Super powered Mac Pro pre-orders are now available

The fastest Mac Pro ever made is now available for pre-orders. The 12-core beast of a Mac is retailing at 4,999.00 USD and is available via the official Apple website.

As well as this, there are revamped versions of the quad and eight core models, retailing for $2,499 and $3,499 respectively. The new Mac Pro runs a pair of six-core Xeon “Westmere” processors clocked at 2.66 GHz with 6GB of memory and a 1Tb hard drive; the 'super computer' also has a 18x double layer SuperDrive. Coupled with the ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB, this is indeed a beast of a computer that is available from Apple.

It was announced last month and Philip Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, had this to say about the product.

“The new Mac Pro is the most powerful and configurable Mac we’ve ever made,” he said, “With up to 12 cores, the new Mac Pro outperforms our previous top-of-the-line system by up to 50 percent and with over a billion possible configurations, our customers can create exactly the system they want.”

The 12-core Mac Pro will be shipped in 7-10 days of pre-order, but will set you back upwards of the 5,000 USD; Engadget configured one of the super powered Macs and reached a considerably higher price of 16,249 USD. This is due to the extensive customization available for the computer, including more memory, a second graphics card and it also offers more processing power, not that you would need it anyway.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft Menlo project uncovered

Next Story

Everything there is to know about the iPhone coming to Verizon

81 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Just built a Dell Precision T7500.. total cost was $27,584, but look at the specs!!


Processor:
Dual Six Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5680, 3.33GHz,12M L3, 6.4GT/s, turbo
Memory:
48GB,1333MHz,DDR3RDIMM,ECC(9DIMMS)
Graphics:
Dual 4.0GB NVIDIA® Quadro® FX 5800, QUAD MON, 2DP & 4DVI
GPU Computing:
NVIDIA® Tesla™ C2050 Computing Processor
Hard Drive Configuration:
C1 All SATA or SSD drives, Non-RAID, 1 drive total configuration
Hard Drive Internal Controller Option:
PERC6/i SAS/SATA Hardware RAID Card - For Connecting Internal Hard Drives
Boot Hard Drive:
256GB Solid State Drive,2.5
2nd Hard Drive:
256GB Solid State Drive,2.5, Additional
3rd Hard Drive:
600GB, 3.0Gb/s, SAS, 3.5 inch, 15K RPM Hard Drive
4th Hard Drive:
600GB, 3.0Gb/s, SAS, 3.5 inch, 15K RPM Hard Drive
5th Hard Drive:
1.5TB SATA 3.0Gb/s, 7200 RPM Hard Drive with 32MB DataBurst Cache™
DVD and Read-Write Devices:
16X DVD+/-RW w/ Cyberlink PowerDVD™/Roxio Creator™, No Media
Monitor:
Dell UltraSharp™ 2007FP 20in HAS Monitor, VGA/ DVI
2nd Monitor:
Dell UltraSharp™ 2007FP 20in HAS Monitor, VGA/ DVI
3rd Monitor:
Dell UltraSharp™ 2007FP 20in HAS Monitor, VGA/ DVI
4th Monitor:
Dell UltraSharp™ 2007FP 20in HAS Monitor, VGA/ DVI

Dam, thats a lot of money.

ROFL @ "Creatives" who think only machines like this are good enough to work on. 6 GB of RAM is NOT enough in this day and age. I can use that much just in one app for god sake.

Time to bin my quad core I guess lol i wish!

closetgeek said,
Dam, thats a lot of money.

ROFL @ "Creatives" who think only machines like this are good enough to work on. 6 GB of RAM is NOT enough in this day and age. I can use that much just in one app for god sake.

Time to bin my quad core I guess lol i wish!

Requiring 6 GB or more? What niche is your work in? If you *multitask* everyday apps, you'd be hard-pressed to use all of 4 GB (heck, with everyday apps, I can't use all of three), and that's on a dual-core PC or Mac/Hack, let alone one with four or more cores.

