Apple releases new... everything

[PowerMac]

Yeah the overclocking feature will be just plain awesome.
I also realized my mistake that Mac Pros are actually just a bit more than the previous generation. The drastic performance gains that Apple is promising should make up for it.
Memory upgrades (for Mac Pro) are now also cheapest through Apple now, which is a change from previous generations.

if i was overcharging as much as apple was for everything else i probably would mind charging a bit less for memory either

It also helps that the new Xeon Chipsets no longer require FB-DIMMs

[sdedalus83]

@iindigo
Apple charges $50 per 2GB RAM module, whereas Newegg is charging $55 + shipping

They're charging $50 more per upgrade from 1 to 2GB.  That fourth module to get 8GB is $100.

[bloody000]

http://store.apple.com/ca/memorymodel/ME_8CR_3GEN_MACPRO
LMAO  "1066MHz DDR3"
even with ECC they are still overpriced
my mushkin DDR2's are running at 1066MHz AND have lower latency

[Nethfel]

http://store.apple.com/ca/memorymodel/ME_8CR_3GEN_MACPRO
LMAO  "1066MHz DDR3"
even with ECC they are still overpriced
my mushkin DDR2's are running at 1066MHz AND have lower latency

Remember, the new mac's are i7 based xeons, which means they (at this point since i7 only supports...) have to use DDR3 ram.  Xeon systems tend to require ECC ram, which now really limits the selection. 

After searching a bit to see if I could find ECC DDR3 ram, I was only able to find it in a 1066MHz speed.  This may be due to the fact that these new xeons are so new that most memory manufacturers haven't started developing ecc chips at the higher speeds - only time will tell.

But laughing at ECC memory is a mistake, even if it isn't bleeding edge speed - let's face it when have server and high end workstations (not gaming systems) based hardware been bleeding edge in terms of speed and using xeon processors are usually limited to high end workstations used in CAD, 3D development, video work, etc. and servers - they are not the choice of gaming system builders.

And I just looked it up on the US stores (since I don't want to do canadian conversions) between MemoryX (a memory seller, and one of the very few places I could find DDR3 ECC ram, and apple...)

http://memoryx.net/ccy.html

http://store.apple.com/us/memorymodel/ME_QUADCR_3G_MPRO

A $1.00 difference.

Not a huge overprice as you are claiming for the type of ram.

It's only overpriced when you compare it to DDR2 ram as DDR2 Ram currently is extremely cheap, especially non-ecc ram.  Also, when looking it appears that the fastest DDR2 ECC ram is 800MHz, which is only $10 - $20 (depending on brand) cheaper then the cheapest DDR3 ECC ram (of which the DDR3 ECC ram is clocked faster)

So - it's better to compare apples to apples if you'll excuse the punn - ECC to ECC ram.

Also I should note, if it's running triple channel (which I suspect it is as the base configuration is 3gigs), it's overall throughput would probably be better then your DDR2s even if they're at a lower latency.  But without benchmarks to compare triple channel DDR3 ECC @1066 vs what you have (or an ECC comparable chip) it'll be hard to know for sure.

Going just by latency - it's not a good idea as there is more to memory then just the latency - because in this case, if they are triple channel, then this system should push more data through then your dual channel 1066MHz at lower latency.

[iindigo]

Also I should note, if it's running triple channel (which I suspect it is as the base configuration is 3gigs), it's overall throughput would probably be better then your DDR2s even if they're at a lower latency.  But without benchmarks to compare triple channel DDR3 ECC @1066 vs what you have (or an ECC comparable chip) it'll be hard to know for sure.

Going just by latency - it's not a good idea as there is more to memory then just the latency - because in this case, if they are triple channel, then this system should push more data through then your dual channel 1066MHz at lower latency.

Yes, the current Mac Pro's will take advantage of triple channel if you have your RAM installed in pairs of three. The throughput is much, much better if you use triple channel; if I remember correctly, it's around 25Gb/s with triple channel but only 7Gb/s without it.

[sdedalus83]

Also I should note, if it's running triple channel (which I suspect it is as the base configuration is 3gigs), it's overall throughput would probably be better then your DDR2s even if they're at a lower latency.  But without benchmarks to compare triple channel DDR3 ECC @1066 vs what you have (or an ECC comparable chip) it'll be hard to know for sure.

Going just by latency - it's not a good idea as there is more to memory then just the latency - because in this case, if they are triple channel, then this system should push more data through then your dual channel 1066MHz at lower latency.

