Ars has reviewed the new Mac Pro. “The performance of Harpertown and Stoakley is more evidence that Intel is doing right by Apple, and this eight-core monster is a worthy successor to the Mac Pro name. At USD 3599, it’s expensive; the USD 800 cheaper 2.8GHz model will likely be adequate for the majority of users. But if you want maximum performance and a machine that’s unlikely to show its age anytime soon, the Mac Pro is a good buy.”
I received mine last week, with only the quad core configuration, but with the GeForce 8800 card. So far so good; it is much faster than the dual core G5 it replaced.
I got the same config (+4GB) of ram. It’s a smokin machine. Running 4-5 VM’s on it at one time is quite the treat. I find leopard very very responsive. Using my computer is fun again
Only complaint I have was the ship time. But I did customize it.
Now if vmware would let you run VM’s without having to be logged in
Now if vmware would let you run VM’s without having to be logged in
Its possible using vmware server (freeware) in windows. I think with this kind of machine you could try running trial version of windows server 2003 in “desktop” mode. I would (and I do)…
That would be one of VMWare Server products.
vmware workstatio can start instances on the commandline so ca be scripted. no need to login.
Don’t know about the MAC counterpart though. I recently have used a mac bok pro for a day and I personally couldn’t handle it. But that’s just me. All the stuff does work.
Custom build plus linux.
I think I could do an eight core much cheaper.
If I wanted to overclocked, watercool, and SSD equip It may be possible to still be a little bit cheaper.
36 hundred is a lot of dollars to play with.
Edited 2008-02-20 21:11 UTC
you go tiger…
Maybe… But there is a bit to be said about configuring what you want on the site and being done with it. I’m not too interested in breaking it down at the moment, but I priced out a similarly equipped machine when those 8 core systems were made available and you really can’t do it for a whole lot cheaper.
Here’s an article from another blogger who tried to price the a system with the same specs and failed. The new Mac Pro is actually cheaper than either buying a system with these specs from another manufacturer, or building it yourself.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=979
A slower eight-core, no problem. But for equal specs people have tried and failed to beat the Mac Pro price by much.
I doubt that very highly. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say a Mac Pro should cost no more than $2k, given the hardware involved. When we were in PPC land, $4k…alright, whatever. Steve Jobs needs more black turtlenecks, and inflated prices = the illusion of quality, I get it. But now in Intel-Mac world, this hardware is by no means bleeding edge enough to warrant a price tag upwards of $3k. The video card isn’t professional grade, there’s nothing in there that special to justify jacking the price up 100X. It’s a friggin gaming card, who’s sole purpose is DX10, no less. And last time I checked, DX10 was Vista-only.
Buying a brand new Mac is like buying a brand new drum kit….a waste of money that you’re smarter to buy used.
You don’t get it do you… Some people thinks this solution is a lot better. On top, they have other things to do than spend hours building hardware and configuring the software. Don’t try to enforce a PC on a happy Mac user.
Oh, and what’s up with people complaining about the news. I don’t read much other than osnews, and I found it interesting. If you don’t like it, just don’t read it and at least don’t post unconstructive comments.
Edited 2008-02-21 00:53 UTC
I completely agree that some, many would probably be the more appropriate word, would consider the MacPro the better option. However, he wasn’t arguing that it wasn’t. Rather, he was making the point that it isn’t the cheapest. We can speculate all day as to how much someone’s time is worth making a custom build. But the article was very misleading insinuating that the bill from Apple would be less than the one from NewEgg.
I just tested this myself, and the MacPro was $900 more for the same setup (Same as the article with dual 3G Quads). And that was while being very conservative with the memory and hard drive.
I’m not pushing a PC on anyone, and I find it particularly funny that you (and other pretentious users of your ilk) go there out of habit.
Read the post fanboy, I’m not saying your mac is junk, I’m saying it’s not worth the bloated price tag.
Mate, if you’re convinced that you can build an 8-core for the same specs but cheaper than the mac Pro, you’re very welcome to try. Others have tried and failed. See http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=979
The blog says compared with a major brand. No sane person would buy a Dell or HP anyway. Only big corporate or academic clients should buy branded for the discounts. I built a new PC a few months back. Antec Sonata case, Channelwell PSU, ASUS MB, Samsung HD and DVD burner and Corsair RAM. Not the generic junk found in Macs and most branded PCs. I got far better quality and it was much cheaper than any of the big brands. It took about 20 minutes to assemble and about an hour (mostly unattended) or so to install Fedora 8. Unless your time is worth about $250-500/hr it is cheaper to build and lot’s more fun.
