Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Apple Ships 8-Core MacPro

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wed Apr 04, 2007 08:52 AM
from the way-more-cores-than-the-earth dept.
ivan1024 writes "The Apple website is announcing the availability of an 8-core Mac Pro. The machine will ship with two 3.0 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5300 processors. Older models with the Dual-Core chips remain available. Base model with two 3.0 GHz Quad-Core Xeon processors start at $3997, (albeit with unacceptably minimal RAM or HD space; fully spec'd with dual 30" monitors and tons o' RAM/HD still over $10K... bummer)"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Advantage? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by martin_b1sh0p (673005) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @08:54AM (#18604083)
    Not trolling, as this does sound awesome, but in reality how many applications out there really take advantage of these nifty multi-processor computers?
    • Re:Advantage? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lumpy (12016) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @08:56AM (#18604111) Homepage
      Um video editing, composting effects, CGI, 3d rendering, etc....

      that is what hose computers are designed for. Apple pretty much owns video and TV production now.
      • by xouumalperxe (815707) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @09:13AM (#18604393)

        composting effects
        Hmmm... Didn't know macs were into manure these days.
      • by wass (72082) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @10:55AM (#18606543)
        hat is what hose computers are designed for.


        Hose computers are great, especially when you connect them up to a series of tubes.

        • Re:Advantage? (Score:5, Informative)

          by kalidasa (577403) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @09:05AM (#18604251) Journal
          The front end is usually Avid or Apple software - and the Apple software only runs on OS X, and the Avid software can run on OS X. Linux boxes are often used for rendering farms. IRIX? Didn't SGI just discontinue IRIX?
        • flint/flame/inferno/etc./etc
          ...All we ever got was a little Spark *sniff*
        • Re:a good chunk... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Lumpy (12016) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @11:23AM (#18607029) Homepage
          Most productions studios I deal with (5 in michigan and chicago) all have transitioned away from AVID to apple/Final Cut. Production speed and quality went way up, Costs went way down.

          Avid is great but they are way behind because they are not moving fast enough. If you are still shooting on antique Betacam or digiBeta I can see using Avid or a Sony Digi suite. but most are over on DV as you get damn near same as digibeta off of a good DV camera and lenses. And once you hit that DV world all that special hardware that makes avid king becomes irrelevant.

          I can replace a single Avid suite with 3 FCP suites for the same price. Kids are coming out of college with FCP experience and preference and only minimal Avid exposure and typically older avid exposure.

          I have seen guys whip out a 30 second spot from encode to final in 1/4th the time it takes on an Avid using FCP.

          don't get me wrong, I love avid, I cut my teeth on it. But it's becoming more and more a FCP world every day.
              • Re:a good chunk... (Score:5, Informative)

                by p7 (245321) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @12:17PM (#18607959)
                Sorry, bud... But if this is a design house, I hope they have someone that can spend their time sourcing parts. If it is a freelancer spec'ing out their own machine, they are doing themselves a disservice by not spending an hour looking around for alternatives. Just to point out how bad the price gouging is...

                Apple 16GB (8x2GB) FB-DIMM 667 $4499
                Newegg 16GB (8x2GB) Kingston (KVR667D2D8F5/1G) FB-DIMM 667 $2392

                Apple 750GB SATA 3GB/s $$499
                ZipZoomFly ST3750640NS 750GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s $299

                Apple Warranty 1 Year

                Seagate HD Warranty 5 Years
                Kingston Memory Lifetime Warranty

                So at the least buy a bare bones Mac Pro and add your own parts, you will save a ton.
                • by Draconix (653959) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @05:16PM (#18612869) Homepage
                  It's still gouging, but not as bad as you think. In order to keep the Mac Pro from sounding like a Jumbo Jet, Apple made its own standard for heat sinks on DDR2 667 RAM. If you get DDR2 667 with normal heat sinks, it won't be able to lose heat fast enough under normal conditions, and will have errors. This isn't FUD, I'd been planning to get a Mac Pro for weeks (just ordered one, too; dual core 3 Ghz) and studied up on the RAM. Any RAM not using the better heat sinks has been tending to cause problems in Mac Pros. If you google it, you will find plenty of accounts of RAM not up to the standard Apple set failing in Mac Pros. However, you can (as I am doing) get 3rd party RAM with adequate heat sinks for reasonably decent prices. Just look around for "Mac Pro RAM" and you'll eventually find stuff that's been tried and tested, but isn't expensive. I found a place I can get 4 GB for less than $500, so I'm happy.

                  Getting the right RAM 3rd party is a smarter buy than getting it from Apple, but make sure you get the right RAM!

