For Apple , the release of the Mac Pro line of gamy - end background Macs marks the conclusion of its transition to Intel processors . The Mac Pro excels at the undertaking you ’d ask for a system targeted at the high - end professional market : calculation - intensive , heavily multithreaded tasks such as 3 - calciferol rendition , scientific computer science , and professional audio and telecasting production . That makes these systems just about the practiced gamy - performance workstations money can buy — and potentially overkill for citizenry who are n’t working in one of those fields .

But the Mac Pro also arrives in a man of software package that ’s still in magnetic field . Graphics professionals who bank on Adobe ’s originative Suite of applications wo n’t be able to run them natively on the Mac Pro until the bounce of 2007 , and most Mac software package still is n’t able-bodied to take advantage of the four central processor cores that power these machines .

Generation pro

Although the Mac Pro does n’t share the name of its predecessor , the Power Mac G5 (; September 2005 ) , it does share the same aluminum peel . While Apple ’s leave the external innovation alone , it ’s addressed the G5 line ’s great shortcomings with the Mac Pro .

The Power Mac G5 ’s internal design was dictated by the penury to cool down the crack - hot G5 central processing unit . As a result , even though the G5 ’s interior volume was much tumid than the Power Mac G4 ’s , it was a whole step back when it came to storage , offer space for only two drives . Thanks to the Mac Pro ’s dramatically cool Intel Xeon processors , Apple ’s been capable to regenerate space from the cooling organization and chip in it toward home storage .

The Mac Pro can hold four Serial ATA ( SATA ) drive , up from the G5 ’s maximum of two . It ’s easy to install a new campaign in a Mac Pro : just slide out an empty driving force lodging ( the Mac Pro ships with four housings , even if you buy only one intimate cause ) , attach a SATA drive to it with four included screws , and slide the drive back into the Mac Pro . The drives seize straight off to the Mac Pro ’s motherboard , so you do n’t need to play with cable — the housings are designed so the drives slide swimmingly back and into place .

Also hearken back to the last coevals of Power Mac G4 systems , the Mac Pro ’s ocular drive bay has way for two full - size optical drives . Although this seems a chip overweening today , the choice makes a bit more good sense when you look at that we ’re on the cusp of a whole new contemporaries of optical drives in the chassis of the high - capacity HD - DVD and Blu - ray formatting . During the first appearance of videodisk burners , it was useful to have both a state - of - the art CD burner and a newfangled DVD drive , and I look the same to curb honest during the passage to these new optical formats .

With the G5 , Apple in the end give Mac users easy - to - access USB , FireWire , and headphone ports on the front of the casing . prove that there ’s never enough of a unspoiled thing , the Mac Pro increases that number from two to four : There are now two USB 2.0 ports on the front , and one each of FireWire 400 and 800 . There are three additional USB 2.0 ports on the back , giving the Mac Pro a total of five USB 2.0 and four FireWire ports . That cheer you listen is get from all the Power Mac G5 users who are commonplace of plugging and unplugging ( and most definitelynotfrom the makers of USB hubs ) .

Invaders from planet Xeon

Of naturally , the Mac Pro ’s most revolutionary departure from its Power Mac G5 forebears is in the chip that powers it . Each Mac Pro uses two dual - essence Intel Xeon 5100 series C.P.U. , mean that every Mac Pro has four processor nucleus . Whereas the Power Mac G5 offer a individual quad - core form ( two dual - core 2.5GHz G5 crisp for $ 3,299 ) , the Mac Pro line offers three , featuring Xeon C.P.U. running at 2.0GHz , 2.66GHz , and 3.0GHz . To stop number processing , each Xeon chip also has 4 MB of Level 2 cache .

When it comes to processors , using a mountain of energy and generating heat go hand in hand — and these Xeons use less baron and throw off less heat than the G5 chips . The Mac Pro has four rooter ( down from nine fans plus a liquid cooling system in the G5 ) , and they execute much quieter than the fans on the G5 . On my Power Mac G5 , kicking a mainframe - intensive business into high gear ( encoding a video , for illustration ) would at once ensue in an hearable methamphetamine - up of the computer ’s fans . The Mac Pro , in contrast , remains remarkably placid even during heavy consumption . All the sound I noticed emanating from the Mac Pro were from three SATA crusade , not cool sports fan .

When we used an ammeter to test the powerfulness employment of the 2.66GHz Mac Pro against the Power Mac G5 Quad (; February 2006 ) , we find that the Mac Pro definitely used less energy . The G5 used 92 per centum more power when protrude up , 88 per centum more when running an Unreal Tournament 2004 demo , 62 percent more when groundless , and 242 percent more when sleeping .

And of grade , the presence of Intel - based processors in the Mac Pro means that it can operate Windows , too . At crush time , Apple ’s Boot Camp would run on the Mac Pro , but without several aboriginal twist drivers . Although you could download many equipment driver from third - party sources , Apple will likely update Boot Camp to include Mac Pro equipment driver soon . ( At press clip , Parallels Desktop (; September 2006 ) does n’t run on Mac Pros , but Parallels says it ’s make on a reparation . )

Juggling cores

When it comes to downright f number , it ’s well-fixed to bet at Macworld Lab ’s test results and declare that the 2.66GHz Mac Pro is the fast Mac of all time ( until , that is , we test its 3GHz variation)—it score a record 299 on our Speedmark 4.5 test cortege . But the Intel geological era of Mac computer science has made induce such declarations problematic at good .

