text:
Classic Red Wrenchless Screw Collars For 1 Inch Diameter Bars are all the rage!
These Retro Inspired Collars were just what the Doctor ordered in 1932, and they will work just as well for you today. Get your SET OF 4 of these classic collars now. These are the same ones that come with our Bars for Iron Boots and Kettlebell Handles.
This project was a long time coming. At about 75 pounds, this dumbbell is made of several "standard" Atomic Athletic parts, including the following: two 30 pound Atomic Balls with drilled holes, Brass Rotating Thick Handle Adapter , Allen Collars, Classic Red Wrenchless Screw Collars and a piece of 1" dia. steel. (Photo Above)
Make your home gym the envy of all the other traditional Barbell Men. Pick up a copy of the Atomic Athletic Garage Gym Guide by Roger LaPointe, so you can have the best and most useful mancave training hall. The ghost of Bob Hoffman will be smiling down when you lift with your Atomic Athletic Retro Equipment.
This set includes only: 4 Red Wrenchless Screw Type Collars that fit 1 inch diameter bars.
Write Your Own Review
Additional Information
|Free Shipping
|Product Video

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Boot Barn Item #: 2009636
Easy Returns In Stores and Online
All Boots Ship Free (more...)
All Boots Ship Free (more...)
Color: Click a button belowcolor
size: Click a button below Size Chartsize
width: Click a button belowwidth
- Full-grain leather
- 6" shaft height
- Waterproof construction
- 200 grams of Thinsulate insulation
- Padded collar
- Moisture wicking lining
- EVA midsole
- Round toe
- Slip resistant Duratread outsole
Get ready to work, hike, run, and ride in these Creston H2O Work Boots by Ariat. Made to be durable for the working man, these boots are made with a waterproof construction and are equipped with 200 grams of thinsulate insulation to keep your feet temperature up in the harshest of conditions. The boots themselves have an athletic styling and fit with moisture wicking lining. The Duratread outsole is slip-resistant and provides maximum wear-resistance with flexibility.
Style(s): 10011824
Toe Type: Round
Outsole: Rubber
Lifestyle: Work
Heel Type: Work
Upper Material: Leather
Shaft: 6"
Material: Leather
Technology Features: Insulated
Color: Coffee
Closure: Lace-Up
Print Ariat International has been providing boots since 1993. Co-founders Beth Cross and Pam Parker both realized in 1990, that many traditional English and Western riding boots were not suitable for equestrian riding. With their expertise and with a footwear background, they realized there was a need for improved riding boots for men, women and kids. Using their knowledge in athletic footwear, they began making performance enhancing changes to their riding boots, giving these athletes an edge. Ariat Boots quickly became known as the most innovative and performance riding boots. They provide the same technology in men's riding boots, women's riding boots and kids riding boots. They totally redesigned the traditional outsole, arch support and last shape and took Ariat Boots to the next level in riding boot technology. While building the technology into these western riding boots, Ariat had hundreds of top riders help design and develop their final product. Today Ariat is the world leader in performance equestrian footwear as well as offering the most stylish western boots on the market. Ariat Boots offers a wide range of products from English and Western riding boots, work boots and casual boots. Their forward thinking and performance lines outfit today's most avid equestrian riders and enthusiasts. If you are the professional rider who absolutely demands performance boots or the novice who likes to ride around from time to time, Ariat definitely has the boots for every man, woman or child. We have all of the top styles including the Fatbaby boots, Heritage Western, the Dixie and the QuickDraw. These styles are all must have for men's western boots, women's western boots or kids western boots. The casual look and performance driven Ariat Boots will provide you with long comfy rides in the country or a relaxing day in the sun. Get yours today!


text:
Apple Mac Pro (Mid 2010) Reviewby Anand Lal Shimpi on 10/6/2010 9:26 PM EST
84 Comments
Back to Article
Zokudu - Wednesday, October 06, 2010 - linkA Mac Pro has been tempting me for years. It seems like such a wonderful machine. Anand would you say getting a Mac Pro over saw a build it your own of the same caliber is worth it? I can understand if your deeply ingrained into the Apple system but for an outsider does it hold a lot of value? Reply
brausekopf - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkJust buy a 999$ Mac Book or maybe a used one and check it out for yourself!
I am just using a Mac Book Pro as a development system targeting the iPhone. And after having used many Windows versions and many Unix flavors I would not put Mac OS on the top of my list. But it is usable. Reply
xype - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkWeird, after using OS X, I wouldn't even put Windows or Linux on my list. :P Reply
rqle - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkfriend recommended i try osx. my day job is all unix, and osx annoy the shit out of me. Reply
Flunk - Friday, October 08, 2010 - linkIf you're used to Unix, Linux is probably the best bet for a desktop OS. Reply
B3an - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkNo idea why anyone who is capable of building there own system would buy an over priced Mac. Theres nothing special or magical about them regardless of Apple advertising. They just use PC components. Learn to "Think Different" ... or rather think for yourself.
You can not only get faster hardware, but also higher quality hardware for the same sort of price as a Mac Pro. Not to mention a graphics card that's actually good and a fully capable and more advanced OS. Reply
marioyohanes - Monday, October 11, 2010 - linkBecause I want everything to become simple so I can focus more on my job rather than busy fixing this and that from my computer. Simple thing should remain simple, while complex thing should be simpler than ever.
at least that's my opinion... Reply
zero2dash - Monday, October 11, 2010 - link"Because I want everything to become simple so I can focus more on my job rather than busy fixing this and that from my computer. Simple thing should remain simple, while complex thing should be simpler than ever."
Sounds like you should spend more than 10 minutes putting one together with shoddy parts or bother stress testing your overclock - then you might not have to fix anything either.
The only computers I have to "fix" these days are prebuilts with the garbage psus that usually crap out in the 2-3 year window. Gateway, Dell, HP etc. doesn't matter, they all use crap psus. If they actually used something decent like a cheaper Antec or Seasonic, they'd run practically forever. Reply
TD912 - Monday, January 03, 2011 - linkThat's kind of what he means. You need to spend the time to build and test and tweak everything instead of having something that is ready to use out of the box. Reply
cotak - Friday, October 15, 2010 - linkThat's because you never opened one up right? Never owned one and used it day to day?
If Dell, or any of the built it yourself case vendors do cases like the Mac Pro they'll charge you more then apples does for the same hardware.
It's like saying why buy a BMW 323 over say an accord. the BMW's a basic car, doesn't have a lot of features, doesn't have a lot of power. And no it's not for everyone. But by god it rotates on corners vs feeling like the front's going to fly off. That's why my brother basically drove one for 10 minutes and decided to buy it.
That's what apple brings to the laptop, the desktop and the smart phone.
If you never had the money to buy one or work where they give you one, you'll never know. Reply
Nardman - Friday, October 15, 2010 - link^^This argument becomes valid the moment a Mac Pro can pull a doughnut.
Cotak, handling is a tangible, quantifiable characteristic...
Apple products have sold for years based on the intangible 'worth' of them. What, exactly, makes the Mac Pro better than any other machine? That would be nothing...aside from a price tag, and marketing. Sorry, but that case is not worth $400(+) Reply
mattgmann - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkI really can't understand the premium for these workstation class systems (apple or dell). There is basically a 100% mark up or more on parts. I'm sure a large business may be able to afford to just chuck money at systems, but any small business/independent designer is freaking retarded to buy a system like this. With a little shopping and a few hours of construction you can have a FAR superior system for half the price. Aside from being able to get free performance by overclocking your CPU, you can build a storage system that is quick and redundant (i.e. raid 5). Save your money for the adobe raping you'll receive every time they release a new CSX. Reply
BrooksT - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkRead up on fixed costs, variable costs, and overhead.
Short version: these workstations sell in much lower volume than mass market machines. Yet some of the fixed costs -- R&D, design, certifications, etc -- are exactly the same, or higher. They have to spread higher costs among fewer machines, resulting in higher gross margins per machine.
Think of an extreme: if Apple (or Dell, or anyone) were going to produce just one workstation of a certain type -- only one unit made with a particular case, power supply, documentation, marketing effort, warranty service, spare parts inventory, customer support, UL certification, etc -- how much would it cost at retail, compared to the raw parts cost? A lot, right? Reply
mattgmann - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - link
How long does it take an "engineer" to compile a parts list, and a minimum wage factory worker to slap together off the shelf components that are the equivalent of adult legos. Overhead cost is greatly exaggerated in these machines and they inflate the cost solely because the customers are "professionals".
'documentation, marketing effort, customer support etc'. These are all things that apply to every system they make and the costs are no different. I think these are more apologistic excuses rather than actual reasons.
how much would it cost at retail, compared to the raw parts cost? A lot, right?
-not really. If you think Dell and Apple are paying retail for the parts in those systems, you're crazy. They're making retail markup to start with, and then many times that amount for putting the system together.
