New Mac Pro appears to kick ass

[SuperFreaky]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Legend
I built a computer with a GPU better than than for $2000 about 2 years ago.

I built a computer with a network card better than that for $500 five years ago! OMG! :Q

Seriously people. I'm not Mac fan, but these criticisms are jut weak.

How is that weak? Apple always sells outdated technology for an extreme premium. And network card? How is that anywhere near as important as a GPU?

Well, lets say that I don't play game and I do moved data to a network drive...

but its still a weak criticism

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Legend
I built a computer with a GPU better than than for $2000 about 2 years ago.

I built a computer with a network card better than that for $500 five years ago! OMG! :Q

Seriously people. I'm not Mac fan, but these criticisms are jut weak.

How is that weak? Apple always sells outdated technology for an extreme premium. And network card? How is that anywhere near as important as a GPU?

First of all, there's only one configuration because its a suggested configuration. The Mac Pro is HIGHLY configurable. You can easily upgrade to an X1900XT, if you desire. Not everyone wants that though, so what's the point of charging for it? Many Mac Pro users are Photoshop users, and they don't need that extra GPU power.

The point is that even with the 7300GT, for $2500, the Mac Pro is a GREAT deal, and it can no longer be accurately said that Apples are significantly overpriced compared to PC's.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Legend
I built a computer with a GPU better than than for $2000 about 2 years ago.

I built a computer with a network card better than that for $500 five years ago! OMG! :Q

Seriously people. I'm not Mac fan, but these criticisms are jut weak.

How is that weak? Apple always sells outdated technology for an extreme premium. And network card? How is that anywhere near as important as a GPU?

First of all, there's only one configuration because its a suggested configuration. The Mac Pro is HIGHLY configurable. You can easily upgrade to an X1900XT, if you desire. Not everyone wants that though, so what's the point of charging for it? Many Mac Pro users are Photoshop users, and they don't need that extra GPU power.

The point is that even with the 7300GT, for $2500, the Mac Pro is a GREAT deal, and it can no longer be accurately said that Apples are significantly overpriced compared to PC's.

Point is $2500 is way too much. Still greatly overpriced compared to PCs.

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Legend
I built a computer with a GPU better than than for $2000 about 2 years ago.

I built a computer with a network card better than that for $500 five years ago! OMG! :Q

Seriously people. I'm not Mac fan, but these criticisms are jut weak.

How is that weak? Apple always sells outdated technology for an extreme premium. And network card? How is that anywhere near as important as a GPU?

First of all, there's only one configuration because its a suggested configuration. The Mac Pro is HIGHLY configurable. You can easily upgrade to an X1900XT, if you desire. Not everyone wants that though, so what's the point of charging for it? Many Mac Pro users are Photoshop users, and they don't need that extra GPU power.

The point is that even with the 7300GT, for $2500, the Mac Pro is a GREAT deal, and it can no longer be accurately said that Apples are significantly overpriced compared to PC's.

Point is $2500 is way too much. Still greatly overpriced compared to PCs.

Prove it.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Legend
I built a computer with a GPU better than than for $2000 about 2 years ago.

I built a computer with a network card better than that for $500 five years ago! OMG! :Q

Seriously people. I'm not Mac fan, but these criticisms are jut weak.

How is that weak? Apple always sells outdated technology for an extreme premium. And network card? How is that anywhere near as important as a GPU?

First of all, there's only one configuration because its a suggested configuration. The Mac Pro is HIGHLY configurable. You can easily upgrade to an X1900XT, if you desire. Not everyone wants that though, so what's the point of charging for it? Many Mac Pro users are Photoshop users, and they don't need that extra GPU power.

The point is that even with the 7300GT, for $2500, the Mac Pro is a GREAT deal, and it can no longer be accurately said that Apples are significantly overpriced compared to PC's.

Point is $2500 is way too much. Still greatly overpriced compared to PCs.

Please configure a comparable workstation for less and post here. Like I said, they've fired quite a shot with a powerful, well-priced workstation. However, it won't be long before PC manufacturers reciprocate.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Legend
I built a computer with a GPU better than than for $2000 about 2 years ago.

I built a computer with a network card better than that for $500 five years ago! OMG! :Q

Seriously people. I'm not Mac fan, but these criticisms are jut weak.

How is that weak? Apple always sells outdated technology for an extreme premium. And network card? How is that anywhere near as important as a GPU?

