Apple's
freshest Mac Pro, which was the first machine of any kind to ship with Intel's newest Nehalem-based
Xeon processors, has been on the block for a few months now. By our estimation, that's plenty of time for the pros (and "prosumers," if you will) to get a good feel of their new workstation. Design wise, not a lot has changed in the machine, but we're anxious to know how you feel about the more subtle changes as well as the internal overhauling. Apple's charging a small fortune for this bad boy, so we fully expect you to be critical here. What's it missing? What should've been included? Are you still bitter that WiFi is a $50 option on a multi-thousand dollar machine? Sound off below!
posted May 9th 2009 12:41AM
cheaper
agree.
I was planning to buy the current generation of Mac Pro. But the price really stop me.
I don't really care for Macs too much, but you're not going to buy a Xenon quad workstation for too much less than that. You might get a negligible amount off if you build from MWave, but it won't be a large amount.
Hear, hear.
That may be true (even though it's not), but it's not the point. There needs to be a lesser configuration or another product line with a lesser configuration and a lower price.
Agree, cheaper and shipped by default with Bootcamp, MacOS, and be the first and only to have Windows 7. Then we'll call it kick ass.
@ msalivar
Says who? You? I don't understand why people bitch about Mac prices so much. Here's the deal. I don't like Macs. But I think Mac OSX is ok. So, even though I prefer to run Vista, when I feel frisky, I run OSX86 on a 40GB partition. It runs on damn near everything. Apple doesn't wish to change its Mac Pro. Period. They've have years to do it, and they won't. So you've got 2 choices. 1 - Build a PC up to your preference, and install OSX86 and 2 - Pony up anyway. It's pretty much that simple. I think the Mac Pro is in line with it's price for the specs. However, I don't NEED 1 or 2 Xeon Quads in my machine. I also don't NEED the video cards it comes with, or 6 DDR3 RAM slots. So I built a Core 2 Quad, and although I use mainly Vista, I run OSX86 on it when I want to. It's exactly that simple. The machine is in line cost vs specs. Look it up.
I dunno man, if you think you can build a Xeon workstation for that much cheaper, go do it, I'll wait. And when you can't do it, you'll realize if you don't want to pay that much money for an OSX capable machine, you'll either hit up Psystar or just install OSX86 yourself.
I don't know why people can't just be proactive, or pay the price of the machines.
We shouldn't be complaining that it's too expensive. Personally I wouldn't ever touch a something from Apple, but if you do like Apple then you should be expecting to pay a couple hundred more. It is a high quality piece of hardware as always, but really the premium is for OS X. Some professions require it and so this is the only way to go outside of OSX86. Even on a consumer machine, I'd be willing to pay a couple hundred more to use a better OS than Windows (but of course with Linux I don't even have to).
$50 for WiFi? Who uses WiFi on a pro-level workstation anyway?
"It is a high quality piece of hardware as always"
If its the same quality as G5 and G4, its really normal... we had so much hard disk and power supply failure to replace in our graphic design departement that we switched to PC 3 years ago.
Also the wacom tablet were unusable due to poor graphic performance. Maybe mac is fine now but I doubt they use better parts than what you can find at Newegg.
We dont want to pay 3000$ for an aluminium case.
This thing is interesting. I don't like Apple products, don't own one (though I used to have a Macintosh Performa 610 or something in that line, long time ago :D ), but, whenever I shop for a new workstation (usually every 1.5 year) I look at the specs, look at the graphs, compare prices and build it myself. Then, when I see this alluminium box I kinda forget about the specs, about the price, about the OSX and immediately want one. It's like staring at a bra supporting a couple of beautifully shaped breasts - my brain doesn't get enough blood, that's why the reason shrinks, why other things grow...
@ Level 5, first the Mac Pro needs to be a workstation to ask for workstation prices because at the moment considering Apple only offering nVidia GT 1xx series and ATi Radeon 4870 it isn't a workstation but a desktop PC with dual CPU or single CPU.
Only Apple can take a desktop, slap a xeon on it and call it a workstation and charge 2500usd for 3gb of RAM, nVidia GT 120 (costs like 50usd) and 2.26ghz Xeon 55xx series.
A Dell with equal CPU, 6GB of RAM, 750GB hdd and a 256MB NVIDIA® Quadro® NVS 295 costs $2,489 and this is a workstation because it GPU can actually do workstation jobs.
@level5
Sorry I call bullshit. I just priced out a dual 2.26 quad xeon desktop with all the trimmings, and with even some better parts for $900 less than the Mac Pro. Granted that's without the OS, but you can buy OSX and do a hackintosh relatively easy with the loadout for no more than $200 more and it'd still be $700 less than the BASE config of the Mac Pro.