Is this wrong? no. of course not. But these types of systems are where they make large profit margins, and there is a lot of money to be saved by doing it yourself, or even paying an individual to do it for you. Reply
Swissalex - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkYou are missing out on a big point, the certification for the professional application like AutoCAD and so on.
The Dell Precision line comes with a complete support for many of these professional applications. And if this is your primary work tool you are not interested in troubleshooting and tweaking your system. Productivity and stability is more important.
I am not Apple expert; on the Dell website they make it very clear that they support those applications. I have not found the same for Apple. Do they offer the same level of support for software? Reply
Swissalex - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkAlso what is the support level on the Mac? Dell comes with a 3 year NBD service by default. There is no information on the price comparison about this one. Reply
Penti - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkThe Mac Pros more tend to be used by the post-processing guys in Film (And TV) when it comes to high-end. Tools like Apples quicktime, and FCP becomes really important there. Together with very important third party tools. It works as well as in the Windows world, but they also has some tools that don't really exist on Windows. Where the alternative would be specialized hardware and a separate workstation that's built with custom hardware and software from a vendor in that business. Obviously Apple do and would help a vendor who's having a problem with their software, but they won't issue fixes like reverting stuff just for some app to work, but neither would Microsoft. It's up the the software vendor to support it. Like always. It's not that Dell can start doing development on the workstation graphics cards drivers.
As for warranty the standard is 1 year limited even with the Mac Pro.
BrooksT, if you like a more competitive price look at Apple 2P workstation. Reply
MGSsancho - Friday, October 08, 2010 - linkRight tools for the right job. even if you use Avid you can use either system. but in practice when shops use Fiber Channel interconnects, dual 30" screens, mixing boards and professional video (SDI) and audio (XLR) interconnects, things are not so PC vs Mac. While im sure that these $30k+ workstations don't care too much for the OS they use, these things are more like appliances. In other industries as well, maybe all your software tools, scripts, plug-ins and stuff can not be easily ported. Companies spend good money setting up these workstations and they don't care what OS they use, they have the tools they like and want results. Penti you pretty much nailed it all on the head. except with Microsoft they will write patches to get things working for you as well as the Unixes, granted those with the top level up support contracts.
Real difference is the support contracts. Apple doe not yet have business support plans. no four hour support for mission critical stuff for people who want to pay for it. In the end, we must hope that businesses will get the best tools for their jobs. Reply
rafaperez3d - Friday, October 08, 2010 - linkIt's a shame where the video and tv market is going because this company. To get the job done we need two things: reliability and performance. After a lot (a loooot) of marketing, Apple put in people heads that they got those two things, far ahead from any PC. We know that is not true (Anand proved a few pages back), and the market is supporting those silly people. Please, don't tell me about high reliability on Macs. I crash Foundrys Nuke at least 12 times a day, Final Cut every single hour, Blackmagic cards give me sync and black frames time to time, Cinema 4D crashes a lot too, coworkers restarts their machines time to time... OS X is not bad, but is not perfect too. Reply
Penti - Saturday, October 09, 2010 - linkI guess you would prefer having Windows workstations, Linux workstations, OS X workstations and specialized workstations instead? In a mixture. OS X and Mac pro is a good target for the guys who ran their apps on Unix/Irix/Linux. It's good, not perfect. On Linux for example you don't have access to anything like quicktime, the film people won't start running ffmpeg, plenty in the business seems to prefer having less workstations and workstations that can do more. But for it to be working perfect? I wouldn't expect that anywhere. But you should note that I didn't make any claim for reliability, it's the same hardware as in the PC workstations, not any higher quality and not some perfect software solutions. Not from Apple neither from the third parties. Which is actually what I implied as in the support not being perfect. They do tend to support that market but not perfectly and neither does any one else. I see Apple as an OEM mainly. Reply
khimera2000 - Sunday, October 10, 2010 - linkDont forget that the reason why mac is more linux/unix friendly is becaus they bucherd the open source comunity to put out a OS that can compete rather then starting from the ground up :D check it out its out there ;) Reply
BrooksT - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkThey use the same documentation for the Mac Pros as they do for Macbooks? Ouch. That must suck to be a service tech on a Mac Pro.
What you're missing is that it's not the cost of making the 10,000th unit that matters. Making the *first* one is very very expensive. Sure, the gross margins are quite high -- probably 50%, compared to Apple's average of 38%.
But for Dell, and Apple, and any other large manufacturer, there is a lot more to this than "putting the system together." That is the cheapest and easiest part of the whole process. But if assembly is the only the value you see them adding, by all means, you're better off buying parts and doing it yourself. Other people see value in a single point of contact, whole systems validated to work together, and even pretty design. Reply
xype - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkWhat parts of the Mac Pro internals look like random components compiled to a list by an "engineer"? Do they use an ASUS motherboard? Antec case? Artic cooling vents? Vanilla cabling? Have you actually ever looked inside a Mac Pro, much less upgraded any part of it?
Sure, there's a big markup on those machines, but throwing either the Mac Pro or the Dell/HP workstations into the same lot as a randomly-assembled PC is making your argument look stupid. As for the money saved: people who tax-deduct their computers usually don't care. Coincidentally, they are the target audience for those machines. Reply
rafaperez3d - Friday, October 08, 2010 - linkWhat is the problem with those components? ASUS making motherboards? Arctic making coolers? They are very good at they do, and usually they do that longer than Apple....
Anyway, if you look closely, Apple basically do the chassis... I think even motherboard is from Intel... Reply
seanleeforever - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - link@mattgmann
you know, what you have done is perfectly fine but is ONLY applicable to home-brow, small scale, no regulation applications such as what you have just described.
please don't take it personal, but a large business has set of regulation and rules that you obviously don't even be bothered with.
for example, you said those are off the shelf components, okay, find me a off the shelf components that shapes like Mac book pro sheet metal, or M/B that fit like what Apple have? how about heat sink? see what i did here? just because the system you put together use all the COTS parts, doesn't mean everyone use COTS parts. what you did is simply putting stuff together (or like you said, just a minimum wage factory worker to slap together off the shelf components). anything new will require you to design the parts and make sure them fit. this is not a simple task by any stretch of imagination.
"'documentation, marketing effort, customer support etc'. These are all things that apply to every system they make and the costs are no different. I think these are more apologistic excuses rather than actual reasons."
this statement is completely false in a large scale. let's assume you get hit by a car tomorrow and hospitalized. one of your machine has power problems and causing reboots. okay, do you keep a set of document for machine you built? like what CPU/Video card/HDD/RAM... if i ask you that what is your power consumption under certain load, do you have a document to show me? does your document good enough to help engineer diagnose the error? if a batch of video card is faulty, can you trace which system you build may or will be affected?
let's move on the QA too, what is your quality assurance? is there a process in place to make sure all the unit you build will have the same quality?
those just a few things a large business has to consider, you are not selling 200, you are selling 200k. YOU will not be able to answer all the tech calls and fix all machines. your customer will have all sort of questions cover all areas. this is a HUGE effort. Reply
erple2 - Friday, October 08, 2010 - linkYou're only seeing a small part of the overall cost. The cost of a support staff to price out, then buy, then assemble, then burn-in a machine for a company is just staggering. And it's not for the cost of the support staff. You have to also factor in the cost of the people downstream that are "waiting" for the upgraded hardware, too.
My personal time is more or less "worthless" to me - I can easily substitute a substantial amount of my own time to crawling through newegg or other sites to part out the best bang for the buck computer that I want to use at home. However, if I was making purchasing decisions for a company/business, I'd have to factor in the delay costs of crawling through various sites looking for the best deal, compared with the time that I'm wasting from other people to be using that product. Even if I only cost 50 bucks an hour, there may be 30 other people that are also costing 50 bucks per hour. That's 1500 dollars per hour of lost productivity, just in getting parts ready to burnin and test. How many hours does it take before it no longer makes financial sense to just buy a pre-made system?
There is a very very good reason why medium and large companies that don't have regular "the server is down" events use pre-made machines sourced from a single vendor. Support costs are astronomical, once you actually factor in the TRUE cost of ownership over the life of the parts.
I am about 90% sure that every single person who claims that the Mac Pro is an overpriced PC have never actually done anything remotely similar to a cost analysis on the actual costs of computer ownership. If your time is free, then it doesn't matter. But nobody that runs a business, or works in a business can say that. Reply
pieterjan - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkYou're an idiot if you buy Precision workstations at list price. Give Dell a call, and ask for a discount. You'll also be able to configure these systems to your likings: more parts options. This is especially true if you say them, that if you're satisfied, more purchases from Dell will follow. Reply
Sabresiberian - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkI'm so impressed that you can call people names, and put people down who are medically and/or educationally diagnosed "retarded" at the same time. There's nothing wrong with being retarded, there is something wrong with being rude and unkind.
