digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

New Apple Mac Pro: 8 Cores, Count Em Baby

gizmodo.com — Apple's got a second release that just hit the wires: A Mac Pro with two intel 45nm Quad-Core Xeons.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • judicar, on 01/08/2008, -26/+239Here's a handy form for the inevitable Apple-bashers:

    This is news? My _______ has had __________ for the last _ [ ]months [ ]years!
    • Mudcrutch, on 01/08/2008, -3/+103... for _____ dollars.
      • CalgaryTechGuy, on 01/08/2008, -6/+34... and ____ dollars less than Dell.
        • Dylson, on 01/08/2008, -18/+3...and____ dollars more than everyone else.
          • wafflez, on 01/09/2008, -3/+1I think you read wrong. This is for the people who don't buy macs.
      • LeeSoong, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2and I'm running _______ Linux & FireFox 2. Open Source Rules.
    • chris9902, on 01/08/2008, -4/+169My cat has had 4 legs for the last 7 [ ]months [*]years!

      Take THAT Apple.
    • Karmavs, on 01/08/2008, -3/+92This is news? My Mac Pro has had 8 cores for the last 2 months!
      I think I'm doing it wrong.
      • habbofresh, on 01/08/2008, -24/+10Good for you. the douche who submitted the article failed to mention that 8 cores is now standard, and available for under $3k base price. not $5k+ like when you bought it. Feel big now?
      • happyseamonster, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5You're right, 8 cores is not new. There are other upgrades to the MP though.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3Penryn (“Harpertown” processors), 800mhz RAM, 1600mhz front-side bus, PCI Express 2.0.
        NOT the same computer. 60% faster memory throughput and around twice as fast as current top-end Mac Workstation. That's an improvement.
        Other companies have "announced" they would have this.
        If you want just a mere 4 cores, it's $2300. For anyone NOT doing 3D or Video -- that should be a very tempting machine.
        Best option for real-world speed is to get the base unit and get the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB option as an upgrade for $200.
        That's a $3000 machine.
        2 x 2 Gig RAM modules can be found for $115; http://dealnews.com/memory/prices/PC2-8000-DDR2-10 ...
        Not sure this is the EXACT Ram that should go in the machine -- but it is equivalent. So adding 4 gigs of RAM to that box will cost about $250 at NewEgg.
        So $3,250 for your next Super Computer. Sweet!
        • Tenoq, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2And still waiting for everyday applications that use 8-cores. Or even 4. :p
          • LeeSoong, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2multi-threading?

            Only useful for science, graphics, rendering, and video / audio professional production.

            They call it the Mac Pro - for a reason.
        • wafflez, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1K I configured a pc with the same specs, it came to around the same price.
          2x xeon harpertown 2.83ghz
          8800gtx 768mb
          4gb 800mhz ram
          850 watt power supply
          dual server motherboard, etc. I took a screenshot for you guys
          http://image.bayimg.com/iaikbaabn.jpg
        • Karmavs, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Agreed. I just found it funny (clearly so did a few other people) There are some major improvements in the new Mac Pro — my imaginary Mac Pro couldn't run 8 30" monitors, could it?
          (Any Mac Pro is out of my budget & market - I use an iMac)
    • norman619, on 01/08/2008, -12/+8I'm just happy the 8 core option is out. Means I should be able to build my own 8 core system pretty soon.
      • sponeil, on 01/08/2008, -0/+15It's not a new "8-core option". It's a normal dual-CPU motherboard with two quad-core CPU's. That option has been available for over a year if you're building your own system. However, in a system like that memory bandwidth will become a bottleneck really fast, so the extra cores probably won't help at all.
        • norman619, on 01/08/2008, -10/+1LOL!!! No *****. This is the first cumsumer system I have seen with the V8. If you know of others please feel free to share.
          • SteveMax, on 01/08/2008, -2/+6Well, there's the older 8 core mac pro...
          • mesasone, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4I wouldn't really call a Mac Pro a consumer system, it's workstation class hardware(Xeons, Registered Error Correction Ram, etc). I also know that Dell has an 8 core workstation, priced and spec'd similarly to the Mac Pro.

            You can currently build similar systems, it's just that the dual cpu motherboards for core 2 will cost you two arms and a leg, and probably require the Registered ECC ram as well.

            Also, those (below) complaining that you won't be able to take advantage of the hardware are obviously unfamiliar with the the uses of it. Final Cut Pro can take advantage of all cores for HD video editing, as can Logic I believe for audio work.
        • matt.rubin, on 01/08/2008, -13/+4as if mac users need it for photoshop? Seriously the only thing driving the PC industry now for faster processors is gaming. What happens when thats taken away? You need to keep on changing your cases so that it looks better in your family room
          • IndigoMoss, on 01/08/2008, -0/+9I'm not a Mac fan, but you are completely incorrect. Most games on the market right now only take advantage of dual core machines, and that progress still isn't 100% percent complete. The only game I know of that uses even a quad core is Crysis. The main use for these processors in the Mac Pro is because it's a workstation, so programs like Final Cut and other video/audio producing can fully take advantage of them.
          • MonkeyFarts, on 01/09/2008, -1/+4"Seriously the only thing driving the PC industry now for faster processors is gaming"
            And thus, a new golden standard for statements of ignorance have been uttered and established...

            Here's a hint: Beowolf wasn't produced on some standard consumer-level dual core system.
        • billybob217, on 01/08/2008, -6/+2Even then you don't see much of an improvement going to 8 cores... Most programs/OS aren't even written to be able to take full of advantage of those... Mostly a waste of money in my opinion...
          • MScrip, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6Most applications written in the last few years take advantage of "multiple" cores. Remember when dual-core processors came out? That was a long time ago. Applications see multiple cores and put them to work... 2, 4, or 8 cores. My roommate built a quad core system over the summer... and Photoshop and DVD Shrink uses all 4 cores... and DVD Shrink stopped development years ago!

            It's not a waste if you need it... like for video editing. Bottom line... computers keep getting faster, and more cores are added. You can't stop progress.
          • turpenine, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2osx takes advantage of it. watch the what's new video when they do filters on pictures and show the tiger vs leopard times.
          • happyseamonster, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3The Mac Pro is a professional workstation used in rendering special effects for 100 million dollar movies. Final Cut Studio and Shake/Phenomenon use all 8 cores. http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/
          • billybob217, on 01/09/2008, -3/+0I understand that loads of programs use them... But it is a waste for most everyday users.... Most of us don't need the new 6 or 8 core processors... It is just a big money waste for most users in the end... Not many of us do hardcore photo/video editing but many people feel the need to buy the newest and fastest processors... That was the only point I was trying to make...
          • maexus, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2That's because it isn't for every day users. It's a professional workstation. The ignorance of your statement is overwhelming.
      • bbardlbradd, on 01/08/2008, -2/+5This 8 core setup has been available for, at least 2 to 3 years, to consumers. The only thing was, the motherboards were specifically for servers... they were huge and didn't have the FSB/System Bus speed I was looking for.

