[mdawson]

CPU upgrades for Intel processors is a very different ball game from that of PowerPC processor upgrades. In general, x86 processors have cost significantly more than PowerPC CPUs in lots of 1000; typically $800 to $1200 per chip depending on the Intel processor. Yet, ironically, after market Intel chips purchased by consumers for CPU upgrades or building custom boxes have typically cost less that PowerPC upgrades. While that may seem oxymoronic, beyond the fact that you could walk into a CompUSA and buy say a Pentium 4 for less than an OEM could get them in quantity—huh?!?—PowerPC processor upgrades were relatively expensive for a reason.
When a Wintel PC user wants to purchase a CPU they just purchase the CPU. CPU replacement is simply a matter of popping out the old CPU and replacing it; Intel/AMD processors are almost never mounted on a daughter card. While that may seem simpler, do remember that a Wintel user needs to keep track of the myriad of x86 chip architectures. Before going out and getting a new CPU, a Wintel user has to know the chipset employed on their motherboard and socket type for the CPU. So while chip replacement is not a difficult procedure even for the uninitiated, selecting a compatible CPU requires considerable technical knowledge.
With PowerPC Macs, CPU upgrades were only available through third-parties and the buyer was not purchasing just a CPU. Socketed PowerPC chips were almost always mounted on daughter cards and therefore had the required electronics to be compatible with select Mac models. Mac users never had to concern themselves with chipsets and socket numbers, but instead simply chose amongst those processor upgrades that were listed as being compatible with their Mac.
Compatibility issues were handled by the upgrade manufacturer, many of whom came up with interesting ways to create processor upgrades for Macs. Most late model Mac processor upgrades for the G3 and G4-based Power Macs were simply daughter card replacements. The most innovative processor upgrades of that period were those that allowed Mac users could jump a generation allowing PowerPC 8600/9600 users to upgrade to G3s from their PowerPC 604e and later adding the ability for Power Mac G3 users to upgrade to G4 processors. The more radical innovations were those that made it possible to upgrade the CPU in Macs with hard soldered CPUs. For systems such as the Power Mac 6500 companies developed CPU daughter cards that plugged into the cache slot bypassing the old CPU altogether. In other instances the processor upgrade companies found ways to create NuBus/PCI-based CPU upgrades.
So CPU upgrades were much simpler for the end-user during the PowerPC era, but as the upgrades were simplified due to third-party intervention, Mac processor upgrades were typically more expensive than PC processor upgrades. The sad part is that G5 upgrades have never been available and unlike most prior Macs, the Power Mac G5 had a scalable system bus. Memory would still be a bottleneck, but for someone like me could still get better overall performance if I could purchase a faster G5. For instance, my 2.3 GHz DP has a slower bus than the 2.7 GHz DP, because the system bus is scaled to ½ processor speed. So if I could purchase replacement 2.7 GHz G5s, I should get the same boost in performance as if I had purchased a 2.7 GHz model to begin with.
In the age of Intel, the traditional processor upgrade companies for the Mac—e.g., PowerLogix, Sonnet, NewerTech, etc.—have branched into other markets although they could still offer processor upgrades for the Mac, well the Mac Pro, by simply changing their marketing model; the same could be done for Wintel PCs, but the number of permutations based on manufacturers and models would make it a logistic nightmare. In essence, the aforementioned companies would just need to offer x86 CPUs by providing the user with a system selector as many memory resellers do, but none have appeared to go that route.

[whitedog]

I suspect the reason we have no third party CPU upgrade cards for Intel Macs, specifically the Mac Pro, is that changes now are not so much within individual chip sets as they once were. Speed increases in a given chip set design are relatively modest. Improvements now involve radically different chip architectures to which computer motherboards are specifically tailored. And, as you noted, modern Intel CPUs are relatively expensive, making processor upgrades, even where they are feasible, impractical due to cost. If you have to pay $1,000 or more for a new CPU, you might as well get a new computer. This is especially true in the case of the new Mac Pros which have many other enhancements in addition to the new processor configuration.

