[Jonan900]

I'd like to see what everyone else thinks of this amazing mac. Im doing some research for a school project so any thoughts would be appreciated.

[estumpges]

Well, it is just that... amazing!

A 3.2GHz 8 core computer that accepts up to 32GB of RAM, 4TB of internal storage, and tons of other internal and external expansion is nothing short of jaw dropping. However, for most people the new Mac Pros are even farther out of their reach. Considering that the new machines cost $200 to $300 more than their old counterparts, they are now well out of reach for the average computer consumer.

As great as this upgrade is for the elite, high end computer market, it further cements the need for Apple to release a mid range tower between the Mac Pro and the iMac to fill in the huge gap that currently exists. There is a substantial segment of the market that would switch to Apple computers if they could buy an expandable tower for between $1,500 and $2,000.

Anyway, back to the existing Mac Pro... here are some of my thoughts.

1. I'm glad that Apple finally jumped on board with the Nvidia 8800 series. That had been a serious disadvantage for gamers with the last generation Mac Pro. I'm a little disappointed that Apple didn't decide to offer the 8800GTS and the 8800GTX as build to order options but my hopes are that people will be able to upgrade to these chips on their own if they choose. I doubt compatibility would be an issue but I wonder whether the power supply is up to the task of providing enough juice for these monster graphics cards. I wish Apple would have provided the option of getting a better power supply as a build to order option.

2. It's also great to see Apple include 800MHz RAM for the first time in any of their computers. My only concern is that it took them way too long to do this! Furthermore, the high end PC manufacturers are already offering the next generation RAM that is even faster than 800MHz. I fear that by the time the Mac Pro is updated again, 800MHz RAM will be out of date.

3. The processors are incredible. Period.

4. I'm also surprised that Apple didn't opt to include the latest 20X DVD drives. 16X isn't bad but come on, it's the Mac Pro! Why skimp on the optical drive? I know the HD format war is still ugly but Blue Ray seems to be pulling ahead now and I'd like to see Apple introduce support for Blue Ray drives sometime in 2008.

5. The new SAS 1500RPM hard drives look promising but I'm put off by the fact that you have to buy a RAID card to use them and that you can't use them in conjunction with SATA drives. Apple's RAID card is ridiculously overpriced.

6. In general, Apple's build to order options are way over priced. It is a major turnoff when Apple charges over twice as much as OWC for RAM!

Here are some notable omissions with the announcement that I see.

1. New higher resolution Cinema Displays with higher resolution.

2. eSATA and HDMI ports.

3. Built in wireless capabilities.

Overall, I'm very happy with the release even if it might not sound that way. I just hope that Apple doesn't wait over a year to upgrade the Mac Pro ever again. The previous generation was rather pathetic compared to recent offerings by PC manufacturers. If Apple wants to stay competitive, I think they need to update the Mac Pro at least twice a year. The current Mac Pro may be awesome right now but in 6 months it will seem way over priced and outdated in comparison with the overall PC market if Apple doesn't act decisively to keep it competitive.

Well, those are my thoughts on the matter. Good luck with your research.

[Jonan900]

Thank-you that is exactly the kind of reviews that i am looking for, so lets get more of em.

[realtwang]

estumpges said:

Quote

As great as this upgrade is for the elite, high end computer market, it further cements the need for Apple to release a mid range tower between the Mac Pro and the iMac to fill in the huge gap that currently exists. There is a substantial segment of the market that would switch to Apple computers if they could buy an expandable tower for between $1,500 and $2,000.

Just a couple of thoughts on that...I think the affordable mid-level tower you refer to is actually the iMac. In other words, I don't think the gap in the market is really there after all. Here's my reasoning: With most every expandable option being offered with USB or Firewire, the need to expand in the box is quickly diminishing. PCI expandability is less and less necessary. I mean, lets look at what used to require PCI:
1. Audio interfaces. True pro quality audio interfaces are readily available as Firewire interfaces, acheiving the same bandwidth and quality which used to be only attainable via PCI.

2. High powered graphics cards The iMacs now have a pro level (or at the very least, semi-pro) graphics cards as standard equipment. They'll also drive (or mirror) a second monitor, which also used to require an extra PCI card.

3. High powered hard drive options With FW800, things like Fast and Ultra-Wide SCSI cards, etc. are no longer necessary for the mid-level user (in other words, the $1500 - $2000 price point semi-pro user). People who are going with fibre channel and SAS are already coughing up a ton of extra money to have those options, so at that point $300 or $400 extra to have an expandable tower is a pretty small thing in the big picture.