        I've been waiting for the 8 core since the first Quad core Power Mac (2x Dual core G5s).
        • Tenoq, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Penryn has been available for 2-3 years?
          Um, NO. :p
    • dukeeeey, on 01/08/2008, -1/+11http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/08/ ...
    • norman619, on 01/08/2008, -4/+1Almost forgot. Some info for those of us here interested to know more about the CPUs they are using.

      http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/intelV8/upclos ...
    • rullingen, on 01/08/2008, -2/+21yeah but will it play doom?
      • Dylson, on 01/08/2008, -10/+4No.
        • matt.rubin, on 01/08/2008, -3/+5its a internet thing you won't understand.......
      • samcrut, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3Forget about Doom. Castle Wolfenstein is where it all started. "SS! SS!"
      • whoamarcos, on 01/08/2008, -4/+1no... but now you can have 8 screens of pr0n
      • enchantedsky, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1The original game for DOS was actually called "Wolfenstein 3-D", created by ID, published by Apogee
        • LOCK3D, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2I remember launching wolf3d from the dos prompt. It wouldn't play properly if windows (3.1) was running on my blazing fast 486DX33 with 4 Megs of RAM, 1Meg Video card and a 426Meg hard drive. Windows didn't start automatically either. I think you had to type win from the dos prompt. Good times.
      • celkin, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2Crysis via Bootcamp FTW
    • Dylson, on 01/08/2008, -8/+2Why is this news? It's been out for quite a while now.
      • bbardlbradd, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Because unlike before, the 8 core is (nearly) standard. The cheap model has a single quad... so, I don't understand why they claim the 8 core is standard.
      • solistus, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2No; it was released today. There was an 8 core option previously, but it was uber expensive. 8 cores is now standard.
    • matt.rubin, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1yeah because its true
    • jordn, on 01/08/2008, -0/+13They now include 8800GT's as a graphics option!
      • TechCF, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5This is more of a news story. People have upgraded the 2x dual cores to quads for ages. But the original graphics cards have been last gen.
      • Rendonsmug, on 01/08/2008, -6/+3Bwahaa, just after nvidia said that the 8800GT is a limited run and being replaced. These things are obsolete before they are announced!
    • raskali, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6Are you insane?! Asking Apple bashers to so something as complicated as filling in blanks is ridiculous. You should give them multiple choice, and preferably no more than two choices.
      • inkswamp, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Well, multiple choice *with* pictures. You know, that whole reading thing.
  • anthonybruno, on 01/08/2008, -6/+50Looks like there wont be Blu-Ray drives after all?
    • warnergt, on 01/08/2008, -3/+6Is it possible they will announce Blu-ray next week?
      • Karmavs, on 01/08/2008, -0/+16Not impossible. Extremely unlikely though.
      • norman619, on 01/08/2008, -2/+18Can't you just buy an external Blu-ray drive and simply plug it in?
      • jtm76, on 01/08/2008, -7/+2Yes, you can do this, however, there is no software available "yet" for Mac OS X to be able to play movies from Blue Ray drives. Hopefully this will be announced next week during Macworld.
      • bbardlbradd, on 01/08/2008, -6/+1No, that's not possible. It would be more likely that Jesus open a portal above steve jobs and shoot a rainbow down at the new Mac Pros... and skeet on jobs as everyone's clapping and cheering at the cool lighting effects that are being casted down upon the beautifully powerful new Mac Pros.
      • agarfield2004, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1They would have done the Mac Pro upgrade then. If someone buys the computer now and they come out with a mac pro that has blue-ray in a few days they'll have some pretty mad customers.
        • pero69, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1yeah, but they do that. It's the chance you take when you buy anything apple... an upgrade could be a week away at any point in time.
    • ilgaz, on 01/08/2008, -10/+2People buying such high end device will likely buy a firewire external Blu-Ray recorder from Lacie or similar brand. Why add $500 to already high looking price? In some jobs as HD editing, even BluRay is not enough anyway. Why push it to those people who are already using red laser etc solutions?
      • ilgaz, on 01/08/2008, -3/+3Speaking about red laser,, Firewire, professional use on a site like digg... I have really deserved that -5 :)
      • samcrut, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1Not enough? You don't need to have one disk with the whole project on it. One disk per source reel is an adequate backup strategy. 50GB per disk is more than enough to back up most of today's source media. That's 4 hours of HDV1080i60 or 50 minutes of DVCProHD 1080i60.

        Sure, we'll always take more capacity, but Blu-Ray is a respectable backup for now.
    • rizzo2008, on 01/08/2008, -1/+23It also has a second drive bay where you could add your own internal blu-ray drive
    • HappyScrappy, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2This is just a speed bump. Any new technology announcements would be at MacWorld.
  • joeycerone, on 01/08/2008, -25/+7No blu-ray option? I'll pass.
    • rizzo2008, on 01/08/2008, -1/+21It has a second drive bay. You can add your own
  • LiquidIse, on 01/08/2008, -14/+52A few announcements you missed:
    This is on the front page already
    There are already 8-core Mac Pros, and have been for some time
    As mentioned above: no Blu-Ray = much less interesting
    • AzraelDenver, on 01/08/2008, -2/+8I was wondering if anyone would else would mention this. I've been working on an 8-core machine at the office for months now.
    • mike17032, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3I am now worried that the new laptops will not have BR drives, I care a lot more about being able to watch HD movies on my portable than just having the drive in a tower.
      • jtm76, on 01/08/2008, -2/+2I'm not saying that I wouln't also like for new Macs to include blue-ray drives, but why would you want to watch HD movies on a small screen? Obviously hooking up the MacBook or MacBook Pro to an HDTV would benefit though.
    • jtm76, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1I'm not saying that I wouln't also like for new Macs to include blue-ray drives, but why would you want to watch HD movies on a small screen? Obviously hooking up the MacBook or MacBook Pro to an HDTV would benefit though.
      • CrackyJSquirrel, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2Well when you figure out a way to get an HD TV as a carry on for an airplane, and get it working, give me a call..
    • joshuaer, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1they pumped up the specs alittle bit i think not sure i have the first gen 8 core and i have 3 video cards not that i could not have put a 4th in i just wanted more firewire800 ports.
  • kiiwii, on 01/08/2008, -15/+157Up now on the Apple Store

    http://store.apple.com/

    Whether you're an Apple fan or not... come on, 500 bucks to have 4 gb of RAM instead of 2gb?

    And 800 bucks for 3ghz CPUs instead of 2.8?

    That's ridiculous.
    • rizzo2008, on 01/08/2008, -9/+27then add your own memory
    • thatspsychotic, on 01/08/2008, -6/+46The 2.8GHz CPUs are already over $700 a piece. Are you familiar with Intel's pricing? That's just about in line.