Others have addressed the issue, but I'll add that it's not about how you "can't understand" the "premium", it's about you not finding out why business people are willing to pay the price - it's not just about bigger budgets and throwing money at solutions. You CAN understand if you'll make the effort to do so.
Then, if you still really think you can provide the same product for less, you can get into business for yourself and make some money. :D Reply
mattgmann - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkI make lots of money building custom workstations for small businesses. It's a nice side job. They get systems to fit their exact needs and save a butt load of cash. I take care of all hardware warranties, and software support comes from the software manufacturer. Of about 200 systems I've built over the last few years that are floating around the city, I've made exactly 2 service calls, and spent less than an hour per system on the phone.
The "premium" should be in a properly configured system, not in a phone number to a dell genius or apple savant to help you fix your system. Knowing how you use it is the end users job. All of this "premium" crap is overrated and a waste of money. I more than understand the decision process, and as a business owner I know that production is what matters. I'd rather spend that extra money on training for employees than waste it on meaningless support.
Did I hurt your feelings with my words? Can't take a little sarcasm? Thanks for the heartfelt scolding; I'll try not to use anymore "offensive" words. Now go back to your desk in human resources and file some more sexual harassment complaints. This is an internet message board, not a world peace and hugs meeting. Reply
AnnonymousCoward - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkIs that $250 Obsidian case really necessary, or would an $80 work just as well? cuz that really brings up your custom price. Reply
mattgmann - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkI understand including a nice case, as the mac case is quality. But you're right, $250 is a bit steep. There are plenty of less expensive cases that are just as nice, and some real budget cases that would be serviceable. Reply
hellotyler - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkIf I had the money, I'd buy one of these in a second. Apple rules. In today's world though, budget is important and PC beats out Apple heartily on the mid-powered PC market. I own both Mac and Pc (side by side, my two babies) and I love them both dearly. If I had to choose a brand new super powered computer though, I'd have to go with the Mac because of the OS. Reply
noiseunit - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkMaybe I'm missing something here but a quick search on newegg showed a $700 difference in the price of the graphics cards, maybe thats why the dell is so expensive? Reply
Stokestack - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - linkThe Mac IS a PC. If you mean a Windows system, then say that. Reply
ViperV990 - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkDidn't see it mentioned in the article, so I'm assuming no, but I want to double-check: Does the Mac Pro support 3x1 Eyefinity setup?
Also, it's a shame that they're not offering the Eyefinity 5 or 6 models as an option. Reply
Porksmuggler - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkReally appreciate the honest comparison to the custom built, but the Dell T5500 isn't exactly comparable. It's easy to say "other than the graphics card" but seriously:
Apple's ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB - $249 from Apple or $125 from Newegg
Dell's ATI FirePro V8700 1GB - $860 from Newegg Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkIt's a tough comparison to make if you really want to dive into it. The FirePro price premium is due largely to the driver work and it's tough to tell what equivalent driver work (if any) Apple has done in OS X. Either way, it does change things quite a bit and I've updated the text to reflect that there is an Apple tax that's just hidden by the GPU cost differential.
Thanks for the comment :)
Take care,
Anand Reply
Porksmuggler - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkThanks for the update, it truly is a tough comparison.
I think an even greater concern with both the Dell and Apple tax is that both are using what might be considered as "commodity components"; Apple certainly would be using Foxconn, and I do not know of Dell's core supplier. The point being, these components do not have the same reputation of quality and performance as those used in the custom built.
The extent of the tax goes even further... Reply
Sunburn74 - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkNot sure how you managed to reach the $324 number you published in the edit in the article. The cheapest fireprov8700 I can find costs 600 flat (ebay buy it now). The difference is at least $500 once you deduct the street costs of the packaged gpu. Reply
jecs - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkTo me the "why a Mac Pro" is I have been afraid to build myself a solid dual socket PC workstation class machine for Pro 3D modeling, rendering and compositing with Maya and Final Cut Pro. But now I am very used to some pro Apple and none Apple software and happy. So in my case my current 2.8 octacore has been very, very reliable. For graphic design I agree it gets more difficult every time to justify a dual socket machine like a Mac Pro. Why 8-12 core for illustrator or even Photoshop?, Get the fastest quadcore PC for this. But also is a matter of personal preference.
The Mac Pro is not the fastest machine out there but not either the most expensive or exotic hardware as there are usually faster PC hardware and more specific software options and features. But, if you like me are using specific multithreaded Pro software with decent performance and like OSX, then the Mac Pro is very solid. No Mac Pro has died on me yet, they are easy to upgrade for the most common features, work very well out of the box, is reliable, offers dual socket options and no Apple tax on comparable Dell or similar workstations.
On the other hand, even I use the Mac Pro all day long I builded a SFF quad core PC and this is the machine I am going to upgrade this year. The PC is "my back up" machine but the one that goes outside with me when I need performance, and also one very useful rendering machine.
By the way Anand, very good article! I enjoyed very much reading through the lines, not defensive at all, not too long and I learned on some features and coments. At least to my experience as a Mac Pro user from the beginning and even from the days of the G5s. Reply
Stas - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkNo need for 750W PSU in the custom build. 500W would do just fine.
$250 for a case... only Fortress 2, otherwise, GTFO. $150 LianLi would do just fine (oh, look, brushed aluminum, too O.O lol).
I say, you could build the custom for $1600 WITH the OS (especially if you shop around for MIR, coupons, etc.).
Nonetheless, very useful article. As a PC builder, I will forward this to my customers :D Reply
DaveGirard - Friday, October 08, 2010 - linkIf you actually put some newer GPUs in that machine and used them for rendering, you'd be cutting it too close at 500W. Reply
beammeup - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkSo what Mac only workstation software is now out there that isnt available on a PC?
Just wondering what the incentive is in a business environment to pay extra unless there are real tangible benefits to be had.
Also there is more price difference than just the GFX. The Dell comes with a 3 year warranty including on site support where as the Mac only comes with 1 year (its an extra $249 to upgrade that to 3 years) Reply
xype - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkOS X? Apple Final Cut and Logic suites? Reply
mattgmann - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linknothing too special. Final Cut is the one everyone sites, but the fact is that premiere pro is just as, if not more capable. People just don't like (to learn) the interface.
OSX is a cop-out excuse. It's just an operating system and doesn't increase productivity. In fact, it's horrific storage tools make file management a pain. Reply
Stuka87 - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkThe MacPro (And MacBook Pro) is used heavily in audio work as well. Take a step into most recording studios and you will see a Mac being used to edit and mix the tracks.
Final Cut is used heavily in the movie industry, as is Aperture (photos are taken of the set, colors are adjusted, and once approved, the video is adjusted to match the colors in the photo). Reply
DaveGirard - Friday, October 08, 2010 - linkNo one uses Premiere in the professional world anymore. And it would just be a test of CUDA. Reply
seanleeforever - Friday, October 08, 2010 - linkfinal cut is pretty nice, but aperture is not a killer software. Reply
jags - Friday, October 08, 2010 - linkyou really cannot argue with mac fanboys! they are pretty blind in their unwavering worship of apple. logic is NOT going to win here my friend. Reply
jags - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkSorry this is a little out of context here and I apologize.
This is a pretty good website and I come here frequently to check out new stuff. But is Anand a little obsessed with Apple or what? It seems Apple's the "only" thing he considers worth reviewing these days (for the most part). Come on, is everything else so low for you now? I know this is "anandtech" and you can write what you care about, but I am just asking. Reply
Stuka87 - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkUhm, this is the first Apple System they have reviewed in quite some time. If you click under systems up top, you will see pages of PC's, along with a review for the current gen Mac Mini last spring, and a MacBook Pro review. And there is an iPhone 4 review and AppleTV review. But these are pieces of tech that people like. Just like the 500 PC reviews and other misc. hardware. Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkApple gets equal treatment along with the rest of the stuff we review around here. In fact, the Mac Pro review got pushed back for months to accommodate more pressing things like the Sandy Bridge performance piece, the associated architecture article and testing for the next SSD piece.
There have been a lot of Apple related articles lately but that's simply because Apple recently announced a lot. This clears out the last of the backlog. Next on the list are SSDs, HDDs and some other unmentionables... :-P
I appreciate you visiting frequently :)
Take care,
Anand Reply
shambla - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkI am considering picking up an entry level Mac Pro, but I am a little concerned about future upgrade options. I understand that the daughter board in the uniprocessor model is different from that in the DP models, but is the main logic board identical to that in the dual processor Mac Pro models?
More importantly, will the daughter board in the 2.8GHz Nehalem uniprocessor model allow me to upgrade to ANY of the uniprocessor variant Westmere CPUs sometime down the line, or am I restricted to Nehalem Xeons? Could I for example put in a single W3680 3.33GHz 6-core Westmere CPU in a year or two? I know that Apple offer this CPU as a build-to-order option for the uniprocessor Mac Pro, but does this require them to use a different daughter board? Reply
Nadav2010MP - Friday, October 08, 2010 - linkHello Shambla,
In answer to your question, the main logic board(backplane board) has only one firmware version for both single and dual set ups. The firmware for the 2010 is: MP51.007F.B00 and the SMC firmware is 1.39/f11 for both the logic board and processor boards(single and dual), so yes the main backplane board's firmware is for both the single and dual.
