Apple Mac Pro (Mid 2010) Review
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 6, 2010 9:26 PM ESTThe Most Upgradeable Mac
The Mac Pro's styling hasn't changed in years. We got minor improvements inside but externally there haven't been any major changes since the Power Mac G5 days:
Can you spot the difference? Going from left to right we have the Westmere Mac Pro (2010), Power Mac G5 and Nehalem Mac Pro (2009). I left the Core 2 Duo Mac Pro out of the shot because it looks identical to the Nehalem/Westmere models.
You could argue that the design works and thus doesn’t need to be updated and I’d tend to agree with you. The Mac Pro chassis is still very well compartmentalized and as a result allows for easy upgrades.
Internally the Westmere model is identical to its predecessor. Apple has made revisions to the motherboard so this isn't just a chip upgrade for the Nehalem Mac Pro, but other than that the systems look the same.
You still have the same slide out CPU/memory tray and the four removable SATA drive sleds from the Nehalem and Core 2 models. One thing I asked for in the Nehalem Mac Pro review was support for 2.5" drives, which Apple somewhat delivered with Westmere.
If you order an Apple SSD, either as an upgrade kit or with your Westmere Mac Pro you'll get a 2.5" adapter for the 3.5" drive sled. While I would've preferred something in-box for all users (since I still recommend going your own route for SSDs vs. buying them from Apple), this is at least a step in the right direction.
The only change I’d recommend is implementing a simpler PCIe retention system. The lower retention bracket works quite well, it’s the thumbscrews that hold the top of the cards in place that are bothersome. Thumbscrews are obviously preferable to regular screws, but I’d rather have something that just snaps or slides into place. Given that I’ve done a lot of Mac Pro video card swapping over the past few days I’m probably more sensitive to this than most people, but there’s no harm in seeking perfection.
Moving back outside, on the front we still have two USB 2.0 and two FireWire 800 ports. Like the previous Mac Pro there are no FireWire 400 ports and Apple has yet to embrace USB 3.0. The latter is a shame given the expected shelf life of a high end computer.
Around back the port layout is unchanged. That's three USB 2.0 ports, two FireWire 800, optical audio out and in, line in, speaker out, and two GigE ports. Apple continues to only offer a line in and not a mic-in on its "Pro" models. If you want to use a microphone with the Mac Pro you'll either need an amp or a USB mic, as the line-in port is not amplified and won't work.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
84 Comments
View All Comments
Macdesign - Thursday, November 4, 2010 - link
The 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.standar29 - Thursday, November 18, 2010 - link
Seems 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.Chuck_Darwin - Monday, January 31, 2011 - link
Anand, 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.Conniesimmons - Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - link
Thanks 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