What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
108 Comments
- pauldy, on 01/13/2008, -15/+137In other news 2 pounds of feathers weighs more than a pound of lead.
- TheWorm, on 01/13/2008, -7/+69Hmmm, new 8 core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro is faster than the old 2.6 ghz 4 core? Alert the press! This is huge!
- xxMarka, on 01/13/2008, -3/+44i have a holographic blastoise
- gavincato, on 01/13/2008, -6/+36In related news the sky is discovered to be blue
- Metalaco, on 01/13/2008, -3/+33OH MY SCIENCE
- cbreaker, on 01/13/2008, -6/+32The funny thing is how nonchalantly they recommend very expensive upgrades. "3.0GHz and 3.2GHz (for $800 and $1,600, respectively), faster graphics cards including a NVIDIA Quadro FX 5600 with 1.5GB of graphics memory for an additional $2,850." Ohh, is that all? I know the Mac Pro is designed to be a high-end machine, and it's a sweet PC, but sheesh..
I've had a problem with Apple PC's for awhile because there's no mid-range machine. Sure, there's Mac Minis and iMacs, but if you want a decent and upgradable Mac you have to go with the Mac Pro, and you pay big money for them. There needs to be a mid-range case-based Macintosh that you can get for around a grand. Something that you can get your hands into. The cheapest Mac Pro with a single CPU and a single ATA hard drive (it's not even a 500 or 750gb, it's a $50 320GB) is $2300.
Are they purposefully trying to keep the normal computer user away from Macintosh? - inactive, on 01/13/2008, -4/+28hed asplode
- joltjake, on 01/13/2008, -3/+218 cores are better than 4? AMAZING!
- whiteyMcBrown, on 01/13/2008, -1/+19I'm a huge Mac fan, but I have to say... OBVIOUSLY! I hate when they say "it's our fastest notebook ever" or "fastest Mac ever!". Why would they make a slower one?!
- motheroats, on 01/13/2008, -1/+16"The 2.8GHz iMac, with its super-fast 500MB hard drive, proved itself again to be quite a speedy all-in-one system, giving the new Mac Pro a run for its money in both the iTunes and Photoshop tests."
ehem......1990 called, they want their "super-fast" hard drive back. - futebollounge, on 01/13/2008, -0/+14comment of the century
- knightboat, on 01/13/2008, -1/+14The build-and-tinker computer crowd isn't as mainstream as some digg users like to think.
- LeonardNimrod, on 01/13/2008, -6/+18There sure are a lot of ***** on this blog. If you read the article you will see that they also tested it against the previous model's top of the line, 3.0GHz, 8-core system that cost $1500 more than this new baseline model.
The new baseline Mac Pro beat the top of the line Mac Pro in 5 out of 10 tests. Once OS X is optimized to take advantage of SSE4 you will see even more gains.
If you don't like OS X, Macs, Apple or giant workstations that is fine, but bash an article that benchmarks new and previous systems in an effort to help inform the consumer. - masterc, on 01/13/2008, -1/+13This just in: water is found to be wet!
- digitalarcanum, on 01/13/2008, -14/+24buried as lame, although if there was a "Apple fanboy fapping story" option I would certainly bury it as such.
- GonadHunter, on 01/13/2008, -3/+13wtf this has nothing to do with the PS3 go fap over an elite elsewhere.
- fkr3, on 01/13/2008, -3/+13Yeah... who would have thought the computer with bigger and better hardware would be faster than the old model with older hardware!!!!!! And more importantly, who would have thought such an obvious piece of trivia could convert into ad impressions so well!
I wish there was a bury option called "Useless trash written for diggs". - freshyill, on 01/13/2008, -1/+10Squirtle!
- zeptobyte, on 01/13/2008, -1/+9Right. Upgradeability is bad for Apple. They have full control over Macs, so no one can shop around for a better deal. And if they can't upgrade parts, then they have to just buy a new one whenever they want something better, instead of adding small bits to the same one for years.
- Sornos, on 01/13/2008, -0/+6Blastooooooooise!
- threemagic, on 01/13/2008, -1/+7yes... and it'll play it well!
- banmaster, on 01/13/2008, -0/+6I have a quad and for what I do (mainly editing painful wedding videos) it makes a nice diff from dual cores. 8 would be very nice though :)
- TheAmbushAhead, on 01/13/2008, -3/+9I hope they follow this story with a future report about how a 16 core is faster than an 8 core. I mean seriously HOW do they know these things? They're ***** geniuses.
- kevinmoore, on 06/13/2009, -1/+6The 8800 is the top of NVIDIA's desktop product line too. Old? Nope.
- inactive, on 01/13/2008, -1/+6Insightful, but you've got to hand it to them - their interior industrial design is pretty nice.
- gr3yn3t, on 01/13/2008, -3/+8Could you be any more wrong?
