# 8-Core MacPro released



## ora (Apr 4, 2007)

With 2x quad-core clovertown processors, at 3Ghz. See here for details.


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Apr 4, 2007)

jesus. imagine the possibilities. I could reply the crap out of my emails, and spell check at an alarming speed  seriously, though, that is very cool and makes the Mac Pro amazingly good value. Surprised by the lack of fanfare, though. 

I notice it's only the USA & canada stores at the moment o.0


----------



## ScottW (Apr 4, 2007)

FYI - 

I priced out a system on the Apple store with the 8core upgrade, extra video card, bluetooth and modem....

Apple Store Cost: $4274
Apple Store Cost: $3932 (with EPP Discount)
Apple Store Cost: $3419 (with Developer Discount)

That is a $855 savings if your subscribe to the $500 Apple Developer program. So, you can save $355 and get 12 months of the developer program included. 

For comparison, the 4core model, only about a $500 savings.


----------



## nixgeek (Apr 4, 2007)

Wow.  I didn't think they would go with the current quad-core CPUs.  Go figure.  Just looking at the specs makes my mouth water.


----------



## fryke (Apr 4, 2007)

Hm. Let's buy eight-core Macs and run _all_ versions of Windows in Parallels. At the same time.    That being said, I've left desktop Macs behind a long time ago. I wish for MacBook and MacBook Pro news. And Leopard, of course.


----------



## Qion (Apr 4, 2007)

I want to see some real-world application besides scientific number crunching. What can these really do? Ha. 

God. Imagine the possibilities.


----------



## MacFreak (Apr 4, 2007)

I've ordered it! Restless to get one..


----------



## fryke (Apr 4, 2007)

I wonder, though... Apple's clearly shown that they can expand the line _upwards_ with this 8-core monster. But the middle-end, if there's such a thing, is left to the iMac completely. I'm still all for a low-end desktop _other_ than the Mac mini, although I sadly believe Apple thinks there's no need for one.


----------



## Qion (Apr 4, 2007)

MacFreak said:


> I've ordered it! Restless to get one..



Yeah, 'cause it looks like you really need the extra power!


----------



## MacFreak (Apr 4, 2007)

Qion said:


> Yeah, 'cause it looks like you really need the extra power!



Oh yes, for film editing!! I hate rendering and hope it will solve this problem.


----------



## ScottW (Apr 4, 2007)

Sadly, I don't need 8 cores, I really probably don't even need 4 cores, if I didn't have this nagging desire to run Parallels for linux development servers and <holding up shield> Windows. (sorry, didn't want any viruses or attacks)

I'd be best off just getting a iMac, add a second screen picking up two cheap Intel systems off Craigslist, one for linux and the other for windows. I already have a KVM DVI with 4 available connections.


----------



## Yesurbius (Apr 5, 2007)

fryke said:


> I wonder, though... Apple's clearly shown that they can expand the line _upwards_ with this 8-core monster. But the middle-end, if there's such a thing, is left to the iMac completely. I'm still all for a low-end desktop _other_ than the Mac mini, although I sadly believe Apple thinks there's no need for one.



IMHO:

Apple needs an toned down version of the Mac pro.  Swappable graphics card, memory and harddrive - but not necessary the power of a dual-cpu monster.  The Mac Pro is server-class .. they need a workstation class other than the iMac


----------



## Mikuro (Apr 5, 2007)

Just when I stopped drooling over the quad... 



fryke said:


> I'm still all for a low-end desktop _other_ than the Mac mini, although I sadly believe Apple thinks there's no need for one.


Ditto. Put the guts of a Mini in the shape of a Mac Pro and I'd be happy. All I want is a little upgradability and expandability. Oh, and a multi-piece design. All-in-one designs just don't make sense to me; one part will always die or become obsolete before the rest. Tying a $900 monitor to a non-upgradable machine just seems crazy!


----------



## Timotheos (Apr 5, 2007)

(I know its abit off topic)

But I dont understand some of these things, If a mac mini isnt good enough for you, even tho it is highly capably of most things, and you can afford a to fork out the extra for an iMac, surely you can afford to fix the screen or whatever when it dies. 
It doesnt take too much to put money away for that. 

And I dont see the point of low end MacPro. The 24' iMac is insainly good and in most situations, you wouldnt really need anything more than that. And if you do (a.k.a sientific number crunching stuff) then you obviously need a rediculously high spec machine, not something thats half arsed.

