Jump to content

Apple announces updated Mac Pro, Mac mini, iMac, quietly updates MacBook Pro

64Bit

By 64Bit

 Share

It's like waiting for a bus... only this time, four came at once.

 

nehalem-mac-pro1.jpg

 

 

 

Apple introduced the long-anticipated update to its ageing Mac Pro range in the form of the "Nehalem"-powered towers. Featuring Intel's latest Quad-Core Xeon which pack all four cores on one die for efficient transfer of data as opposed to splitting them over two, the new Mac Pros show no cosmetic differences. Top-end clock speed on the processors went down in a rare move, from 3.2GHz to 2.93GHz, but performance claims from Apple state they are twice as powerful as the outgoing generation.

 

It's worth noting that the 20" and 23" cinema displays have quietly disappeared from the range, and the new Mac Pro is now featured alongside the LED Cinema Display in product shots.

 

 

 

macmini-5-usb.jpg

 

So it looks like the various images and video posted on various websites were the real deal, as Apple announced the updated Mac Mini sporting no less than five(!) USB ports. To much relief, Apple has replaced the onboard Intel GMA graphics chipset with the much healthier NVIDIA GeForce 9400M with up to 256MB of DDR3 SDRAM, and also upped the max support of RAM to 4GB.

 

Probably the coolest feature in our opinion is the Mac Mini's ability to now support dual displays in extended desktop mode at 1920x1200 resolution from the Mini-DVI and DisplayPort outputs.

 

 

 

new-imac-keyboard.jpg

 

Still sticking with the Intel Core 2 Duo processors, the iMac range did receive an update too, albeit a tame one bar (relatively) recession-friendly pricing, with a 24" iMac starting at just $1,499 (£1,199 inc. VAT). Note that the standard issue keyboard is now sans numeric keypad, but the full length version is still available via the Configure-To-Order options on the Apple Store as a no-cost upgrade.

 

 

 

macbook-pro.jpg

 

On a more subtle note, the MacBook Pro range got a sort-of update in the form of faster CTO options on the processor front. The 17" and backlit 15" MacBook Pro's can now be spec'd up with lap-scorching 2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processors for an additional $300 (£210 inc. VAT).

 Share
Go to articles

User Feedback

Recommended Comments



vbetts

What's not to get? Contrary to popular belief, more cores does not mean more performance. Or better performance. Applications will only take advantage of 1 cpu, not 2 cpus. Now that being said, you have to take into consideration how many cores a single cpu has, and if the application is written to take advantage of multiple cores. The single 2.66ghz cpu, is a quad core cpu. Way more effective then 2 dual cores as it was in the first generation Mac pros. For the double processors, it's 2 quad cores. Not eight cores. And, as for clock for clock comparisons, these new Mac pros are based off the nehalim core(Core i7 if you don't know.), which also means ddr3 memory. It's not the frequency of the cpu that will determine the performance of the chip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bofors
About the Mac Pro I don't understand why they have a single processore configuration at 2.66GHz and double processor configuration at 2.26GHz ... Boh !

 

The single socket Mac Pro uses Xeon 3500 series chips (Bloomfield), these are basically the same (perhaps with some tweaks to the circuitry connecting the silicon die to the pins) as regular Core i7 chips. Here, the entry level chip is the "920," it is clocked at 2.66 GHz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i7

 

 

The dual socket Mac Pro requires Xeon 5500 series chips (Gainestown). Here, Intel decided to clock the entry level chip, the "E5520," at 2.26 GHz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon#5500-ser...22Gainestown.22

 

Apple is just following Intel's product line from the bottom up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maxintosh
this is awesome! partially disappointed that the iMacs n Mac Mini's aren't quad core. but still these updates are awesome!

There is actually 3 models of the Mac Mini. The two 2.0 models that are on their website, and a beefier 2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo model which (for some odd reason) won't be available through any Apple stores according to the store manager that I talked to. This model is going to be Apples MID-SIZED performing Mac costing around $1,044.00, and with the following specs:

 

  • * 2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor
  • * 4GB (2x2GB) of 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
  • * 320GB 5400-rpm SATA hard drive
  • * 8X Slot-loading SuperDrive

I will be ordering two of these new Mac Minis by the end of the week :D

 

THANK YOU APPLE!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pontifex22
model which (for some odd reason) won't be available through any Apple stores according to the store manager that I talked to.

Not quite right: There are 2 models (actually just one, but 2 displayed on the website) and you can configure each

to your taste (2GHz /2.26GHz, 1/2/4GB Ram, 3 hard drives - makes like 18 models according to your way of counting ;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bofors
this is awesome! partially disappointed that the iMacs n Mac Mini's aren't quad core. but still these updates are awesome! time to save up some money!

