah, well, more people use PCs than anything else and that doesn't make PCs superior (the majority of which are crap-bucket rigs from Best Buy running an OS they can't handle).
Moral of the story is: Don't believe the hype for any brand, Mac, PC, or otherwise. Do your research beforehand, and see which platform offers the best price/performance while meeting the other criteria that may be required. PCs can do a lot of those fancy "niche" things Macs can do -- you just have to do a little work and figure out the right software.
Nice review though. Thanks, Engadget.