Computers with more than four cores (whether PC or Mac) are *niche machines*, as most everyday applications (including most games, surprisingly enough) can't use more than a single CPU core. (Multi-core-capable games can be counted on two hands with fingers left over.) That is why they have their high price tags; they are high-end tools designed to be used for high-end projects that will earn that money back, and then some. Even Starcraft II would be hard-pressed to chew up more than two cores (unless it's multitasked; that is, in fact, the only way I can bog my Celeron DC E1200) and that's at 1280x720 and high detail!

I have nothing against Macs (or even Apple, though they have made some, IMHO, bonehead moves); however, I do have something against needlessly wasting money!

PGHammer said,

Requiring 6 GB or more? What niche is your work in? If you *multitask* everyday apps, you'd be hard-pressed to use all of 4 GB (heck, with everyday apps, I can't use all of three), and that's on a dual-core PC or Mac/Hack, let alone one with four or more cores.

I use lots of 3D apps. Maya(x64) can be a resource hog and it has used over 6GB of ram previously when rendering out multiple frames, granted in HD. On a quad core AMD Phenom 9550 (2.2). I was referring to the Creative Inudstry in terms of RAM usage too btw, not gaming etc.

You apple fanboys are getting fleeced big time. http://www.engadget.com/ have ordered one of these machines to there spec for $16k.... yes Sixteen Thousand Dollars....... Apple are conmen simple as that, about time you numpties woke up and said NO MORE JOBS.

Stup0t said,
You apple fanboys are getting fleeced big time. http://www.engadget.com/ have ordered one of these machines to there spec for $16k.... yes Sixteen Thousand Dollars....... Apple are conmen simple as that, about time you numpties woke up and said NO MORE JOBS.

For conmen they make exquisite products, which I would gladly blow money on, just because those machines and that OS are such a joy to work on.

if I want a proper super workstation Id get a dell precision t7500 with some proper workstation gpu.
How come no one reports about them.

Beastage said,
if I want a proper super workstation Id get a dell precision t7500 with some proper workstation gpu.
How come no one reports about them.

because the name of this website is neoAPPLE now. windows platform news is not newsorthy because it fails to generate drooling apple fanboy posts or windows fanboy hating apple posts.

treemonster said,

because the name of this website is neoAPPLE now. windows platform news is not newsorthy because it fails to generate drooling apple fanboy posts or windows fanboy hating apple posts.

The problem with Microsoft is that they have no taste. They have absolutely no taste.

treemonster said,
lolwat

What that means is, and I don't mean in small way I mean that in a big way, in a sense that they don't think of original ideas and they don't bring much culture into there product.

Magallanes said,
Right now, anything over 4 cores is just toss money.

Not if you're doing video editing, animation work, or anything to do with cad.

Check this:
store.apple.com/nl-business/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro
this is the dutch site, Mac pro 12core € 4.898,99.
Bing: 4.89899 EUR = 6.49391 USD
Google: 4 898,99 Euros = 6 511,24761 U.S. dollars

I read above the processors + motherboard costs $2,339.41. Means I have around $4161 left to make a cheaper system, but same specs. I think I'll manage

Those are impressive. I wish Windows ran more natively (without bootcamp) so they could be deployed on university ( do not want kids booting into a non managed OSX).

The high end Dell and HP Workstations offer SAS with 15k RPM drives. Apple has a leg up with cores, but other vendors seem to offer better disk performance. Experience a lot of thrashing in research.

ObiWanToby said,
I wish Windows ran more natively (without bootcamp)
But that is running natively. The only non-native part is the emulated BIOS.

Glad to see they fixed the little six-core typo.

Thats defensibly a beast of a system. Wish I could have one! Will have to suffice with my Hackintosh though.

Julius Caro said,
I dont understand how you only get 6GB of ram when you shell out 5 grand for a computer.

It is very poor, I've got 4GB of my £500 computer.

Julius Caro said,
I dont understand how you only get 6GB of ram when you shell out 5 grand for a computer.

