New Mac: Overkill
 

http://www.apple.com/macpro/

Read the specs. Holy shit. That must be some seriously killer hardware.

I wish I could afford it. Lol.

Oh well... for now I would rather get my team a couple of dual-core intel iMacs :pimp

they using intel chip.... i will go for PC....

Oh shit yeah!1!

that looks pretty fucking good :thumbsup

whats the price.. the store won't load for me :(

2500 with a 1 gig of of ram and a 250 gig serial drive. for that much I could build a omg pc

configured to my specs...

Subtotal Please note that your subtotal does not include sales tax or rebates. $16,834.00

Find out how to get your order for $398.00 per month with an Apple Credit Account.


hah.

ouch, ok thats a little insane.

wow looks impressive

Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon "Woodcrest" processors

4MB shared L2 cache per processor

1.33GHz dual independent frontside buses

1GB memory (667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC)

NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory

250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive1

16x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVDhahaha177;RW/CD-RW)

$2,499.00

Only thing overkill is the price

Looks like mine.... on the outside!

Hmm, is it really extraordinary specs? Personally I prever AMD64 X2 instead of Intel Dual-Core.

I think I may buy it, just because I adore MacOSX.

so it's basically a pc.

Get over it mac addicts. It's no better than a clone.

nice

Mr. Romance

haha, I don't think you need 16 gigs of ram. :winkwink:

As powerful as the laptops are now a days I don't see the need to go for this one unless you are doing some extreme Video High Def editing as your primary job.

sure i do...
lol

i only got 4 now..

lmao, soon all mac will have going for it is a shiny case. Looking more and more like a PC everyday. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Sorry guys, I'm a PC user too, but there's no PC right now that can have 16GB of RAM, and 2 dual-core xeon woodcrest's. (2 dual core 64-bit processors).

You get what you paid for, simple as that. Although the price really is overkill though. Apparently Dell has something similar in spec, but sells for $900 more.

However, if you get one of these and aren't into some serious video production work, then you're literally just pissing away your money. This thing is way too powerful for 99% of the work out there.

It's just impressive. That's all there is to it.

Oh, and Leopard looks great. An OS that fully utilizes multiple cores, and can run both 32 and 64-bit applications natively, without any software/hardware changes.

Fully specced macpro = overkill

Mac leopard OS = kick ass

Idiot PC users that never spent more than 5 minutes on OS X and talk like they actually know anything about a Mac just by looking at the pictures.

Oh, it's a grey box, more like a PC every day. Retards.

looking good, a bit overpriced though:disgust

I have both WinXP and MacOSX Tiger on a same PC (AMD64X2). Can't say I prefer to work under MacOSX however...

That thing is a fucking beast! I LOVE it!!!

I'm ordering two :frenchman

Here's that price thing I was talking about...

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/5773/dsc0435bu2.jpg

Funny how mac used to be held with such regard to stability and speed, now they're running a regular ass pc architecture. I believe this system is totally weak, anyone willing to buy one to benchmark it against my pc?

Dualcore Dual Opterons
16gb ddr 400
Nvidia Quadro FX4000 or BFG 7950
Fibre Channel Harddrives + PCIX FBCHN Controller

:) my thing is a fucking beast, You'll LOVE it

nice sig :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

they really price themselves out of the market.

Cool. What's the OS though? Can it actually USE your dualcore opterons? ;)

If it's Window's or Linux, it can't. You're only getting 60% of your dualcore's power. ;)

I'm not a mac lover, but their OS is definitely praise worthy.

AAK: Cheers mate. I just got annoyed because my sig disappeared. Lol.

bvds: What market? the casual consumer market? This thing definitely isn't for regular consumers. See the photo I posted. That's the price of the base mac vs a base dell of similar spec.

Yes. I know, you can buy parts of a PC and spec it up to. It's the same banana with the macpro. My mate owns a powermac and bought it base spec, then bought all the other upgrades (HDD, RAM, etc.) on newegg.com and other similar sites, and saved a bundle.

Except that unlike a PC, he's got a kick-ass OS.

It's the same deal with PC's. If you buy from a company, you'll get a price with the company's profit margin on it, plus assembly costs.