 

Mac Mini's and iMac's use mobile parts , quad-core is not a mobile option from Intel yet.

EDIT: As Vbetts points out below, Intel actually has released a quad-core mobile CPU now, but I think my point still stands.

 

I would add that two cores is more than enough for the vast majority of people, especially those in the Mac Mini and iMac market.

 

 

x58 chipset works fine, bad move not instaling it in new macs

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superhai

the 2.26 ghz macmini is rather expensive considering the difference.

 

about the i7 cpu, and x58 chipset. the one major advantage is the fact that memory latency and speed is catching up with the cpu speed. Memory bandwidth is much larger, so there will be huge improvement for data not cached in the cpu. There is no point to have a 4GHz cpu if it can't get instructions and data quick enough to utilize it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maxintosh
you can configure each to your taste (2GHz /2.26GHz, 1/2/4GB Ram

No, you can't get the MB464LL/A with 1Gig ram. I tried because it has the better video processor but it's only available in 2 or 4 gigs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
m16
They're finally using Nehalem for the Mac pro. Good to see actually. :D

It's not clock speed that will always determine the final performance of the cpu. These Macs pros are based off of a different platform from what it was before.

Please, Bluray hasn't even begin to kick off yet. It's not big enough yet or worth the cost for apple to include support for it.

Blu-Ray is big enough to be supported. Especially by high end computers. Blu Ray is much better quality than DVD. DVDs look bad now....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pontifex22
No, you can't get the MB464LL/A with 1Gig ram. I tried because it has the better video processor but it's only available in 2 or 4 gigs.

I don't see a difference in on video between MB464LL/A and MB463LL/A please see specs:

http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html

 

Video ram is used according to the main ram built in it apears.

(Quote "2. Memory available to Mac OS X may vary depending on graphics needs. Minimum graphics memory usage is 128MB for 1GB configuration and 256MB for 2GB configuration.")

 

So a MB464LL/A is just another name for a MB463LL/A with bigger hard drive and 2GB ram.

Thus 18 variations of one basic machine. But all right, they don't give you a Mac mini with the MB464LL/A label

with only 1GB ram. But that's just a marketing label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vbetts
Neither was the iPod nor iPhone before Apple introduced it to us, remember?

 

Are you joking? As soon as both the Ipod and Iphone were released, they were both big hits. Bluray isn't an apple product either.

 

Blu-Ray is big enough to be supported. Especially by high end computers. Blu Ray is much better quality than DVD. DVDs look bad now....

 

How many Blu-rays do you see in an average home? How many do you see in high end computers now? Blu ray is going to be difficult to grow, because it's not cost effective right now. Yes, Blu-ray does have much higher quality then DVD, and also a hell of a lot more storage space. But, with the way Bluray is now, it's not cost effective. It needs more support. It's not like DVD, where dvd had time to progress from just movie formats to games, to data, basically to computers. That's it's problem right now with hitting off. As well as we're no where near dependant on bluray as we are DVD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bofors
There is something I am curious about. There should be an imac10,1 coming soon. All these imacs now are imac9,1.

 

Perhaps the imac10,1 will be based on Core i5 (Lynnfield) which is due in about 6 months:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_i5

 

the 2.26 ghz macmini is rather expensive considering the difference.

I am sure Psystar won't be complaining (or will they?).

 

about the i7 cpu, and x58 chipset. the one major advantage is the fact that memory latency and speed is catching up with the cpu speed. Memory bandwidth is much larger, so there will be huge improvement for data not cached in the cpu. There is no point to have a 4GHz cpu if it can't get instructions and data quick enough to utilize it.

 

I have not really seen any kind of a general memory bandwidth bottleneck like this since the PPC G4, which was stuck with a 133 MHz front side bus for years and then was raised to mere 167 MHz. Meanwhile, the CPU clock was raised from about 400 MHz to about 1.5 GHz. Even then, Altivec streaming/pre-fetch data instructions largely mitigated the problem, G4 Macintoshes were not totally blown out by Pentium 4 machines on Photoshop tests.

 

Are you joking? As soon as both the Ipod and Iphone were released, they were both big hits. Bluray isn't an apple product either.

 

I agree. Comparing Blu-ray with iPhone or iPod is not useful here.

 

How many Blu-rays do you see in an average home? How many do you see in high end computers now? Blu ray is going to be difficult to grow, because it's not cost effective right now. Yes, Blu-ray does have much higher quality then DVD, and also a hell of a lot more storage space. But, with the way Bluray is now, it's not cost effective. It needs more support. It's not like DVD, where dvd had time to progress from just movie formats to games, to data, basically to computers. That's it's problem right now with hitting off. As well as we're no where near dependant on bluray as we are DVD.