As far as being able to upgrade to any westmere cpu, the answer is YES. For instance, when I did my upgrade by removing the 09 parts from my 09 mac pro and replacing them with 2010, the processor board already has the B1 stepping support built in, along with the D0 nehalem stepping so that you can upgrade the w3530 2.8 to a w3680... The same can be said for me.. I have a w3580 3.33 4-core DO Nehalem processor, and I can easily use the Westmere 6-core w3680 as a drop in replacement - the board's firmware accepts both Nehalem and Westmere cpus.
There is only one part number for the single-processor board. It wouldn't make sense for Apple do deny customers the right to upgrade to the w3680 later on, since the firmware supports both D0 AND B1.. Here are the part numbers:
Single-processor board: 661-5707
Backplane board: 661-5706
Dual-processor board: 661-5708
***THE DUAL WOULDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AND I WILL TELL YOU WHY. Unlike the single-quad core which you would have, the same heatsink also works on the 6-core w3680(that same heatsink also is the same on the 2009 mac pro).. Why the dual option doesn't work is because not only do you have to get the dual board, but you also have to BUY the dual cpu heatsinks which alone would cost close to 400.00. Then the processors themselves are EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE..
The single-quad upgrade makes sense as the processors aren't too bad.. For me, who had a 2009 originally, for 300 dollars I was able to buy just the backplane board and processor board - while using my existing 09 parts(fans, case, heatsink etc..). In essence, my w3580 works great in the 661-5707 board and rightfully so because it doesn't make sense to just limit the firmware to support only 2.8,3.2 and 3.33 6-core... rather, the firmware supports all, and I MEAN ALL D0 and B1 stepping processors.. Here is my system profiler:
Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro5,1
Processor Name: Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 3,33 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 8 MB
Memory: 6 GB
Processor Interconnect Speed: 6.4 GT/s
Boot ROM Version: MP51.007F.B00
SMC Version (system): 1.39f11
SMC Version (processor tray): 1.39f11
As you can see, the changes in firmware are visible here.. MP51.007F.B00 and SMC 1.39F11 for both backplane and processor board.. and originally my parts were 09 parts.. And yes, I am using the w3580 processor - the 2009 lineup's top of the line in the 2010 processor board, and as you can see it fully works as if it were a 2009... But, I also have the capability to use 1333 mhz memory with it since the w3580 supports 1333 along with its other brother the w3680. Reply
shambla - Sunday, October 10, 2010 - linkMany thanks for the thorough reply - I assumed I would be fine to just drop a single 4 or 6 core Westmere into the standard uniprocessor daughterboard, since as you said, it makes no sense for Apple to use 2 parts when one is sufficient and I assumed that the Nehalem and Westmere CPUs would be similar enough that there would be no technical reason why this would not be possible. I completely agree that trying to upgrade the uniprocessor model to a dual processor system would be prohibitively expensive, given the additional parts I would require, hence my interest in using one of the 6-core Westmere CPUs instead. Thanks again for the help Reply
Highjnx - Thursday, December 16, 2010 - linkOut of curiosity where are you able to find the backplane and processor boards for the 2010 at $300. I'm not finding either one for less than $450 = $900 US Dollars.
Also I've got half a dozen X5670 chips in hand and would be curious to know if one of those would work on the single board in place of the W3680.
Any input is appreciated. Reply
DominionSeraph - Sunday, October 10, 2010 - linkWhy would you get the base Mac Pro? You can get a 980X with 24GB and SLI'd 1GB GTX 460's for ~$100 less than the Mac Pro's quad core, 3GB, and 5770. Reply
shambla - Sunday, October 10, 2010 - linkWell for a start I get educational discount which knocks something like 15% off the list price straight away. I can get the base model for just over £1600 or get it upgraded to 6GB plus swap the 5770 for the 5870 for just under £2000. I have priced up broadly similar systems using both i7 and Xeon CPUs, but in the UK, last time I checked the 980X CPU alone would cost me around £750, the pair of 460s would be around £350 and 24Gb of tri-channel RAM would be around £450. That's £1550 before I have added a suitable motherboard, PSU, case, storage etc. Plus I like OS X, it's as simple as that. Finally, if I want to free up some cash a couple of years down the line, a Mac Pro, like most other Apple systems, maintains value like no other system you can buy or build yourself. Reply
pr0nstar69 - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkSomebody already mentioned this in passing, but there is another horrible mistake in the price comparison: the Dell comes with a 3 Year warranty and support, as well as NBD exchanges, whereas the basic price for the Mac Pro only includes one year of warranty and support, as well as the pleasure of carrying your Mac Pro to an Apple Store.
If you want to compare apples with apples, you have to at the very least add AppleCare to the Mac Pro, $249 extra. So the total "Apple tax" is more like $574, when warranty and the graphics card are taken into account.
I don't think that falls into "minimal". Especially because you'd have to be an idiot to buy a Dell workstation at the list price on the Dell website. One call to sales or to your own Dell representative should give you at the very least a few percent off, and for companies that buy Dell equipment regularly more like tens of percent. Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkVery true, I've updated the cost comparison to equalize along warranty as well.
Both Apple and Dell can offer significant discounts if you have a relationship with them. Going through Apple's Business representatives can easily save 3 - 10% off pretty much anything. I've kept discounts out of the equation simply because they are hard to track and do vary based on a number of factors.
Take care,
Anand Reply
jasperjones - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkOS X hasn't supported NUMA for the longest time. imo it's of some importance on a dual-socket system with 8 or 12 cores. So, question: has Apple finally got around to make it work with the Mac Pro '10? If not, I assume that similarly-configured Dell and HP systems which run Linux or Windows will perform better in some scenarios. Reply
metaungulate - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkThe KVR1333D3K3/3GR is Unbuffered. This won't work. Reply
Ben90 - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkXeons support ECC not require it. Reply
Stuka87 - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkBuffered and ECC are different, and should not be confused with each other. Older Xeon's did use FBDIMM's, but current Xeons use standard DDR in either Non-ECC, ECC, or Buffered ECC unless the chipset used specifically calls for one or the other. Reply
metaungulate - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkThank you for the clarification. However, these are the current prices on newegg.com:
Intel Xeon E5620 Westmere 2.4GHz 12MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 80W Quad-Core Server Processor BX80614E5620: $384.99 x 2
Kingston ValueRAM 3GB (3 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Triple Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model KVR1333D3K3/3GR: $60.99 x 2
SAPPHIRE 100283-3L Radeon HD 5770 1GB 128-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card: $139.99
Western Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive: $79.99
LG Black 24X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 16X DVD+R DL 24X DVD-R 6X DVD-RW 12X DVD-RAM 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-R 32X CD-RW 48X CD-ROM SATA DVD Burner - Bulk LightScribe Support - OEM: $20.99
Corsair Obsidian Series 700D CC700D Black Aluminum / Steel ATX Full Tower Computer Case: $249.99
Antec TruePower New TP-750 750W Continuous Power ATX12V V2.3 / EPS12V V2.91 SLI Certified CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Active PFC: $109.99
ASUS Z8NA-D6C Dual LGA 1366 Intel 5500 ATX Dual Intel Xeon 5500 and 5600 Series Server/Workstation Motherboard: $259.99
On what planet is this: $1612.91?
The actual cost is: $1,752.90. Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkThat's the issue with non-realtime pricing, it changes. I've updated to the latest numbers :) Reply
kevin2i - Sunday, October 31, 2010 - linkThe article is still wrong -- pricing does not include an OS.
1752 Parts
199 Windows 7 Professional
Didn't see wifi/bluetooth, firewire, mouse, keyboard either.
iLife suite? - The user may or may not find it useful. Although I have Final Cut, I typically use iMovie for simple tasks.
Home box: No real warranty, no resale value -
The apple tax is looking more like a refund compared to a home built system. Reply
zorxd - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkThe Apple tax is clearly there. Only, there is also a Dell tax this time.
Also, the Apple tax would look even worse if you compared the single socket system, since you could get a Core i7 (or maybe even i5) instead of the Xeon for the same (or better) performance with a much cheaper motherboard and CPU. Reply
metaungulate - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkYeah, don't get me wrong, I still think that the build is the way to go at $1752.90. Just pointing out that if Anandtech wants to be such a trusted technical resource it would help if the writers knew how to use a calculator. :) Reply
Nadav2010MP - Friday, October 08, 2010 - linkBut, for those like me who have a 2009 mac pro, all I had to do was spend 300 dollars for the two main parts to make my 09 a 2010.. The backplane board 661-5706 was only 250.00 from an on-line site.. and the processor board only cost me 46.00 - so, for 300.00, using the w3580, my 8GB 1066 mhz memory and 5770 - I was able to remove the original 09 parts and replace them with 2010 parts.. The heatsink from the 09 is the EXACTLY same as the 2010... rather the other way.. the 2010 uses the same 09 parts, some are marked with different part numbers to distinguish them, but for the most part.. all fans, case components work on the 2010 backplane board, as this board is the same exact board as in the 09 except Apple flashed it with the firmware to support westmere and 1333 mhz memory.