                  Again, from what I've seen, _be very careful_ getting RAM for the Mac Pro. Make sure it's been thoroughly tested first and had no problems before getting any given brand, and without the proper heat sinks, it seems like you're going to get slowdowns of the RAM and dramatic increases in the use of fans in the Mac Pro. (From what I've seen, though, it's more likely to have errors than just do that, unfortunately.)

                  Then again, you could probably get away with standard heat sinks if you know how to tweak the fans to run fast enough to keep them from going wonky.
        • Re:Advantage? (Score:5, Informative)

          by spooje (582773) <{spooje} {at} {hotmail.com}> on Wednesday April 04 2007, @11:06AM (#18606737) Homepage

          Premiere? Well first off, it is available [adobe.com]for the Mac, secondly Adobe stopped making it for the Mac for a while because Premeire has always been a low-end program for prosumers and multimedia professionals.

          Only low end shops use Final Cut? So do you consider:

          The BBC

          CNN

          David Fincher

          The Washington Post

          Pixar

          Weta

          ILM small shops? Cold Mountain and Lost in Translation were cut solely on Final Cut Pro, and for compositing tools don't forget Shake is what Weta used to make the Lord of the Rings movies and King Kong.

    • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @09:07AM (#18604293)
      I would say that Apple (not Dell) finally put out a machine capable of running Vista. [dodges flying chair]
    • Playing World of WarCraft of course!

      Did you ever see how amazing WoW looks on a 30" display?

      angel'o'sphere
    • by noewun (591275) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @10:07AM (#18605483) Journal
      Are you kidding? I will finally be able to use Word, with check-spelling-as-you-type on, and not have a lag between pressing the key and the character appearing on the screen!
      • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @09:55AM (#18605195) Homepage

        As it is I have to wait several days for even small galaxy models to complete.

        Come on, it took GOD a whole week to make just this puny little planet and you complain that it takes several days to make a whole Galaxy!

        In my days, we had to ... oh never mind.

  • IIRC, Neither Dell nor HP have yet shipped duel-3GHz quad core desktop machines, which means that Apple officially makes the fastest Intel desktop PC in the world.

    As a longtime mac user, I must admit that it feels inordinately good to say that.;-)

    • by dsginter (104154) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @09:13AM (#18604379)
      duel-3GHz

      Actually, Intel hasn't yet shipped the Quattro Quad Core Core 2 Dueling Dualist Duo - that is coming later this month.

      Apple is using the Core 2 Quad in this box (which lacks the swashbuckling extensions).
      • You have it backwards.

        Intel would *love* to see an end to the Microsoft monopoly. MS has had Intel by the short and curlies for some time; MS is the reason that Intel cannot work with non-x86 CPUs, and what killed the (somewhat) competitive Itanium 2.

        Apple has demonstrated time and time again that they are willing to change architectures, buy the latest and greatest, and do not shirk at launching big expensive products at premium prices.

        You can bet that Apple pays more than Dell does on a per-cpu basis, and guess what; they can afford to, because Apple has a significantly greater margin than Dell.

        Why do you think that Intel has such excellent linux drivers cross the board? You can bet that Intel, although a MS ally, is tired of living under the Wintel shadow.
            • by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @01:12PM (#18608967) Homepage
              t seems you are under the mistaken impression that you can't drop any old modern nVidia PCI-E video card in a Mac.

              Considering I find half a kazillion posts about said video cards not working under OS X, and the few that do need to use some beta driver from here [macvidia.com] and any new graphics cards will be a hit-or-miss thing too because the PC cards lack EFI support, yes I'm under that "mistaken impression". If you got any sources to back up your claims, I'd love to see them.
  • by Penguinisto (415985) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @08:58AM (#18604163) Journal
    Even w/ the G5 series, I was able to spec' out and buy my own RAM (2GB of PC 3200) for a lot less than Apple charges per GB of their 'blessed' stuff. 2-1/2 years later, everything is chugging along just fine (I'm typing this missive on the very same machine). I'm not sure if the vidcard's BIOS has changed since the Intel switch, but I suspect that someone has already figured out if one can simply get a std. PC vidcard or not and simply go with that (you could in the G5's, but it required a BIOS flash first).

    While most Mac folks would think it anathema to do it, I've always had no probs with getting a Mac w/ only the CPU strength I want, then buffing out the hardware specs everywhere else once I got it home - saves tons of cash that way.