So to wrap up, I think the idea of a tower for the semi-pro is a thing of the past. The need for in-the-box expandability at the mid-priced level is gone. It's a brave new world!

[mdawson]

So to wrap up, I think the idea of a tower for the semi-pro is a thing of the past. The need for in-the-box expandability at the mid-priced level is gone. It's a brave new world!

Hardly. The iMac is a consumer-level desktop and not a prosumer/mid-level professional system. I am a power user, but the Mac Pro is overkill even for my needs as an engineer/operations research analyst. The iMac on the other hand has no future proofing for more advanced users such as myself and as a prior Power Mac G4 Cube owner I will never again allow myself to be stuck because my computer can not be expanded. I had a 22-inch Cinema Display (ADC) with my Cube that transitioned to my Power Mac G5 and I now have a 30-inch Cinema Display that would be impossible to use with an iMac.
Simply put the iMac is great for home users, but for the pro-sumer/mid-level professional, it is limited by its lack of internal expandability. iMac users cannot upgrade their GPU over the life of their computer or add new technology that come down the pike later on. Many professional users do need that capability, but they do not necessarily need it to the extent that the Mac Pro provides.
The tower configuration with its numerous internal drive bays, huge RAM capabilities and four expansion slots are excellent machines for a particular minority in the pro market. At this point, a system with 8 cores is only needed by pro users in those (extreme) few markets where software is optimized for such a degree of parallelization. Based on the benchmarks from last week’s first look at the new Mac Pros, most mainstream software does not fall into that category.
While four internal drive bays is great for anyone, the only people that need that type of storage on demand are those with huge storage/scratch disk demands such as those in video production, 3D modeling/rendering, database management, etc. The same markets also benefit from the ability to add up to 32 GB RAM.
As to the PCIe slots, as you mentioned Macs do not need much PCI expandability, as unlike most Wintel PCs, Macs have many features that are offered via PCI on Wintle systems hard-wired to the motherboard. That stated, those that do need the four PCIe slots that the Mac Pro offers would be those pro users that need to add non-standard hardware to their computer from Day One as well as the ability to keep the computer current over its usable life. We have such a need in my lab where we run LabVIEW in conjunction with various National Instruments data acquisition cards, but as we are in academia, upgrading the system is more feasible over the short-term in order to stay current as it can be a long time until my research group gets funding for computer replacement.
In all, the Mac Pro is a great professional system, but it is a system that is only necessary for professional users in certain markets. Those professionals do not make up the bulk of professional users and a pro user may wish to have similar processing power at home although they may not have the same hardware requirements.
Most power users, professionals and the growing Mac gamer market need a computer with a powerful processor, a replaceable graphics card, modest PCI-based expansion, the ability to have more than a single internal drive, as well as the ability to easily add/replace drives, and the ability to add more RAM than a consumer-based system can handle. The iMac has a moderately powerful processor at its high-end, but it otherwise lacks what a power user needs.
Whether or not you choose to see it, there is a gaping hole in the product line between the iMac and Mac Pro and the need for in-the-box expandability will not dissipate for the foreseeable future. You seem to be confusing the misplaced impression that most consumer-level users need a hardware expandable computer, which is generally false, with the needs of a professional or power user that often needs to have a system that is somewhat current.

[realtwang]

I'm watching these new models very closely as I'm in dire need of a system upgrade soon. More on that later. Now for my review....

Processors Definitely a major revision introducing the more efficient 45 nm technology in these new towers. 8 cores standard. Also, the L2 cache is much, much larger than previous offerings. Dual Quad Core 3.2GHz processors...Yikes!

Physical form factor I was kind of hoping to see a radically new tower design of some sort. It doesn't look like we'll get it this time around. There are obvious factors that prevent too radical a redesign, such as the physical size of hard drives, etc., so I understand it.

Lots o' RAM Up to 32GB!! Excellent. 8GB is plentiful for now, and slightly ahead of the curve as usual.

Faster bus speed Dual independent 64-bit 1600mHz frontside busses. A welcome improvement, and probably one of the most important "under the hood" features of these new models. Improvements here often get a much milder mention when compared all the other glitzy features of a tower update, but it's really the yin to the new processors' yang, if you will.