- samcrut, on 01/13/2008, -0/+4HD video editing, 3D medical radiology modeling, all those fancy graphics you see on the news. Any of those alone will put them to good use, but mostly running 10 applications at once that are actively processing is where most people would feel it.
- johnpaul191, on 01/13/2008, -1/+5i don't have a Mac Pro, but with my other Mac tower desktops i was able to replace the processor, video card, ram, HDDs on top of the obvious expansion card slot abilities. How much more expansion do you want? At some point you will have a pokey motherboard.
I did my upgrades over time, not out of the box. I'm not a gamer though, and didn't need bleeding edge performance.... if that's what you are talking about. - djh816, on 01/13/2008, -1/+58>4??
Don't believe it. - suppah, on 01/13/2008, -0/+4well, obviuosly you are lying :)
- narlzac85, on 01/13/2008, -0/+44 cores < 8 cores...yes I checked, its true.
- threemagic, on 01/13/2008, -1/+4it's been proven that there are security holes in ALL oses. Don't confuse security holes as ways virus and malware can actually install on your computer.
There's a difference between hacking and script kiddie crap that virus does.
Anyway, you should have a hardware firewall to protect against hackers anyway.. software firewalls are junk. - inactive, on 01/13/2008, -2/+5ok, so lets see some time specs. Convert an avi to dvd, the clock starts now.... Its really the only reason i case for a computer that fast
- threemagic, on 01/13/2008, -1/+4You can't upgrade the older mac pro's with the newer nvidia card. It's only for the NEW mac pro.
- buddhistMonkey, on 01/13/2008, -2/+4Actually, the article was comparing the new 2.8 GHz Mac Pros to the old 3.0 GHz machines. In half of the tests, the new 2.8 GHz Mac blew away the old 3.0 GHz model. On the other half, the old 3.0 GHz barely edged out the new Macs. That means that the new low-end Mac Pros, with a slower chip, are faster than the old top-of-the-line.
So, maybe it's not alert-the-press-caliber news, but it's good news for me, since I'll be picking up one of these babies as soon as someone answers my Craigslist ad and buys my kidney. - samcrut, on 01/13/2008, -2/+4What bugs me is that they've killed off the $2000 basic tower. It used to be that you could get the slowest tower for $2k and the top system for $3k. Now they're creeping up again just when the economy is tanking. The cheapest you can buy now is $2300.
- Drizzit, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2If you put in 2 4 core proc's in the older Mac Pro's the performance gains were minimal. Course this was before leopard as well.
- FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 01/13/2008, -1/+3@digitalarcanum
wrong. just wrong. - TacticalPenguin, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2I have a charizard and a venasaur but no blastoise. Wanna trade?
- banmaster, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2I use a combination of WD, Seagate and Samsung and no probs for 5 years so far. Of course I usually sell them and upgrade to a larger model well before any problems might start to appear.
- euping, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2I'm also upgrading from a Dual 2.7 GHz G5. It seems to me we asked for older Mac comparisons after a previous round of benchmarks and got an encouraging response from the Macworld crew. Hopefully more data is on the way.
- alwilson, on 01/13/2008, -2/+3I've never had a penis in my mouth but I'm still going to digg you down
- timfrietas, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1Actually, I work for a large company and we initially used a few different drives: Maxtor, WD, Seagate, etc.
We now have about 2000 hard drives in our system and they are all Seagates except for the legacy servers that we don't use for major things. We just haven't had the issues with Seagates that we do with WD, etc. So no, it is not just based on my personal experience, although my personal experience was enough: a drive failure should occur in about 3 out of every 1000 drives, so that it happened to me twice in a row with one manufacturer suggests their product is suspect... - p0tent1al, on 01/13/2008, -2/+3The problem is, the mac mini is for normal computer users, normal being people who normally don't give 2 ***** about computers, like moms and dads or someone who just surfs the internet.
The Mac Pro is a workstation class product, this is what some of the professionals use. The people in the middle, believe me there are a lot. Most digg users fall in that demographic, and look how huge Digg is. - alwilson, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1I can see you in your mom's basement geeking out on your 8 monitors.
- ibis, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1The thing for them is that 99% of people who pay the extra for a Mac Pro would be just fine with a midlevel desktop with a single quad-core like the Q6600, a few gig of RAM, an 8600GT or 8800GT video card and a big harddrive. In fact skip "would be fine" it would be way faster than they need. You'd probably even be better off with a fast dual core chip like the E6850.
But if they made that computer they'd be competing with all the PC manufacturers head to head, which they don't want to do. - protium, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1I guess you've managed to overcome the IO limitations?
- threemagic, on 01/13/2008, -4/+5the 8 core model of last gen versus the new 8 core model...
who's dumb now? of course you raced right to ass! - r3zonance, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1It's called marketing, you fool.
- Refrag, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1D'oh!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is