If you properly configure and do research you will find that Apple is using the Nehalem based 5500 series Xeons. Dell has both Nehalem based processors and the previous gen. If you configure using those Nehalem based processors, then you actually get something only slightly cheaper, if not the same price or more. The Precision T5500 with 3GB ram dual Xeon X5520, 1TB HDD cheap Quadro card with 256MB ram = $3496. $97 more! $3399 for a Mac pro with a 1TB hdd ( i bumped the spec for comparision so i could get the machines as close to each other as possible).
Yes, the Dell has a Quadro card, and Apple has a crappy 120, but what software are these machines intended for? CAD stuff? No, a lot of CAD software doesn't work on the Mac. CPU intensive tasks, such as Final Cut Pro rendering? YES! I agree, Apple needs better GPU offerings in their Workstation, but you are still getting a great deal with this machine. I also agree that the bottom price should be much cheaper, but that's not how Apple roles
Yeah, what he said. Everyone who says that they can spec out a Dell box for significantly less than the Mac Pro are either lying or not doing an apples to Apples comparison. Most of the time the dell is actually more expensive, often significantly so.
The main problems with the mac pro isn't the price. It is quite cheap for what it is. The problem for me is configuration. You can only install 32gb of RAM, which seems like a lot, until you realize most competing dual-socket workstations fit 72-192gb. Also, 8gb on the single-socket model is laughably small.
Then there's the graphics card issue. there are very few options. If Apple were to give a reasonable cross selection of graphics cards, the mac pro would be a serious consideration for any business in the market for a mid-range workstation.
@ those complaining about the "workstation" title,
Apple was required to changed the title to "workstation" by Intel in order to use their server-grade CPUs. Not that it's any excuse to lag way behind with the GPU, just an interesting tidbit.
Anyhow, I totally agree that they need better GPUs, and either a lesser starting configuration or a mini-tower line. An Apple mini-tower would sell like hotcakes. I course I would like them to be heaped but I don't think the prices are too high when you really really compare them. Just don't pay Apple for upgrades. Do them yourself. If you don't know how... Just step away from the machine, please, and go get a mac mini.
@AndrewNoNumbers "Who uses WiFi on a pro-level workstation anyway?"
Photographers who need/want a high end mac for Lightroom/Aperture/Photoshop with piles of RAM and hard drive space and 2x30" screens?
They may use wireless internet for convenience if they don't need an ethernet based local network. Wifi is cheap anyway if you're just connecting to you're router to use a DSL or cable connection from you're ISP.
@ Mike
The superior dell I specced had the "nehalem" xeon infact it was the exact 2.26ghz as in the basic Mac Pro.
I agree with you completely unknown. Also, if they forgot about the useless Mac operating system, then it would actually become a usable computer.
... and cheaper than that!
Cheaper is an understatement -- I was curiously led to Apple's website by the Mac vs PC commercials to see what I'd been missing my being a PC user and dealing with stability issues, but to tell the truth, the sticker shock has kept me on my side of the fence. Just for kicks, I priced a fully loaded Mac Pro with the top tier of every option (hardware and software) -- to my astonishment, if you want to buy this configuration, be prepared to take out a second mortgage because it will set you back over $22,000! However, you don't have to pull that sum out of your pocket all at once because Apple will be glad to accept payments from you -- to the tune of over $500 per month! I'd rather buy a new car -- and a hell of a car for that payment...
Apple tax ... Myth or reality???
@ Level 5
"I don't really care for Macs too much, but you're not going to buy a Xenon quad workstation for too much less than that. You might get a negligible amount off if you build from MWave, but it won't be a large amount."
Really??
Mac Pro (Base model) prices
Single Processor - $2,499.00
Dual Processor - $3,299.00
So just out of curiosity ... a base build of similar hardware (This assumes you have the capability of using a screw driver and the basic understanding of what goes where in a pc ... or at least the ability to look at the pictures in the manual)
Processor - $769.98 ($384.99each)
Intel Xeon E5520 Nehalem 2.26GHz
LGA 1366 80W Quad-Core Server Processor Model BX80602E5520
Motherboard - $259.99
ASUS Z8NA-D6C Dual LGA 1366 Intel 5500 ATX Quad-Core Intel Xeon X5500 Series (95W)
RAM - $113.94 ($18.99each)
Crucial 1GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1066 (PC3 8500) ECC Unbuffered Server Memory Model CT12872BA1067
Video - $59.99
GT120 = 9500 GT (Mac Re-branding)
GIGABYTE GV-N95TD3-512I GeForce 9500 GT 512MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP
Hard Drive - $69.99
Western Digital Caviar Green WD6400AACS 640GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Hard Drive
CD/DVD Burner - $22.99
SAMSUNG 22X DVD±R DVD Burner Black IDE Model SH-S222A - OEM
(The Apple SuperDrive is only 18x)
Case - $109.99
LIAN LI PC-60USB B2 Silver Aluminum ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
Power Supply - $219.99
COOLMAX CUQ-1200B 1200W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS Certified Active PFC Power Supply
Grand Total ...