      The RAM bit though, you've got me.
      • DJNewStyle, on 01/08/2008, -5/+5So 2.8 GHz is around $700. 3GHz is around $1500.

        That is *****.
      • cowboy86, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Actually quad core xeons run between 240-300 if you know where to look.
    • surf314, on 01/08/2008, -1/+21Yea it's way cheaper to upgrade the ram yourself, I learned that with me MBP which I switched to 4 gigs.
    • combatchuck, on 01/08/2008, -3/+30Vendors have always made a killing on RAM, Apple is the worst of the bunch. Buy your own and save $8000.
      • elfprince13, on 01/08/2008, -16/+3I agree......granted Apple's RAM is really nice RAM.....
    • marchaos, on 01/08/2008, -12/+5It's ECC ram, which you can't compare to normal desktop ram. It's generally twice as expensive.
      • dagamer34, on 01/08/2008, -2/+17No, it's just Apple. Even on the MacBook Pro where a 2GB stick can be found for $60 on newegg, Apple has the balls to charge $700 for an upgrade from 2GB to 4GB.
      • cawpin, on 01/08/2008, -2/+8No, it isn't.
      • BossKey, on 01/08/2008, -0/+10Reliable ECC ram for the Mac Pro is available at far lower prices from non-Apple vendors.
        The only people who buy Mac Pro RAM from Apple are those who don't know any better.
      • tnoy, on 01/08/2008, -1/+7Its just FB-DIMMs. They're more expensive than typical DIMMs, but $500 for a couple 1GB sticks? You have to have your head up your ass to not know Apple is screwing you over with that.
    • smrekar, on 01/08/2008, -12/+7Apple Fanboy here-
      I was just checking ram prices at crucial for my mac pro (4x2.66 6GBRam)
      4GB kit (2GBx2)
      CT579443 DDR2 PC2-5300 • CL=5 • Fully Buffered • ECC • DDR2-667 • 1.8V • 256Meg x 72
      $279

      Bash away at apples RAM prices people. It is the only thing I will allow.
      • pirloui, on 01/08/2008, -1/+5I've seen 2GB ram modules at 35$ per 2GB, 70 in total for 4GB; Apple id ***** ridiculous in this case. It's close to abstract. The guys responsible for this should be spanked, as they give bad image to the whole company.
        • anti_hax0r, on 01/08/2008, -1/+10So, we can't complain about the ridiculously expensive hard drives too? Fry's = 750GB SATA 7200rpm 16MB on sale for $180, reg price $230. Apple price = $500

          Nice
        • pirloui, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Sure sure :)
      • pyrates, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3Here's the only defense for it, if there is anything wrong, Apple won't touch it until you remove it. They will immediately blame it on the 3rd party ram. Just look at apple's own forums. But there is no excuse for Apple charging this much for RAM.

        But your point about this being the only thing you will allow, it's a free country and I will bash Apple every time I think they've made a bad decision instead of defending them for it.
    • pirloui, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6I've been a Mac user for a long time; and will often defend Apple pricing considering the immediate competition, but as for their upgrades (ram etc) they're plain ridiculous, and have been for years. Sadly.
    • CrackyJSquirrel, on 01/08/2008, -1/+10Didn't you know the RAM Macs use are made of gold?
    • ilgaz, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5You are supposed to be a Mac user and still comparing Mhz.
      The 3 Ghz Xeon used on the workstation has NOTHING to do with previous version. Its bus speed, huge cache, manufacturing process. This is the _real_ thing to upgrade from Quad G5. The previous Quad Xeon was only 30% faster, this is the machine which production houses will sit and think "lets upgrade already?"
    • Ranneko, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1Not their crazy high DVD prices? Hard drive prices? Pretty much all of the customisation options are crazy expensive compared to normal hardware pricing.
      • Darph.Bobo, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Yeah and everyone knows you can't buy your own DVD burner or hard drive.
    • ManicA, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1It could be worse, you could live in England and have to pay £320 more
    • cwright213, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2just for kicks i tried the build your own mac pro and got a $20,000 machine.
    • solistus, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5The RAM prices are absurd, granted, but the CPU upgrade price is not. Quad core 3.0GHz chips are outlandishly expensive. When you hit the upper end of CPUs, the prices scale WAY faster than the performance.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Buy the 2.8 Ghz model then if you don't need the performance. It's a lot cheaper for Apple to get the 2.8 as well.
      Buy the RAM from another party. 4 Gig of 800mhz RAM is about $250 at NewEgg.com.
      Yes it is outrageous. But for $3,250, you can get the NVidia 8800 Graphics card and 6 Gigs of RAM (adding 4 at NewEgg) and one SWEET system.
      • agaudet, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1dont forget
        fully buffered ECC memory
        server class *****
        not that regular ddr2 that u would use at home :P
  • MJ420, on 01/08/2008, -7/+11I dont think the realese has anything to do with stocks...Rather, I think its a deliberate hint at two things.
    A. It's currents stance in the format war - clearly they are pro-blue ray, but not ready to ship it yet
    B. They have something else in store for us at MacWorld...Tantalizing :)
    • persept, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2B is sort of a given though
    • cwright213, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1OR C. They want you to buy this version first then hit you over the head two months later with the Blu Ray option for more money.
  • kevdotbadger, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6yeah...we hear from that other story.
  • jazh, on 01/08/2008, -20/+9Duplicate story. Can Apple fanboys, please keep one news story instead of spamming digg.
    • codyodell, on 01/08/2008, -2/+2Why is this dugg down? People like spamming digg?
  • Jon211, on 01/08/2008, -12/+7Is there really going to be that much benefit from having 8 cores over 4 for the vast majority of applications?
    • kevdotbadger, on 01/08/2008, -0/+8Specialist applications will benefit.
    • neodorian, on 01/08/2008, -0/+14The sort of businesses that would pay for an 8 core machine would probably do so because they use apps that take advantage of the 8 cores.
    • rizzo2008, on 01/08/2008, -0/+7for the average user no but people who need a lot of processing power and have multithreaded applications that can take advantage of it sure
    • TheEgghead, on 01/08/2008, -6/+6Is there much benefit to a single application? Probably not. However, I think this really shines when you running multiple apps. Virtualization works so well on the Mac that I now run two virtual machines (Windows and Linux) all the time. I think the big advantage to 8 cores is that now its even less likely that you'll ever feel a slowdown in the UI when something is chugging away. You can let your Photoshop render, your code compile, etc and you'll never feel a thing. Is it a huge deal? Probably not, but Apple has made the pricing so attractive that I think it will be a popular product.
    • BossKey, on 01/08/2008, -0/+7No, most people won't benefit from 8 cores.
      If I bought one of these towers, my first act would be to customize the configuration to remove the second CPU, and have just one quad-core CPU for a starting price of $500 less. That's basically what I have now, a 4-core Mac Pro.