...And I really do see apples reason for not having a low spec mini mac or mac in general. If you get the lowest spec mac mini. she is still going to last you practicaly forever if your just surfing the web and check emails at home. Why sell something thats on the border line of being to slow to sell? Its like telling apple that theres no reason to make amazingly design machines, it doesnt improve speed and makes macs more expensive. Buying something that is great quality and pretty damn fast for a low enough price that will last ages sounds like a good deal to me


----------



## fryke (Apr 5, 2007)

It's not about the screen dying, rather it's about the processor becoming too old much faster than the beautiful display. See: In two years, that 24" display (not 24 feet, btw., but rather inches) would still be perfect for most uses, whereas the CPU would be less than perfect. If you could buy a cheaper Mac desktop with a nice display, you could replace parts of it or the whole machine without having to also replace the display.

All-in-ones have the typical problem of "weakest link syndrome". If there's a revolution in CPU, display or harddrive design, you have to replace _all_ of it in order to gain access to that new thing. Even replacing the optical drive is a much bigger - and more expensive - issue.
With a notebook, I accept this. It's the price I'm paying for its mobility. The iMac, however, doesn't give me that. With the iMac, you're paying this for style alone.


----------



## doemel (Apr 5, 2007)

fryke said:


> It's not about the screen dying, rather it's about the processor becoming too old much faster than the beautiful display. See: In two years, that 24" display (not 24 feet, btw., but rather inches) would still be perfect for most uses, whereas the CPU would be less than perfect. If you could buy a cheaper Mac desktop with a nice display, you could replace parts of it or the whole machine without having to also replace the display.
> 
> All-in-ones have the typical problem of "weakest link syndrome". If there's a revolution in CPU, display or harddrive design, you have to replace _all_ of it in order to gain access to that new thing. Even replacing the optical drive is a much bigger - and more expensive - issue.
> With a notebook, I accept this. It's the price I'm paying for its mobility. The iMac, however, doesn't give me that. With the iMac, you're paying this for style alone.



That's an easy one: Sell your iMac on eBay or somewhere else and get the latest model. That's what I usually do and considering how slow the prices of second hand Macs usually drop it's the best strategy. Why keep a system for 4 years if you can sell it after 2 years for over half its original price (well, that depends on what model exacly, sometimes it might be less than 1/2 the initial price) and put that money towards the latest model. That way you don't have tons of obsolete equipment taking up space plus you have the latest hardware at decent intervals. Somebody will be able and willing to use that old iMac for another 2-4 years.

Heck, take a look at the prices the old G4 Mac Minis fetch on eBay today. You'll see that their not selling that much cheaper than todays cheapest Intel Mac Mini.

Don't get me wrong though, I would welcome a mid range tower/desktop system in the line of, say the PM8100 or even just PM6100 (the PM6100 was the last non-iMac desktop I owned). Or the original grey G3 boxes to give a "more recent" example.


----------



## Timotheos (Apr 5, 2007)

fryke said:


> It's not about the screen dying, rather it's about the processor becoming too old much faster than the beautiful display. See: In two years, that 24" display (not 24 feet, btw., but rather inches) would still be perfect for most uses, whereas the CPU would be less than perfect. If you could buy a cheaper Mac desktop with a nice display, you could replace parts of it or the whole machine without having to also replace the display.
> 
> All-in-ones have the typical problem of "weakest link syndrome". If there's a revolution in CPU, display or harddrive design, you have to replace _all_ of it in order to gain access to that new thing. Even replacing the optical drive is a much bigger - and more expensive - issue.
> With a notebook, I accept this. It's the price I'm paying for its mobility. The iMac, however, doesn't give me that. With the iMac, you're paying this for style alone.



Nothing personal obviously but when you say "If you could buy a cheaper mac desktop with a nice display" I think, top of the range Mini Mac. I love the idea of "all in one computers" and equally love the idea of 'small portable computers'

I guess you cant get anything reliable in the way of all in one computing these days but apples the best you can get and unless they start making all their own hardware. I guess you cant expect too much.

I hate arguing with this stuff because I know its the complaints that push apple to create better macs but the iMacs are so damn good its not funny.