 

On the other hand, apparently 21.3 million PlayStation 3's have been sold (all have Blu-ray players built-in):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3

 

I see that Sony offers a DVD-burner/Blu-ray-player for about $100 retail:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16827118020

 

I am sure that Apple could get these at a substantial discount, let's say $50, not only after bulk wholesale negations but also because Sony must be pushing Apple to take the lead in adopting Blu-ray. Apple easily has enough margin in the Mac Pro line to include these Blu-ray drives, the DVD-burners they already use are not free either. I think Apple originally adopted DVD-burners at a much higher price point too.

 

The timing and economics may not be right yet, but Blu-ray is not going to take off until companies like Apple start adopting it either. I think Apple fanboys expect it to lead on adopting new technology, like Blu-ray, that is guaranteed to go mainstream too. Sony already offers Blu-ray in their PCs, certainly Apple should not wait for Dell & HP to do the same.

 

Blu-ray should at least be some kind of a Mac Pro option at this point, I am guessing that Apple is still in the process of negotiating a deal with Sony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vbetts
On the other hand, apparently 21.3 million PlayStation 3's have been sold (all have Blu-ray players built-in):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3

 

Just because though that the playstation features Blu-ray, doesn't mean that's what all 21.3 million of those people bought it for. As well as you know as much as I do, that probably just under half of those people, if not more do not have an HD tv on for their playstation. Which, Blu-ray without an HD tv is completely useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest cavallo

Guest cavallo

Posted

Just because though that the playstation features Blu-ray, doesn't mean that's what all 21.3 million of those people bought it for. As well as you know as much as I do, that probably just under half of those people, if not more do not have an HD tv on for their playstation. Which, Blu-ray without an HD tv is completely useless.

 

Exactly as everythimg without its engineering is not a mac pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites
osx_maniac

the new kexts for 4870, will probably bring compatibility for 4850, right? what about 46xx and 43xx series?

also, will the gt 120 kexts bring compatibility to gtx 2xx series from nvidea?

 

greets

osx maniac

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Master Chief
Are you joking? As soon as both the Ipod and Iphone were released, they were both big hits. Bluray isn't an apple product either.

Please re-read what I wrote; as in the iPod wasn't the first music player, and the iPhone wasn't the first smart phone, but Apple stepped in this market and their hardware (iPod/iPhone) became 'hits' as you say, and thus what I was saying is that Apple can do magic here, since you basically need Blu-ray for your HD content so it is just a matter of time IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Master Chief
Just because though that the playstation features Blu-ray, doesn't mean that's what all 21.3 million of those people bought it for. As well as you know as much as I do, that probably just under half of those people, if not more do not have an HD tv on for their playstation. Which, Blu-ray without an HD tv is completely useless.

Microsoft researched this, in Europe, and almost everyone with an XBox 360 had at least a HD-Ready LCD TV so why would PS3 owners be any different?

 

Remember that PS3 owners already bought the more expensive game console, so money was obviously not a problem, and now people here think that they can't effort a HD(-ready) TV? We're not talking about expensive HDMI 1080p projectors here, which are far more expensive, but plain ordinairy LCD TV's which are quite affordable these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pontifex22

Who wants Blue Ray anyway? I want HVD!! :thumbsup_anim:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc

 

Guys cool it, your "arguments" won't hinder nor speed up Blue ray.

 

Like allways people will buy when the price is right and they think they need it, for some reason.

 

This means the media has to be cheap, burners cost less then 150US$, readers less then 60US$ and

for the main part the entertainment corporations are through with selling us their DVDs.

 

Sorry, but this will take a year at least, but it will become common at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
InsanelyPete

I posted this in Nov 2008 and the more time has gone by the more it proves me right:

"There has been a lot of talk in regards why hasn't Apple added Blue Ray drives to their computers. In October Steve Jobs balked at the question saying Sony wanted too much money and that he didn't feel it was the future of video distribution. The truth of the matter Apple has gone to great lengths to block Blue Ray but why? Turns out they wan't to distribute movies like they have done with music, over the Internet. This model allows them increased profits and leverage over the movie industry. Yet another example of when given a choice Apple would block hardware innovations that don't suit their interests. In addition they have not added Blue Ray to any of their DVD authoring software (consumer and professional). Its been previously thought BlueRay support had not been released because they needed more time or that they were waiting to see whether HD-DVD or BlueRay would win out, but now it seems more likely that they have no plans to support it. This has lead many in the video editing field to question how much Apple values multimedia. If they decide that they can make a lot more money on products centered around selling music where does that leave they're original customer base. I'm not predicting a dooms day scenario but I can't help think about the implications of Apples new direction."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
InsanelyPete

Btw, I'm not impressed with the new Mac Pro. Performance wise 1-2% gain and I'm annoyed with their removal of the firewire 400 port. Yes you can use an adapter, but this is just another example of Apple doing whats convenient for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...