      Nobody needs to stick with the default Apple Store configuration. You can step down and save money, putting it toward something that might balance out performance better like fast drives or more RAM.
    • zongamin, on 01/08/2008, -0/+15See the 'Pro' bit - that means its for specialist professionals.
      Video editing, 3D Rendering etc.
      Pissing about with a stolen copy of photoshop - no.
      • CrackyJSquirrel, on 01/08/2008, -9/+1Only if those programs can utilize 8 cores.
    • BasicShape, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2I saw my Maya render times drop from 3+ hours on my 2.7 ghz dual g5, to 35 minutes on my 8 core Mac. Oh happy days... these machines are a great investment.
  • wvaughan, on 01/08/2008, -1/+38They finally made it available with a decent video card! You can upgrade to an Nvidia 8800GT for $200!
    • rizzo2008, on 01/08/2008, -5/+2yeah I guess but I would rather add the Nvidia 8800gtx myself (if I could afford the computer!)
      • Clearz, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1The gtx costs nearly 3 times the gt price for little extra performance. I have a GT here and they are wonderfull cards for the price especially if you can get it for $200. I paid 270 Euro for mine and still think its a bargan,.
    • slaizer, on 01/08/2008, -13/+6And play exactly zero games with it?
      • MacParrot, on 01/08/2008, -5/+5You would buy and make a $3k computer to play games on? Wow! Your dad must have a great job!
        • Ramble, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Fool. Most people add in good hardware to play games.
        • CrackyJSquirrel, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4Well $3000 is on the high end of gaming computers, but not uncommon. If you surveyed all the latest games and what gamers are playing on, you will find most rigs are between $2000 and $3000..
      • Saiing, on 01/08/2008, -2/+5Two words. Boot Camp.

        You can play all the games you want on Macs these days.
        • KingBabi, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4True, but how many gamers buy a mac for gaming? They're overpriced for one thing, why not just go and build/buy a better machine for half the price?
        • darienphoenix, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1They're not overpriced. They compare well with similar specced systems from other vendors - just don't buy Apple's ***** overpriced RAM and HD upgrades.
      • BossKey, on 01/08/2008, -2/+6Care to back up "exactly zero games"?
        I'm not a gamer and even I know that WoW is on the Mac.
    • Noctem, on 01/08/2008, -9/+2What, exactly, do you need an 8800GT on a server for?
    • ronaldmonster, on 01/08/2008, -6/+2Yes. But can it run Crysis?
    • pyrates, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Yes but does it support SLI?
    • kodek, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Hmm, Why is it so expensive, though?

      If 2x 2600XT cost $150 extra, and 3x 2600XTs cost $300 extra, that means that each 2600 XT costs $150. The system comes with a 2600XT as a standard config, and an 8800 GT 512 MB costs $200 extra (that'd be $150 + $200 = $350) Newegg has the same cards for less than $250. :/
      • OptimismPrime, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1Because Newegg isn't trying to get a premium for "geez, someone will have to change that card from the machine that just came from the assembly line....BY HAND!"
    • Darph.Bobo, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Stay away from the nVidia cards if you're using a KVM.
  • Teku, on 01/08/2008, -2/+6I agree with the above commenter, I hope they have something really cool for MacWorld. They must if they let the cat out of the bag on this and the new server changes.
    • ThreeDee912, on 01/08/2008, -2/+2Learn to ues the Reply button...
      • Teku, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1I will get right on that, right after you learn to spell, and learn not to capitalize words in the middle of sentences.
  • ariez84, on 01/08/2008, -19/+8Another evidence that anything with Apple on title makes the front page.
    • kevdotbadger, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2This gives me an idea...
    • postalblowfish7, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4...and people who don't care about apple stories will still comment on them. do you feel important yet?
      • kwr007, on 01/08/2008, -3/+2....and apple fanboys think they own the internet
    • lindyyy, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1You're just jealous
  • fissionignition, on 01/08/2008, -4/+76My nutsack has had these weird little bumps for the last [1]month [0]years!

    Should I be worried?
    • MacParrot, on 01/08/2008, -9/+2Since you act like a woman yes, I'd be worried.
    • ronaldmonster, on 01/08/2008, -7/+1Wow...most random comment on digg award go's too.
    • cappslite, on 01/08/2008, -1/+13Depends on how long you've had your Mac.
    • rickcarson, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1This is common in cyclists apparently. It happens because of the repeated banging of your 'nutsack' on the hard bicycle seat.

      Also, it is common in Windows and Linux users, since the get kicked in the 'nutsack' by Gates or Stallman on a regular basis and are required to say "please sir, can I have another?"
      • agaudet, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1lol
        at least you get to suck on Jobs dick
    • atticus8, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1This is news? I have way more bumps, all way weirder, and for the last [ 2 ] months [ 0 ] years.
  • Izacus, on 01/08/2008, -16/+20Cute. Now instead of having one half-used core we'll have six unused and one half-used cores. Gotta give credit to Intel and everyone else... they made hellova job of convincing people they need multiple core processors.
    • vibrokatana, on 01/08/2008, -9/+5It is obviously needed to run vista at a decent speed.
    • al13n, on 01/08/2008, -8/+3Since when is 6+1=8???

      • Noctem, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4He didn't include the one fully-used core.
    • tacojohn, on 01/08/2008, -3/+12I have a MacPro and I've "maxed" out all 4 cores– ever hear of a multi-threaded application or OS?...See the following screenshot.

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellenich/2103882058/
    • combatchuck, on 01/08/2008, -1/+16You're obviously not the target market for this computer.
    • zongamin, on 01/08/2008, -1/+18You idiot. This is for PROfessionals, not for idiots like you.
    • andycr512, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Yeah, most people don't really need it... I have one of the only current real uses for it (compiling multiple C++ files at the same time - the "change a header and suddenly 5 source files need recompiling" game) and can easily in the course of a normal day of usage be using 4 cores at once (if I had a 4-core CPU - I have a dual-core CPU so I have to compile 2 at once then compile the other 2), but for most applications it's a complete waste...
    • ThreeDee912, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Most of Apple's apps already take advantage of multi-threading.