No single change in the Mac Pro is, by itself, groundbreaking; taken all together, though, they make for a significant improvement in the new models. Though Apple hasn't publicized them much, these changes amount to a substantial redesign - even though this redesign isn't reflected in the external appearance of the machine.

In the span of a few years we've gone from a single core standard CPU to dual cores, then quad cores and now eight cores. Where once CPUs were bumped up in speed, now processor cores are multiplied to improve performance. This is all the more remarkable when you consider that most software has not been optimized to take advantage of this multi-core environment. At the moment, at least, hardware development is well ahead of software development. In other words, computer hardware has undergone a paradigm shift that has not yet been adopted by software developers.

I think this diversion of focus between hardware and software developers is an as yet untold story.

[splinter]

MIne shipped today (Feb 13), 2 weeks ahead of schedule. Yay.

[technolawyer]

Great discussion everyone. Let's say you're not a graphics professional, but you do have significant storage needs and have grown weary of external hard drives. In other words, those 4 drive bays look awfully tempting. Any opinion on the Mac Pro with just one Quad Core? Thank you.

[splinter]

I guess the 4-core versus the 8 depends on your need for speed and power. I am a pro, and I will be using Strata3D a lot, which uses all 8 cores for rendering, so I went ahead and spent the money. Since I moved up from a G4 any speed increase would be dramatic for me, but this thing really is fast. And, the beast is amazingly quiet. I can hardly hear the internal drive, or anything else for that matter. For comparison, I have an external LaCie that now sounds like a garbage truck backing up, especially when it's looking for data. And the G4 is just loud. I can hear myself think now. I will be using internal drives from now on. Except for maybe a Time Capsule. My 2 cents...

[whitedog]

I have a 1 year old Mac Pro with two 3 GHz dual core Xeon CPUs. Going by the specs alone, the new quad core should be even faster. The issue isn't so much whether or not you are a pro - using your computer to make a living - or not; the real question is what programs do you use? Video and 3D modeling applications benefit significantly from an 8 core machine; programs like Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator, not so much. It also depends on whether you use more than one heavy duty app at a time. More cores can distribute the load better. In the end it probably comes down to what you can afford. The money you save with the quad core can go for more RAM (not from Apple; they charge way to much); you can also put the savings toward additional internal hard drives (also best purchased from a third party supplier).

One downside of the quad core is that it comes in only one speed - 2.8 GHz. The 8 core machine comes with two additional options, with 3 GHz and 3.2 GHz CPUs. On the other hand, the 3.2 GHz version is $2,100 more expensive than the single quad core. Only you can say where your money is best spent.

For me the expandability of the Mac Pro is a real boon. My old dual 1 GHz G4 was limited to 1.5 GBs of RAM. I've got my Mac Pro up to 8 GBs and haven't come near the limit. You'll probably never max out the new Mac Pro at 32 GBs. I've got 3 internal drives (and several more external drives); not only are the internal drives less expensive, they are faster, running on the internal SATA bus; most of my externals are legacy FireWire 400s.

One other way to supe up a Mac Pro is to get the $800 hardware RAID card Apple offers and configure your internal drives for performance. The trade-off here is between better performance and more capacity. If you're not doing video you probably don't need a RAID. Mirroring your drives with SuperDuper! and/or backing them up with Time Machine will do the job. Indeed, this is where external drives are best deployed. If you use them for backup you can turn them off when you don't need them and save wear and tear. Hope this helps a bit.

[technolawyer]

Thank you for the incredibly helpful feedback. I'll report back soon.

[JeffDM]

[quote name='K_C']
>

AndrewRodney said:

> I'm curious if anyone can comment about this $1450 option of a Raid card with the new 15K SAS drive. Best for a boot disk, a scratch disk for Photoshop?

And how much better would it be than say my choice of 2 10K raptors in a software RAID for scratch ?