While I agree, it's a shame you only get 6GB of RAM, you have to understand that this is NOT a typical PC. This is a workstation/server. A similar commercial line would be the Dell Precision Workstation. With just a single Quad Core (not what is here) and 6GB of RAM would run well over 2-3,000 dollars.

This is not a machine for just going on the internet, and if you are wasting your money on that... wow...

EDIT: It's funny, Apple either makes really great workstations, or mediocre, well just with current gent technology. Then need another in-between option without a built in monitor.

Julius Caro said,
I dont understand how you only get 6GB of ram when you shell out 5 grand for a computer.

+1

for $5k i'd definitely expect at least 12GB.

Holy bajesus 5k. I think i'd rather spend that on a car lmao. And is there even a mobo that supports two CPU's on the market other than the one in the macbook pro obviously?

flashnuke said,
Holy bajesus 5k. I think i'd rather spend that on a car lmao. And is there even a mobo that supports two CPU's on the market other than the one in the macbook pro obviously?

Mac pro, not Macbook Pro, but yeah, Intel makes a workstation motherboard that seems very simlar to this one: http://bit.ly/dyMhmK

flashnuke said,
Holy bajesus 5k. I think i'd rather spend that on a car lmao. And is there even a mobo that supports two CPU's on the market other than the one in the macbook pro obviously?
You might spend 5 grand on a car, I or another creative professional might spend 5 grand on a computer that would generate hundreds of thousands in revenue. It's just a tool and is plenty worth the premium for those who actually need one.


Yes, comparable PCs are significantly cheaper but you could chop wood with a butter knife, too. Doesn't mean it's optimal. Mac OS lets me get my work done 20-25% faster and I can't afford the instability or time required to tinker around with a Hackintosh.

Many professionals are in the same boat I reckon.

flashnuke said,
Holy bajesus 5k. I think i'd rather spend that on a car lmao. And is there even a mobo that supports two CPU's on the market other than the one in the macbook pro obviously?

all the big motherboard makes have at least 1 dual cpu motherboard

flashnuke said,
And is there even a mobo that supports two CPU's on the market other than the one in the mac pro obviously?

Of course there is. Apple uses stock PC mobos for their computers. The original Mac Pro uses a Tyan server motherboard, for example.

Supermicro, etc., all have dual CPU motherboards that support these CPUs. Have had them for PCs for months without the Apple Tax markup.

Is that only a single 1TB hdd?

Surely that would be a huge bottleneck for such a system, much better to either use an SSD or at least a RAID array.

Maybe an SSD for OS/Apps and then a HDD for document storage?

dragon2611 said,
Is that only a single 1TB hdd?

Surely that would be a huge bottleneck for such a system, much better to either use an SSD or at least a RAID array.

Maybe an SSD for OS/Apps and then a HDD for document storage?

You can put 4 internal hard drives of 2TB. So there you go, you have 8 TB.

addc182 said,
wheres the super powered macbook pro?
Apple typically favour portability and longer battery life in their laptops. It's why we never saw a G5 Powerbook, why performance-per-watt was given as a reason for the Intel switch, why the 13" MBP is still C2D with integrated graphics rather than i3 with discrete graphics.

Mike Brown said,
Apple typically favour portability and longer battery life in their laptops. It's why we never saw a G5 Powerbook, why performance-per-watt was given as a reason for the Intel switch, why the 13" MBP is still C2D with integrated graphics rather than i3 with discrete graphics.

I remember some neowin news back then when it said that the high-end Macbook Pro is the fastest laptop of the year (2009 that was I guess). And if I remember correctly it was compared to Alienware and stuff as well.

Mike Brown said,
Apple typically favour portability and longer battery life in their laptops. It's why we never saw a G5 Powerbook, why performance-per-watt was given as a reason for the Intel switch, why the 13" MBP is still C2D with integrated graphics rather than i3 with discrete graphics.

The 13" MBP uses a 320M because Nvidia doesn't have a license for Memory/QPI on the Core iSeries of CPUs. Apple is bent on having OpenCL capable Macs across the entire line. The board and system itself is too small for a discreet GPU.