Slide-in storage ...and a ton of it. I know this one was around at the last revision, but I just think it's slick as can be, and worth a mention. As someone who's replaced hard drives in an older model recently, I think it's genius.

SAS drive option Well, this one scares me a bit. It's the only new feature I'm wary of. First, it's really expensive. Second, it's still SCSI in some form. I really think this is an "interim" feature until the bigger and cheaper solid state hard drives arrive. A little back story: Back in 2001 when I bought my Dual 800 G4 -- on which I'm typing this now :( -- I spent a lot of money on a specialized SCSI rackmount dual drive for audio recording. Firewire had barely gotten started, and still had some early bugs, so UW SCSI was the only truly reliable option at the time to have the speed necessary for all in-the-box digital recording. That big fast drive was on the bleeding edge then, and it's a $2300 boat anchor now. (Anyone wanna buy a big fancy drive? :) ) There just wasn't any other choice at the time. Independent 3Gb/sec speed on standard SATA drives is pretty freakin' fast. Consequently, the jury is still out on the real world advantages of SAS over SATA, and for the price of everything required to make it happen -- wait, I'm getting a bad taste in my mouth...kind of metallic...like...boat anchor.

Ports I'm glad to see two FW800 ports. I don't know if those are completely independent busses or not, but hopefully they are. I'm also glad to see all the front panel connections. Extremely handy for those of us who enclose our Mac in a sealed rack case. Headphone jack in the front -- yes!! Dual ethernet. Well, OK, there's one I don't really need, but cool for those that do.

Graphics Well, this ought to put to rest once and for all the "yeah, but it's not powerful enough for serious gamers" argument. 300W of power dedicated to graphics only is stellar. And the ability to run up to 8 30" displays... are you kidding me??

OK, there's my 2?. All in all, a pretty exciting update.

[realtwang]

Good thoughts, but I think in some ways, you're actually making my point for me:

>At this point, a system with 8 cores is only needed by pro users in those (extreme) few markets where software is optimized for such a degree of parallelization. Based on the benchmarks from last weeks first look at the new Mac Pros, most mainstream software does not fall into that category.

Quote

While four internal drive bays is great for anyone, the only people that need that type of storage on demand are those with huge storage/scratch disk demands such as those in video production, 3D modeling/rendering, database management, etc. The same markets also benefit from the ability to add up to 32 GB RAM.

Exactly...

Quote

As to the PCIe slots, as you mentioned Macs do not need much PCI expandability, as unlike most Wintel PCs, Macs have many features that are offered via PCI on Wintle systems hard-wired to the motherboard. That stated, those that do need the four PCIe slots that the Mac Pro offers would be those pro users that need to add non-standard hardware to their computer from Day One as well as the ability to keep the computer current over its usable life. We have such a need in my lab where we run LabVIEW in conjunction with various National Instruments data acquisition cards, but as we are in academia, upgrading the system is more feasible over the short-term in order to stay current as it can be a long time until my research group gets funding for computer replacement.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think your particular situation that still requires specialized PCI I/O is really a pretty small percentage of the overall market. Again, what sparked my original thought was that we're only talking a difference of $300 or $400 dollars over the previous tower offerings. If you're already spending $2399, spending another $400 is not that much of a shock for a semi-pro user. I certainly don't think it pushes it "out of reach".

Quote

In all, the Mac Pro is a great professional system, but it is a system that is only necessary for professional users in certain markets. Those professionals do not make up the bulk of professional users and a pro user may wish to have similar processing power at home although they may not have the same hardware requirements.

I think they make up a bigger percentage than you realize...I'll be maxing my tower out, just as I did when I bought my current computer. That's also why I'm still able to squeak by on it 7 years after I bought it.

Quote

Most power users, professionals and the growing Mac gamer market need a computer with a powerful processor, a replaceable graphics card, modest PCI-based expansion, the ability to have more than a single internal drive, as well as the ability to easily add/replace drives, and the ability to add more RAM than a consumer-based system can handle. The iMac has a moderately powerful processor at its high-end, but it otherwise lacks what a power user needs.

With Firewire drives as cheap as they are, and having a stationary computer, why do you need extra internal drives? And 4GB of RAM is quite a bit at this point in time. And I personally know a lot of pro-sumers in my industry (audio recording) who are opting for iMacs, which are perfectly capable of handling a large audio session. After personally seeing the results, the iMacs are actually quite adequate, and more powerful than most people realize. Also, just from a processor standpoint, the processors in the current iMacs are going to effectively "live a little longer" in terms of usability life span than the G4 or G5's did, being single core processors. I wouldn't be surprised to see the usable life span of a current iMac be at least 5 years as long as you max out the RAM and get a model with the faster processor.