In my experience, having built a number of computers, it takes anything from 20 minutes to several weeks (especially if you have to return DOA parts and convince the place you bought it from that it was in fact DOA and that you didn’t break it). If everything fits together and works perfectly out of the box then great. However if it doesn’t it can be a right pain in the ass.
Sometimes it’s nice to be able to call someone up, say my computer doesn’t work, ship it off to them free of charge and get a working computer back a few days later. I’ve bought computers from both Apple and Dell and in neither case did I regret not building it myself, both in terms of price and quality.
Dont be silly, the geforce 8 is not a solely a direct3d chip. Its also an awsome OpenGL chip supporting latest 2.1 version. And as most new big game titles uses opengl atleast to some degree, this is an excellent card for pro users as well, thinking about 3d modeling and such.
But i agree that the machine caould maybe be built cheaper, atleast in europe as they tend to overcharge and put in the apple specific “across the pond tax”.
I agree about the 8800 supporting OpenGL spec, but was the real chipset change due to OpenGL 2.1 or the fact that DX10 has completely been retooled?
I’m not a MS fan, by any stretch. I want games to promote OpenGL first, and support DXn as a side note like the old days, regardless of what the POS xbox du-juor is trying to lock people up with.
Hey, people don’t buy Macs for perfomance/cost, remember
?
… do we really need another freaking review on this hardware?
How about just a link to MacRumors, MacWorld or AppleInsider. They’ve smothered the place with the same.
I agree completely.
It is VERY annoying that every IT news pages, posts every time Apple makes any piece of new hardware or software.
Hopefully the admins of this site, will start to realize it is pure hype, and that we the uses are VERY tired of it.
We don’t get a news posting every time any other company makes new hardware.
And really who cares whether Apple made a new mac pro ?
If you don’t care about a given article, don’t read it. Some of us are *more* tired of wading through pointless comments like yours while reading comments from people who have something interesting to say. There are plenty of other topics that get covered on this site. Find some you like and ignore the rest.
Ars generally provides a very good article quality and their reviews are really in-depth and proficient.
So if 1000 cheap blogsites already did a review, reading Ars is still worth it for the interested.
OSNews professes to be a site of Professionals in the IT Industry.
I don’t need ArsTechnica giving me a review of a product I can easily discern myself.
Read the comments here and then reconsider how many percent of the readers here are professionals. ;-))
If you aren’t interested in any reviews, as you buy and try out everything yourself, why are you commenting on this story?
Touche.
Owned
Some people are really strange. They actually take the time to OPEN a stoy, read through the comments and then, at some point, add a comment saying how stupid XX site is to publish YY story because of ZZ.
Why would anyone do that? I’m not very interested in a lot of things that pass through OSNews, but when that happens, I just don’t even pay attention to the link.
I, for one, am looking forwards on replacing my Macbook Pro with a Mac Pro and this article (the Ars Review) is all I was waiting. I’m not subscribed to Ars, but I knew that OS News was going to link it someday. So I found this link particulary useful.
I have to admit that the Review was not very Ars like. They should’ve compared the 2.8 Eight core instead of 3.0 as it is what most of the people are getting as far as i’ve seen.
I know I sound like a cranky old bastard, but I remember the days when Arstechnica not only did a review of the device, but pulled the thing to bits and talked about the individual components. Anyone else remember when they would talk about the CPU inside, and compare it the last generation and get really in-depth in regards to how the two differ in operation?
Back to the story at hand. It is a great piece of equipment, however, many people here go on about the need for ‘expandability’ and yet when reality hits, they never actually upgrade the machine beyond the hard disk and throwing some extra memory in it.
I’ve seen geeks out there demand they ‘must’ have a MacBook Pro or Mac Pro for no other reason than ‘because’. For people to therefore make their decision on what is cool rather than what they need, it confuses me.
In closing, I think the small premium is worth the price for a great operating system like Mac OS X.
Not so much recently. Their OSX reviews are awesome but Apple hardware and “this really cool app for storing your cooking recipes (that costs $49)” are way too fanboyish/fangirlish.
Ars Technica became yet another gadget-review site. Their in-depth technical articles are still interesting (they are becoming rare and Linux-centered though) but news reporting quality has gone down a lot.