Phalesafe said,

The 13" MBP uses a 320M because Nvidia doesn't have a license for Memory/QPI on the Core iSeries of CPUs. Apple is bent on having OpenCL capable Macs across the entire line. The board and system itself is too small for a discreet GPU.

Aren't we agreeing here? As I said, portability is crucial, which is why a discrete solution is unfeasible.

Stock Mac Pros have similar prices to their competitors. I would NEVER believe someone who says "I can build something better and faster for $500 less".

BUT when you decide to customize it a lot, yeah, it becomes overpriced. It's better to buy a Mac as it is.

PsykX said,
Stock Mac Pros have similar prices to their competitors. I would NEVER believe someone who says "I can build something better and faster for $500 less".

Dont you get longer life span out of customes though? Im not sure if its the same with Macs but does the whole system get covered under a single 1yr warranty? Buying ya own and saving a few hundred also grants you longer (sometimes lifetime) warranties on some hardware parts...

PsykX said,
Stock Mac Pros have similar prices to their competitors. I would NEVER believe someone who says "I can build something better and faster for $500 less".

BUT when you decide to customize it a lot, yeah, it becomes overpriced. It's better to buy a Mac as it is.


I agree; it's always better to purchase, say, RAM afterwards and install yourself.

I think the same goes for their iMacs. They're also often called overpriced, but people often compare the price with crappy 27" TN monitors, which are obviously much cheaper. A full Core i5 system with a 27" IPS monitor? No, it won't be much cheaper than that iMac.

brent3000 said,

Dont you get longer life span out of customes though? Im not sure if its the same with Macs but does the whole system get covered under a single 1yr warranty? Buying ya own and saving a few hundred also grants you longer (sometimes lifetime) warranties on some hardware parts...

Macs tend to last longer stock than PC's do stock in the professional world. A guy in our graphics department has a 10 year old mac and is running adobe cs5 while our software engineers go through a PC every two years. Not sure why the last so much longer though. Gamers and other regular homes users burn through computers fast though so custom computers are better for them because they are cheaper and last longer than stock pc's imo.

ILikeTobacco said,

Macs tend to last longer stock than PC's do stock in the professional world. A guy in our graphics department has a 10 year old mac and is running adobe cs5 while our software engineers go through a PC every two years. Not sure why the last so much longer though. Gamers and other regular homes users burn through computers fast though so custom computers are better for them because they are cheaper and last longer than stock pc's imo.


10 year old macs are totally incompatible with software that would run on today's macs so FUD it up some more.

i know people running low intensity programs like browsers on 10 year old windows PCs.

treemonster said,

10 year old macs are totally incompatible with software that would run on today's macs so FUD it up some more.

i know people running low intensity programs like browsers on 10 year old windows PCs.

first off, you should look up the word FUD and try and use it as a noun because that is what it is. second, the mac g4 which came out in 1999 runs all modern software so do your research before coming on a tech site and posting something you clearly have no clue about.
edit: all is an obvious over statement before someone tries and flames on that but it runs adobe cs5 and other MM software just fine. It is obviously slower, but point is it doing something PC's from 1999 can't do, that is run modern software.

ILikeTobacco said,

first off, you should look up the word FUD and try and use it as a noun because that is what it is. second, the mac g4 which came out in 1999 runs all modern software so do your research before coming on a tech site and posting something you clearly have no clue about.
edit: all is an obvious over statement before someone tries and flames on that but it runs adobe cs5 and other MM software just fine. It is obviously slower, but point is it doing something PC's from 1999 can't do, that is run modern software.