Whether or not you choose to see it, there is a gaping hole in the product line between the iMac and Mac Pro and the need for in-the-box expandability will not dissipate for the foreseeable future. You seem to be confusing the misplaced impression that most consumer-level users need a hardware expandable computer, which is generally false, with the needs of a professional or power user that often needs to have a system that is somewhat current.

I do see what you're saying, but I don't agree. Most accessories that can move to Firewire and USB already have done so. I guess my main point is that other than for true power users and people who have very specialized PCI needs, the need for in-the-box expansion has already dissipated. Even with the most expandable Mac of the day, I was only able to stay "somewhat current" for about 4 years, and I don't think today's towers are any different (as I said, I'm just barely squeaking by right now). Everything that you used to have to replace internally (except for the graphics card) is now replaceable externally for a better model (audio and video interfaces, drives). If you can get a good 4 or 5 years out of a current iMac, then what's the difference between that and moderate tower?

[mdawson]

Again, your assessment of the pro market is flawed and I can attest to that based on my needs and the needs of many regular posters on these boards having become a member since the days of MacCentral over a decade ago. I purchased my Power Mac G5 in September 2005 and complemented it with a miniStack for offset backup. At the time eSATA was barely on the market, but since then has become readily available to the point where an eSATA/FireWire 800 miniStack is now available. My Power Mac G5 has FireWire 800 and I can add eSATA as well as FireWire 3200 when such controller cards and accessories become available.
When I first purchased my G5 I continued to use my 22-inch Cinema Display (ca. 2000), but early last year I upgraded to a 30-inch Cinema Display and have the ability to add a second display should the need arise and my desk configuration change to accommodate it. My Mac is expandable to 8 GB of RAM and once I am in a position to upgrade my copy of Vectorworks/Renderworks, I may very well need to go beyond the 4 GB that I currently have.
Had I not purchased an expandable system at that time and instead settled for an iMac adding eSATA capability when I replace my miniStack with eSATA versions in a few months would be impossible; I would not even be able to run one on FireWire 800 because the iMacs of that time did not offer FireWire 800. I would be stuck with a 20-inch display at best and no ability to add a second display to expand my desktop; since upgrading to the 30-inch I have been more productive because I can get more information on screen at one time. Lastly, I would be maxed out at 2.5 GB RAM and my G5 is using that much as we speak.
I purchased my Power Mac G4 Cube in late-2000. The Power Mac designation was only being used for pro systems by that time and I was of the mindset that the Cube would be powerful enough for my needs at that time. Well guess what, it was but technology quickly changed and I was rapidly faling behind the curve month-by-month. As I could not afford to replace my computer in its entirety and the Cube could not be expanded, by 2002 it became painful to use my Cube to get assignments done and I spent a great deal of time working anywhere but at home. That system had an original Radeon w/32MB VRAM, an ATA-66 bus, and FireWire 400.
Because the Cube was not expandable I could not get a better graphics card as they became available without performing major surgery on the computer and the card; not an option on my primary computer. I could not add an UltraATA-100/133 card so that I could benefit from a faster hard drive. FireWire 400 offered less bandwidth than ATA-66 so at best booting from a FireWire drive would have only offered marginal speed gain. And as to FireWire, upgrading to FireWire 800 was not an option. If I were a typical home user, these would have been non-issues, but I am not just a home user, I am an engineer and operations research analyst that needs a powerful home computer to do my work and that can keep up with me for 4 to 5 years. The Cube lacked that capability, and that was one of the issues that killed the system as it did target the prosumer market.
Simply put, for many professional users, the iMac’s lack of future-proofing is highly problematic just as it was for the G4 Cube. As I stated in my previous post and here, I do not and cannot be stuck with a non-expandable computer, because even at home I am the type of user that will and needs to upgrade his computer over its usable life, as do many professional and power users. What I do not need is a ginormous tower to accomplish that goal because I do not operate specialized hardware at home.
Yes FireWire and USB allow any computer user to add accessories to their computer (at the current technology level), but the inability to add new technology over the 4 to 5 years that I own the computer is a problem and I know as much from my experience with the Cube. I have no intention of replacing the entire computer every two years to keep up when I could just pop in a card to add new technology. I also have no intention of purchasing a system that has a RAM limit that is on par with what I currently have installed. As I stated earlier, there are several professional/power users on these boards that can and will concur with what I am writing. You may feel that having the either the iMac or Mac Pro as the only choices is good enough, but the posts on these boards by pro users clearly indicates that your assessment of the needs of the prosumer market is incorrect. For a great many pro users the Mac Pro is overkill and the iMac is quite inadequate.