I can tell you that replacing the stock boot drive with one of the 10K raptors makes a huge difference.

If I didn't have to buy a RAID card to operate one, I might consider a 15k drive.

Next time I buy a hard drive, I think I'm going to try a Hitachi terabyte hard drive. The 7K1000 is very close in performance, even exceeds Raptor in some cases.

[midnightrider379]

people want to complain about the price but just look at how apple presents the machine its not all thrown together like a dell or an hp its like a work of art

[DrKarl]

A PS to my earlier posts: USB and Firewire ports.
The minimal number of USB and firewire ports (compared to a comparable tower PC) is really annoying and frustrating.
Only 3 USB ports in the rear of the tower. Two convenience ports in front; two convenience ports on keyboard. Only one firewire 400 and one firewire 800.
Wouldn't most people like to plug 'permanent' USB devices into the rear, out of sight? Let's see, I've got: keyboard, mouse, battery backup using all 3 ports in the rear. Where does my printer, external USB hard drive, graphics tablet, etc go? Cords dangling out of the front. Other devices plugged into keyboard. Ugly. How hard would it have been for Apple to incude more USB ports in the rear?
Firewire: my external HD is firewire, but does not have a daisy chain port. Nor does my video camera. So, only one of them can be plugged in at a time. My old PC had 4 firewire ports. How hard is that?
Overall, absolutely LOVE this machine - performance, quiet, internal expansion. But, hate the limited number of ports without going to a 3rd party expansion card or an external (ugly) hub. Even if I had an Apple monitor with ports, I don't want those cords on my desk - I want them tucked behind the tower.

[whitedog]

I love my Mac Pro, too. But I agree Apple is too stingy on connectivity. As it is they were late adding ports to the front of desktop Macs - G5s and the Mac Pro - long after such ports were standard on even cheep PCs. It's not unlike how Apple was late, years ago, adding CD burning capability. And they include ports I'll never use for optical digital audio. One wonders why, when they added a second Ethernet port to the Mac Pro they didn't add more USB and FireWire ports. I guess it fits their minimalist design philosophy. iMacs could use more ports, too. Especially when you consider Apple's advertised focus on "the digital lifestyle." While the shortage of ports is not a deal breaker for Macs, it is an unnecessary negative selling point. Add this to the parochial software for the inappropriately named Apple Mighty Mouse and you have an inexplicable pattern in Apple's otherwise stellar design history of overlooking some important, fundamental issues. Sure there are third-party work-arounds. But some of these simply should not be necessary. On the other hand, I don't miss having a built-in flash memory card reader. There are just too many different kinds of cards out there. This is one place where the user can take responsibility for getting a reader for the kind of memory cards he uses. But, then, you need a port to plug the card reader into, which, on the Mac, generally means getting a hub as well.

[JeffDM]

I woudn't mind adding a third party USB card, but I couldn't find any four or five port OS X compatible cards last I checked. I did find a card with USB & FW ports, but I'd rather they all be USB. I have a tendency to add IO cards to every desktop I've owned because what's included usually isn't enough without a hub. The PowerMacs I had supported a card that I already had, but the Mac Pro with PCIe, it's hard to find a PCIe card that's right for the machine.

[whitedog]

JeffDM said:

I woudn't mind adding a third party USB card, but I couldn't find any four or five port OS X compatible cards last I checked. I did find a card with USB & FW ports, but I'd rather they all be USB. I have a tendency to add IO cards to every desktop I've owned because what's included usually isn't enough without a hub. The PowerMacs I had supported a card that I already had, but the Mac Pro with PCIe, it's hard to find a PCIe card that's right for the machine.

Check out the Sonnet Technology Allegro PCI Express USB 2.0 Adapter Card at https://eshop.macsal...chnology/USB2E/, offered through OtherWorld Computing.

[JeffDM]

Thanks for the help. I may have found that before, but I might have been turned off by the price so I kept looking. I'll put it on my wish list, hopefully I can get it soon.