6 ms·

Ars reviews the 12-core Mac Pro. Worth it for the intro image alone

39 points by quux 16y ago

S_A_P 16y ago
My "base" early 2008 mac pro is still fast enough that I havent felt a need to upgrade. It really is the first 5+ year PC that I think I have purchased... I think the expense can be justified in those terms...
- superjared 16y ago
  I'll agree with you here. I bought my wife a Mac Pro the same time I built myself a PC. I paid about 1/3 for the PC and it feels really dated. Her Mac Pro, meanwhile, is still incredibly fast. It plays SC2 on max settings without slogging while my PC slogs on Medium (and enough Marines running around).
  - Psyonic 16y ago
    But you paid 1/3 for it... If you had paid the same for a PC, I can pretty much guarantee you'd be getting better performance on the PC. Mac's are nice, but gaming isn't their specialty.
    - superjared 16y ago
      That shows the perception between quality, though. So many people fight the fight with regard to price -- which I did, and failed. Now I have a PC which isn't really upgradeable because the CPU Socket (AM2+) and RAM-type (DDR2) are obsolete.
      - jdeeny 16y ago
        As far as I know, Phenom II processors are backwards compatible with AM2+ sockets [1]. And they work with DDR2 when in an AM2+ socket. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenom_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenom_II
      - Psyonic 16y ago
        True, the perception is probably more skewed than reality. For gaming, PC's are still definitely the way to go, but Mac's aren't quite as marked up as most people think. They do use quality parts.
        riffic 16y ago
        Apostrophes indicate possession, not pluralization.
      - ciupicri 16y ago
        Why didn't you use an Intel platform, just as Apple does?
  - psadauskas 16y ago
    You got screwed on the PC, too. I bought parts for mine about the same time (March 08) for a total of about $600, and it plays SC2 on max detail with no issues at all.
    - superjared 16y ago
      You're probably right. I paid $800 in Nov '08.
  - jbarham 16y ago
    Been a while since you re-installed Windows?
- jbrennan 16y ago
  Same. In fact, I'm still rocking a Rev A Mac Pro (c. Aug 2006). Aside from adding a bunch more memory after market, the machine is incredibly capable to this day. I'm considering upgrading the video card in a few years, but I'm expecting to get at least 3 more years out of it before even considering upgrading to a new machine.
- someone_here 16y ago
  My "base" inspiron 640m bought in 2006 is still fast enough that I haven't felt the need to upgrade either. Displays 720p video, boots in 20 seconds, and I just purchased a replacement Inspiron 640m for 150$.
quux 16y ago
Credit to John Siracusa for the title of this post.
- sesqu 16y ago
  The intro image alone was not worth it. Please don't copy linkbait.
sahillavingia 16y ago
While I love the reviews, I just wanted to point this awesome page out, it's my go-to page soon after a new Mac's release: http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/ http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/
hugh3 16y ago
Who actually buys these? I was buying myself a new work machine last week, and wound up going for the 27" iMac since I really couldn't think of any possible justification for the Mac Pro. The price gap is really quite significant, for what doesn't seem to be much of a gain in performance.
- quux 16y ago
  Well, the reviewer seems to be putting it to good use in his video production/3d effects job.
- maxawaytoolong 16y ago
  I bought one. This post by Marco Arment explains it better than me: http://www.marco.org/868606627 http://www.marco.org/868606627
- gamble 16y ago
  People who need to run OSX and need multiple cores and lots of RAM or support for hardware expansion cards. Think high-end RAID cards, graphics cards, specialized AV cards, etc. If you don't know you need it, the Mac Pro was not built for you.
- petercooper 16y ago
  I bought one in 2008 because a Mac Pro with 30" ACD was my "dream machine" and I had the money. A bit like buying a stupidly overpriced dream car, I guess. Turns out, I hardly used any of the power and now it sits unused (for the past year) and I'm more than happy with a more practical 27" iMac that actually fits in my lounge..
- nek4life 16y ago
  I bought the 2010 3.2 Quad for the following reasons: * I can't stand glossy monitors they give me a headache. * All-in-one equipment is like writing a huge multipurpose function, one part breaks the whole thing is junk or very expensive to repair. * Expandability, I plan on having this machine for a while. * Lower priced after market components versus notebook sized components.
zdw 16y ago
Fundamental reason: Apple doesn't release old, bottom of the barrel, price compromised junk. Go find a laptop that compares, feature to feature, with a MacBook Pro. Once you're totally frustrated at being unable to find IPS displays, firewire 800, optical digital out, and the same weight target, I can guarantee that the comparable models will be about the same price points. That said, if all you want to do is play SC2 on a cheap 18 bit display and don't need the features mentioned above, go for it. That all said, Apple could and should put better GPU's and pay more attention to game developers than they currently do.
- simonsarris 16y ago
  > Fundamental reason: Apple doesn't release old, bottom of the barrel, price compromised junk. I'm not so sure you can make this sweeping claim with the state of their GPU choices. I compared the MacBook Pro to the HP Envy when it was possibly the worst time to buy it[1] as well as the best time to possibly buy it[2], and both times the MacBook Pro had a graphics card that was shamefully outdated. Not only did they sell more-than-two-year-old hardware, they charged the same price for it as the hardware refresh they sold the next day. Before the refresh the MacBook Pro had a 2-year old video chipset. Even now, the Pro's video card cannot do better than DirectX/OpenGL 10.1/2.1. They still use the tagline "Next-generation NVIDIA graphics" on their page, which seems a little misleading. Also, what MacBook Pro has an IPS display? I couldn't find any version with one. They do have an excellent range of ports, though. [1] http://simonsarris.com/blog/19-mac-envy http://simonsarris.com/blog/19-mac-envy [2] http://simonsarris.com/blog/22-mac-envy-2 http://simonsarris.com/blog/22-mac-envy-2
  - nvoorhies 16y ago
    The GPU capabilities are gated by Apple's software, it seems. The windows drivers for the same card are quite happy with OpenGL 3.2 or thereabouts. I'd bet that the lack of internal use of fancier GPU features and a push towards using OpenCL all over has influenced both the choice of GPU and the roadmap for exposing hardware capabilities greatly. How much of the delay in supporting the latest greatest features is a reluctance to support multiple codepaths for vendor extensions to OpenGL and how much is a lack of manpower is an interesting question, I think.