[realtwang]

OK...my assessment's flawed :) .... that's why my 7-year old computer is still working for what I need it to do every day...all day....

[mdawson]

Note that I did use the word “flawed” and not “incorrect” or the phrase “patently false”. :-)

If you are getting by just fine with a 7 year-old Mac, then you are clearly not in the market segment with the needs being discussed here. So yes, for you an iMac may do just fine, and if you are a professional user then you are “professional” in the strictest sense of the term. Yes, there are professionals that can get by just fine with an iMac or even a Mac mini, but in computer parlance professional systems refer specifically to computers that will be used by power/technical users not business-types.
Lawyers, insurance agents, bankers, et al., are professionals, but they do not need a pro system for their line of work. Such professionals are not the market segment in question and the computers such people use are more often than not business-class systems that are on par with consumer-level computers in terms of capabilities and features. If you are a professional user that has a “7-year old computer is still working for what I need it to do every day, all day” then you are either the in the extreme minority—and very patient—or, more likely, not a power user. Any Mac over five years old is quite obsolete and underpowered from a pro user’s perspective.

[itou]

all i keep reading about on these forums is how good the iMac is and how much of an overkill the current Mac Pro's are. to be honest, if you have the money, what's stopping you from buying a Mac Pro? of course, you wouldn't use all the power. even power users don't use all the processing power all the time. the justification on the Mac Pro is expandability and the requirement of an external display.

to be honest, i'd rather be stuck with a Mac Mini than to be stuck with an iMac because for me, the display is the most important for my line of work (photographer). yes, the Mini is slow, and yes, the Mini is not expandable. but being stuck with the display of the iMac is more of a no-no for many in my line of work. i'd rather be stuck with a small eizo screen than to be confused by a large iMac display. if you're not concerned about colour, accuracy, or the ability to add/remove whatever displays whenever you want, buy whatever you can afford. all the new Macs are extremely fast and will do whatever you want for at least a few years.

bottom line, it's the checkbook that decides. not you.

[Jonan900]

thanks for all the previous feedback. keep it coming

[davidscubadiver]

This may not be the right place to post this, but as its my first macworld post, I hope for some understanding.

I am making the switch to mac now that my pc is officially too slow to handle editing my underwater photographs which need a bunch of processing with an "action" to add back in the red coloring. It takes me about a minute to run the action in photoshop 7, and close the photograph to get it back into my photshop album program. Basically, I want to kill myself when I return from vacation.

On top of this I have a nubmer of video clips I usually shoot with my digital camera (also of fish, but one day, of people) that I would like to edit, etc., for a nice show together with my still shots.

I don't want to buy an i-mac to find out that its too slow to handle video, or will be too slow once I wind up with an HD video camera.

Same goes for editing still shots. While I am only shooting jpeg 7 megapixel shots at the moment, I may upgrade to shooting in raw. And I don't want to find my editing makes me wait too long. I lose all patience at the computer when I am sitting there waiting for it to process one picgture so I can go on to the next.

My friend owns a mac pro and she swoons over the speed with which it processes her photos. And so, I am leaning toward the Pro. Lots of people seem to think its too much computer. My question is , has anybody used an i-mac to process a hundred photos and a bunch of video and found that it is frustratingly slow? Conversely, have they done this sort of stuff with a pro desktop and found it pleasingly fast?

I don't WANT to spend a ton of money, but if buying a "base model" pro and jacking it into my existing monitor will save me 5 hours of time over my exiisting pc (not hard to do), or 1 hours time over an i-mac while working with 300 photos that need processing, its worth the extra money to me. I just can't figure out whether it'll make that kind of difference.

[rickcarl]

My 2 cents. :-) I need two or three computers to work. While one renders, rips or burns I use the other. While one does batch processing I use the other. There's too much waiting IMO on one computer even with a big processor. That said, there are a lot of smaller tasks that go quickly on one computer whether a MacBook or a mini or a Mac Pro.