    /P

  • Quick Mac Buying Tip (Score:4, Informative)

    by Paulrothrock (685079) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @08:59AM (#18604171) Homepage Journal

    Never buy anything from Apple that you can't install yourself. For the Mac Pro, Apple charges $700 for 4GB (4x1GB) of RAM. You can get the same amount of RAM from DealRam [dealnews.com] for $500. The same goes for hard drives. Apple charges you $329 for a 500GB SATA drive, which you can get from NewEgg for around $200. [newegg.com] Granted, these aren't covered by your warranty, but they often have a manufacturer's warranty

    I've often though the lack of user serviceable parts in the Mac Mini was designed to sell more RAM at Apple's hugely inflated prices.

    • by carambola5 (456983) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @10:07AM (#18605493) Homepage
      Here's another tip.

      Look at Apple's "Select Developer Membership." At the base configuration, the difference between (ADC Select Membership + Mac Pro w/ discount) and (Mac Pro w/o discount) is $1... in favor of the membership. Bumping up the Mac Pro to the 8-core version yields $300 savings (ie: $800 savings - $500 membership). Plus you get everything that comes with the membership, including the Leopard Early Start Kit and two free tech support incidents.

      If you're a student, the membership price drops from $500 to $100, though you're only allowed to use the hardware discount once ever, whereas the Select Membership lets you buy hardware with the discount once per year (at a price of $500/year).
      • by tm2b (42473) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @10:01AM (#18605339) Journal

        The mini is designed like apple's DRM; it prevents the casual tinkerer from getting inside of it, voiding their warranty, then having a fit on the phone.
        Getting pretty tired of this lie. Opening the mini's case (to install memory) does not void the warranty. [macworld.com]
      • by tlhIngan (30335) <slashdot AT worf DOT net> on Wednesday April 04 2007, @10:06AM (#18605455)

        Remeber the Pros, like the XServes, take ECC RAM. No matter who you buy it from, it isn't cheap. Apple's price for the Pro isn't much more than (~$140 at this point), than decent third-party RAM. (4 1GB ECC from Crucial is $560, 2x2GB is $840) The HD's may be more comparable, but check access time, cache size, and warranty.


        Not just ECC DDR-SDRAM, but FB-DIMM. The latter's even harder to get since it's only used for Intel's Xeon line of processors (which the Mac Pro and xServe use, and any workstation or server with multiple physical CPUs (not cores)).

        When I purchased my Mac Pro, Apple's RAM was very close to the price of FB-DIMMs locally and not too much more online - it was worth it buying Apple's stuff, have it all installed and having Apple actually being forced to fix it should it cause kernel panics and stuff. Plus, Apple's RAM has larger heatsinks - I think Crucials do too (if you ask for them). I saw a memory test somewhere the revealed the memory can run hot, and you get a number of correctable ECC errors. But if your RAM has the larger Apple-recommended heatsinks on them, the ECC errors drop to zero.

        But yes, FB-DIMMs are also why the Xeon platform's memory numbers aren't that great due to their higher latency - for raw memory-intensive stuff, a regular desktop Core2 processor will run rings around a Xeon Core2, even though the latter may have much faster RAM.
  • by badfish99 (826052) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @08:59AM (#18604175)
    Since Apple have now fixed Boot Camp so that you can run Vista, this new hardware will help with the Vista performance problems.
  • by ThirdPrize (938147) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @09:22AM (#18604571) Homepage
    that would be some sort of freak of nature. I wouldn't eat it.
  • USA only? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Andy_R (114137) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @09:30AM (#18604741) Homepage Journal
    No sign of 8-core machines in the UK Apple Store [apple.com]. Just a glitch or are we going to have to wait a bit longer over here? Lets hope Apple doesn't make us wait as long for their 8-core machine as Sony did for theirs (the PS3).
    • by Paulrothrock (685079) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @09:02AM (#18604217) Homepage Journal

      Yeah, Apple's totally missing the boat. If only they made some sort of "mini" Mac for consumers, or a Mac notebook. They could call that a Mac Book or something.

      • Re:awesome machine (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jimstapleton (999106) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @09:17AM (#18604481) Journal
        Um, he was wondering what markets this targeted, not complaining that something less powerful and less expensive wasn't available. Such a response is rather nasty and uncalled for given it isn't even relevant to the gp.

        It is a reasonable question. The general answer is a lot of niche markets, but not many general markets.
        - Video/multimedia editing at real time or faster than real time
        - Raytracing/3D image generation
        - High-end data analysis (quite good for most sciences)
        - Financial/Business data analysis
      • Re:awesome machine (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MouseR (3264) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @10:10AM (#18605547) Homepage
        The OS itself is heavily multi-threaded itself. Cocoa also makes it easy to multi-thread an application (and quite frankly, even using pthreads is simple).