39 points by quux 16y ago

S_A_P 16y ago

My "base" early 2008 mac pro is still fast enough that I havent felt a need to upgrade. It really is the first 5+ year PC that I think I have purchased... I think the expense can be justified in those terms...

superjared 16y ago
I'll agree with you here. I bought my wife a Mac Pro the same time I built myself a PC. I paid about 1/3 for the PC and it feels really dated. Her Mac Pro, meanwhile, is still incredibly fast. It plays SC2 on max settings without slogging while my PC slogs on Medium (and enough Marines running around).
- Psyonic 16y ago
  But you paid 1/3 for it... If you had paid the same for a PC, I can pretty much guarantee you'd be getting better performance on the PC. Mac's are nice, but gaming isn't their specialty.
  - superjared 16y ago
    That shows the perception between quality, though. So many people fight the fight with regard to price -- which I did, and failed. Now I have a PC which isn't really upgradeable because the CPU Socket (AM2+) and RAM-type (DDR2) are obsolete.
    - jdeeny 16y ago
      As far as I know, Phenom II processors are backwards compatible with AM2+ sockets [1]. And they work with DDR2 when in an AM2+ socket. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenom_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenom_II
    - Psyonic 16y ago
      True, the perception is probably more skewed than reality. For gaming, PC's are still definitely the way to go, but Mac's aren't quite as marked up as most people think. They do use quality parts.
      - riffic 16y ago
        Apostrophes indicate possession, not pluralization.
    - ciupicri 16y ago
      Why didn't you use an Intel platform, just as Apple does?
- psadauskas 16y ago
  You got screwed on the PC, too. I bought parts for mine about the same time (March 08) for a total of about $600, and it plays SC2 on max detail with no issues at all.
  - superjared 16y ago
    You're probably right. I paid $800 in Nov '08.
- jbarham 16y ago
  Been a while since you re-installed Windows?
jbrennan 16y ago
Same. In fact, I'm still rocking a Rev A Mac Pro (c. Aug 2006). Aside from adding a bunch more memory after market, the machine is incredibly capable to this day. I'm considering upgrading the video card in a few years, but I'm expecting to get at least 3 more years out of it before even considering upgrading to a new machine.
someone_here 16y ago
My "base" inspiron 640m bought in 2006 is still fast enough that I haven't felt the need to upgrade either. Displays 720p video, boots in 20 seconds, and I just purchased a replacement Inspiron 640m for 150$.