      I work with audio, but don't have enough $$$ to upgrade to an 8-core. Imagine running Ableton with all 8 cores...
  • Karmavs, on 01/08/2008, -4/+13Most Powerful Mac ever: $27 340.90 (including Applecar - but if you're getting a $27K computer, you're going to get an extended warranty on it

    • pirloui, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3***** hell, how do you make such a number? (goes to check)
      Ok it's 9000 for the ram BS, + All their HD are more expensive than should be.
      That's the most expensive Mac.
      I'm pretty sure most powerfull Mac is closer to 10000, which is way expensive already off course.
      • Karmavs, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Go to the apple store, and Configure a Mac Pro I didn't make that number up. Add 15 000 rpm hard drives in every bay - the best graphics card, two 30" displays, all the bundles, WIFI, wireless peripherals (basically just select the bottom radio button for every option). You'll find it's worth $27 340.90
        • phenom2k7, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1You may better that by going to ripoff.com (alienware.com)
          • Karmavs, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1I'm not buying the thing. You'd be crazy to buy Apple's BTO RAM & Hard drives, and to a lesser extent displays (they're nice displays - but not THAT nice)
        • Th3Wiiexpert, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0Plus Tax?
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1And the point in putting chump money in the hands of Apple for all the most expensive BTO options is?
    • ilgaz, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4That is for client, there is also need for Fiber/SAS, Xsan, Xserve to feed data to the monster. Don't forget the need for backup too, there you may hit $100.000 very easily.
      • Karmavs, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2I think I hit, and surpassed $100 quite easily by myself, actually.
        • dallyp, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2in many countries outside the US, a period is used instead of a comma to indicate placemarks, and the decimal becomes a comma.

          600.000,46 would be 600,000.46
          • Karmavs, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Yep. Though I thought that most of those countries were not english-speaking ones, so it struck me as odd. (Also, here in Australia we use a space instead of a comma, mostly)
    • PrototypeV, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1It's cheaper than the new Xserve only $83,041 fully loaded. I imagine it's reasonably priced for businesses.
  • mCanada, on 01/08/2008, -1/+49Imagine a beowulf clust-- ahhhh ***** it, I'd probably still only use it for firefox, mail and iTunes......
  • bmorlok, on 01/08/2008, -5/+15Woot, Gotta love having 8 cores, 6 of which will probably rarely be used! Same goes for quad core PC's The hardware is ahead of the software here... more cores aren't going to help a ton at the moment.

    This kind of reminds me of "new" razor technology... just add more blades!
    • ilgaz, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4No, as a Quad G5 owner, I can tell you, lots of software, even those which would make you surprised (e.g. Dropstuff) makes use of Quad Cores, they will happily use 8 cores too. JES Video Cleaner like goodly coded freeware makes use too.
      Game is a completely different issue as you probably know. It is not like "lets divide data by number of processors and let them crunch" so it will take a long time for 8 core etc. gaming.
    • MScrip, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3> "Woot, Gotta love having 8 cores, 6 of which will probably rarely be used! Same goes for quad core PC's The hardware is ahead of the software here... more cores aren't going to help a ton at the moment."

      I think you buy the hardware first... then software can be patched or upgraded to take advantage of multiple cores. But... most software written in the last few years already takes advantage of multiple cores. Remember when dual-core processors came out? Years ago. And software has been able to use multiple cores a long time ago.

      If you're buying a 8 core Mac... chances are you already have the software to use it.
    • forgottend, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Reasonable Video encoding time is reason enough, I wanna be able to rip a DVD in under half an hour into good quality h264. handbreak can use all 8 cores so...
      • SatansSpatula, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Let's not forget the badass GPUs in PCs and Macs these days, going completely unused for video encoding. What's up with THAT?
      • ilgaz, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Those companies purchasing these for video editing has their own professional h264 encoding devices. No need to torture a general purpose CPU which is already busy with Final Cut or AVID application for h264 encoding since dedicated devices do it transparently.
    • proliance, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1I'm building a quad core (Q660) for the sole purpose of running Folding @home. Overclocked, 64 bit and running Linux. And yes, the high performance SMP client will use all four cores.

      Crysis is also multi-threaded.
    • rpggm, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1os x will use as many cores as you can throw at it noob. not just 2. almost any app that needs horsepower will split its workload across multiple cores.
      • SatansSpatula, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Uh, hi, um, noob.
        So here is a free lesson in multi-threading. Firstly, with a single processor, multi-threading can only add overhead. Which isn't to say it's not a great thing, since it allows code to be written in a much more serialized and maintainable way, but it's true nonetheless. Now, with multiple processors, you can have one thread running per proc. So, on the surface, it would appear that any multi-threaded application would benefit from additional CPU cores. HOWEVER, this only proves true if the application is written in such a way that it scales well. There are loads and loads of multi-threaded applications out there that do such high-level locking that they have performance equivalent to a single-threaded application.
        Now, additionally, as the number of processors increase, we're getting to the point of talking about massively multi-threaded applications. And that, my friend, is a completely different territory. It requires a different approach to writing code.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1The OS update to 10.5.2 "might" have some improvements that help use those other cores.
      • ilgaz, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1oh no, syslogd will use 800% instead of 200% now? :)
    • ilgaz, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Even DropStuff from Allume (now smith micro) uses all available cores since the day I purchased a Quad G5 PowerPC Mac.
  • Jeez, on 01/08/2008, -5/+0I don not know people are expecting apple to come out with Blu Ray drives for mac. Both microsoft nor apple back the hd dvd and blu ray whole heartedly cause they have do not have much to gain if either format wins. IMO they are probably hoping that both formats fail so that their HD video over internet wins (XBox live and itunes) and they do not have rely on the japanese or the media giants.
  • milkmage, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3yeah. 8 cores has been available as BTO for a while. today it's the BASE configuration. subtract 500 if you only want one (quad core).
    • neiltc13, on 01/08/2008, -6/+1The marketing is misleading. The standard configuration implies that it is the cheapest but Apple is just ***** with everyone here.
  • akilleen, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3I love how easy it is to get something like 8 cores now. I really haven't looked, are there any quad socket boards that will allow 16 cores?
  • TexasCanuck, on 01/08/2008, -2/+7***** the 8 cores... I just want an Nvidia 8800GT finally. They 7300 is pretty much worthless to play current-gen games, much less able to use it as a proper graphics dev system.

    Sadly, the part is not yet available to order individually.
    • HenvY, on 01/08/2008, -4/+11Why? The only game on a mac is photoshop.
      • inkswamp, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1That joke is just as funny as the first 500 times I heard it.

        Next time, you might try thinking up your own comments.
    • colincornaby, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Huh? The high end GPU on the last Mac Pro was the X1900.
      • ilgaz, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1It is high end consumer GPU. If you go higher, you hit ATI FireGL or Nvidia Quadro which will perform TERRIBLY on games since they are designed for professional application use.
  • meshman, on 01/08/2008, -13/+6Wow. Nobody's got 8 cores. That's unheard of. Oh Apple, our lord and savior, what middle ages lifestyle would we all be living if it wasn't for you!
    • MadOtaku, on 01/08/2008, -3/+3Even Apple's had 8 cores for a long time; the submitter is the only one acting like this is something new.
      • cawpin, on 01/08/2008, -3/+2No the submitter is saying it's the default configuration now because it is. Try reading next time.
        • MadOtaku, on 01/08/2008, -2/+3"New Apple Mac Pro: 8 Cores, Count Em Baby
          gizmodo.com — Apple's got a second release that just hit the wires: A Mac Pro with two intel 45nm Quad-Core Xeons."

