3Doodler review: a $99 3D-printing pen

I've spent a fair bit of time trying to explain the WobbleWorks 3Doodler to people over the past year or so. My descriptions generally alternate between the company's slightly misleading "3D-printing pen" to "sort of like a hot glue gun that melts plastic, so you can write in the air." Makes sense, right? The company didn't have much trouble getting the message across, though: it raised an astounding $2.3 million on Kickstarter after initially aiming for just $30,000. And really, it may be precisely the product's strangeness that made it a runaway hit with the crowdfunding community in the first place.

In a world of lookalike smartphones, tablets and even 3D printers, the 3Doodler offers something unique, letting users create strange new works of art -- and it does so with a seemingly reasonable price of $99. The pen looks like it may have the "tech gift for the early adopter who has everything" title pretty well wrapped up (though only backers will get it in time for the holidays -- the rest of us will have to wait for a belated early 2014 arrival) But crowdfunding videos aside, how well does it actually work? Is it really a smart way to spend a Benjamin? More importantly, is it actually any fun?

HARDWARE

As the saying goes, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes there's a manual 3D printer trapped inside. On the whole, not much has changed to the 3Doodler's shell since its creators first brought an early prototype by our officesback in February. The oblong device is covered in a hard, black plastic casing. It's lightweight and easy to hold between your thumb, index and middle finger, kind of like a stubby pencil. Up top, you'll see two rubber arrow buttons. These will help you control the speeds at which plastic extrudes from the pen. Above this is a small LED that lets you know when the 3Doodler is heating up (solid red) and when it's reached the right temperature for printing ABS (blue) and PLA (green) plastics. On top, you'll also find a big fan -- a bit of a necessity for a hand-held product designed to heat things up to 464 degrees Fahrenheit.

Flip the pen over and you'll see a pectoral fin-like outgrowth, which is where you'll be plugging in the power cord when you're ready to get going. This being a first-generation product, it's not all that surprising that the company had to keep the device tethered. The inclusion of an internal battery would have no doubt added significantly to the weight and footprint of the device. To the left of the power port is a hefty power switch. There are three settings here: Off, PLA and ABS, letting the 3Doodler know how hot it needs to get to print the type of plastic you've loaded in. To the left is a three-pin control port. By using this, and the external mount below, it's possible to mount the 3Doodler to a CNC machine, to help the device truly realize its 3D printer potential.

At one end of the device is a metal tip. It goes without saying (at least it should) that the thing gets hot. Really, really hot. Like plastic-melting hot. So you're going to want to avoid touching that bit when the device is in use. Just in case, though (and to help it earn that 12-and-up designation), the shipping version of the product features a rubber cap that slips over the tip, protecting your delicate artist fingers from most of the blazing-hot metal. Even with the cap on, however, there will still be a bit exposed, so definitely use caution, especially when using the 3Doodler with kids. On the backside, meanwhile, is a small hole for feeding in the plastic strips.

GETTING STARTED

The first step of 3Doodling? Plugging the pen in, naturally. The included cord is around six feet long, so you'll either have to find a flat surface next to an outlet or invest in an extension cord. Next, it's time to heat this party up by flipping on the power switch. As mentioned above, the pen works with either ABS- or PLA-type plastics -- both common choices for most commercial 3D printers. When you buy a 3Doodler, you'll have to specify which you want. Mine came with three packs of ABS, which is better for drawing in the air -- a big part of the appeal of the device, obviously. PLA, on the other hand, is better at sticking to surfaces and is a bit more environmentally friendly, being derived from cornstarch (this also means it gives off a less offensive smell went melted). Additional packs of plastic will run you ten bucks a pop.

Heating the device to ABS levels (around 450 degrees) takes just under a minute -- 55 seconds, to be precise. Leave the 3Doodler idle long enough and it'll automatically start cooling off again, but you can get the temperature back up by flipping it off and on again. Once the light's turned blue or green (depending on your material preference), grab one of the plastic sticks and feed it into the loader slot in the rear, pushing it in until you can't push any more. Then press one of the extrusion arrows to start the process. I counted roughly five seconds before I started seeing any plastic flow from the nozzle, but once it starts, you're off to the races.

