The reason the higher end Pros would use the two sockets CPUs is to get more cores.
The current E5 (V1) single socket CPUs top out at 6 cores, so there probably isn’t a 10 or 12 core single socket E5 V2 chip coming. So to get that you’ll have to use one of the two socket (capable) CPUs. I agree, they won’t be putting two sockets in the Pro.
That CPU-World story said that the one and two socket CPUs use the same chipset.
Depending on where in the product cycle you were, the Xeon based pros were quite price competitive between them and similarly specced out workstations from HP or Dell from what I remember hearing. Pretty sure Ars did a thing about them a while back, but of course I can’t find it to save my life.
That assumes, of course, that one would go to HP or Dell for their computer. I build my own desktop/server/workstation machines to my own specs using the components that best suit my needs. I honestly can’t see why anyone with a serious need for massive number crunching power would not have the bit of tech savvy needed to build their own machine. Do that and you know exactly what is there and how it was built and you can be sure that you won’t be ripped off for a $200 cooling fan or other proprietary parts if the machine should fail. I’ve been building systems since the mid-70s and haven’t regretted it yet.
Every new Apple product people predict it will be dead on arrival. It hasn’t been true in a long time. Walk through professional graphics houses or video production houses and you will see Macs everywhere and in abundance. Why? because these people have no sense? I doubt it.
The cube had a fatal flaw that destroyed a perfectly good product. Apple learned from that. How many other companies can make that simple claim?
As someone who has helped administer a couple of computer labs I don’t envy the idea of having to be responsible for reliably maintaining a network of homebuilt machines. Maybe it would be a simple affair for someone who’s really in to that sort of thing, but most Mac Pro users get those machines for a specific purpose (i.e. video editing or high-end graphics work) and are more interested in straightforward setup and reliable performance than most-cpu-for-their-buck.
When I bought my PowerMac G4 more than ten years ago, it cost me on the order of $1500–the bare machine plus memory and other miscellaneous upgrades…
There was a comparable iMac, with somewhat similar specs, but it wasn’t expandable. In fact the video chipset was slightly weaker/
After apple introduced the Mac Pro-- that was it. No more consumer level expandable machines. If you didn’t have at least $2500, the iMac was the machine for you.
Apple products don’t come in “not expensive”.
Trashcans are stylish now?
Who do you think gets more action: R2-D2 or the Gonk droid?
If the new Mac Pros are significantly more expensive than the old/current ones (before even factoring in the various externals, like storage, I’ll also have to buy), I’m putting the five video editors at work in a cage to fight it out. Winner gets a new Mac Pro, the rest get Core i7 iMacs.
But the last Mac Pro model I bought, the 12-core one, is still $3,800 retail so it’s very possible for a new Mac Pro to be faster but still cheaper than that. The current entry level model, the quad core, is kind of pointless. It’s “only” $2,500 but there are not just iMacs but MacBook Pros and Mac minis that can outperform it.
Let’s put it this way…
If you need a Mac Pro for your work, then you can afford a Mac Pro for your work.
Otherwise, you need to seriously evaluate how much you’re charging for your services.
Since when have Macs of any flavor ever been a leader in the price/performance area? It has always been possible, easy even, to build a machine which would outperform the top-end Apple machines at a lower price.
That’s untrue. I’ll just show one example of many:
http://boingboing.net/2011/10/13/asus-zenbook.html#comment-334149134?
(scroll up to the post at 10/13/2011 05:23 PM if discus shits on you)
What people often do is build a sub-par machine at a slightly cheaper price or a vastly sub-par machine at a vastly cheaper price. The problem is too many PC people (disclaimer: I use both PC and Mac) ignore too many of the DETAILS of the Mac specs running Mac OS X and almost all the externalities of time/money added when fitzing with a PC running Windows.
There are certainly instances when you get better raw performance from a cheaper machine, but there’s very often another price to be paid in other areas. But, it really depends on the specific Mac model versus what you’re using a computer for, etc. For example, I wouldn’t recommend a Mac for a pure gaming computer depending on which games, etc.
It just looks like the Mac version of Adobe CS/CC is back to being a generation ahead of the Windows version in some of the tools.
Ever since I think around the mid 2000’s, they flip-flop over time.
Apple products don’t come in “not expensive”.
Not always true…
http://boingboing.net/2011/10/13/asus-zenbook.html#comment-334149134?
(scroll up to the post at 10/13/2011 05:23 PM if discus shits on you)
Or, if you mean cheap and shitty… no, they don’t do that.
Huh. That design is pretty neat. It looks just like I remember the creator of the CRAY super computer describing a future generation in the mid-90s.
“WHY does it have to look like a hardcore buttplug, Mommy?!”
Looks like an Edison phonograph record to me.
I’ve been building systems since the mid-70s and haven’t regretted it yet.
What type of work do you do with your computers and what have you compared them with?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