          "No the submitter is saying it's the default configuration now because it is. Try reading next time."

          Really? Is that what he said? I must be a lot more tired than I thought, because I thought he said it has 8 cores and didn't mention anything to do with defaults.

          My point was that Apple isn't saying "We invented 8 core computers! BUY OUR PRODUCT!" like the person I replied to seemed to imply. Rather, that the submitter was the only one who acted like this is a brag-worthy by saying "Count Em Baby".
        • tupperbacharach, on 01/08/2008, -3/+1@MadOtaku
          ***My point was that Apple isn't saying "We invented 8 core computers! BUY OUR PRODUCT!"***

          Apple and its fanboys would like for everyone to "believe" that Apple invented 8-core computers.

          After that notion is disproved, then they will say that Apple "popularized" 8-core computers.
          • knightboat, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2No I wouldn't.

            Well, that wraps it up for your assumption.
          • tupperbacharach, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1@knightboat
            The problem is that mactards have very short memories.

            Tomorrow, when the same article gets posted, I could say, "but just yesterday knightboat (a certifiable, Apple fanboy) declared that Apple did not invent nor popularize 8-cores," and none of the mactards would believe it.
    • dagamer34, on 01/08/2008, -3/+18 cores is now standard instead of a BTO option. Still not worth a digg story, but let's not spread misinformation.
    • digitalpencil, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1They're 45nm, 12mb, 1600 mhz intels. That's what the point is!
    • AvidPreatorian, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1you have some catching up to do
  • habbofresh, on 01/08/2008, -4/+7Here's what the submitter failed to mention since he was only typing with one hand:
    It's 8 cores standard now, not an addon that doubles the price.

    Regardless, it's apple news. please move along, bury this and the duplicate submissions we'll no doubt see throughout the day and the remainder of the week.
  • techweenie1, on 01/08/2008, -15/+4Wow and they upped the pricing too, w00t I can't wait to be raped up the bummy by Apple :-D!!!!!!!!
    • MacParrot, on 01/08/2008, -3/+3We've heard that about you...
      • techweenie1, on 01/08/2008, -2/+2I'll still probably get one...I'll just be grumpy about it.
    • solistus, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1They raised the starting price by $300 and made 8 cores standard. You're complaining?
  • mrmacky, on 01/08/2008, -10/+8
    This is news? My Vista has had insane processing requirements for the last 4 [*]months [ ]years!

    Am I doin it rite?
  • qmeister, on 01/08/2008, -21/+3BURIED - No one uses these pieces of garbage anyway.
    • directive0, on 01/08/2008, -1/+11"If I say it loud enough and believe it hard enough, maybe it'll come true!"
    • postalblowfish7, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5lolwut?
    • usingpond, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4This was a perfectly rational comment. Did you type this from your Grandma's $300 eMachines PC with AOL pre-installed? Sweet dude, you really came out on top!
    • Darph.Bobo, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Tell us all about your sweet rig.
  • diggNewton, on 01/08/2008, -2/+3I'm in the market - but a bit ignorant on hardware - if I get this now, could anyone estimate when will I need to upgrade again if I work almost exclusively with CS3 (and then CS4, CS5 etc...)
    • Saiing, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Not for a very very long time. I have a Mac Pro with CS3 (yes I'm a freelance designer, so I paid for it unlike most people on Digg). It flies along. There's not really much more than apps like Photoshop/Illustrator can do that is going to stretch it. After Effects/Premiere might in a few years, but it already comfortably handles HD video and there's nothing on the horizon that will change that.
    • Drakk0n, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Work purchased the "8 core+16GB of ram" machines a couple months back along with CS3 and all i can say is you probably wont be needing to upgrade for a while if you get that much power. Seems like the more ram in the machine the better CS3 is and usually the same goes for every upgrade of Adobe's products. I would even venture to say that you'd get up past CS8 as I can still run CS3 on old 1 Ghz machines so long as they have 256MB of ram.
    • stix213, on 01/08/2008, -0/+0How long to wait for an upgrade depends entirely on what you will use the box for. If you continually will need a top of the line machine, then could be as short as 6 months. If the apps you will be running won't become more demanding in the next 5 years, then you may get that long out of it.
    • bbqsalad, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Could you pick one up for me also? tnxnp.
  • JoeyDeacon, on 01/08/2008, -10/+3Thats a lot of apple cores but to play a game I still need to boot to windows and install a better GPU.

    Alternatively a Hackintosh 3ghz Core 2 Duo with an 8800GTS makes the perfect upgradable home gaming mac for half the price. Dual boot with Vista and buy an Apple keyboard and monitor and you get the best of both worlds.
    • themoors, on 01/08/2008, -3/+10Yeah, cos thats what its for Joey. Playing windows games on.


    • HappyScrappy, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3You had me until you said to boot Vista.
  • Baryn, on 01/08/2008, -9/+2Thanks for leading the industry, Apple. Thank you.
    • CrackyJSquirrel, on 01/08/2008, -3/+4Born yesterday were we?
      • Baryn, on 01/08/2008, -5/+1lol, just load Windows on this, *****! It's pretty much the best OS + Best Apple Hardware makes the heart beast!
  • Pahtcub, on 01/08/2008, -4/+5This is news? My macbook has had plenty of power for the last [2] years [0] months!

    `````
    • engion3, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4That is a blatant lie, if it is two years old then its the same one that I have and it has a core duo and not a core 2 duo so its only 32bit. Fail.
      • Pahtcub, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Well when the backlight started flickering on it's own my core duo was "crewed" replaced for free with a brand new one, so as far as applecare is concerned it's two years old
    • bbqsalad, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2unicorn love.
    • AvidPreatorian, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1enough power to check e-mail and surf the net while listening to iTunes songs?
  • goliathlyricist, on 01/08/2008, -20/+6Mac: Hi, I'm a Mac
    PC: Hi, I'm a PC
    Mac: Hey PC, what are you doing there?
    PC: Spreadsheets, Dowloading Torrents, Ripping DVDs, Burning Music, Updating my iPod and Rendering some 3D stuff in AutoCAD. And I don't have Rosetta eating up all my RAM.
    Mac. Hold a sec. My RAM's full......Really, huh? How are you doing all that? My new operating system is crashing like mad, I can't wait for my update!
    PC: Oh, see I switched Back to XP, works way better, Maybe you should backtrack to Tiger.
    Mac: But Leopard is so shiny. So How are you doing all that stuff at once?
    PC: Two quad core processors, of course!
    Mac: Two?
    PC: Yeah two. Cool Huh?
    Mac: Well I'll have twoo soon too. (pout) and I'll cost more! (stomps foot, pouts)
    PC: Exactly! Nice to see you're catching up.....
    • dcshiderly, on 01/08/2008, -4/+5Suuure... You keep believing that. Find me an 8-core pro workstation within $1K of Apple's stripper top-of-the-line Mac Pro, and I'll be convinced. Dell's and HP's offering are all 25% more expensive.
      • goliathlyricist, on 01/08/2008, -6/+4build your own. It will be cheaper, more powerful, and will be best tailored to your specific needs and preferences.

        oh wait, YOU can't...it's a mac...

