Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: mac, pro, imac | Themes: Laptops and Notebooks, Desktop Computers, Business
8. Analysis Of The 2007 Mac Pro
The 2007 Mac Pro handles two dual- or quad-core processors, allowing for up to eight processing cores. It’s capable, with the right budget, of being a monster of a machine. The default configuration ships with two Intel 2.66 GHz dual core Xeon processors, making the default configuration Apple’s only entry, but a very solid entry, into the 2007 quad-core marketplace.
The 1.33 GHz, 64-bit dual independent frontside buses are certainly eye catching. This is well above the FSB we’ve come to expect from the Mac Mini and iMac models; it matches the FSB of the fastest running PCs, and provides a separate FSB for each processor. Thus, a Mac Pro with two CPUs, each running with dual cores, would have better FSB access than a PC running a single quad core CPU, since the four cores in the Mac Pro CPUs are being fed by two separate, independent front side buses.
Apple has had the foresight here to package the RAM as two identical sticks instead of as a single stick, allowing it to run in dual-channel mode. But once again, there is a red flag in the statistics: Apple’s highest-end workstation, the cream of the crop, the machine that Apple will sell to print houses and high-resolution photographers and video editors and 3D animators and gamers... is shipping with only 1 GB of RAM.
Apple’s highest-end computer also ships with a curious default hard drive selection: a drive with 250 GB of storage, which has the same capacity as the drive that ships with the most inexpensive of Apple’s iMacs. Once again, it’s hard to figure out exactly what Apple is thinking here. Surely, just about anyone spending $2,500 on a new computer will want more than 250 GB of storage. In fact, they will expect more than 250 GB of storage. Yes, you can add a larger hard drive, but for $2,500, shouldn’t you get a larger hard drive without having to spend more money?
Another curiosity is that, although you can take the 24" iMac drive up to 1 Terabyte, the Mac Pro’s drives can only go as high as 750 GB. That makes no sense, and Apple’s Mac Pro site provides no explanation. Perhaps the issue is linked to a limitation in either Apple’s optional RAID hardware ($999) or optional Xserve RAID Fibre Channel Card ($599 or $999) (see previous page for details on both cards). In any case, a 750 GB hard drive limitation is hardly desirable in any computer, particularly a prominent manufacturer’s high-end model.
The Mac Pro ships with a faster CD/DVD writer than any of the other desktop Macs (16x DVD±R, 8x DVD±R DL, 32x CD-R, 24x CD-RW). However, the drive still doesn’t quite match up to PC speed standards, doesn’t support DVD-RAM and doesn’t provide an option for LightScribe support. You might expect Apple’s Mac Pro, at the very least, to ship with two optical drives, to make the process of disk copying and archiving faster and easier. But, once again, you’d be expecting too much. This 16x "SuperDrive" ships as the sole optical drive in Apple’s highest-end system.
For all of the Mac Pro’s faults, perhaps the most surprising is Apple’s choice of a graphics card. Apple has chosen as the graphics card for its default configuration: the Nvidia GeForce 7300 GT with 256 MB of GDDR2 SDRAM.
Yes, I said "7300 GT", "256 MB" and "GDDR2". Those weren’t typos. It’s a great card, or at least it was a great card, 16 months ago, when it was released. Since then, according to Wikipedia’s tracking of Nvidia card releases, and Nvidia’s GeForce 7 and GeForce 8 web pages, at least 24 Nvidia graphics cards have been released:
GeForce 7300 GT (GDDR3)
GeForce 7600 GS
GeForce 7600 GT
GeForce 7800 GS
GeForce 7800 GT
GeForce 7800 GTX
GeForce 7800 GTX 512 MB
GeForce 7900 GS
GeForce 7900 GT
GeForce 7900 GTX
GeForce 7900 GTO
GeForce 7900 GX2
GeForce 7950 GT
GeForce 7950 GX2
GeForce 8300 GS
GeForce 8400 GS
GeForce 8500 GT
GeForce 8600 GT
GeForce 8600 GTS
GeForce 8600 GTS 512 MB
GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB
GeForce 8800 GTS 640 MB
GeForce 8800 GTX
GeForce 8800 Ultra
In a computer that is marketed to graphics professionals, in a computer that is supposed to be legitimizing the Mac as a valid gaming platform, in a computer with a price tag of $2,500, in a computer that bears the word "Pro" in it name, it is incomprehensible that Apple could include in said computer an outdated component that is, at this point in time, little more than a consumer-grade video card.
The remaining components of the Mac Pro are unremarkable, other than to note that there are no ports for external SATA on the Mac Pro, and that Airport wireless networking and Bluetooth cost an additional $79 with the Mac Pro. However, these are standard features in the "non-Pro" Mac Minis and iMacs.
- Previous page Apple's Top-Of-The-Line Desktop: The...
- Next page Where Apple Shines
It is a pro system and as such no mainstream graphics card should do the bussiness.