First , there ’s the number of Rosetta performance . Software that has n’t been recompiled to run natively on Intel - free-base Macs must go in Apple ’s Rosetta codification - translation layer , and everything slows down when Rosetta dynamically translate PowerPC commands into Intel equivalent . As a resolution , the Mac Pros are the first high - goal Macs ever to run Adobe Photoshopslowerthan their predecessors — because Photoshop ( and indeed , Adobe ’s total Creative Suite ) currently must utilize play Rosetta for run on Intel Macs . ( The 2.66GHz Mac Pro really course our suite of Photoshop tasks [ see bench mark chart below ] at almost exactly the same speed as a Power Mac G4 1.42 Gc dual - processor arrangement .

Mac Pro 2.66GHz

Best results inbold . Reference system initalics .

How We test : Speedmark 4.5 score are proportional to those of a 1.25GHz Mac miniskirt , which is assigned a score of 100 . Adobe Photoshop , Cinema 4D XL , Compressor 2.1 , iMovie , iTunes , and Finder loads are in minutes : secondment . All system of rules were play Mac OS X 10.4.7 with 1 GB of RAM , with central processor operation pose to Highest in the Energy Saver preference pane when applicable . We used the Mac Pro Standard Configuration with two double nucleus 2.66GHz Xeon mainframe , a 250 GB hard crusade , and the Nvidia GeForce 7300 GT graphics card . The Photoshop Suite test is a stage set of 14 written tasks using a 50 MB file . Photoshop ’s memory was set to 70 pct and History was set to Minimum . We commemorate how long it take aim to render a scene in Cinema 4D XL . We used Compressor to encode a DV file that was 6 minute and 26 irregular long using the videodisc : Fastest Encode 120 moment – 4:3 setting . In iMovie , we applied the of age TV result to a 1 - second movie . We convert 45 hour of AAC audio Indian file to MP3 using iTunes ’ High Quality background . We used Unreal Tournament 2004 ’s Antalus Botmatch average - frame - per - second score ; we tested at a resolution of 1,024 by 768 pixels at the Maximum setting with both audio and computer graphic enable . We created a Zip archive in the Finder from a 1 GB folder . To compare Speedmark 4.5 scores for various Mac systems , chatter our Apple Hardware Guide.—Macworld Lab testing by James Galbraith and Jerry Jung

Professionals whose primary applications run natively on Intel Macs — QuarkXPress 7 (; August 2006 ) , Final Cut Studio ( October 2005 ) , Shake 4 (; January 2006 ) , Cinema 4D XL , and the like — will find that even the 2.66GHz Mac Pro tops the previous Mac speed title-holder at every twist when running aboriginal software . But if the intellect you buy a high - end professional Mac background is to track down Adobe ’s applications as tight as possible , there ’s no point in time in buying a Mac Pro until Adobe ’s Intel - native software arrives .

The other issue that perplex issue of speed involves the habit of multiple central processing unit core : Software must be write to explicitly take advantage of systems with multiple processors , central processor with multiple cores , or ( in the example of these system and the Power Mac G5 Quad ) both . Programs take vantage of multiple effect to varying degrees : programs dedicated to 3 - D version , professional audio and picture editing , and science and mathematics lean to use every last bit of processor force in every uncommitted core , while many other programs can utilize only a unmarried essence at a metre . ( In February , we measured this gist on a double - core iMac (; April 2006 . )

If you rely on a program that ’s not especially effective at using multiple substance , you ’ll win much less from the four cores that the Mac Pro provides . For exercise , when I used QuickTime Pro to convert a video recording for usance on the iPod , it take vantage of only one mainframe marrow . ( How to habituate that remnant mogul ? I just start three other picture - compressing tasks simultaneously , each of them using one burden each . ) Even Apple ’s pro - even Compressor utility was inefficient while compressing video recording — during a Compressor job , at least one-half of the Mac Pro ’s central processing unit big businessman remained unwarranted .

It ’s not the Mac Pro ’s fault that there are comparatively few plan that can take vantage of its monolithic processing power . But , as with the Power Mac G5 Quad , the vantage you get out of the Mac Pro will have a lot to do with how effective your favorite software package is at taking advantage of multiple CPU heart and soul . If you trust mostly on programs that are n’t effective at using multiple processor cores , you ’ll blow a large ball of the Mac Pro ’s processing voltage .

New RAM and decent video

The Mac Pro ’s RAM is unlike any other store seen in the Mac food market before . The modules are called in full buffer DIMMS ( or FB - DIMMs ) , a formatting spearheaded by Intel that offers gamy remembering performance — at high prices . Each FB - DIMM has its own storage controller onboard , which generates extra heating plant . To dissipate that heat , each FB - DIMM in a Mac Pro fall with its own heat sink , fix FB - DIMMs front unique . FB - DIMMs must be instal in brace , and for the highest memory performance gains , a Mac Pro should have at least two pairs of FB - DIMMs installed .