So... you'd want your Internet backbone be running 7900GTX's instead of server GbE NICs?

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Legend
I built a computer with a GPU better than than for $2000 about 2 years ago.

I built a computer with a network card better than that for $500 five years ago! OMG! :Q

Seriously people. I'm not Mac fan, but these criticisms are jut weak.

How is that weak? Apple always sells outdated technology for an extreme premium. And network card? How is that anywhere near as important as a GPU?

First of all, there's only one configuration because its a suggested configuration. The Mac Pro is HIGHLY configurable. You can easily upgrade to an X1900XT, if you desire. Not everyone wants that though, so what's the point of charging for it? Many Mac Pro users are Photoshop users, and they don't need that extra GPU power.

The point is that even with the 7300GT, for $2500, the Mac Pro is a GREAT deal, and it can no longer be accurately said that Apples are significantly overpriced compared to PC's.

Point is $2500 is way too much. Still greatly overpriced compared to PCs.

Prove it.

That's the hard part Since Apple decided to use dual-core Xeon processors instead of Core 2 Duo's, it would be really hard to build a system yourself from parts that would be substantially cheaper than the Mac Pro. I'm sure that Apple gets a huge bulk discount on those type of processors, but we certainly would not.

I'd really like to see some benchmarks on the Mac Pro (under Windows, to make the test fair) to see if using the Xeons makes much of a performance difference.

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Legend
I built a computer with a GPU better than than for $2000 about 2 years ago.

I built a computer with a network card better than that for $500 five years ago! OMG! :Q

Seriously people. I'm not Mac fan, but these criticisms are jut weak.

How is that weak? Apple always sells outdated technology for an extreme premium. And network card? How is that anywhere near as important as a GPU?

First of all, there's only one configuration because its a suggested configuration. The Mac Pro is HIGHLY configurable. You can easily upgrade to an X1900XT, if you desire. Not everyone wants that though, so what's the point of charging for it? Many Mac Pro users are Photoshop users, and they don't need that extra GPU power.

The point is that even with the 7300GT, for $2500, the Mac Pro is a GREAT deal, and it can no longer be accurately said that Apples are significantly overpriced compared to PC's.

Point is $2500 is way too much. Still greatly overpriced compared to PCs.

Prove it.

That's the hard part Since Apple decided to use dual-core Xeon processors instead of Core 2 Duo's, it would be really hard to build a system yourself from parts that would be substantially cheaper than the Mac Pro. I'm sure that Apple gets a huge bulk discount on those type of processors, but we certainly would not.

I'd really like to see some benchmarks on the Mac Pro (under Windows, to make the test fair) to see if using the Xeons makes much of a performance difference.

Xeons were used because they're the only Core 2 chip that lets you use dual processors, giving you quad cores . Intel also discloses publicly their batch processor costs, that Apple, and all OEMs do not get a discount from.

 

[MaxDepth]

yes, but will it run Linux?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Legend
I built a computer with a GPU better than than for $2000 about 2 years ago.

I built a computer with a network card better than that for $500 five years ago! OMG! :Q

Seriously people. I'm not Mac fan, but these criticisms are jut weak.

How is that weak? Apple always sells outdated technology for an extreme premium. And network card? How is that anywhere near as important as a GPU?

First of all, there's only one configuration because its a suggested configuration. The Mac Pro is HIGHLY configurable. You can easily upgrade to an X1900XT, if you desire. Not everyone wants that though, so what's the point of charging for it? Many Mac Pro users are Photoshop users, and they don't need that extra GPU power.

The point is that even with the 7300GT, for $2500, the Mac Pro is a GREAT deal, and it can no longer be accurately said that Apples are significantly overpriced compared to PC's.

Point is $2500 is way too much. Still greatly overpriced compared to PCs.

Prove it.

That's the hard part Since Apple decided to use dual-core Xeon processors instead of Core 2 Duo's, it would be really hard to build a system yourself from parts that would be substantially cheaper than the Mac Pro. I'm sure that Apple gets a huge bulk discount on those type of processors, but we certainly would not.

I'd really like to see some benchmarks on the Mac Pro (under Windows, to make the test fair) to see if using the Xeons makes much of a performance difference.

Xeons were used because they're the only Core 2 chip that lets you use dual processors, giving you quad cores . Intel also discloses publicly their batch processor costs, that Apple, and all OEMs do not get a discount from.