$1,626.86
I started with a DUAL processor build ... but it beat the single processor Apple variant so i stopped there.
Granted this build still needs a key board, mouse, and an OS ... i think you can probably pick those up for less than the $872.14 difference in cost (from the SINGLE processor version) If you are willing to go the hackintosh route you will end up with a computer that is nearly identical for a significantly cheaper price point. You just wont have the blessing of your be-turtlenecked lord and master.
Side note: I chose to go with a nice case and power supply since the look is what a Mac is predominantly noted for. You could easily shave another 150 or more, off the price by getting a cheaper case and power supply.
Look I don't hate Macs in fact they are great for what they are for. What I DO hate is paying WAY too much for similar hardware. Flame away if you wish, but for me i will stick with what makes sense and that is getting the best experience for the least money.
My name is rDub, and I'm a PC
I thought that was a office printer. lol.
They do have cheaper desktop machines. It's called the iMac. The Pro line is a line that carries a ridiculous spec sheet, the target market isn't for home based consumers looking for the most powerful machine they'll never use.
What you're paying for with the mac is the logo. The reason why that's worth more than what you might cobble together from components is that these components are tested and often customized to work together smoothly and with a high level of reliability. The pretty logo and Lian-Li case design are nice, but it's the quality testing, customization, and engineering behind them that will make this computer worth hundreds, and possibly thousands of dollars more in 3-5 years than a home made PC of similar spec.
I prefer PC's because of the customization and flexibility. If I wanted a computer to do something specific in a production environment, I would not build it. I would buy something like this.
Mac Pro's aren't intended to be used for video gaming. They are designed for professional use:
Video Editing
3D Modeling and Rendering
Intensive Digital Imaging
Sophisticated Scientific Research
If your successful in one of the above professions, you can afford a Mac Pro. All of the posts I'm seeing about people never wanting to touch a Mac frankly are quite ignorant. Yes they are more expensive than PC's, and yest the people who picked on you in school are probably using them cause they're trendy, but that doesn't mean you should "never touch a Mac". If you love technology and computers your only hurting yourself by not at least trying to use a Mac.
With that being said what needs to be changed about the entire Mac Pro line up... (deep breath) is Apple needs to stop limiting the life cycle of Mac Pros. It seems like as soon as your Mac Pro is two generations old, you no longer have any options for upgrading if you want the latest graphic cards, expansion cards, or even monitors. Sometimes the life cycles of Mac Pros are less than a year (Quad Core G5 to 1st Generation Mac Pro), and that's upsurd for a machine that can costs anywhere from $2400 to $4000. What Apple needs to realize is that it could make even more cash and attract even more customers if it sold expansion/upgrade kits or parts for the Mac Pro line-up. Keep the price where it is, and let the Mac Pro grow with it's user. It would create a whole new Apple experience.
Less suck
You, my friend, are a tool.
No but its true, the basic configuration graphic card of the 3000$ mac pro cost 60$ on new egg... Apple is raping your ass and you like it. Get a i7 pc.
This technically is an i7 PC.
no... technically, its not an i7 pc. its far and away from an i7 pc.
that being said... the few changes i would make (outside of price obviously) would be:
1. add a 1.5 or 2tb hdd option
2. allow the single processor version a little more ram capacity
and for anyone bitching about wireless: if you spent an arm and a leg on a workstation like this... only to have it run at a snails pace over a wireless connection, you should be shot. wire that sucker up with gig ethernet.
@microdot
No, this is an i7. the i7s use the Nehalem architecture, just like these Xeons. Just because it's not called an i7, doesn't mean it isn't one. It's got the same triple channel no FSB architecture as every i7. do your research before talking.
I agree with everything else you said, though to be fair, 4TB (4x1TB) is a lot, and you'd be better off buying those bigger HDDs from newegg. $90 for 1TB from newegg, $300 from Apple.
Cheaper for sure
They really can't make it much cheaper. Show me a desktop with such specs for a much lower prices.
What I wanna see different: more graphics options!