FB - DIMMs are new technology , and as a solvent patronise for FB - DIMMs will be difficult , at least in the approximate time to come . asunder from Apple , there are currently very few company offering Mac Pro - compatible random access memory modules . And the modules may be importantly more costly than other , more common RAM types , at least for a while . But here ’s the good word : if you necessitate immense amounts of RAM , the Mac Pro will accommodate : you’re able to fill its eight RAM slot with as much as 16 GB of RAM .

install RAM in the Mac Pro is much easier than on the Power Mac G5 . The Mac Pro has two read/write memory common carrier cards , each with four slot . To establish RAM , you just slide the batting order out , post it on a table ( the card has plastic feet on its back side ) , and insert your new FB - DIMMs . Then the carrier lineup slide back in , flop into its expansion slot on the Mac Pro motherboard .

With its combination of profligate processors and nice video card , the Mac Pro provided the high biz frame - rate of any stock Mac system we ’ve tested . When powered by the stock Nvidia GeForce 7300 GT card with 256 megabyte of tup — a card not generally appreciated by die - hard gamers — our Unreal Tournament 2004 mental test handle to outdo the G5 Quad by 64 percent . We saw similar solvent for Doom 3 (; May 2005 ) and Quake 4 (; Game Room Weblog ) . ( We were ineffectual to get the Mac Pro ’s two other video scorecard selection — the ATI Radeon X1900 XT and the Nvidia Quadro FX 4500 — in clock time for this review ; we ’ll mail watch over - up tests once that hardware arrives . )

The Mac Pro , like the Power Mac G5 , apply PCI Express slots . But Apple has made a few betterment this time around . First , the bottom PCI one-armed bandit is doubly - wide , since many eminent - carrying out video wit are , shall we say , a bit rotund . If you place a porky video card in a received expansion slot , it covers up the slot next to it . With the double - wide slot , there ’s plenty of room . More interestingly , these slots can be singly configure for dissimilar maximum stop number : When you buy a card , you no longer postulate to figure out a scheme to optimally use all your slots . The first prison term you start up the Mac Pro after instal a card , a software supporter lets you configure your PCI slot , channeling speed to the ripe cards ( and remove it from cards that do n’t require as much bandwidth ) .

A million to one

For the last few years , Apple has offered several ( usually three ) configurations within the Power Mac line . The lowest - priced poser run to practice engineering hold over from the former generation of Power Macs , often with a wearisome system bus topology and lacking certain upgrade options . With the Mac Pro , Apple has done away with these eminence : although there ’s one Apple - designatedstandard configuration , you could custom-make every aspect of the Mac Pro disregardless of the hurrying of the processor inside .

There are both good and bad points to this approach . Since so many Mac Pros are specify for very specific project , it ’s fitting that they be completely customizable . And buyers who need only the lower - cost dual-2GHz processors wo n’t be stick with last - generation technology . They will be free to outfit their system as they take , and will still be capable to take vantage of four central processor core . And , every Mac Pro can drive Apple ’s gigantic 30 - in Cinema HD Display (; March 2005 ) .

On the other hand , the buy - priced Power Mac towers did provide substance abuser an low-cost way to buy an expandable , customizable Mac system . The last generation of Power Mac G5s admit a $ 1,999 low - end mannikin , but if you strip the Mac Pro down to spare bones from Apple ’s on-line store , you still ca n’t purchase one for less than about $ 2,124 . ( And since wireless networking is not a standard part of the Mac Pro , unlike every other Mac sold today , that mean you ’ll need to pass $ 79 spare if you require to add AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth toanymodel , not just the stripped - down one . )

Macworld’s buying advice

The Mac Pro have professional Mac substance abuser more processor power , storage options , and external embrasure than the late Power Mac wrinkle . The Mac Pro is a better time value , too : the base form Mac Pro , which runs at 2.66 GHz , cost $ 800 less than the Power Mac G5 Quad did upon its firing — yet the Mac Pro is generally fast than the G5 Quad . And the 3.0GHz Mac Pro peril to blow past all previous Mac performance score .

But these new systems are n’t for everyone . If you rely heavily on applications ( such as the Adobe Creative Suite ) that do not yet run natively on Intel Macs , the Mac Pro systems should n’t replace your Power Mac G5 just yet . And if the software you use is n’t effective at using multiple processor cores , you wo n’t be capable to take full advantage of the Mac Pro ’s impressive processing index .

There ’s now a fairly all-encompassing price gap between Apple ’s Mac Pro and iMac background lines . It ’s undecipherable if Apple has any interest in produce a pretty priced system for tycoon users that ’s less expensive than the Mac Pro , but more flexible than the iMac or Mac miniskirt . In the meantime , if you do n’t run high - end professional applications and don’ttrulyneed a huge amount of internal storage or access to PCI Express slot ( for the telling TV - posting options , among other thing ) , you might find that the unmistakably powerful 20 - in iMac Core Duo is a much good note value .

[ Jason Snell isMacworld ’s editorial director . ]