Apple has no information on memory configuration on their website, and their motherboards are decidedly unconventional (4 dimms per socket).  At best a four dimm configuration would run in dual channel, but even that would require one of the other sockets to be switched, so 4 dimms may mean single channel.  It's not really an issue in a single socket system since the performance difference between single and triple channel memory is only 3 or 4%.  In a dual socket server, dual and triple channel may start to mean something.

Since the X58 chipset is almost identical the the single socket Xeon version, there's absolutely no point in doing a single socket i7 Xeon system, unless you absolutely have to have ECC memory.  Nobody else is bothering with the Xeon i7 for workstations due to the ridiculous cost difference between the Xeon and Core i7 (You could build a PC with an identical configuration to the Mac Pro for less than what one 2.66Ghz i7 Xeon CPU costs.), and the negligible performance gains for anything but rendering, database servers, and application servers.

[iindigo]

So basically, if you're gonna buy a Xeon workstation of any brand, Apple or otherwise, you'd be better off to buy a dual-proc octocore model?

[Nethfel]

Apple has no information on memory configuration on their website, and their motherboards are decidedly unconventional (4 dimms per socket).  At best a four dimm configuration would run in dual channel, but even that would require one of the other sockets to be switched, so 4 dimms may mean single channel.

Yeah, I did wonder why they kept the same memory socket setup as the previous release Mac Pro - but it is possible that they will work in triple channel up to 24 gigs, and dual channel at 32 gigs ram on the system board.  There really is no point in having a base configuration of 3 gigs of ram (3x1gig chips) unless you're running triple channel.

It's not really an issue in a single socket system since the performance difference between single and triple channel memory is only 3 or 4%.  In a dual socket server, dual and triple channel may start to mean something.

That is debateable as the memory controller in i7 based processors are designed/optimised it seems for triple channel ram, which means there would be a significant improvement in a triple channel configuration when using an i7 based cpu.

see this faq on ddr3 triple channel from kingston:

http://www.valueram.com/europe/triplechannel/

Also checking some reviews at other places show triple channel ram configs with i7 chips show a significant amount of bandwidth.  1066 dual channel tops out theoretically at 17GiB/s where as tripple channel is around 24-25GiB/s (theoretical max) so having more then 1 cpu probably would not dramatically improve throughput just because it's triple channel vs dual channel.  The main benefit seems more the shifting of the memory controller to the cpu, removal of the traditional FSB bottleneck, and the i7's memory controllers specific design to work with triple channel ram configurations.

Since the X58 chipset is almost identical the the single socket Xeon version, there's absolutely no point in doing a single socket i7 Xeon system, unless you absolutely have to have ECC memory.  Nobody else is bothering with the Xeon i7 for workstations due to the ridiculous cost difference between the Xeon and Core i7 (You could build a PC with an identical configuration to the Mac Pro for less than what one 2.66Ghz i7 Xeon CPU costs.), and the negligible performance gains for anything but rendering, database servers, and application servers.

I wouldn't waste time on a single cpu mac pro - plus that is the absolute base configuration (even if the motherboards are the same where the single cpu version has 2 cpu sockets but only one populated (which is how the dell precision has done it on several of their models) - adding a second cpu to the mac is very hard - I read a site where they had swapped out 2xcpus for new ones and the disassembly of the case did not look like a lot of fun).

The Mac Pro's tho really are more targetted at high end workstations where rendering would come into play (whether it be 3D, video conversion, video manipulation, etc.) - they really aren't advertised for gaming or general casual user home use (let's face it, you can surf the net on a computer with an intel atom processor and it'll operate fine).  They more compete with the Dell Precision line (dells high end workstations for those who don't know) and the prices are not too terribly far off from each other when you create similar configs (although it's hard to be exactly the same as dell doesn't offer the new xeons or ddr3 ram).

[iindigo]

You're right in that the Mac Pro is aimed at... well... pro customers. The problem is that there's a significant chunk of people like myself who aren't pro's by definition, but still require/expect more of their machines than is offered by Apple's consumer line (iMac, MacBook, mini, etc) and thus have to jump up a notch or two and buy a Mac Pro. I really wish they'd offer a mid-range iMac without a monitor, but I know that won't happen since it'd cannibalize their iMac sales.