Dual is a totally different story... it wouldn't be cost effective to move from a single to a dual because you lack the heatsinks(those two alone would be near 400 dollars), while the dual processor board would only be 76 dollars(macpartsonline.com), you still need the dual processors and THOSE ALONE would cost more than the machine or come close to the cost of a new 2010 already.
The upgrade from 09 single to 2010 single can be done for 300.00 and thats it.. you are done. But the dual would cost far more. Reply
tipoo - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkSigh...For something aimed at content creation professionals, for something with up to 12 cores of epic performance...Apple sure likes to skimp on video memory. For instance, Mudbox will give you warnings and also slow to a crawl on the amount of video memory Apple provides, and your upgrade options are limited. 1GB is an improvement over last gen, but only squeaks by for high end graphics work. To make things worse, there are no build to order graphics options over 1GB.
I guess people in that situation who don't need (or can't afford) a workstation class card will have to wait for a third party Mac graphics card with 2GB or more video memory. Reply
AnnonymousCoward - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkAnand, I think you have a future in fashion show photography. Reply
chemist1 - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkAnand writes, in addressing one possible way in which this Mac might soon be obsoleted, "With the arrival of Sandy Bridge imminent, you might ask - why buy a Mac Pro today? And I might answer, Sandy Bridge isn't imminent for everybody."
But isn't there a way in which the new Mac Pro is already obsoleted: the lack of onboard SATA III (6Gb/s) support? Given the importance of I/O for overall system performance, given that SSD cards are already capable of saturating SATA II connections, given that SSD cards should continue to increase rapidly in performance, capacity, and affordability, wouldn't one want to hold off buying a Mac Pro until it offers SATA III support (or something comparable to SATA III)—particularly also given that these desktops should have relatively long lifetimes?
Given Anand's sophistication about SSDs, I'm surprised no mention of this issue was made in the review—or am I missing something? Reply
Nadav2010MP - Friday, October 08, 2010 - linkSandy Bridge won't be out in XEON until if we are lucky... end of 2011- beginning 2012.. Sandy Bridge for consumer is on its way to being out now, but the server line of sandy bridge won't be until at least Q4 2011 to early Q1 2012. By then the mac pro might even be EOL, as it seems that Apple really is moving away from the pro-market and into an IPHONE/IPAD type of company. Reply
chemist1 - Friday, October 08, 2010 - linkNadav2010MP: Unless there's some necessary connection between Sandy Bridge and Sata III (and I don't believe that SATA III is explicitly part of the Sandy Bridge specifications, but please correct me if I'm wrong), I think you've misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking about Sandy Bridge. Rather, I was just using Sandy Bridge as an example to ask: why mention only Sandy Bridge in discussing future potential obsolescence, when there appears to be a significantly a bigger obsolescence issue--the lack of SATA III? Reply
inzane - Thursday, October 07, 2010 - linkAny reason a similar configured PC running Windows 7 64bit was not included in the Photoshop CS4 test? Would like to see if there is a difference between Mac CS4 32bit vs Windows 7 CS4 64bit . Would the Win7 version benefit form the extra Ram, since a 32bit program only see 4 gigs? Reply
Nadav2010MP - Friday, October 08, 2010 - linkDear Anandtech,
Thank you for posting a review of the 2010 Mac Pro.. By now you have guessed that the 2010 mac pro is nothing more than a 2009 just with a updated firmware using the same logic board and same fans, and case design.. The GPUS also bring a difference, but not by much as the new GPUS work in all the Mac Pros 2010- down to 2006 :) But, this isn't the reason for my post.. I am about to tell you how I upgraded to the 2010 without having to shell out 4000.00 for a 6-core.. FIRST and foremost a minute or two about the CPUS...
The 2010 Mac Pro uses the following CPUS for its single-quad/6-core:
w3530 - 2.8/1066
w3565 - 3.2/1066
w3680 - 3.33/1333 - WE CAN ALSO ADD THAT according to Intel, the w3680 can use the following memory: 800 mhz DDR3/1066 mhz DDR3, and 1333 mhz DDR3..
However, here is where it gets interesting.. The following bloomfield processors allow for 1333 mhz memory:
w3580 - This is the processor I currently have with my 2010 set up. And yes, it supports 800/1066/1333 I will post a pic of my w3580 supporting 1333 mhz using a screen shot of a test 1GB 1333 chip under the new 2010 parts..
Now for the great news: You don't have to spend 4000.00 to enjoy a 6-core 2010 mac pro... in fact, you don't have to spend much at all.. Here is what I did.. Given now that Foxconn makes all the components for Apple instead of Intel(2006,2007,2008 mac pro logic boards), the backplane logic board that the 09 and 10 use are IDENTICAL to each other.. where one doesn't support westmere and 1333 mhz memory, the other does.. but they are virtually IDENTICAL in every detail.
Anyway, for 250.00(pricing varies by 50 at most) you can get the 2010 Backplane logic board and simply remove the 09's backplane. Also, you will need the processor board in order for the 2010 to work its magic, as both SMC's have to match for this to work. This board can be had for as little as: 46 DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!! and even 76 dollars(macpartsonline.com).. I have seen the processor board go for 249.00 and never higher than that.. There is also some good news:
Since the 09 uses the same parts as the 10, the HEATSINK for the single-quads from the 09 is identical to the one used on the 2010 :) More money saved!
So here were my specs for my original mac pro:
Mac Pro 4,1 with 8GB ddr3 1066 memory, w3580 processor, radeon 5770(sold my 4870 HD as this is not fully compatible due to a high sensor reading - others told me its because I had the 1st revision of the card, while a 2nd one does exist which fixed this problem.. but nonetheless, I got rid of my 4870 HD for 235.00 and it paid for the 5770 :)
Once I got the backplane and processor board, I immediately went to work creating my 2010 mac pro.. and it only cost me 300.00(250 - backplane 46 for processor board).. With this in mind, I used my existing processor, memory, hard drives, everything... here is the results: THIS IS FROM SYSTEM PROFILER:
Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro5,1
Processor Name: Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 3,33 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 8 MB
Memory: 6 GB
Processor Interconnect Speed: 6.4 GT/s
Boot ROM Version: MP51.007F.B00
SMC Version (system): 1.39f11
SMC Version (processor tray): 1.39f11
How can you tell this is a 2010? Easy... SMC FIRMWARE: 1.39/F11(2009 was 1.39/F5). Bootrom is: MP51.007F.B00 where as the 09's was: MP41.0081.B08.
I plan to upload actual LIVE screen shots of my system profiler and also to put away the fact that the w3580 DOES INDEED support 1333 mhz memory.. I need someone to how me how to upload pics of this.. I really want to get this info out to EVERYONE who has a single 09 quad-core and wishing to move up to westmere... Now, should I decide to get the w3680, I can now do so since I have the parts in my 09 case.. 300.00 is all it takes to get the 09 to a 2010 :)
I know a lot of you will have questions to ask me regarding about how to go ahead with this upgrade.. as I mentioned, anyone with a single-quad core from 09 series can easily do this.. Its not rocket science - the 2010 mac pro is nothing more than the 2009 just with a updated logic board to support 1333 mhz memory/westmere B1 stepping processors.. And yes, ALL D0 Bloomfield w35xx series processors work in the processor board of the 2010.
For the cost of 4000.00, I didn't feel the need to spend that much for a machine which is really a 2009 but with such updated firmware.. for this reason alone, for 300.00 I found the upgrade very enticing and I did it. Reply
MeStinkBAD - Friday, October 22, 2010 - linkThe following statement bothers me...
"Update: Dell doesn't offer a Radeon HD 5770, instead you get a much more expensive FirePro V8700 graphics card. If deduct the street price for the graphics card from each machine, the Mac Pro ends up being $324 more expensive than the Dell. The Apple tax is there, but masked by the cheaper GPU."
You are basing this comparison on the cost of a component that is limited to the dell. And you state that they don't offer a 5770. Well if you choose to add a 5770, the price would increase on the Dell, the price of the Pro. It goes both ways. Doesn't matter if the Dell offers a higher price card. You may not need it. Does the Dell include the option to ship w/o a GPU? If so, that could be a valid comparison since you can not get the MacPro w/o a GPU. Even you don't need one.