Check a few posts above you...
"A Dell with equal CPU, 6GB of RAM, 750GB hdd and a 256MB NVIDIA® Quadro® NVS 295 costs $2,489 and this is a workstation because it GPU can actually do workstation jobs."
Give it a freakin IR port. I work in an office with someone who uses a dual xeon mac pro and we listen to her (our) itunes all day. However, it's annoying that I can't control the itunes with a handy-dandy IR remote that we happen to have about 50 of laying around the office.
@Patriks7
It doesn't need the Xeons. They should be an option. Never have I come home from work to my home computer and said, wow if only this were as fast as my macpro at work. I don't notice the difference in speed. They could easily have a very nice $1800 machine that would satisfy 90% of the people who buy mac pros. Most people that buy them are video editors and they are wasting their money. I work side by side with another guy editing on a G5. He only notices they difference when it comes time to render. Apple should put a desktop Nahalem in there and slap a Quadro CX to handle the rendering.
For one, they could lower that $1800 increase in Australia back down and put the 8-core as standard again, sure it's 2x the performance but seriously, that's a huge increase.
I'd also make it so that (if possible, not sure if it is with DDR3 etc) allow users on the single-quad to have upto 32gb of ram.
I also want to be able to use crossfire with ATI cards.
Redesign the outsides.
Um... think that's all.
BTW - I'm not a fanboy of any company, they asked how I would change it so this is what I'd do.
lol man, its almost NEVER 2X the performance with 2 of anything. For this it's most likely 30-40%, you're better off just building one yourself or buying a PC(MUCH Cheaper). The highest I think is ATi 4770 which has 120% increase with second card in COD4, and 4890 has an average of 90% scaling.
@Game_playa I know, a lot of it is advertising but still, benchmark wise, there still has been a MASSIVE increase in performance. Defiantly no longer worth the money though. The old mac pros, I could build something that would be better, spec-wise for around $1500-$2000 over the mac pro which was $4000. Now it's $5800.. I can still build something for less - I just really wish I had that mac OS though.
game_playa:
We buy mac pros to be to have more power in Color, FCP, Affter Effects and likes. For COD4 $500 PC will do, srsly.
Marty, I want it for the Adobe suite and some other apps but this doesn't mean that I can get a better hardware-spec machine for less than a mac pro. I don't want to start an argument because I don't have the time to debate but yeah, that's all I'm saying, macs are overpriced, even if they do come with an awesome OS, I can't justify spending an extra $3000 -$4000 for OS X.
Just buy the 8 core model at base spec and add the good stuff yourself. At any rate you won't end up spending $3000 more.
@Ethan I'm talking about Australia's prices, Apple add a crap-load onto the price over here. It's $5800 for the base spec 8-core when I could buy a much higher spec custom build for $3000-$4000.
@Ethan sorry, correction, they are $5899 so really, $5900.
Chris, I agree that they're overpriced. On the other hand, RED One is like $40-50k with lenses and a workstation for Assimilate Scratch would cost you $15-40k. Depends how you look at the prices. I'd love to see a cheaper MacPro, though :-)
unless you are rending stuff at like 3000x2000 or whatever (you get the point, basically 4k ... maybe even 2k) you dont need 2 video cards.
@d889 generally people who work with video etc need multiple monitors, I have a three monitor setup at the moment, soon to be upgraded. I render thinks at quad HD so yes, I do need multiple GPU's.
things, not thinks xD
Adobe After Effects crash on more than 6 cpu and benchmark prove it work faster on windows. Also the multi-cores rendering is a gimmick because the bottleneck is the ram and hard drive especially for HD content. You work slower if you use the multi-processing. Before make a preview your computer need to save the scene for each different cpu. Most people I know uncheck multi-processor when working.
FCP I dont know really...
For adobe products, choose higher Ghz over more cores. A 3ghz dual-core will work faster than a 2.4ghz quad.
3D softwares of course are different. The GUI will be faster with more Ghz (especially simulation and IK) but more cores is always good for rendering. Ray Tracing is totally different than what AE or FCP use.
Adobe = Dual-core will do the job just fine, 3D = The more cores the best!!
Bobsley, first of all, I don't need to prove anything to you. Secondly, I AE and produce quad HD animations on my windows 2.8ghz dual core extreme LAPTOP with 4gb of ddr2 ram 800mhz. Sure I don't preview them at full res and thats exactly why I need a powerful machine.
Also, 6-cpu machine? What do you mean it crashes on a 6-cpu machine, wtf!?
HDD is the biggest bottle neck.. even so, why are you telling me this stuff?