DRAWING

I suspect I'm not blowing any minds here when I tell you that drawing a 3D object isn't easy. My first attempts were shaky at best. I tried drawing a rabbit, only to produce something that looked more like a melted pile of Dali-esque surrealism, or that scribbled Picasso drawing of Don Quixote left on a car dashboard in mid-July. Drawing on a flat surface is simple enough, however, and tracing seems a pretty good place to get started with the new tool. Lay a thin piece of paper over a well-defined image and go to town. I also took a shot at drawing the new Engadget logo freehand and am reasonably pleased with the result -- a basic outline filled in with plastic scribbles.

The trouble starts when you attempt to draw in the air. You're essentially creating the support structure as you draw, designing something to support the plastic as it hardens and dries. It's a sort of race against gravity that will almost certainly result in a lot of frantic scribbling, hence the aforementioned melting effect. There are two extrusion settings, as mentioned above, but I spent pretty much all of my time on the lower setting. I'll have to draw a few more bunnies before I feel comfortable shifting into second gear. I also had some trouble with the dangling bits of plastic that remain when you've halted the extrusion. Do this too many times, and you'll have a bit of a mess on your hands.

Above: Look, a bunny rabbit!

The 3Doodler itself doesn't get too hot, thankfully, though the fan does blow a fair amount of warm air on your hands, which, on a cold December day, isn't entirely unpleasant. The thing did get a bit loud, however. It's not deafening by any stretch, but if your computer's fan started making noises like this, you'd probably check around for an all-night repair shop. And then there's the smell. It's not overpowering, but WobbleWorks should probably avoid sinking its fortunes into the perfume business.

When the plastic piece has run out, the extrusion will slow down and then stop. Just toss another piece in the back and you'll be ready to go again after a few seconds. I was a bit surprised at how quickly I burned through the plastic. You'll want to order a couple of bags while getting started. The 3Doodler won't magically extrude drawing skills if you don't have any artistic ability, so you're likely going to go through the stuff at a pretty rapid clip. When you're finished with a color, you can just pull it out the back if there's still some poking out. If it's all inside the pen, however, you'll have to wait until it's fully extruded.

WRAP-UP

As for how fun the 3Doodler actually is, well, that depends entirely on you. I found myself putting the pen down a couple of times out of frustration at my inability to make 3D objects look the way I wanted them to -- a combination of my inexperience with the device and the fact that I'm not even great at drawing the old-fashioned way. Artistic types will likely find some really fascinating applications for the product. I don't, however, see the 3Doodler becoming a tool for business purposes like prototyping -- the results are just too uneven.

If you've got $100 to spare or need a gift for a notoriously hard-to-buy-for friend or relative, the 3Doodler's certainly worth a look. It's pretty well-baked, as far as first-generation crowdfunded products go. Hopefully the company will ditch the cord in future builds, and maybe there's something that can be done with the runoff strands. As for making it easier to use, well that will just take time, practice and a lot of bags of plastic.

Nest Protect review: a smoke detector for the smartphone generation

Back in 2011, Nest did the impossible: It made thermostats sexy. Apple veterans Tony Fadell and Matt Rogers applied their iPod-designing expertise to the largely utilitarian world of home-climate control, creating the Learning Thermostat, an appliance aimed squarely at the gadget-obsessed citizens of the smartphone age. And then, earlier this year, Fadell and Rogers took on another traditionally banal (but utterly important) aspect of home life: the smoke detector. The conceit of theNest Protect was to bring some of the same aesthetics and smart features that made the company's first product a success.

The result is a smoke/carbon monoxide detector with mobile device connectivity and a range of expressions that go far beyond the old beeping alarms, as well as a unique gesture feature that lets you silence the device with the wave of a hand. Admittedly bummed at the inability to test the Learning Thermostat in my prewar New York City apartment building, I happily jumped at the opportunity to review the Protect. So Nest sent along two devices, a can of something called a "smoke detector tester" and, thankfully, thorough instructions on how one goes about testing smoke detectors without accidentally burning the house down.

HARDWARE

Given Nest's origins, it's not especially surprising that the company managed to make even the product's box a thing to behold. The message is pretty clear: If Apple ever saw fit to produce a smoke detector, it would look something like this. It's a well-designed bit of packaging that looks more suited for a Best Buy vending machine than a dusty hardware store shelf. Inside, you'll find a wall mount, a set of four screws embedded directly into the cardboard packaging and an awful lot of paperwork -- after all, making sure the device works properly could be a matter of life or death. As for the Protect itself, you've got two options, both at the same price point: a battery-operated model, and a wired version for those who want to tap into their home circuitry. Seeing as how I won't be using the detector permanently, I opted for the latter, which comes with six AA Energizer Lithiums pre-installed.