How is he running CS5 on a ppc chip when CS5 has not support for PPC CPU's? The last version that supported the old ppc chips was CS4 everything forward will be Intel based.
From Adobe's website:
Multicore Intel processor with 64-bit support
Mac OS X v10.5.7 or v10.6.3; Mac OS X v10.6.3 required for GPU-accelerated performance in Adobe Premiere Pro
2GB of RAM (4GB or more recommended)
26.3GB of available hard-disk space for installation; additional free space required during installation (cannot install on a volume that uses a case-sensitive file system or on removable flash-based storage devices)
1280x900 display (1280x1024 recommended) with qualified hardware-accelerated OpenGL graphics card, 16-bit color, and 256MB of VRAM
Adobe-certified GPU card for GPU-accelerated performance in Adobe Premiere Pro; visit the Adobe Premiere Pro system requirements page for the latest list of supported cards
Some GPU-accelerated features in Adobe Photoshop require graphics support for Shader Model 3.0 and OpenGL 2.0
7200 RPM hard drive for editing compressed video formats; RAID 0 for uncompressed
Core Audio-compatible sound card
DVD-ROM drive compatible with dual-layer DVDs (SuperDrive for burning DVDs; external Blu-ray burner for creating Blu-ray Disc media)
Java Runtime Environment 1.5 or 1.6
QuickTime 7.6.2 software required for QuickTime and multimedia features
Adobe Flash Player 10 software required to export SWF files and to play back DVD projects exported as SWF files
Broadband Internet connection required for online services

Not sure about too much cheaper in this case. I just checked NewEgg and an Asus motherboard capable of dual Westmeres and two 2.66 Ghz 6 core Westmere processors alone is $2,339.41 US. Not counting memory, hard drive, case, power supply....

chadlachlanross said,
Not sure about too much cheaper in this case. I just checked NewEgg and an Asus motherboard capable of dual Westmeres and two 2.66 Ghz 6 core Westmere processors alone is $2,339.41 US. Not counting memory, hard drive, case, power supply....

Intel dual pro 6-core each board $440
6-core proc $799 each

*gasp*

chadlachlanross said,
Not sure about too much cheaper in this case. I just checked NewEgg and an Asus motherboard capable of dual Westmeres and two 2.66 Ghz 6 core Westmere processors alone is $2,339.41 US. Not counting memory, hard drive, case, power supply....

and you think a 1tb hdd, a triple channel ram kit, a 5770 and a better case are going to ad up to the rest of the $5k?

chadlachlanross said,
Not sure about too much cheaper in this case. I just checked NewEgg and an Asus motherboard capable of dual Westmeres and two 2.66 Ghz 6 core Westmere processors alone is $2,339.41 US. Not counting memory, hard drive, case, power supply....

The motherboard and Xeons are by far the most expensive components, if you built this up from components, you would be able to make it cheaper, have a monitor and a decent Quadro/FireGL card in there to boot.

neufuse said,

Intel dual pro 6-core each board $440
6-core proc $799 each

*gasp*

The Xeon X5650 is $1024 each not $800.
Don't know about board though and other stuff.

ALUOp said,

The Xeon X5650 is $1024 each not $800.
Don't know about board though and other stuff.

you are looking at retail prices.... i'm talking wholesale cost to OEM's

Tom W said,
The most I can configure it up to is £19,414.83...wowzers!

I think we've all tried that at some point, thanks now I dont have to bother! It used to max at about £13,000 ish I think. 50% more powerful, 19.4-13=6.4 or pretty much 50% over the old max price!

Coincidence hmm? Like it matters anyway! People will buy it if they want it/think they need it, just interesting...

Mike Brown said,
Really?

Indeed. You better start browsing 12 core (nothing else) Xeon (nothing else) PC's and report back here to convince me they're cheaper.

Northgrove said,

Indeed. You better start browsing 12 core (nothing else) Xeon (nothing else) PC's and report back here to convince me they're cheaper.

Ever checked HP or Dell series of workstations?! real workstations mind you, with proper workstation gpus and far more options.

Northgrove said,

Indeed. You better start browsing 12 core (nothing else) Xeon (nothing else) PC's and report back here to convince me they're cheaper.