I couldve sworn woodcrest was netburst based, not Core based.

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Legend
I built a computer with a GPU better than than for $2000 about 2 years ago.

I built a computer with a network card better than that for $500 five years ago! OMG! :Q

Seriously people. I'm not Mac fan, but these criticisms are jut weak.

How is that weak? Apple always sells outdated technology for an extreme premium. And network card? How is that anywhere near as important as a GPU?

First of all, there's only one configuration because its a suggested configuration. The Mac Pro is HIGHLY configurable. You can easily upgrade to an X1900XT, if you desire. Not everyone wants that though, so what's the point of charging for it? Many Mac Pro users are Photoshop users, and they don't need that extra GPU power.

The point is that even with the 7300GT, for $2500, the Mac Pro is a GREAT deal, and it can no longer be accurately said that Apples are significantly overpriced compared to PC's.

Point is $2500 is way too much. Still greatly overpriced compared to PCs.

Prove it.

That's the hard part Since Apple decided to use dual-core Xeon processors instead of Core 2 Duo's, it would be really hard to build a system yourself from parts that would be substantially cheaper than the Mac Pro. I'm sure that Apple gets a huge bulk discount on those type of processors, but we certainly would not.

I'd really like to see some benchmarks on the Mac Pro (under Windows, to make the test fair) to see if using the Xeons makes much of a performance difference.

Xeons were used because they're the only Core 2 chip that lets you use dual processors, giving you quad cores . Intel also discloses publicly their batch processor costs, that Apple, and all OEMs do not get a discount from.

I couldve sworn woodcrest was netburst based, not Core based.

Nope, it's Core 2 based. It's pretty much almost the same as Conroe, but has dual-processor options, as well as a faster FSB. I'm pretty sure it's a different socket too.

 

[TheRyuu]

You can max it out with a 23in monitor for just under 12k.

 

[Randum]

mac and kick ass arent allowed to be in the same sentence- so says the fact that macs still cannot pwn anything....yes this sentence makes sense... i need mountain dew...

 

[ViviTheMage]

macs blow up

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Legend
I built a computer with a GPU better than than for $2000 about 2 years ago.

I built a computer with a network card better than that for $500 five years ago! OMG! :Q

Seriously people. I'm not Mac fan, but these criticisms are jut weak.

How is that weak? Apple always sells outdated technology for an extreme premium. And network card? How is that anywhere near as important as a GPU?

First of all, there's only one configuration because its a suggested configuration. The Mac Pro is HIGHLY configurable. You can easily upgrade to an X1900XT, if you desire. Not everyone wants that though, so what's the point of charging for it? Many Mac Pro users are Photoshop users, and they don't need that extra GPU power.

The point is that even with the 7300GT, for $2500, the Mac Pro is a GREAT deal, and it can no longer be accurately said that Apples are significantly overpriced compared to PC's.

Point is $2500 is way too much. Still greatly overpriced compared to PCs.

Prove it.

That's the hard part Since Apple decided to use dual-core Xeon processors instead of Core 2 Duo's, it would be really hard to build a system yourself from parts that would be substantially cheaper than the Mac Pro. I'm sure that Apple gets a huge bulk discount on those type of processors, but we certainly would not.

I'd really like to see some benchmarks on the Mac Pro (under Windows, to make the test fair) to see if using the Xeons makes much of a performance difference.

Xeons were used because they're the only Core 2 chip that lets you use dual processors, giving you quad cores . Intel also discloses publicly their batch processor costs, that Apple, and all OEMs do not get a discount from.

I couldve sworn woodcrest was netburst based, not Core based.

Nope, it's Core 2 based. It's pretty much almost the same as Conroe, but has dual-processor options, as well as a faster FSB. I'm pretty sure it's a different socket too.

I didnt know that, that makes 3ghz a LOT more impressive.

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Legend
I built a computer with a GPU better than than for $2000 about 2 years ago.

I built a computer with a network card better than that for $500 five years ago! OMG! :Q

Seriously people. I'm not Mac fan, but these criticisms are jut weak.

How is that weak? Apple always sells outdated technology for an extreme premium. And network card? How is that anywhere near as important as a GPU?

First of all, there's only one configuration because its a suggested configuration. The Mac Pro is HIGHLY configurable. You can easily upgrade to an X1900XT, if you desire. Not everyone wants that though, so what's the point of charging for it? Many Mac Pro users are Photoshop users, and they don't need that extra GPU power.