[Nethfel]

You're right in that the Mac Pro is aimed at... well... pro customers. The problem is that there's a significant chunk of people like myself who aren't pro's by definition, but still require/expect more of their machines than is offered by Apple's consumer line (iMac, MacBook, mini, etc) and thus have to jump up a notch or two and buy a Mac Pro. I really wish they'd offer a mid-range iMac without a monitor, but I know that won't happen since it'd cannibalize their iMac sales.

I 100% agree with you.  They really need a system inbetween, below the mac pro, but above the imac and mac mini.

The mac mini is pretty cute (and I'd get one to run as a web server as they are really small, and would take a lot less space then the sun ultra 10 I am using now), and the imac is really nice looking, but they are both really laptops in a different style case. 

They probably ought to add a mid tower machine, even if 1/2 width where a riser card is used internally for 1 or 2 upgrade slots that used either a single core2duo (maybe an extreme?) or a single only core2quad.  Something where you have some expansion breathing room, but not as much as the mac pro. 

I wonder if they don't to maintain a certain level of obvious distinction between the mac pro and the other home macs.  If they had an expandable mac that was a quad core processor, it would probably destroy any and all sales of the single cpu mac pro configuration.

But I think they need to shift up their offerings to add a more mid range model that's upgradeable.  I'm not talking about the insanity of the overselection that Dell offers (way too many base models), just 1 more to round out the options for someone who wants upgradeability but doesn't want mac pro level expense and gear.

I've never been fond of the idea of a computer and screen in one unit for a desktop.  Laptops are one thing, but on a desktop - I find it too high risk if the monitor goes out, you can't do anything.  I've seen some imac disassembly pics and it doesn't look very fun.  Heaven forbid an average person would want to take out their hard drive before bringing the mac in for repair

the imac's to me would make great workstations where data is stored on the central server tho.  Very compact, easy to fit ona desk, etc.

[iindigo]

Well actually, the iMac was extremely cleanly laid out inside and was a snap for any normal person to work on during the first and second PowerPC G5 revisions. My 20" iMac G5 was one of the second generation, and to change the HD, you just loosened three captive screws, took the back off, and changed the HD. Same went for RAM. The only thing that would have been a huge problem was changing the LCD.

Unfortunately, from the third revision of the PPC G5 models to the current ones, they favored super-thin form factor over user serviceability and thus their internal designs became horribly complicated and now are much, much more difficult to work on for an average user.

As for a mid-range model, that seemed to disappear as soon as Apple transitioned away from PowerPC chips - before, you could grab a low-end PowerMac G5 tower for around $1799.

[Nethfel]

Well actually, the iMac was extremely cleanly laid out inside and was a snap for any normal person to work on during the first and second PowerPC G5 revisions. My 20" iMac G5 was one of the second generation, and to change the HD, you just loosened three captive screws, took the back off, and changed the HD. Same went for RAM. The only thing that would have been a huge problem was changing the LCD.

Unfortunately, from the third revision of the PPC G5 models to the current ones, they favored super-thin form factor over user serviceability and thus their internal designs became horribly complicated and now are much, much more difficult to work on for an average user.

That's  agood point, as I didn't look at the older models of the imac, I was only referencing what I found on the current version.  It sounds like they probably should have kept the old case design.  Or perhaps at least have easy access doors similar to a laptop to be able to swap out some stuff (ie: ram, HD, wifi, bluetooth).  It would make the imac much more upgradeable in terms of keepability as new things come out.

As for a mid-range model, that seemed to disappear as soon as Apple transitioned away from PowerPC chips - before, you could grab a low-end PowerMac G5 tower for around $1799.

I wonder if they'll add it back in as they become more comfortable with, and have developed more drivers for different intel configurations...?

[iindigo]

No idea. It could be that they're afraid of their towers being grouped in with the likes of cheap Dell and HP towers (which they only want the mini compared to) while they want to keep a high-end, professional image for the Mac Pro. This didn't use to be a problem when PPCs were still in use, since everybody else used x86 procs, which were difficult to accurately compare to PowerPC machines due to architectural differences.

[geoffreak]

Apple will not release a mid-range tower. This has been discussed to death everywhere for years. Apple feels that the iMac is fine for the market as most people that are willing to spend that range of money on a computer would rather just have an all-in-one solution. People who get a mid-range tower never end up upgrading it like they think they will or end up realizing that they should have gone for the full power from the start.
Apple will release an official mac tablet before they make a mid-range tower.