Well you can get a hackintosh compatible dual socket board from EVGA. Quite expensive. CPU's are $800 each from newegg. The board is $600. So now you're at $2200. So now add in the hard drive, very nice case, PSU, video card, optical drive, 6gb of DDR3 ECC ram, so yeah, you could build one cheaper. Probably around $3000 for what apple sells for $5000.

nifke said,
5000 lol you can have faster/better with your own non-mac hardware.

I agree, it wouldn't be too difficult.

Also bearing in mind you do not get at display with this, the other add-on prices are just crazy.

2TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive [Add $150.00] telling me there is anywhere near that much difference between a 1 TB and a 2 TB hard drive.

$450 for an extra 6 GB of RAM.

Oh well, wish I had that sort of money to waste on stuff like that anyway.

Northgrove said,

Indeed. You better start browsing 12 core (nothing else) Xeon (nothing else) PC's and report back here to convince me they're cheaper.

My 8 core server/workstation overall cost me about £1000 and this was 8 months ago or so.

Beastage said,

Ever checked HP or Dell series of workstations?! real workstations mind you, with proper workstation gpus and far more options.

I tried to configure a similar Dell and it turns out to be $5104 with 4GB instead of 6GB because somehow it doesn't allow 6GB for dual Xeon 5650.
Please show me something cheaper at Dell. I really want one for cheaper. I want it for less than $4500 because resale value of Mac is usually much higher.

http://ecomm.dell.com/dellstor...G&cart_id=1001703865565

Draken said,
whoooa I wonder the cost of a similar powered Hackintosh mmm .....

With Leopard 10.5 was easy to build a hackintosh but now with Snow Leopard, it is much more difficult than ever, at least for me. I have supposed to be a compatible hardware with compatible Video card and is a pain in the ass to make the video card work as a real Mac.

Quattrone said,

With Leopard 10.5 was easy to build a hackintosh but now with Snow Leopard, it is much more difficult than ever, at least for me. I have supposed to be a compatible hardware with compatible Video card and is a pain in the ass to make the video card work as a real Mac.

Graphics have never worked for me no matter what version I used, on an ATI Radeon x1600 PRO or x1650 PRO. So I gave up and as a result had an overall much faster PC anyway.

Quattrone said,

With Leopard 10.5 was easy to build a hackintosh but now with Snow Leopard, it is much more difficult than ever, at least for me. I have supposed to be a compatible hardware with compatible Video card and is a pain in the ass to make the video card work as a real Mac.

honestly i've tried a lot hackintosh, i began during Leopard and it was really hard (at first i didn't know many things than i learned and it got easier but it was always not so easy). At the time it wasn't for sure easy to configure an hackintosh or better yet it was not that stable, but now with Snow Leopard which removes the old PPC code etc, is a lot easier and almost automated xD at least in my case

n_K said,

Graphics have never worked for me no matter what version I used, on an ATI Radeon x1600 PRO or x1650 PRO. So I gave up and as a result had an overall much faster PC anyway.

With a little patience and the awesome insanely mac forums I've got working a HD 4870, HD 4650, HD 5870 and a may more Nvidia cards

Quattrone said,

With Leopard 10.5 was easy to build a hackintosh but now with Snow Leopard, it is much more difficult than ever, at least for me. I have supposed to be a compatible hardware with compatible Video card and is a pain in the ass to make the video card work as a real Mac.

Quite easy to build a hackintosh with snow leopard. Helps to have a installation of leopard already to prepare a boot device such as SD card or USB stick. Files are linked to on the insanelymac forums. You basically set a device to boot from, in my case a USB stick, then you copy files for your motherboard. Boot up a retail copy of leopard and install. You may have to add a EFI string for your video card but as long as SL supports that card it's just a matter of using an app to create a string then copy and paste.
I have both a 9800GTX and a ATI x1900xtx working flawlessly. In fact my current snow leopard install is 100% functional on my Core i7 system.

Draken said,
With a little patience and the awesome insanely mac forums I've got working a HD 4870, HD 4650, HD 5870 and a may more Nvidia cards

The HD cards are easy; the x16x0 aren't because there is 17 different revisions of it. I got the revisions for my card and it still didn't work.