Edited 2008-02-21 03:35 UTC
Most people are trying to compare these systems purely on price and speed without looking at the entire package. Apple is throwing in a nearly tool-less eight-core Xeon monster with computer-regulated fans for silent running and dockable storage. In addition the Mac Pro comes with a massive software bundle which includes developer tools, Apache, Ruby on Rails, and all the iLife/iWork software + OS X right out of the box.
So sure you might be able to buy a slightly cheaper box, but anyone can slap together eight-cores in a plasticky, snarled-wires case with massive loud fans. Will it match the Mac Pro on features, expansion, software? How well will it all work together?
That is certainly something to consider, but if you’re going to pony up the green for a system like this, you’re not going to buy a cheap box to put it in. And if you build it yourself, it will have the features you want. How well it all works together is on your shoulders so that is hardly the issue.
You’re preachin’ to the choir. I’m well-versed in the strengths of the platform. I’m talking about a product that was released in the second week of January now being “reviewed” linked on a non-technically challenged audience.
I don’t come to OSNews to read about Hardware Reviews. Unless we somehow see something beyond boring benchmarks and cute photos of this or any web journalist getting their system paid by the company to advertise I stand by my earlier statement.
Show me benchmarks against Industry heavy Applications while you’re actually doing work.
That would be interesting.
I think that people that use non-Apple PCs are used to being able to customize their computers a bit. Not everybody needs all the features. Sometimes it’s like Apple is giving you a Porsche 911 with your computer but at a hefty cost. Apple users would defend it by saying that Porsche 911 is a really good car
I know Apple is not interested in providing an upgradable midrange system cause the margins are way too small. But i for one would buy Core Duo 2 (would prefer AMD tho) with a 8800GT (would prefer 3870) as an option.
Neglicting this market will make Hackintoshs just so much more popular.
Sux.
My main gripe with the Mac Pro’s, is their marketed expandability, whereas if what you really only care about is graphics, well, it is not expandable at all. Graphic card manufacturers just develop Mac cards almost on a per-model basis, so 3 years after you bought the thing, still with a rather respectable CPU horsepower, you are stuck with a flimsy GPU. By that time your Windows friends can spend around $300 and double the performance of their old machine.
I had expected that, with the arrival of EFI, more PC brands would start using it, which would force graphic cards vendors to start making cards supporting it, having the added benefit of being compatible with both Mac and PC . But I was wrong, I guess.
Edited 2008-02-21 02:33 UTC
Yeah, I know you could get the same for less (probably), but I still had to wipe the drool off my keyboard a few times reading this review.
That is one serious piece of kit, and I want one. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to go sell my kidney …
If you look at the specs it’s basically a skulltrail motherboard, same ram, same chipset. Doing a bit of googling shows that the CPUs alone are $995 each and Intels D5400XS mobo is $650, $150 for 2gig of fb-ram, $100 for the video card, $75 for the HD, $50 for the burner, I couldn’t find much info on the power-supply, but speculation seems to rate it at least 1000 watts, the cheapest one I saw was $259. That brings us to a total of $3274 without the case. Depending on how much you value the case you could probably build one 1-200 hundred less. Even a quick check on Dells shows the Apples price to be pretty good. As you come down from the top of the line, I think that price parity definitely suffers though. The single CPU version doesn’t seem competitive at all.
The real let down is of course the video card, it is shameful. Apple killed off the 3rd party video cards by only offering slots in the Mac Pros, so there’s no competition at all.
Now, if you want to talk price disparity, lets talk Mac Book Pros…
Yes, you are right. The issue is never whether you can buy the same specs for less. Usually you cannot, or not for much less anyway. The issue is whether you can spend half and get 90% of what the Mac gives you for your specific task. The answer is usually yes. Then spend the rest someplace else in your equipment budget and get a better scanner, better screens, whatever.
Macs are poor value for most people. Not because you can buy the same thing elsewhere for less. But because you can buy something different which does the job as well or almost as well and sometimes better for a lot less. Like in the present case, how much difference does it really make to most people’s tasks to have these particular 8 cores? How many would be better off with 4 cheaper cores and a better graphics card? Not all, but the vast majority.
The usual argument, matching specs, can be used to show almost anything is attractively priced. The new Lenovo SSD laptop for instance. Same argument: most people to whom money matters are better off with something different, and the fact that the spec will not be identical is immaterial.
Same thing applies to the Mini in spades. Unless you absolutely have to be able to carry your main machine around in your coat pocket. Some do. Not many.
Except of course that the Mac Pros are targeted at people who need the computing power, not average users who would be happy with an iMac.