        (yes, i do know about OSX86, but that's not totally legit)

        BTW, congrats on switching to a real processor architecture and multi-button mice.
      • Bhatch514, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3Send me a check +20% markup and i will build you one.
    • tucsonwc, on 01/08/2008, -2/+6Nice try bub. But I've been running with a dual quad core MacPro at 3Gig, with 16 Gig of ram pre leopard already. Running Tiger + XP over VMWare Fusion + Win2003 Server, while updating my iPhone and everything else other than Autocad which I have no use for. And with my 16 Gigs of RAM, how would I be out of memory? The majority of apps are now universal binary other than microsloth which I can run under XP. How is your 32 bit XP accessing 16Gig of RAM anyway? Nice try troll.
    • antitab, on 01/08/2008, -3/+4Those parodies really don't have an ounce of humor in them. You know that, right?
      • goliathlyricist, on 01/08/2008, -2/+2probably not to you apple fanboys, no...

        go on, drink you warm cup of smug....
    • mike17032, on 01/08/2008, -1/+5Goliath, you are ***** retarded. Even for digg.
    • usingpond, on 01/09/2008, -1/+3PC: Yeah, I have all this stuff that you have, and it's actually better, in fact. So there.
      Mac: Oh really, you've got those new Intel chips? That's weird, I had a special deal with Intel.
      PC: Uh, well, I have a deal too! That's right. Don't ask Intel about it though, it's a secret. Also don't look inside my machine, just believe everything I say even if it's completely ***** insane.
      Mac: I've been doing that for years dude.
      PC: Doing what? Being a big stupid-head and not being able to run any good software? Haha gotcha!
      Mac: Sigh.
    • solistus, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5Right. If only Macs had software that could download torrents or rip DVDs.

      Oh, wait...
      • goliathlyricist, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1lol. you clearly have spreadsheet software and CD burning software. the point was doing it all at once, on an 8-core machine.

        another point that flew over the head of a mac user...
        • solistus, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Your "point" was an unsourced claim that Leopard is unstable (my Leopard Mac has yet to crash) and that a machine with up to 16GB of RAM wouldn't have enough memory to run multiple applications at once. Forgive me for not giving it much credence.
    • inkswamp, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1LOL! Only someone who hasn't used Leopard could dream that nonsense up.
      • goliathlyricist, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1clearly YOU haven't used Leopard. I'm a Graphic Designer at an Ad Agency and they had to stop the Leopard rollout after InDesign and the rest of CS kept crashing...

        I use Macs at work, so trust me, I know exactly what I'm talking about.
        • inkswamp, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Clearly, YOU have crappy admins where you work. I use Macs where I work too. In fact, I do tech support for Macs for a groups of graphic designers and things work fine... if you know what you're doing.

          As far as InDesign and CS suite crashing, give me a break! They do that just fine under *any* operating system. Pinning that on an upgrade to Leopard only shows how inept your tech support is.
  • Racerboy1320, on 01/08/2008, -0/+35I think a lot of diggers are missing the point. The big deal isn't the 8 cores, it's that the 8 cores are the new 45nm intels, 12mb cache, so regardless how many cores you use you still have a ***** ton of on chip memory, that has to make a noticeable difference. Plus don't forget the 1600mhz fsb.
    • helloyamadotcom, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2I was just about to say :(
    • Ramble, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2It doesn't now. Back when chips used to have 256k and 512k of L2 cache it did but there's not a great amount of difference. Reducing the large amount of latency introduced would be better.
      • pirloui, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1Low cache can be very handicaping, the ppc 603e serie had little, and in spite of clocking at 160-180mhz, they where damn slow.
    • agaudet, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Dont forget that fully buffered ecc ram to slow that ***** down :P I thought intel was abandoning FB Dimms
      maybe apple likes to shove ***** memory onto their "performance" system that will get destroyed by a quad core pc with ddr2 :P
  • liberoj, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5Hey DigiDesign.. do you hear the sound of hundreds of users saying "buh bye" to your dsp farm (a.k.a. the worlds biggest hardware dongle).
    • ilgaz, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2Digidesign will happily sell Pro Tools and AVID to those monsters. Do you have any clue what "DSP" is and how STUPID to use a general purpose CPU for a DSP optimized job such as signal processing?
      • nhprm, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3I don't know if what you said means anything, let alone what liberoj said, but I like it.
        • ilgaz, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3DSP is digital signal processing. In some cases, a single $30 guitar pedal can do same thing which would require 4 general purpose CPU to do, in real time. He is thinking those general purpose processor speeds will replace professional DSP farms and it will "kill" Digidesign, maker of ProTools, de facto standard in audio processing/recording.
  • daridave, on 01/08/2008, -11/+3Nice, my bro set up a PC like this about 4 months ago [if I recall]. Welcome to yesterday, Apple! It feels very authentic, though, it's even funny how you kept the same prices he paid when he built it back then!
    • pirloui, on 01/08/2008, -1/+5Wow, you had 45nm 4 month ago?
      No you didn't, welcome to today, sucker!
    • tucsonwc, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4Doubtful it was with Harpertown processors. Many of us were already using Dual XENON QUAD core MacPros with maxed out RAM on Tiger.
  • naio, on 01/08/2008, -18/+2Crapple is a ***** AND greedy company.
    • Darph.Bobo, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Crapple is a ***** AND greedy company. = I'd crawl naked over broken glass to have a Mac, if only I wasn't broke and unemployed.
  • theskyman, on 01/08/2008, -12/+4This site you be called the "Apple Fan Boy"!!!! How many stories do we need about the same thing! Buried!
  • matt.rubin, on 01/08/2008, -3/+1If i was runnning server processors i can get up to 8 cores too. But the thing is xeons are not made for home computing. They are designed for massive mainframes and databases. Not to surf the internet and listen to music on your home computer. Also why would you want to have 8 cores? Photoshop can only be so fast. :b
    • RealHyperX, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4mainframes and databases??? WTF????? What MAINFRAMES???? do you know what a mainframe is?
      • dremspider, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1mainframes still exist and are made today we have them at work, but you are correct Xeons aren't used. I always thought installing ram was quick and easy until I had to do it on a system with 128 dimms while the system was running :-).
    • tucsonwc, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3Because you can knucklehead. The existing Xeon Dual Quad core works fine at home. And you can run XP + Windows Server + Linux all at the same time. 1 box to serve as development, testing, database server, web server etc.
      • stix213, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2If you want all your services to crap out with a single hardware issue, go right ahead and put all your services on a single machine. Not a good idea to have your database & web server on your testing box.... Unless you are an Apple fanboy, then you just wait until Apple tells you that is fine and you can just put your blinders back on and go to sleep. If anything goes wrong you can always just spend another $2800 for another machine.
    • solistus, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1These are Pro machines. If you can't imagine what someone would need this kind of horsepower for, you aren't the target market.
  • RealHyperX, on 01/08/2008, -4/+3Does this mac support hardware raid? Or does it not? I still can't get anyone to get my Mac pro 3.0 gig to boot from a hardware raid.
    • HappyScrappy, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Hardware RAID is a built to order card option. No on-board hardware RAID it seems. I think you can boot from the hardware RAID card.
  • CrackyJSquirrel, on 01/08/2008, -0/+10Dugg because in reality, its all about Intel and how they are cranking out mad powerful CPUs.. Not like Apple deserves recognition for using the best hardware, go figure.. A computer company wanting to use the latest greatest, I never thought I would see that in my lifetime. :rolleyes:
    • tupperbacharach, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4Exactly! Mac fanboys always praise Apple/Steve Jobs as ingenious for utilizing technology that has existed for a long time.
  • mCanada, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3Someone had mentioned applecare and with virtually every other PC I tell my friends / family to stay away from extended warranties simply because if you take a $2K pc they're going to charge you at least ten percent 200ish? which is absurd given the depreciation rate. The odds of a decent pc crapping out by the time that $2K is worth $1K or $500 is pretty low. The only instance applecare might make sense is laptops (IMO), if you bump it around a lot I think the the odds are you're going to mess the HD up pretty quick. I've won the applecare gamble that way.
    • tupperbacharach, on 01/08/2008, -3/+1Not to mention that replacing a component inside a computer takes about as much skill/knowledge as hooking up a CD player to a stereo.

