Mobius Rex
Registered
x
The Mac Pro is here... not so impressive?
- Thread starter guilly
- Start date
hammdesigner
Registered
I have a G4 and have been wanting to upgrade to a G5 for some time.
I was waiting on an Intel-Based version though, and It's finally Here!
I think the Machine is a complete beast even moreso than its predecessor and
would love to find the money to buy one. I might consider waiting a little while though so that they can get all the bugs worked out. 2TB HD space, 16 MB RAM possible, Dual 3 Ghz processors, what could be sweeter?
I was waiting on an Intel-Based version though, and It's finally Here!
I think the Machine is a complete beast even moreso than its predecessor and
would love to find the money to buy one. I might consider waiting a little while though so that they can get all the bugs worked out. 2TB HD space, 16 MB RAM possible, Dual 3 Ghz processors, what could be sweeter?
guilly
Too handsome to use a PC
I just expected a higher and more impressive jump, but yet I have to agree that they succeeded on creating a more powerful machine, which was not easy. However just remember that all those applications that are not Universal code will run much slowler than in G5 machines, so the full potential of the Intel processor is not fully exploded. Also, I regard this step towards 64 bits _Intel_ architecture as dangerous since I wonder if the code behind Mac OS X and its related software is properly optimised to support this potential.
It is however bizarre to find a Xeon CPU running on a desktop computer intended for home (enthusiasts) and pros. Usually Xeon processors are reserverd to Servers due to their tremendous computing capacity. That's the only way Intel seemed to be able to face the G5. And thus, the price.
How came you thought they'd make a bigger jump? Right now, I believe the Woodcrest 3 GHz _is_ the best chip they could've chosen for the highend machine. Sure, they theoretically could've put 4 dual-core processors in the machine, but I'm not sure you'd get that cheaply. 
If "1.8x better" is the problem, that rather means the quad G5 was good, not that the new Mac Pro is bad. (And it *is* still faster, isn't it.)
If "1.8x better" is the problem, that rather means the quad G5 was good, not that the new Mac Pro is bad. (And it *is* still faster, isn't it.)
plasmacutter
Registered
The case did not remain the same though, it was seriously renovated inside.. it's much better in my opinion. The price is amazing though for what you get.
I got a twin 2.7 before the g5 went quad and i'm going to stick with it for a while though, i'm still paranoid and want to see another 4 years of apple not abusing the TPMs in intel machines.
I got a twin 2.7 before the g5 went quad and i'm going to stick with it for a while though, i'm still paranoid and want to see another 4 years of apple not abusing the TPMs in intel machines.
The Xeon(not the same as the old Xeon either) is made for servers but also workstations which the MacPro is considered. Look at the comparable Dell workstations and they have the same Xeon chips in them(for more money!)