If going from 4 cores to 8 cores halves your rendering time, or the time it takes to do your batch operations, why make a fuss? Time == money and the time saved means a lot of money saved. The Mac Pros are not meant for people who surf the internet and type word documents.
If time rellay equalled money, and money was important, you’d buy a machine that cost half as much, plus two cheap quad core servers at $1000 each. Then you could render/batch process on the two servers and still be able to work on your workstation, and save even more time.
The only people this type of box makes sense for are the type of people/companies where a few thousand dollars this way or that isn’t enough money to actually matter.
If $3000 is a rounding error in your IT budget, then this machine is probably a good buy. If $3000 is a significant number in you budget then you’d probably be better off spending your money elsewhere.
I agree with you on the limitations of Apples lineup, the lack of a good video chip in the MacBooks has kept me from buying one for a while now and the price of the Mac Book Pros is far to high.
Your argument doesn’t really hold true in this case though, because ‘most people’ will never even consider buying a Mac Pro and probably shouldn’t. These are really meant for high end video editing, audio processing and 3D rendering, places where 8 cores really does make a huge difference over 4.
To me, the middle of Apples lineup is really weak, the MacBooks, MacBook Pros and iMacs sell mostly on their style. Not to knock their quality or the importance to some of design, but for most people, a Dell would do them just as well at a lower price.
I will have to argue with you about the Mac Mini though, I’ve been speccing out HTPC systems lately and it’s tough finding anything remotely close to that form factor at that price. With PCs i don’t really care how ugly they are, but in the living room you kinda want something nice and most slim PC cases look like they just refitted old VCR designs. Unfortunately Apple prices it about $100 more than i think it should be.
No, this is not really true in my experience. Which maybe I should write up for OS News one day. I was asked the other day by a pro in graphics (less of a pro in computing) whether he should bite the bullet and get one of these behemoths. He is at present making do (on cost grounds) on an iMac. The money is important to him. I looked around at what you get in the multicore line if you buy from the usual non-Apple suspects. You don’t get quite as much as with this thing, but you get a lot. You can fill it full of memory, you can have a brilliant graphics card with three or four 20inch monitors side by side (which would actually make far more difference to his working comfort than a few seconds taken off a render), you can have all kinds of storage and backup, and you still have a lot of change.
And the point above is also valid, get another machine and do some of your stuff in batch mode, and still be ahead financially.
There will be people for whom this is the right choice, but far fewer than will be sold it because of lack of a real alternative at the price point and the performance point they really need. Not lower or higher exclusively by the way. Better balanced also.
Isn’t that the same point I made above? Yes, for people who don’t need 8 cores it’s a bad buy. Even high end photoshop users won’t see much benefit from 4 cores let alone 8, but for the few that do need it, it’s priced comparably to other 8 core computers both commercial and home built.
We can argue all day about whether someone needs 8 cores, but that’s beside the point. There are tons of people who never do anything more stressful with their computer than browse the internet, email and IM, they could very easily do that on an eeepc, does that mean that all computers are overpriced compared to the eeepc? No it means that there are different uses for different machines.
Skulltrail is an overpriced dog. Why not just buy a proper Xeon or Opteron workstation board rather than a hobbyist board? Far more expandable. Lots more memory slots.
What’s too bad about this kind of setup is that it has zero redundancy: for this price, two redundant power supply, disks in RAID and ECC memory would be nice..
RAID (both hardware and software) is available as an option and the memory is ECC. Redundant power supplies aren’t available, but I question how useful they are, from a value for money perspective, in workstations. Power supplies very rarely die, and as long as you are reasonably good at saving your work your data loss should be minimal on the off chance it does happen. Simply keep a spare power supply on site and you can have the dead workstation up and running in no time.
Thanks for the correction.
That said, with this kind of hardware, the difference between a server and a workstation is ‘thin’: just the redundant of power supply, which is a must have for 24h uptime server and not so critical for workstation.
there are a few other things. Stuff like HBAs, RAID, an ILO like interface, redundant traffic ports, separate management, separate backup lan, a lot of memory, headless etc.
http://www.mynah.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=136&PID=195&MF=Y#195 coreg
http://www.animemusicvideos.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=1102210#11022… altace
http://www.animemusicvideos.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=1102212#11022… oxycodone
http://www.animemusicvideos.org/phpBB/forum_posts.asp?TID=56592&PN=… oxycontin
http://voip-forum.tmcnet.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=56595&PN=1&T… plavix
http://www.mynah.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=135&PID=194&MF=Y#194 provera