The point is that even with the 7300GT, for $2500, the Mac Pro is a GREAT deal, and it can no longer be accurately said that Apples are significantly overpriced compared to PC's.

Point is $2500 is way too much. Still greatly overpriced compared to PCs.

Prove it.

That's the hard part Since Apple decided to use dual-core Xeon processors instead of Core 2 Duo's, it would be really hard to build a system yourself from parts that would be substantially cheaper than the Mac Pro. I'm sure that Apple gets a huge bulk discount on those type of processors, but we certainly would not.

I'd really like to see some benchmarks on the Mac Pro (under Windows, to make the test fair) to see if using the Xeons makes much of a performance difference.

Xeons were used because they're the only Core 2 chip that lets you use dual processors, giving you quad cores . Intel also discloses publicly their batch processor costs, that Apple, and all OEMs do not get a discount from.

I couldve sworn woodcrest was netburst based, not Core based.

Nope, it's Core 2 based. It's pretty much almost the same as Conroe, but has dual-processor options, as well as a faster FSB. I'm pretty sure it's a different socket too.

I didnt know that, that makes 3ghz a LOT more impressive.

Yup . 3GHz x 4 = kick-ass performance.

 

[homercles337]

10:02 am apple does its retarded comparison of OSX to win3.2--awwww what a cute ad campaign. :disgust:

 

[Yanagi]

Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
macs blow up

And dell computers doesnt blow up? sony Ericsson phones doesnt blow up?

I and many others will gladly link you to these facts.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: MaxDepth
yes, but will it run Linux?

text

 

[FreshPrince]

I didnt' read the entire so I don't know if this has been addressed yet...

but if you go on Apple's main site, it shows that it's a Quad Xeon, which impressed the heck out of me.

But then it's actually dual, dual core, which makes it quad core not quad xeon! :|

damn apple and their lies again!

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: Yanagi

Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
macs blow up

And dell computers doesnt blow up? sony Ericsson phones doesnt blow up?

I and many others will gladly link you to these facts.

Your not doing any favors for your argument with that grammer

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
I didnt' read the entire so I don't know if this has been addressed yet...

but if you go on Apple's main site, it shows that it's a Quad Xeon, which impressed the heck out of me.

But then it's actually dual, dual core, which makes it quad core not quad xeon! :|

damn apple and their lies again!

Technically, it can be considered a Quad Xeon, since there are quad cores. What benefits are there in having quad-single processors over dual-dual processors? I'm not trying to be rude, I just really don't know the answer.

 

[FreshPrince]

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
I didnt' read the entire so I don't know if this has been addressed yet...

but if you go on Apple's main site, it shows that it's a Quad Xeon, which impressed the heck out of me.

But then it's actually dual, dual core, which makes it quad core not quad xeon! :|

damn apple and their lies again!

Technically, it can be considered a Quad Xeon, since there are quad cores. What benefits are there in having quad-single processors over dual-dual processors? I'm not trying to be rude, I just really don't know the answer.

because I thought it was Quad woodcrest (8 cores)...which made the little freshprince move a bit

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
I didnt' read the entire so I don't know if this has been addressed yet...

but if you go on Apple's main site, it shows that it's a Quad Xeon, which impressed the heck out of me.

But then it's actually dual, dual core, which makes it quad core not quad xeon! :|

damn apple and their lies again!

Technically, it can be considered a Quad Xeon, since there are quad cores. What benefits are there in having quad-single processors over dual-dual processors? I'm not trying to be rude, I just really don't know the answer.

because I thought it was Quad woodcrest (8 cores)...which made the little freshprince move a bit

Ah .

 

[UNCjigga]

Well Apple definately has a few holes in their desktop lineup when it comes to consumer machines. I don't see anyone buying the Mac Pro unless they are developers, professionals or A/V hobbyists. But the iMac is only an entry-level consumer machine, and the mini is little more than a paperweight until Apple replaces it with a real HTPC.

So what does Apple have instore for the mid-level computer user? Will they ignore this market, since gamers won't bother buying a Mac in the first place? I think they can succeed with a $1000-$1500 computer featuring Core 2 Duo and NO monitor--instead giving you a DVI port and an HDMI port to hook it up to a monitor or HDTV of your choice. Maybe if they get some game developers to port over to OS X (perhaps Intel-only binaries) that would help too.