[fohfoh]

1066 MHz? It's so hard to find. you'll find 1333 and higher easily though....

[iindigo]

It'll probably become a little more common now that the Mac Pros use it and thus will be a bit more demand for it.

[Nethfel]

1066 MHz? It's so hard to find. you'll find 1333 and higher easily though....

I found 1066MHz DDR3s' quite easily.

The problem is ECC - right now, it seems to only be available in 1066.  I've searched at several memory specialist places, including where we order from at work, and the 1066MHz DDR3s' at this point seem to be the only ones that offer an ECC version.

Also have to realize, the new xeons were just released what? in January I think, so there really was no need for ECC ram until they were released.  And just like when the DDR3's first came out, it was a bear to find certain modules until it became more wide spread (I was a fairly early adopter with my motherboard, as it was one of the first that would take DDR3's (Asus P5K3 Deluxe - well it was the first that Asus offered at the time) - there was almost no selection, and the 2 gigs I got cost me about $200 for 1333MHz...

[sdedalus83]

Crucial has 2GB, DDR3 1333, ECC DIMMS for $63(3 for $189), Registered for $105.  But you don't need registered memory for the Mac Pro.  So yes you can get better memory for your Mac Pro, and cheaper as well.  Apple seems to charge $120 per 2GB dimm.

[bloody000]

http://store.apple.com/ca/memorymodel/ME_8CR_3GEN_MACPRO
LMAO  "1066MHz DDR3"
even with ECC they are still overpriced
my mushkin DDR2's are running at 1066MHz AND have lower latency

Remember, the new mac's are i7 based xeons, which means they (at this point since i7 only supports...) have to use DDR3 ram.  Xeon systems tend to require ECC ram, which now really limits the selection. 

After searching a bit to see if I could find ECC DDR3 ram, I was only able to find it in a 1066MHz speed.  This may be due to the fact that these new xeons are so new that most memory manufacturers haven't started developing ecc chips at the higher speeds - only time will tell.

But laughing at ECC memory is a mistake, even if it isn't bleeding edge speed - let's face it when have server and high end workstations (not gaming systems) based hardware been bleeding edge in terms of speed and using xeon processors are usually limited to high end workstations used in CAD, 3D development, video work, etc. and servers - they are not the choice of gaming system builders.

And I just looked it up on the US stores (since I don't want to do canadian conversions) between MemoryX (a memory seller, and one of the very few places I could find DDR3 ECC ram, and apple...)

http://memoryx.net/ccy.html

http://store.apple.com/us/memorymodel/ME_QUADCR_3G_MPRO

A $1.00 difference.

Not a huge overprice as you are claiming for the type of ram.

It's only overpriced when you compare it to DDR2 ram as DDR2 Ram currently is extremely cheap, especially non-ecc ram.  Also, when looking it appears that the fastest DDR2 ECC ram is 800MHz, which is only $10 - $20 (depending on brand) cheaper then the cheapest DDR3 ECC ram (of which the DDR3 ECC ram is clocked faster)

So - it's better to compare apples to apples if you'll excuse the punn - ECC to ECC ram.

Also I should note, if it's running triple channel (which I suspect it is as the base configuration is 3gigs), it's overall throughput would probably be better then your DDR2s even if they're at a lower latency.  But without benchmarks to compare triple channel DDR3 ECC @1066 vs what you have (or an ECC comparable chip) it'll be hard to know for sure.

Going just by latency - it's not a good idea as there is more to memory then just the latency - because in this case, if they are triple channel, then this system should push more data through then your dual channel 1066MHz at lower latency.

I was not laughing at ECC feature, it's the price and speed.
1066Mhz is the slowest DDR3 speed. and I wouldn't be suprised if they have fairy high latency(by DDR3 standard). yes I do know they're still quite new, but DDR3's ARE cheap. even with ECC Apple's prices are not justified, as you can see from the link below(though still much lower than Apple's ridiculous prices on FB-DIMMs)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=ddr3+ecc&x=0&y=0

[Nethfel]

Crucial has 2GB, DDR3 1333, ECC DIMMS for $63(3 for $189), Registered for $105.  But you don't need registered memory for the Mac Pro.  So yes you can get better memory for your Mac Pro, and cheaper as well.  Apple seems to charge $120 per 2GB dimm.

I see you can get it direct from crucial, I usually don't order direct from the crucial - actually, I didn't know you could order direct from them.  I wonder tho why I couldn't find more ecc ddr3 memory elsewhere...