Like most current smartphones, the Protect comes in either black or white. Nest sent me two white devices, thankfully -- far better for blending in on my apartment walls. Perhaps some of you willing to drop $129 on this sort of product want to make the thing as conspicuous as possible, but personally, I'd prefer not to have to discuss my smoke detector with everyone who visits my apartment (that's what record collections, bookshelves and stuffed grizzlies are for). With that in mind, it's not surprising that the Protect has a much subtler aesthetic than the company's first device, though it's still unquestionably a much nicer object than the vast majority of smoke detectors I've encountered.

The Apple connection is pretty clear here, right out of the box. With the clean lines and rounded corners, a quick look at the Protect's profile invites comparisons to a flattened Mac mini or Apple TV. The front of the device, meanwhile, is almost all grille -- this is, after all, a product designed to wake you from deep sleep a couple of rooms away. A big, circular button sporting a Nest logo sits in the middle of the dotted plastic face. Mobile devices aside, this button will be your primary method for interacting with the Protect. You'll press it several times during setup, any time you want to test the detector and when you want to quiet the alarm.

There's a thin circle in the button, with faint, light gray text so befuddled houseguests know they're looking at a smoke and carbon monoxide detector. In this spot, you'll also see the light that emanates from behind the button, forming a glowing ring in the center of the smoke detector. This is how the Protect manages to communicate without always making noise. Nest opted not to include a display, likely because you won't find yourself physically interacting with a smoke detector nearly as often as a thermostat. The vast majority of the time, there's no light on at all, allowing it to blend in with its surroundings and conserve battery life.

Still, the light is pretty expressive. During the setup process and testing, it turns blue, letting you know it's working and connected. When you turn off the lights at night, it glows green for a moment to let you know everything is all right with the sensors and batteries (if there's an issue, it'll turn yellow and tell you what the matter is when you wave your hand in front of it). And if you so choose during the setup process, the pathlight will light up when it detects motion in the dark, a sort of beacon to help you navigate your way through a pitch-black room. The light turns yellow as an early warning sign of a problem and red when it's time to sound the alarm.

On the back of the Protect, you'll find detailed explanations about each of the light colors and the standard warnings that come with a product like this. There's a micro-USB port in the middle for "internal use only," according to Nest, and holes for attaching it to the wall dock, a process that just requires a simple twist. At the bottom are two screws you'll need to take out to remove the back while changing the batteries. When you first take the Protect out of the box, you'll also spot a light blue tag popping out the back -- this ensures that the batteries aren't in before you're ready for them. You'll need to yank that out to get started.

SETUP

Pull out the tab and press the button and the Protect will say, "Hi." The smoke detector has a soft-spoken, feminine voice, the sort of strangely calming robotic presence you'd like guiding you in a time of emergency. The voice follows the greeting by asking you to choose whether you'd like her to speak in Spanish or English. Next up, you'll be prompted to test the Protect, to make sure things are all right. "The alarm will sound," she explains. "The alarm is loud." She ain't lying. It's grating, ear-piercing and strikingly loud, and you'll hear a total of six beeps as the Protect checks the smoke and then carbon monoxide sensors. It's annoying when you're testing the thing, sure, but when it comes to smoke alarms, loud is good. "The test is finished," she adds, calm as ever. And, if all goes according to plan, "everything is okay."

Now it's time to download the app. Ahead of Protect's release, the company issued an app that monitors both its thermostats and smoke detectors, available for iOS and Android. Create an account through Nest's site (if you don't already have one); use your handset to scan the QR code on the Protect's back (or manually enter a key, if you're so inclined); and the app will take you through a simple process of connecting it to your wireless network. If you've ever connected anything like a Chromecast to your home WiFi, this should be a familiar process, though I did have to repeat it a few times as everything attempted to connect. I spoke to a Nest rep, and the company's not sure what happened there, but the problem resolved itself before I had to pull my hair out. When you're done, the voice will tell you that she's "connected to the internet" and everything's ready to go. If you've got a second Protect, you'll be prompted to connect that, as well. It's a similar process, albeit slightly shorter with some redundant steps removed.