quux 16y ago

Credit to John Siracusa for the title of this post.

sesqu 16y ago
The intro image alone was not worth it. Please don't copy linkbait.

sahillavingia 16y ago

While I love the reviews, I just wanted to point this awesome page out, it's my go-to page soon after a new Mac's release: http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/ http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/

hugh3 16y ago

Who actually buys these? I was buying myself a new work machine last week, and wound up going for the 27" iMac since I really couldn't think of any possible justification for the Mac Pro. The price gap is really quite significant, for what doesn't seem to be much of a gain in performance.

quux 16y ago
Well, the reviewer seems to be putting it to good use in his video production/3d effects job.
maxawaytoolong 16y ago
I bought one. This post by Marco Arment explains it better than me: http://www.marco.org/868606627 http://www.marco.org/868606627
gamble 16y ago
People who need to run OSX and need multiple cores and lots of RAM or support for hardware expansion cards. Think high-end RAID cards, graphics cards, specialized AV cards, etc. If you don't know you need it, the Mac Pro was not built for you.
petercooper 16y ago
I bought one in 2008 because a Mac Pro with 30" ACD was my "dream machine" and I had the money. A bit like buying a stupidly overpriced dream car, I guess. Turns out, I hardly used any of the power and now it sits unused (for the past year) and I'm more than happy with a more practical 27" iMac that actually fits in my lounge..
nek4life 16y ago
I bought the 2010 3.2 Quad for the following reasons: * I can't stand glossy monitors they give me a headache. * All-in-one equipment is like writing a huge multipurpose function, one part breaks the whole thing is junk or very expensive to repair. * Expandability, I plan on having this machine for a while. * Lower priced after market components versus notebook sized components.

zdw 16y ago

Fundamental reason: Apple doesn't release old, bottom of the barrel, price compromised junk. Go find a laptop that compares, feature to feature, with a MacBook Pro. Once you're totally frustrated at being unable to find IPS displays, firewire 800, optical digital out, and the same weight target, I can guarantee that the comparable models will be about the same price points. That said, if all you want to do is play SC2 on a cheap 18 bit display and don't need the features mentioned above, go for it. That all said, Apple could and should put better GPU's and pay more attention to game developers than they currently do.

simonsarris 16y ago
> Fundamental reason: Apple doesn't release old, bottom of the barrel, price compromised junk. I'm not so sure you can make this sweeping claim with the state of their GPU choices. I compared the MacBook Pro to the HP Envy when it was possibly the worst time to buy it[1] as well as the best time to possibly buy it[2], and both times the MacBook Pro had a graphics card that was shamefully outdated. Not only did they sell more-than-two-year-old hardware, they charged the same price for it as the hardware refresh they sold the next day. Before the refresh the MacBook Pro had a 2-year old video chipset. Even now, the Pro's video card cannot do better than DirectX/OpenGL 10.1/2.1. They still use the tagline "Next-generation NVIDIA graphics" on their page, which seems a little misleading. Also, what MacBook Pro has an IPS display? I couldn't find any version with one. They do have an excellent range of ports, though. [1] http://simonsarris.com/blog/19-mac-envy http://simonsarris.com/blog/19-mac-envy [2] http://simonsarris.com/blog/22-mac-envy-2 http://simonsarris.com/blog/22-mac-envy-2
- nvoorhies 16y ago
  The GPU capabilities are gated by Apple's software, it seems. The windows drivers for the same card are quite happy with OpenGL 3.2 or thereabouts. I'd bet that the lack of internal use of fancier GPU features and a push towards using OpenCL all over has influenced both the choice of GPU and the roadmap for exposing hardware capabilities greatly. How much of the delay in supporting the latest greatest features is a reluctance to support multiple codepaths for vendor extensions to OpenGL and how much is a lack of manpower is an interesting question, I think.