Hmmm, that's weird, cuz it's $1K cheaper than the competing PC... idiots, you all are depleting our Ozone by talking out your asses so damn much.

Expensive computers aren't for everyone. They are only for those who can afford them.

the look is great. Very stylish.

I build my own so I get a lot of bang for my buck.

yeah but microsoft sucks :P

You do realize macos is built off the freebsd kernel. Righttt? freebsd ftw.

i will have Mac wet dreams tonight.

there goes powerpc for good

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh
Where the hell do you get your info from?

There's no such thing as too much computer, unless you count the Terminator movies and the Matrix

It's actually still obsolete. Xeon processors and only 667 FSB. Everyone hoped Apple was going to go Core 2 Duo and 1000 FSB.

Very sweet! I am ordering a couple right now.

Mitch

If I can find the article, I would link it to you. IIRC, it was MS themselves who said that the current OS (WinXP) cannot fully utilize multi-core setups, and Vista apprently isn't geared to do so either.

Also, IIRC as well, there aren't any major 3rd party apps (at least in the design industry) currently available that natively run on multi-core setups.

Same issue with Mac anyway. Mac's OS is setup to utilize 8 cores, but there aren't any 3rd party apps available that can do the same.

Only diff is that Windows cannot utilize mutli-core setups properly, if at all. The software itself doesn't "know" how to properly and efficiently distribute the tasks between the processors, hence the waste in power.

Keep in mind that the core of WinXP was written way before dual-core processors were made, that's why it's no surprise. What's worrying is that Vista apparently isn't going to be much of a leap either. So even if you have a quad-core setup, you'll still be wasting as much as 30-40% of your hardware's power, because Vista cannot allocate tasks efficiently.

Whereas, Mac's Tiger and Leopard OS's can.

Keep in mind, if you look at my sig, I'm on a very well-spec'd winXP PC. I'm not biased at all, I've simply been reading up a lot on what hardware my team should be investing in.

...and at the moment, it's Mac 1, Win 0. :pimp

Sorry, I need to correct my grammar:

3rd party apps do run ON multi-core setups, but because their code isn't native to multi-core setups, they cannot fully utilize the hardware, whether it be Windows, Mac, or Linux.

I'll wait for the new multi-core friendly Adobe/Macromedia software to come out, then let's see which company is going to get our money. :pimp

All of the current Macs seem to be using Intel motherboards. It looks like this is a slight variation of one of the Intel server boards (http://www.intel.com/design/servers/...af2/index.htm).

You could put it together yourself for far less.

I do agree tho that OSX is far superior to XP or Vista.

Ya know cowboy, you really love clamoring around about how Windows Vista won?t be natively optimized for dual core. In fact, you said basically the same thing in another apple thread:



I can find no evidence to support that MS said that about Vista, nor do any tests completed by beta testers seem to indicate that; in fact I find the absolute opposite in the tests that have been performed. Every indication appears, especially considering the steep system requirements that Windows Vista will require, that it will natively be optimized to handle dual-core chips. In fact it looks to be easily scalable and will be able to four and even eight-core chips in the future (keep in mind that?s probably two years off at a minimum).

Windows Vista still has a good bit of work to do and it looks like some of the key features I was really looking forward to won?t be there, at least not at launch (no wireless usb, no PC-2-PC sync), though dual-core optimization clearly isn?t one of them. Also? since there are going to be so many flavors of Vista, I don?t know if they won?t have wireless usb + other features ready exclusively for the ?ultimate? edition or premium, etc. We?ll just have to wait and see.

Technology is advancing so fast now. I remember when everyone thought the IBM PC XT had so much power with 640K of ram and its masive 10MB HD.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Ahhh, those were the early days . . .

http://www.mainieri.it/WEB/images/St...T_IMG_0502.jpg

I've been playing with the woodcrests under linux for a few months now, absolutely rockin'. I'll be buying at least 1 of these, probably 2, next week.

No? just look at the build quality.. i know macs for 20 years now and their hardware has always been so much better in build quality..
For that alone i'll am ok to pay more..
But i agree, the performance is probably same as PC anyway.. nothing new there.. well for Apple it is :-)

Would be interesting to know what the same hardware would cost if you buil done yourself with clone parts.. probably much less