----------



## ranasta (Apr 5, 2007)

fryke said:


> I wonder, though... Apple's clearly shown that they can expand the line _upwards_ with this 8-core monster. But the middle-end, if there's such a thing, is left to the iMac completely. I'm still all for a low-end desktop _other_ than the Mac mini, although I sadly believe Apple thinks there's no need for one.



I went through the "heavy metal" stage. Give me "bang for the buck" or better yet, "cheap". My mini does everything I need (albeit, a bit slowly) and takes up very little room. Eight cores?! Good Lord.


----------



## ScottW (Apr 5, 2007)

I bought at Intel Mac Mini last year to be able to test out the Intel platform on Mac, before purchasing a new laptop or desktop system to replace my PowerBook G4 17, which was my primary system.

When I started working full-time on my Mac, I started playing around with the Intel Mac Mini more-so than I had prior. I was starting to get feel a little "left behind" on my PowerBook G4, and started using the Mac Mini. I bypassed the internal 5400 RPM drive for an external 7200, and upgraded the ram to 2GB. This machine is fine for my needs.

*However*, I can't hook 2 displays to it. That is the major downfall. I'd like to have (2) 24" displays, it drives my current 24" display just fine, but I want to add a second, and that is where the down-fall of the Mac Mini is for me. If I want two displays, I must have an iMac, and I am forced into using the display on the iMac.

Dell 24" displays are in the $650 range, which is a lot cheaper. I can buy a new Mac Mini, a 24" display, add a new external HD to it, and the system would be cheaper than buy a new iMac 24". Thats a $400-500 savings. So, to add one additional 24" monitor to my setup, I must pay a $400 surcharge for an extra video connection.

I think if Apple had a iMac configuration w/o a screen. That would be awesome. Even if you toss out the upgrade-ability factor. If your a strong "I don't do upgrades" person, rather just ebay the old system and by a new one... the expandability of a base workstation model would be great. No external FW drive adding clutter and the ability to add a second monitor or card to drive whatever device you want to drive.


----------



## chevy (Apr 5, 2007)

My 24" iMac does all I need... the only possible improvement would be a 2 disks RAID to accelerate swap.


----------



## bobw (Apr 6, 2007)

Important: Mac Pro memory and hard drive kits designed for quad-core Mac Pro computers only are not qualified for use with a Mac Pro (8-Core) computers


----------



## MacFreak (Apr 6, 2007)

I believe that MacBook Pro and iMac will have Quad Core.. Thats why MacPro lifted to 8-cores.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Apr 6, 2007)

bobw said:


> Important: Mac Pro memory and hard drive kits designed for quad-core Mac Pro computers only are not qualified for use with a Mac Pro (8-Core) computers



broken link here.


----------



## bobw (Apr 6, 2007)

Apple must have remove it quickly. If you search Apple's Techs for MacPro Memory you'll see the link.

This is what it said;



> Mac Pro (8-Core): Memory and hard drive kit compatibility
> With the release of Mac Pro (8-Core) computers, Apple has qualified additional memory and hard drive options. Apple memory and hard drive kits designed for Mac Pro (8-Core) computers are compatible with all Mac Pro computers (quad-core or 8-core).
> Important: Mac Pro memory and hard drive kits designed for quad-core Mac Pro computers only are not qualified for use with a Mac Pro (8-Core) computers.
> 
> ...


----------



## arri (Apr 9, 2007)

well, everyone is on laptops nowadays anyway. from all computers that apple sell, the majority is laptops anyway. and what's wrong with a coreduo macbook as 'the middle-model' ??

i'm working on a projhect that has to run on a mac-mini, and i'm pleasantly surprised by the power of this little sandwich-box. ok, not the best graphics etc.. but this mac-mini is already overkill for most people.
suppose i compile parts of my project about every 30 minutes or so, the rest of the time it\'s eating from it's noze playing mp3.
heavier equipment would only really make sense for people in graphics/video/3D/science or large software companies. and them i'm sure there's very few (mainstream) apps that can really utilize 8 cores.
AH! i know one, and that's called OSXwithImovieMailSafariDreamWeaveriTunesFetchOfficeetc...and more, all at the same time 
you can run your whole familiy of of just 1 machine :?

(or for the same amount of money just buy 6 mac-mini's = 12 core


----------



## MacFreak (Apr 11, 2007)

What about this new 1066mhz DDR2 for MacPro? Will it works? 

http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/04/10/crucial.1066mhz.ddr2.ram/


----------