        The OpenGL drivers are also multi-threaded. A game I play went from ~300 FPS to 500~ FPS when they turned on OpenGL multithreading on the Intel Mac builds.
      • by Paulrothrock (685079) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @09:10AM (#18604345) Homepage Journal

        A while back some folks (Ars Technica, I think) swapped the dualies in the Mac Pro for these new quad cores and found out that it could not only see all the cores, but also utilize them. (Though they could never get it to peg the processors, even while playing 8 high-def videos on it.)

        Mac OS X automatically sees and uses as many cores or processors that it has available. Final Cut Pro, the de facto video editing app for professionals these days, can see and use all these cores.

        Now if you want to do that on the Windows side, I won't be of much assistance.

      • by woolio (927141) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @09:19AM (#18604529) Journal
        I don't see the average consumer being smart enough to lobby for multi-threaded software....?

        I don't see the average programmer experienced enough to write multi-threaded software...
      • by CatOne (655161) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @10:05AM (#18605429)
        Well it takes advantage.

        Macs have been shipping with dual CPUs since 1999. Nearly every piece of Mac software is multi-threaded in some way. And it would be pretty crappy coding practice to assume 2 CPUs when making an application "thread hot," because typically you'll just spawn as many threads as you need and let the OS deal with it.

        So I would expect many applications would use mulitple cores. The OS itself can also leverage mutiple CPUs... and given that it's typical that 75-200 applications are running at once, more CPUs will be better.

        This isn't like Windows where 99% of all desktop machines had a single CPU until last year. Nearly all games were written single-threaded until this past year... I know because in 2000 I bought a dual 733 MHz PIII machine, and it was slower for games than a single 800 MHz P3. And it cost me a LOT more :-(
    • by MidKnight (19766) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @09:42AM (#18604931)

      I just interviewed with a small growing company. Every single desktop they had were Apple..... Considering they could have had *just as good* for cheaper that did the same thing ... I think it was a very dumb and wasteful thing to do....

      I wonder, since they are a small company, how big was their IT department? I run a small S/W consulting company (me, a few subcontractors, support folks for large projects), and we use Apple for pretty much everything except when a client requires something else. We have no IT guy. We have no virus scares. We have no FAQ for how to connect to the shared NAS box.

      Sure, we could buy cheaper hardware, but then we'd have to worry about it and waste billable time dealing with the associated pain points. I can say that, for a small company, an Apple/OS X infrastructure is definitely cheaper in the long run.

    • by Danma (546476) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @09:43AM (#18604949)
      The first thing I did this morning was price a machine versus an equivalent machine from Dell and found the Mac Pro, despite having slightly faster processors (since Dell only offers 2.66GHz quad-cores) was actually a few hundred dollars cheaper. I believe that you have made the assumption that Apple is automatically more expensive, always, than their competitors when that is not always the case. In the case of the Intel-based Mac Pro machines, they have often been competitively priced against Dell etc. You should stay open minded about these things. Otherwise, you're just as guilty as Apple zealots of making blanket statements.
        • Yes, Mac Pros are cheaper than the equivalent Dell machines. However, this is practically the only case where this is true.

          This varies depending upon the release dates and whatnot, but in general, I disagree. Apple usually wins for small form factor, with the mini almost always cheaper than Dell and anyone else, and they frequently win for pro notebooks, though not always. In fact, Apple is usually a bit more expensive for the Mac Pro line and this is an anomaly. For matching the exact same hardware and ignoring installed software, the last market study I saw put Apple at 8% more expensive than Dell, but 4% cheaper than the market on average. Of course it also put Apple far and away ahead of Dell in customer support and hardware reliability which was not accounted for in the price difference.

          The sites I've seen that compare average desktops and laptops always cheat by adding extra upgrades to Dell machines to make the prices match rather than just speccing them out exactly the same and seeing what they get.

          In general, you have to add extras to Dell machines to get them to the same functionality as Apple machines. Dell mostly sells minimal machines, while Apple is committed to the midrange, with firewire, dual monitor support, etc. in everything. Realistically, Apple does not usually lose on price, they lose on lack of variety, making it harder to find exactly what you want and usually resulting in your purchasing more than you need, to get the features you do need. This is a subtly different problem.

    • by be-fan (61476) on Wednesday April 04 2007, @01:12PM (#18608975)
      An 8-core 2.67 GHz model from Dell runs $4907 with no monitor. For roughly the same price, you can get a Mac Pro with 8-cores at 3.0 GHz, 4 GB of FB-DIMM RAM (4x as much as on the Dell), 500 GB SATA disk (2x as much as on the Dell), and a pair of 7300GT graphics cards.