The warrenty statement is also questionable. I have not had much experience w/ Dell's technical support. They used to basically tell you to send it away, they'd fix it, then return it. This costs nothing until the warrenty expired. Then they would charge you regardless of the problem, Apple on the other hand does indeed ask you to take it too the AppleStore.
But they won't charge you anything to take a look at it, regardless of the Warrenty. And if it's a simple software problem, they'll fix it and you can walk out without paying anything. The warrenty only refers to more complicated problems (almost always hardware related). Then you will be charged if the warrenty has expired.
I'm trying to be really fair here. Could someone correct me on this? Reply
mlcatl - Sunday, October 31, 2010 - linkI can and have built many, many computers. But I don't keep spare parts around for a workstation like this (e.g. spare motherboard, etc.). Furthermore, I don't have the time to mess with it. I have deadlines and customers and I need my computer to work,
With the Dell next business day warranty (which is extra), someone comes to your home or office and they have all the parts and they fix it without me having to drive somewhere. And they are professionals. No disrespect to the Apple Store Genius folks, they have gotten MUCH better in the last 4 years, but they still fall short of a enterprise maintenance solution.
My experience with the Apple Store, even with the Apple Care and an appointment. Lots of waiting, hauling my MacPro through the mall, etc.
I've had both Dells and Macs fail (motherboards, videocards, power supplies). Getting my macpro motherboard fixed (as it had intermittent failures) was a nightmare.
I've now moved into a job where I'm going to be windows only at work, so I'm getting rid of my OS X stuff and switching to a windows platform. I'm going to have to buy my own computer and the roll your own solution is very tempting. (yes I know about boot camp, but my Mac Pro 1,1 2006 requires hacking to run windows 7 64 bit. (
Ive loved my macpro and if I didn't need to run a lot of industrial strength stuff on windows, I would definitely be keeping it. Reply
MeStinkBAD - Monday, November 01, 2010 - linkWhat the... you require a hacked version of Win7 to run on your 2006 MacPro? Are you serious? What did you do to it? Are you sure it's a MacPro? Not a hackintosh?
Your experience is unlike any I've ever heard of... I mean if you we're having a motherboard failure they would have swapped the entire machine... and simply moved the hardware from the old machine to the new one. This is far more economical than actually replacing the motherboard, power supply, etc. Your previous machine would be sent back to Apple... Reply
Macdesign - Thursday, November 04, 2010 - linkThe motherboard of the 2006 is only 32bit and only the processor is 64bit. The 2008 and 2009 Models are full 64bit on both motherboard and processor so W7 can run on them. Reply
standar29 - Thursday, November 18, 2010 - linkSeems like people want to consider the other aspects of business costs so we might as well add in the fact that VOLUME DISCOUNTS on hardware weren't mentioned in this article and probably more than take care of all of these additional costs. Apple's profit margin is well known. Reply
Chuck_Darwin - Monday, January 31, 2011 - linkAnand, before I bought my Mac Pro last fall I priced an equivalent system on Newegg. I was reluctant to rely on any manufacturer after 10 years of building my own. I found Newegg's prices to be within $300 of Apple, except for one thing: you really can't buy an equivalent case at Newegg. That $249 Antec you used to compare isn't even close to the same class as Apple's. You can find one on Amazon, though, and it runs around $400. Similarly, the Dell uses shoddy parts, like the case, to hit that price point. Wish you would've posted every component you used to compare so we can judge for ourselves. Reply
Conniesimmons - Wednesday, November 02, 2011 - linkThanks for the comparison. I have a MAc Pro 2,1 dual quad core 3 GHz with a new 480 SSD boot up drive in my optical bay, 4 750 TB internal drives, and 16 Ggs of memory. I am an editor using HD footage, but I don't do a lot of 3-D work. I keep looking at the new 12 core machines, but based on your review it still seems like I wouldn't see a really huge difference in FCP, compression programs, that would justify buying a new machine now instead of later. Any other improvements you might suggest?
Do you have a consulting business?
Best, Connie Reply


text:
Half Life 2 GPU Roundup Part 2 - Mainstream DX8/DX9 Battleby Anand Lal Shimpi on 11/19/2004 6:35 PM EST
- Posted in
- GPUs
62 Comments
Back to Article
stealthc - Monday, January 03, 2005 - linkI have geforce4 mx 440, with 1.7ghz intel cpu and the frame rate is unacceptable, jittery all to hell, stupid HL2 autodetects it as dx7.0 card, I forcefully correct but still. How the hell are you pulling off frame rates like that with that particular card? I barely get a stable rate at 800x600 res at 20fps. I see lots of red and usually yellow when I use cl_showfps 1 in console
There's something completely messed with this game it shouldn't run like this.
Counter strike source is unplayable, I can't get over 10fps in it. Usually it hangs at around 3 to 6 fps.
I'm pissed off I spent $60 on a freaking game that does SH*T for me. I already beat it but it's so not smooth and jittery I'm surprised I could even hit the side of a barn.
Barneyk - Monday, December 06, 2004 - link"The next step is to find out how powerful of a CPU you will need, and that will be the subject of our third installment in our Half Life 2 performance guides. Stay tuned..."
Yeah, im waiting like hell, i wanna se how HL2 performs on old CPUs, i have a TB1200 and a GF4 Ti4800SE, Graphics perfomance was OK, but the game playing was really sluggish, but still very playable.
And i wanna se som comparison graphs on how different CPUs perform, and i've been waiting, when do we get to see the HL2 CPU roundup? :) Reply
charlytrw - Thursday, December 02, 2004 - linktake a look on this link, here are some interesting info about how to improve performance on geforce fx users in about a 50% on dx9 mode. Try it yourself. The link to the article is:
I hope this can help to some geforce fx users... :) Reply
clstrfbc - Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - linkDid anyone else notice the piers and pylons don't have reflections in the screen shots on page 2, Image Quality, the second picture, the one of the water and damn/lock.
When you roll over, you see the non-reflexion version in dx8, rollback and something looks funny. The refelctions look good, but there are lots of things missing, most obviously the piers, aslo some bullocks? (things you tie ropes to)
Hmm, maybe the pier is a witch, or is it a vampire, so it has no reflection....
Other than that, the game is awesome. I'm well into city 17, and only took a break because the wife was becoming more dangerous than the Combine.
Running on a Athlon 1.7 512Mb and Saphyre Radeon 9000 128Mb?, it it plays fine excepte the hickups at saves and naptimes at loads. Reply
MrCoyote - Monday, November 29, 2004 - linkThis whole ATI/Nvidia DirectX/OpenGL optimization is driving me insane. Developers need to stop trying to optimize and code for "universal" video cards.
One reason why DirectX/OpenGL was created, was to make it easier on developers when accessing different video cards. It is a "middle man", and the developer shouldn't have to know what card someone has in their system.
But now, all these developers are using stupid tricks to check if you have an ATI or Nvidia card, and optimize the paths. This is just plain stupid and takes more time for the developer.
Why don't they just code for a "universal" video card, since that's what DirectX/OpenGL was made for? Reply
Alphafox78 - Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - link'Glide' all the way!!!
I used to run Diablo on a voodoo2 and you could switch from glide to Dx and glide looked so much better! even after upgrading to a geforce card glide looked better... not that its relevant here. heh Reply
nserra - Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - link#55 OK I agree. No I was not trying to saying that 6xxx is bad, or that it will be bad. Nor I think it superior do Ati X line and vice versa. But we already have the "bad" example of the nvidia FX line (for games), how will both scale?! I didn't like 3Dmark bench, but was 3Dmark03 that bad? It was already showing something at the time….
One day I said here it was important to bench an Ati 8500/9000 vs Geforce3/4 using current drivers (and platforms maybe too) with new and older games to test.
This is very important since you will know if support to older hardware is up to date, and also how is performance on these cards today.
I am not saying that while 8500 loosed to Geforce4 in the past, that it will win today, I just want to know how things are now! Is PS1.4 of the 8500 giving it any thing now since then it doesn't? I don't know!
But everyone said the test was pointless and that there where no need to bench "older" hardware, since no one was planning to buy it.... Reply
Lord Banshee - Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - linkwell it kinda matter what you do with your computer. Personaly i like my 5900XT over the 9800Pro i have because it is faster in 3D Modeling software.. But for gaming the 9800Pro is fare better.
But as you say that the NV3x wasn't bad then but now, well i think it was bad then just had nothing to prove it. Now that their is a lot of DX9 games out the poor mistake on nvidia engineers show. And they know they missed up thats what the 6800 can use a 16x1 pipeline config. I belive the 59xx's were 4x2 and the 9800 was 8x1. the 6600GT also shows nvidia's mistake being that it is a 8x1 and beating the paints off the 4x2 5900 series.
But i was unsure about if you were tring to say in your last post if you think nvidia fudged again and that it will show in due time with the 6800 series, but if this is the case and you are tring to say that. I don't think so and i believe Nvidia truelly has a very compeditive card that meets the demands of all users. Reply
nserra - Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - link#52 You are right. I was talking about the NV3x core. But dont forget that this CHIP was not that bad at the time, its really bad TODAY!
