# Apple's new Mac Pro, 8core xeon processor (2x 4 core), 16gb ram, 3tb hd, 512mb video

1. May 5, 2007

### aliaze1

What u guys think of Apple's new flagship? I think its awesome, but honestly thats a lot of power....

check out this link for specs and info:

http://www.apple.com/macpro"

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
2. May 5, 2007

At $12k for that configuration, I don't really think it is targeted at the consumer market... 3. May 5, 2007 ### aliaze1 true....but it is still available to any consumer who wants it.....perhaps for those moviemakers out there.... 4. May 5, 2007 ### Crosson That's what I thought at first, but then I remember how Mac enthusiasts are usually pretty wealthy, and I decided that this will be a commercial success. 5. May 7, 2007 ### graphic7 For my purposes, the Sun Ultra 40 workstation is more suited. I would consider Apple's spec'd out Mac Pro not to be a bad system, but its still not a UNIX workstation, and Apple is not a UNIX vendor. The Ultra 40 seems to be far more expandable (up to 8 internal disks) and Sun is offering some fairly high-end workstation-class level graphics with it (note workstation-class, not PC game workloads, which are texture intensive rather than programmed IO). On top of that, you get HyperTransport, as its AMD-based. So, if you're in the market for a decent UNIX workstation, rather than a graphics workstation, you might take a look Sun's Ultra 20 and Ultra 40 AMD64 workstations. http://www.sun.com/desktop/workstation/ultra40/ 6. May 7, 2007 ### BoredNL I think it's interesting how mac is using intel processors now.. 7. May 22, 2007 ### oldtobor Does that MAC offer the newest Microsoft DirectX3D, the one the came out just a month ago or so ? the one that has I think only one graphics card available and can only be powered by MS Vista ultimate ? Also, I imagine that even the highest level unix workstation can't compete against the very latest MS Vista, DirectX3D, graphic card combination. I have the impression that the MS solution with vista, 3D etc. is the best available, but I may be wrong, anyone know how it should compare to unix workstations and the top line MAC, graphics wise ? 8. May 22, 2007 ### MeJennifer There is no way that two AMD 2.6GHz Opteron cores can even get close to the processing power of eight Intel 3.0GHz Xeon cores. Both the Sun and the Apple support 4 PCI express slots for graphics so I fail to see how the Apple is any worse than the Sun in that respect. What is the issue that the Sun supports 8 instead of 4 internal disks for the Apple? That does not mean you cannot connect more disks to the Apple. If you need more just throw in a fibre channel card. The only place where the Sun is ahead is maximum internal memory, 32GB instead of 16GB for the Apple. I would not hesitate for a moment to recommend this Apple over the Sun for high end professional graphics or audio applications. Last edited: May 22, 2007 9. May 22, 2007 ### oldtobor But the very latest MS Vista, DirectX3D, graphic card combination is still the best and top of the line right ? I know that they have just come out only very recently but according to the theory it seems that that should be much better than anything else on the market, but if I am wrong, correct me. 10. May 22, 2007 ### graphic7 I never said I would recommend the Sun Ultra 40 for graphics or audio work. Solaris certainly isn't the best environment for that kind of workload (mostly because of the limited amount of audio and video editing tools available). What I would recommend the Sun for is a UNIX workstation that requires high IO capabilities, and with AMD you get HyperTransport. Do you know if the TLB on the Intel Xeons has the same limitations the AMD one has re: large page sizes? (not only the various page sizes supported, but the number of pages that can be large pages) This could be one area Intel has more going for it. I'm also highly skeptical of OS X's only recently developed multi-threading capabilities, and thus, its ability to utilize those 8 cores in a meaningful way. Last edited: May 22, 2007 11. May 22, 2007 ### AlephZero Except for one thing: the software industry hasn't caught up with Intel Macs yet. For audio applications, the Rosetta emulator just isn't powerful enough. From what I see on other forums, the audio guys who rushed off and bought Intel macs on day one are now mostly running Windows on them, while they wait for audio software developers to sort out the bugs in Apple's software conversion toolkit. The smarter ones are beginning to work out there's a better way of running Windows than buying a proprietary non-Windows machine from a single source supplier, and then buying another OS so you can do some real work. Of course MS has just levelled the playing field by bringing out its own set of compatibility problems, called Vista. 12. May 22, 2007 ### MeJennifer Good point! 13. May 22, 2007 ### Stevedye56 Even though Macs have come down considerably in price over the past few years, they are still a bit overpriced in my opinion. I think what killed them was not going 3rd party. If they went 3rd party I think they may have come closer in competition with Microsoft. 14. May 22, 2007 ### Stevedye56 Most computer boards support a max of 16gb now though. It seems a little overkill to have a support of 32Gb unless it is a server board. My 4 slot DIMM board supports 16. Where as some server boards support 16gb with 8DIMM. 15. May 28, 2007 ### FulhamFan3 My main problem with Apple is that it doesn't offer anything in between. It's either entry-level iMacs or high performance MacPro. I just want something like an iMac where it's not impossible to swap out the hard drive or upgrade the ram without madd haxx0r5 skiilz!! 16. May 29, 2007 ### Stevedye56 It isn't impossible, but you do have a point. Changing parts in Macs are significantly more difficult than in a P.C. I also agree with you on the fact that there is not really a mid range mac. The Mac Mini is just too slow and isn't very good compared to the others. The best bet is the iMac but they take up more room because they are widescreen. BUT they do not have the tower like most P.C.'s. Although, I do wish all of their computers were in a tower form just becasue it is infinately easier to swap out parts. 17. Jun 2, 2007 ### -Job- As a comparison i just purchased a server with two 2.66Ghz quad core CPUs with a 1333Ghz FSB, 8Gb FB RAM and a 15 RPM 150Gb RAID 1 drive configuration and it's considerably less than half of the$12,000 for the Mac Pro. (minimal graphics card though)

Last edited: Jun 2, 2007
18. Jun 2, 2007

### Stevedye56

-Job- was the server for your business or yourself? I was thinking about building a server for myself. Did you custom build it or did you buy it pre-assembled? If it was custom, how does it compare to building a desktop? Thanks in advance!

-Steve

19. Jun 2, 2007

### -Job-

For myself and it's pre-assembled. But i imagine building a tower server is the same as building a desktop. The difference is that servers are usually very expandable (8+ hard drives, 16-32 Gb RAM, multiple CPUs, etc), so they have large motherboards, power supplies, the occasional RAID controller, good multiple NICs, and basic video cards and cd drive, no floppy, no monitor, no keyboard/mouse.

Of course, servers can get as large as you them to be, up to 30+ CPUs and Terabytes of RAM. I wanted to get a server rack and server blades instead of a tower server, but the rack has to be in a properly cooled room such as a data center.

Last edited: Jun 2, 2007
20. Jun 2, 2007

### Stevedye56

Allright cool. Did you get SCSI HDD's or SATAs? I've looked into building one for a while and wasn't sure if it was worth the undertaking. I was thinking about getting a rackmount server, which might be stupid considering it would just be for a house, althought I would only have 1 rack not a full rack. One final question; did you use Microsoft or Linux or some other OS for your server? I'm sorry to flood you with these questions.

-Steve