      Oh, I forgot about the helpless Mac user base.
      • chevyorange, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2I'm sorry I can afford AppleCare and Apples. It feels good.

        BTW - I drive a Buick Bitch! Someday I'll have a BMW but you get the idea.
    • usingpond, on 01/09/2008, -2/+3Guess what! You're both idiots. AppleCare is a fixed price. On top of this, it's not for user-replaceable parts, it's for reimbursing you for hosed items, like a hard drive or a graphics card.
      So really the only way you aren't an idiot is if you just happen to have a spare logic board (double the price of AppleCare at least) on hand.

      Did anyone ever tell you that the whole reason Apple Stores are successful is because of support? You should read more.
      • goliathlyricist, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1actually they're successful because of a good PR dept and dumb fanboys that can't fix their own computers.
  • sphrog, on 01/08/2008, -12/+2But does it play Doom?

    Yes. That's just about all it plays, though.
  • griz, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3What does 8 cores standard mean when there is still a quad core option for $500 less. It just means Apple has clicked the 8 core button by default. The 3.2Ghz system comes in at a whopping $4399. Yikes!
    • solistus, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1It means that when you go to the store and buy the big shiny Mac Pro box, it has 8 cores in it.
  • julianxstone, on 01/08/2008, -4/+1What is the world coming to? They put that kinda power into a pinto!
  • digjam, on 01/08/2008, -5/+2Can somebody tell me what all can i do with 8 cores ????
    I suppose i can browse 8 tabs in firefox using each processor?

    /sarcasm obvsly
    • tacomafia, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1firefox is one program. if you had em all in tabs it would be off 1 processor.

      you'd need 8 firefoxes open!

      that or a game that supports 8 cores. or maybe a game taht supported 4 cores and you had some P2P and music in the background
      • digjam, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1AND THATS WHY I SAID.. "OBVSLY" !!!!!!!!!!!
    • ilgaz, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Not like I didn't understand the sarcasm (unlike those burying idiots) but, OS X is really wise to distribute processes to multiple processors (don't confuse with real SMP) so even if you used terribly outdated software developed for single processor, you will still have advantage since Application will have own dedicated CPU while doing intensive tasks or will be using 20% total processor since it is instantly distributed to cores.
      Quad G5 here BTW.
  • Aden, on 01/08/2008, -5/+2I'm viewing this on an 8 core Mac Pro
    Yes this is about the new processors but not impressive in the fact of the 8 core option.
    Buried
  • DrEnrish, on 01/08/2008, -3/+1I'm not really surprised about the decision to not put a Blu-ray drive in the new Mac Pro. Macs are already pricey, [we all know this] so adding the additional Blu-ray drive wouldn't be realistic for consumers. But hey, this is comin from a poor PC owner.
  • nobelief, on 01/08/2008, -11/+3Apple fanbois love giving up money don't they
    • danceparty, on 01/08/2008, -2/+5No, but they are nice workstations and the companies (in my case cable television networks) have no reservation of paying top-dollar for equipment. $10k for an edit is relatively cheap.
    • AvidPreatorian, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2i wonder what crapbox you're posting this comment from

      go quarantine a virus or somethin
    • inkswamp, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1These are not typically purchased by home users. These are pro machines and usually used for professional work (to translate, that means "not games" which is why this doesn't appear to be optimized for cranking out the frame rates if that's your point of reference for computing power.) As danceparty says, some of us work for companies that have no qualms about dropping a chunk of cash on a new machine. But go ahead and keep attacking those imaginary "fanboys" who you think are lining up to buy these machines. If you have nothing better to do, that is.
  • danceparty, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2Will be great for Final Cut, After Effects, Maya, etc. if those apps use all 8. Anyone know for certain which apps do? This is definitely a "pro" machine for designers, editors and scientists. Gamers should still build their own PCs and regular people should/will stick with laptops. But I do think that Apple has created a large gap between the Mac Pro and iMac that they will fill next week. I bet they'll replace the mac mini with something more expandable (or kill it altogether).
    • ThreeDee912, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Final Cut, as well as other Apple 'pro' apps use all cores available. Many regular apps are already multi-processor aware.
  • indyhouse, on 01/08/2008, -3/+2The "Count 'Em Baby" in the original article has nothing to do with cores... the new Mac Pro adds support for up to EIGHT 30" Cinema Displays.
  • lnxfi, on 01/08/2008, -3/+3"Scrotal temperature reflects intertesticular temperature and is lowered by shaving."

    I can attest to that. It makes a big difference on a hot summer day.
    • goliathlyricist, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1i hope this becomes the new diggism....

      the next "will it blend" or "but will it play doom", if you will...
    • HenvY, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2It's all well and good inventing a new digg catchphrase, but will that catchphrase play doom? And if it will play doom, will it blend?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.