Example: Now who is better served, who had bought a 5600/5700 or a 9600 card? Reply
pio!pio! - Monday, November 22, 2004 - link#48 agreed..it may be that dx8 water looks that crappy while dx8.1 water looks like what you and I are seeing Reply
Lord Banshee - Monday, November 22, 2004 - linkSorry about above post,
#50, i hope you are only takinf about nv3x and below core? the nv4x core is almost as good as the newest radeon in rendering dx9 games.
On a side note does anybody care the reason why doom3 models and textures are as good as half-life2? One being the amount of GPU processing power the lighting system takes. And the special effects. I am sure if every body had a 6800 Ultra then ID would have made the textures in doom3 better and used more high polygon models.
But in we all don't so they instead used alot of normal mapping(the future in gameing) and a brand new light system never seen in games before.
But again you most see that the doom3 engine has the ability of using huge textures and models but it is game dependent. Not all games that will use this engine will have the same lighting effect and such, they might want to show off their texture skills, it is the game companies choice.
What doom3 fails at is outdoor enviroments, this is where the Source engine has them good (so they say, i have yet to play half-life 2)
But it looks like the Unreal3 engine will be the best of both worlds, but thats another 2 years most likly. Reply
Lord Banshee - Monday, November 22, 2004 - linkReply
nserra - Monday, November 22, 2004 - link#40 T8000 ???!?!
So why 6600 and 6800 perform very well and 6200 so bad? Aren't they all the same card? Your post is pointless.
Luckily Valve was hacked?, are you kidding how many people including like my self buy a piece of crap like the 5600, that performs so bad no only on this game but many others. TOO BAD IT WAS HACKED!!!
Sure any card plays it today like one year ago, but not the right way!!!!
I don't know but I bet when more DX9.0 games came out the difference between the Ati and nvidia will be bigger. Unless there will be an option to enable the fast FP16 mode providing lower image quality like Far Cry. Reply
nserra - Monday, November 22, 2004 - linkWe all know that who bought the Ati 9xxx have done a better job than the ones who bought the FX5xxx series card.
Now what about an 8500 vs GF3/4.
And some 9000 card too?
DX8.1 is different of DX8.0, I would like to know if the 8500/9000 was a better buy, but today over the geforce3/4.
It's really important since GFfx sucks today but not 2 years ago, who know what will happen 2 years from now with 9xxx and 6xxx.
Why 6200 performs so badly, and 6600 and 6800 so good? Reply
dderidex - Monday, November 22, 2004 - linkFYI, the compare image on [L=this page]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2281...[/L] for the water is all wrong. I don't know what they were using for the 'DX8' sample of the water reflection, but that's not what it looks like at all on a GeForce FX card. It looks virtually indistinguishable from the DX9 sample, only with noticeably less smooth transitions with the coastal terrain (not shown in that shot).
Unless AT intentionally disabled world reflections when switching to DX8 mode? But, I have a hard time believing they would be so biased. Reply
blckgrffn - Sunday, November 21, 2004 - link8500/9100 & 9000/9200 & fx5200/5700 Radeon 7000/7500 & GF3/GF2 benches please! There are a lot of these cards out there and I am curious! Reply
TheRealSkywolf - Sunday, November 21, 2004 - link45, ati contributed with a big cut of the budget for half life 2. Thats why it got delayed 1 year.
So it is blatant obbious that valve was told to not not make dx 9.0 work well for nvidia fx. Reply
moletus - Sunday, November 21, 2004 - link#40, you are so wrong wrong and wrong again. What kinda idiot game developer woulnt code as good as possible, regards of who gave em what development money? There are plenty of nvidia cards out there and im quite sure they want to play HL2 too.
It's all about making $$$, so... Reply
Cybercat - Sunday, November 21, 2004 - link#40, not necessarily. The 6200 is typically found to perform close to the X300. Only a few times will it meet up with the X600 Pro's standards.
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2238&... Reply
abakshi - Sunday, November 21, 2004 - link*other (not over lol) Reply
abakshi - Sunday, November 21, 2004 - linkJust a note - the last graph on page 7 seems to be a bit messed up -- the GeForce 6200 is shown as 82.3 FPS - higher than all of the over cards - while the data chart and line graph show it as 53.9 FPS. Reply
KrikU - Sunday, November 21, 2004 - linkWhy cant we see benchmarks with AA & AF enabled with mainstream graphics cards? HL2 is using a such engine that is only CPU limited, so AA & AF tests are really welcome!
Im playing with ti4400 (o/c to ti4600 speeds) with AA 2x & AF 2x! This is first such new game where I can use these image quality enhancements with my card! Reply
T8000 - Sunday, November 21, 2004 - linkHalf life 2 seems to be designed around the Radeon 9700.
Because Valve seems to have made certain promises to ATI, they where not allowed to optimize any Geforce for DX9.
This also shows with the GF6200, that should be close to the R9600, but is not, due to the optimized Radeon 9700 codepath.
Luckely, Valve was hacked, preventing this game from messing up the marketplace. Now, almost any card can play it and Nvidia may even be tempted to release a patch in their driver to undo Valves DX9 R9700 cheats and make the game do DX9 the right way for FX owners, without sacrificing any image quality. Just to prove Valve wrong. Reply
draazeejs - Sunday, November 21, 2004 - linkWell, I like HL2 a lot, much more so than the pitch-black, ugly-fuzzy texture D3. But, honestly - to me it looks exactly like Far Cry, engine-wise. Is there any difference?
Respect to the level-designers of HL2, none of the games comes even close nowadays to that sort of detail and scenery. Also I think the physics of the people and faces and AI is by far superior. And the Raven-yard is much more scary than the whole D3 :))) Reply
kmmatney - Sunday, November 21, 2004 - link[sarcasm] Oh, and have fun running those DX games on other platforms without emulation. [/sarcasm]
Obviously, this game isn't meant for other platforms, and that's fine by me. I think the original half-life had an OpenGL option, but it sucked (at least on my old Radeon card). In general, OpenGL has always been a pain, dating back to the old miniGL driver days. In my experience, when playing games that had either a Dx or OpenGL option, the DX option has usually been more reliable. It sould be because I usually have ATI based cards... Reply
kmmatney - Sunday, November 21, 2004 - linkI didn't mean that DX literally "looks" better than OpenGl, I meant that it seems to be more versatile. Here's a game that can be played comfortably over several generations of video cards. You have to buy a new one to play D3 at decent resolution. The HL2 engine seems to have room to spare in terms of using DX 9 features, so the engine can be further enhanced in the future. I would think this game engine would be preferred over the Doom3 engine. Reply
oneils - Sunday, November 21, 2004 - link#15, Steam's site (under "updates") indicates that the stuttering is due to a sound problem, and that they are working on a fix. Hopefully this will help you.
vladik007 - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link" I'm missing words to how pathetic that is. "
1st my post was no.2 NOT no.3.
2nd unlike many people i dont have time to work on my personal computers all the time. IF i dont upgrade this holliday season , i'll possibly have to wait until summer vacation. And you dont see nforce4 out now , do you ?
3rd No it's not pathetic to follow something that's never failed me. Ever heard of satisfied customer ? Well Abit has always treated me very well , RMA proccess , crossshiping , bios updates , good support on official forums ... etc Why on earth should i change ?
4th got it ?
moletus - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - linkI really would like to see some ATI 8500-9200 results too.. Reply
Pannenkoek - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link#18: It depends on what features of the videocards are used for how a game will look like, and the art. It's not dirct3d vs opengl, the videocards are the limiting factor. Doom III is just too dark, and that's because of an optimization used in the shadowing. ;-)
#26: Surely you mean "#2", I'm all for AMD. Not that my current computer is not pathetic compared with what's around nowadays... Reply
meatless - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - linkI agree with #31, mostly; after playing both I don't think that HL2 is any better than Doom3, just different in how they look f'ing awesome.
And saying that DX looks better than OpenGL "just because" is about the stupidest f'ing thing I've ever heard.
[sarcasm] Oh, and have fun running those DX games on other platforms without emulation. [/sarcasm] Reply
TheRealSkywolf - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - linkHl2 can be easier on the eyes due to art, and the animations are also very cool. But i think doom3 is more intense in technology, doom3 just uses more in very ways, and in the long run the doom3 engine will power the best games. hl2 looks amazing, but doom3 is a better estimate to how games in the future will run in your card.
Filibuster - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - linkThis article was a fun read.
I particularly liked the part about the fallbacks that are in place for older cards and the screenshot comparisons.
Thanks. Reply
Filibuster - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link>I can't believe how much better DirectX looks compared to OpenGL. Seems like Id made the wrong choice...
What a rediculous generalization.