For 2d graphics a 7300 is no worse than a 8800, and for 3d a 8800 is no better than a quadro FX.
I see your point but try thinking like a pro when you review such a system.
Of course that doesn't change your "over-priced" conclusion.
What really kills me is that when you look at any of these "Mac comparisons" then there is a gigantic hole in the lineup because Apple doesn't make a basic tower system. Some people don't need a $3000 quad core system and don't want an integrated monitor glued on an un-upgradeable system.
I've been in the market for a $1000 "Mac Desktop" for several months but in the end just gave up and reluctantly got a nice cheap Dell. I would have definitely preferred a Mac but if they refuse to make an "ordinary" product for us "ordinary" people then I'll throw my money elsewhere.
BTW, for less than $600 this is what I got from Dell C2D/2GB/250GB/DVDRW/x1300/22"LCD = $600. What's odd is that Apple would easily charge $1100 for these specs so people should really quit making fun of PC's because if Apple ruled the world then we'd all be broke.
I agree with mini-boss totally.I can either build or buy a Dell Desktop for half the price of any Mac that has the same specs.I recently built a PC for under $500 that can play any game out there on the highest settings. I am looking for performance not some externally pretty machine.
miniboss-
While I totally understand your shopping method, I think its important to realize there is more to the computing experience than cheap hardware. I'd gladly pay 1200 for an iMac (2x what your dell costs) just so that I could have the iLife software and OS X. The iLife software is the best software for ordinary folks I've ever seen. Nothing touches it on any platform, including OS X. As for the OS, I guess basic file management can be had on any system, but I love the fact that I don't have to deal with virus/spyware/zombieware on my Mac. That last point alone is worth paying a measly $600. So, maybe Apple does not have the widest selection of hardware at the cheapest prices, but the actual experience of using it is worth far more than the cash you saved.
In my daily work, I use 5 machines, 2 are Macs. My home computer is a Mac.
miniboss-
While I totally understand your shopping method, I think its important to realize there is more to the computing experience than cheap hardware. I'd gladly pay 1200 for an iMac (2x what your dell costs) just so that I could have the iLife software and OS X. The iLife software is the best software for ordinary folks I've ever seen. Nothing touches it on any platform, including OS X. As for the OS, I guess basic file management can be had on any system, but I love the fact that I don't have to deal with virus/spyware/zombieware on my Mac. That last point alone is worth paying a measly $600. So, maybe Apple does not have the widest selection of hardware at the cheapest prices, but the actual experience of using it is worth far more than the cash you saved.
In my daily work, I use 5 machines, 2 are Macs. My home computer is a Mac.
I know.. I accidentally posted twice. shame the system won't allow me to erase the phantom post.
I was investigating the Mac Pro recently but couldn't bring myself to part with $2500. Instead I spent $1100 and built the following:
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Processor(2.40GHz, 4x2MB, 1066MHz FSB)
ABIT IP35-E Motherboard (P35 Express, 8GB DDR2, 1333MHz FSB)
G.Skill 4GB PC2-6400 DDR2 DIMM Dual Channel Memory
ASUS GeForce 8500GT 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 HDCP Ready Video Card
Seagate Barracuda 320GB Hard Drive(Serial ATA-300, 7,200 RPM, 16MB)
Lite-On Dual Layer DVD±RW Writer (8x DVD±R DL)
Antec SOLO Silver/Black Mini Tower (ATX, 8 Bays)
Antec EarthWatts EA-430 430W Power Supply
Acer Black 19" Widescreen LCD Monitor (19", 1440x900, 5ms)
Microsoft Business Keyboard / Mouse Combo
Windows XP Professional x64
And for an extra $200 I am considering another 4Gb of RAM and a second hard disk. All this for less than half the price of the comparable Mac Pro model. My GPU is not spectacular but I'm not a gamer and it is easily upgraded. My next endeavor is to run Leopard on one of this systems' drive partitions. I'm not too crazy about Apple's hardware either. But Tiger running on my 21" iMac G5 2.1Ghz machine has been next to flawless.
I agree with minibus. I just built a system based on the Athlon 6400+ for under $800 (core system). And as far as spending an additional $600-$1,000 for OS X, hey if you have money to burn and love OS X so much, be my guest.
On the matter of the Mac Mini: Not only it uses Intel integrated graphics, it uses *last-generation* Intel integrated graphics! In fact probably the only thing in the current Mac Mini that was changed from the first Intel Mac Mini is the processor!
On the matter of the Mac Pro: Yep, another Mac model that was not updated in any way other the processor for about 15-18 months! Only in Jan 2008 has there been a real update to the Mac Pro.
However, keep in mind that the fact that Apple owns the OS allows Apple to make special releases of Mac OS X for new Macs, and though that it is a good thing Macs don't need separate driver CDs for Mac OS X, it also may mean lag time while Apple write the drivers for the new hardware.