I do think that Halflife2 looks far better than Doom3 but the API has nothing to do with how things look. (I imagine HL2 will be much more fun too but I'm replaying HL1 w/source to get back into it)
Carmack will never use Direct3D. He said so years ago and I doubt he will change his mind (even if it is just to make a point). He is sort of the champion of Opengl for games. Besides, all of the features of the video cards can be exposed in Opengl just like Direct3D (perhaps moreso through the use of extentions). Carmack just targeted a different set of features with Doom3 (mostly it was designed around the Geforce3/4 featureset, and the 6 series was designed for Doom, not the other way around like so many people like to claim) Reply
GonzoDaGr8 - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - linkThanx kevin and ksherman.. Reply
Jeff7181 - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - linkI agree with #1... I'm well into City 17 and I have all my stuff... because of the first review saying I didn't have a flashlight, I was expecting to be thumped on the head again and have all my stuff taken away and end up in a prison cell or something. Reply
MrGarrison - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link#3
That's pathetic.
nForce4 is around the corner and there are lots of good alternatives like MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum.
I have "pals" at home who are the same way. Only Intel and only ABIT... I'm missing words to how pathetic that is. Reply
unclesam - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - linkWhat is the difference between DX 8.0 and 8.1? I am playing the game on a 1.6 GHz Pentium M ThinkPad T41 with a DX 8.1 ATI Mobility Radeon 9000, 32 MB. I too have everything turned on to high, including 1400 x 1050 resolution, and I have experienced no serious hiccups. I had to reduce reflections to the minimum setting, but I just went back to that scene with reflect everything, and the water looks exactly like the DX 9.0 output. The only time the game stutters is just after loading a level. The performance limiter does not seem to be the CPU/GPU, but rather the limited throughput of my FSB. I assume that your CPU test will use "equivalent new patforms" and then compare the fastest "gaming" CPU. Since you have gone through the trouble of benchmarking older graphics cards, I think you should also benchmark the older paltforms and CPUs that go with them, or rather the other way around. Please compare platform performance rather than just CPUs.
By the way, I am extremely envious of anyone with a halfway decent desktop setup (P4HT800fsb, >ATI 9600). For a small section I turned on reflect all and 6x AA and 16x AF. Got .25 fps, but damn, it's like you are there.
Happy computing. Reply
Saist - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - linksame setup Revrnd.
The benchs I want to see though are Geforce4 MX on a 1.2ghz P4 or Athlon XP 1500. Ya know. Something that AVERAGE people have. Reply
GoodRevrnd - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - linkAm I blind or did Anand not post what system these benches was ran on? Or was it the same setup from the first article? Reply
klah - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link"cant wait for CPU benches"
Check out these:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/half_life_2_cp... Reply
KevinCQU - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link#17, I'm running the game on a regular GF3, AXP2500+ @2.2 and 512 ram. It runs smoothly at directx8 settings, I turned down the water quality though, havent tried turning it up yet, been busy playing the game ;) I'm impressed though....its definitely playable at 1024 and it looks pretty nice too
-Kevin Reply
ksherman - Friday, November 19, 2004 - link#17, im probably gonna try and run the game (GF2 TI200, but OCed to Ti400 speeds ;), so ill let you know if itll work... Reply
ksherman - Friday, November 19, 2004 - linkdumbish question--> i i wanna play in DX7 or 8 mode, do i need to install different driers, or do i just use the ingmae settings? I dont actually own the game yet, so thats why i ask... Reply
kmmatney - Friday, November 19, 2004 - linkI can't believe how much better DirectX looks compared to OpenGL. Seems like Id made the wrong choice... Reply
GonzoDaGr8 - Friday, November 19, 2004 - linkAaargh..Has anyone ran this game yet on a Geforce3(regular/Ti200/Ti500) based card yet? I'm curious as I have a Ti200 and could run this is DX8 mode.. Reply
skiboysteve - Friday, November 19, 2004 - link#13 is exactly right
its not all OpenGL vs DX or nvidia optimization to ati optimization.
look back at anands article about the graphics pipeline on each of these cards. Doom3 was extremly texture intensive, doing allot of lookup to tables instead of doing the math.
nv30 and nv40 are very good at doing texture look ups, and only the nv40 is good at the math. nv30 had a very non math friendly pipeline.
the r300-r400 were better at math.
its all in the articles on this very website. Reply
bupkus - Friday, November 19, 2004 - linkI have a Ti4200 w/ 64MB ram and I changed from 1024x768 to 800x600 to fix some occasional stutter problems; it didn't help.
Which res should I probably be able to run in. I have a 2500+ Barton OC'd to 2.2GHz with 2x256 OCZ PC3500 EL.
Just for fun, I went to 1280x1024 for my LCD just to see how it would look (without movement) and it was very nice. Reply
skunkbuster - Friday, November 19, 2004 - linkalso, nvidia is known to be better at openGl games and weaker in games that use dx.
the same as ati is known to be better at dx games, and weaker in openGl games.
doom3= open gl Reply
Falloutboy - Friday, November 19, 2004 - link#10 its because Doom 3 was very texture intensive based, which the 5xxx series of nvidia exceled at and HL2 is a very shader intensive engine wit hless emphasis on texutures, and as we all know by now the 5xxx series sucked in DX9 shaders Reply
ukDave - Friday, November 19, 2004 - linkNot that i'm saying that is the reason it performs so badly, it is due to its poor implementation of DX9.0. I think the whole nV 5xxx line needs to be swept under the carpet because i simply can't say anything nice about it :) Reply
ukDave - Friday, November 19, 2004 - linkDoom3 was optimized for nVidia, much like HL2 is for ATi. Reply
mattsaccount - Friday, November 19, 2004 - linkHow can a 5900 be so poor at dx9 style effects in HL2, and excel at an (arguably) more graphically intense game like Doom 3? The difference can't be due only to the AP (Dx vs OGL), can it? Reply
ZobarStyl - Friday, November 19, 2004 - linkDoh login post: FYI the bar graphs on page six are both the DX8 pathway. Reply
ZobarStyl - Friday, November 19, 2004 - linkReply
Cybercat - Friday, November 19, 2004 - linkGood article. I'm a little disappointed in the 6200's performance though. Reply
thebluesgnr - Friday, November 19, 2004 - linkHi!
Have not read the article yet but I'd like to ask one thing:
The Radeon 9550 tested has 64-bit or 128-bit memory interface? From your numbers I'm sure it's 128-bit, but I think some people might order the cheapest (=64-bit) after reading the article, so it would be nice to see it mentioned.
On the same line, I would like to see AnandTech mention the GPU and memory clocks for all the video cards benchmarks.
btw, the X300SE was tested on a platform with the same processor as the other AGP cards, right?
Thank you. Reply
shabby - Friday, November 19, 2004 - linkHoly crap my ti4600 can muster 60fps in hl2 ahahaha. Reply
skunkbuster - Friday, November 19, 2004 - linkyikes! i feel sorry for those people using video cards that only support DX7.
Pannenkoek - Friday, November 19, 2004 - linkI wonder if "playability" is merely based on the average framerates of demos, or that somebody actually tried to play the game with an old card. Counter Strike became barely playable with less than 40 fps later in its life, while average framerates could be "good enough" and while it used to run smoothly at the same framerate in older versions. Reply
vladik007 - Friday, November 19, 2004 - linkcant wait for CPU benches. Again , great article , something i've come to expect here.
Btw , when might u be releasing CPU benches ? I'm about to order my cpu/mobo upgrade this weekend so i can play with it over the Tgiving holiday , i'm thinking A643200+Abit 939 board. ( i've always ,since my 1st computer, owned Abit motherboard , so i'm not going to change ritual , too bad they dont make one with nforce3) Reply
SMT - Friday, November 19, 2004 - linkUm, I'll say it again...
I'm pretty sure Gordon has a flashlight throughout Nova Prospekt. Reply


text: Not all people are pleased with the way they look. And because in our society the beauty is a very important thing, they improve their aspect with the help of aesthetic surgery. Through this technique many segments of the body can be modified like the face, legs, breasts or abdomen.


text:
Sorry! We do not have any doctors in Sector 110. So, we have listed other trusted and experienced doctors in Gurgaon
List of best Diabetes Specialist Doctors from trusted hospitals in Sector 110, Gurgaon. Get detailed info on educational qualification, experience and other credentials of Diabetes Specialist Doctors in Sector 110, Gurgaon. Check OPD schedule and book appointment online with best Diabetes Specialist from top hospitals in Sector 110, Gurgaon. Call 8010- 994- 994 to talk to in-house Credihealth experts for FREE medical assistance to choose the right Diabetes Specialist, get options for Second Opinion or other other medical assistance.
A diabetologist is an internal medicine doctor who specializes in treatment of diabetes. Diabetologists are medical experts who specialize in the diagnosis, treatment, management of diabetes and provide medication to prevent long-term effects of diabetes.