Next, it's time to take the old smoke detector off the wall -- though the company suggested I not actually do that in my testing, as the review units weren't quite final. This part of the process is naturally a bit more involved, should you opt for the wired version. According to the included instructions, the ceiling is the best place your Protect -- or, failing that, high up on a wall. In either case, it's best to avoid obscuring any edge of the detector with a tight corner. Once you've found the right spot, screw the backplate into the wall and snap the Protect in place.

TESTING

And now the fun(?) part. If the beeping during setup didn't set off the neighbors, I assumed the testing would. No one came knocking, however, which should give you some idea of how much you can count on the people in your building in case of emergency. Good thing I have four smoke detectors in my apartment at the moment. Nest equipped me with the Smoke Sabre, a smoke-detector tester in an aerosol can. With a spritz (or with actual smoke or carbon monoxide, naturally), the ring of light will turn yellow, alerting you that something is up. The Protect gives you a window of a few seconds in yellow, dimming slightly when it spots you, letting you know that you're in the sweet spot and can reset the alarm with a wave -- just as you might wave away the smoke when overcooking something on the stove. The idea is to stop false alarms before they start -- so if you're in the kitchen and something starts smoking, you don't have to deal with emergency alerts during a non-emergency.

I had a bit of trouble getting the gesture-based override to work during the trial, in spite of some frantic waving. I contacted Nest about the issue, and a rep told me that, due to federal regulations, there are two versions of the alarm. The less serious of the two can be overridden by the user. The other just goes straight to alarm. Apparently I've been hitting the old Smoke Sabre a little too hard. The upside, however, is that I got to see the Nest spring into action (the downside, naturally, is that I got to hear it, too). This, it turns out, is why you installed that app -- like the smoke detector itself, it will sit around idly for the majority of the time, a subtle reminder that everything is copacetic.

When the Protect encounters an issue, however, you'll get a push notification on your mobile device (an optional, but highly recommended feature). The normally green ring in the center of the app will turn red, along with a quick indicator of what's wrong (in this case: "Smoke"). Tap on that and you'll get a breakdown of your alarms' statuses -- e.g., "Smoke" for the dining room and "All Clear" for the kitchen. Tap through to notes and the app gives you a full breakdown of what happened -- at 4:47 PM: "There is smoke. The alarm is sounding." I was eventually able to hush the sound by hitting the button, and the timeline mentions that as well. At the top of the page is a "What to Do" note, including the usual stop, drop and roll instructions (which you hopefully don't need to pick up a smartphone to remember). There's also a big red button at the bottom for dialing 911.

WRAP UP

I'll admit it's been a while since I've been in the market for a smoke detector. A cursory scan of Amazon, however, indicates an average price between $10 and $30, with combo smoke/carbon monoxide detectors landing at the higher end of that spectrum. In either case, it's a range the $129 Protect misses by a country mile. Of course, this isn't just any smoke detector. Like the Learning Thermostat before it, it's a bit of home electronics aimed at gadget nerds, and certainly Nest has managed to do a lot in an otherwise staid category.

It's a lovely object, so far as these things go, and its expressive center lighting and voice directions offer a lot more than the standard series of beeps: alerting you to emergencies, low batteries and even lighting your way at night. The gesture-based hush can save your eardrums and the smartphone alerts may well save some lives. For most, however, standard smoke detectors will likely still do the trick. Even though certain device idiosyncrasies can be a hassle, $129 still feels like a lot to pay, given the industry average. And for those living in larger homes, it's a price that'll add up fast.

Apple Mac Pro review (2013): small, fast and in a league of its own

It would be an understatement to say that Apple's Mac Pro workstation was getting a little long in the tooth. As of summer 2012, it was missing Apple's own Thunderbolt ports, not to mention 802.11n WiFi. Finally, though, Apple released an updated version, and it addresses a little more than just the wireless card and I/O options. Redesigned from the ground up, it's now much smaller and lighter, with a space-age cylindrical shape, an overhauled cooling system that's significantly quieter and a spec sheet that includes standard dual GPUs, PCIe SSDs, 802.11ac WiFi, up to 64GB of RAM and the latest Intel Xeon processors, once again going up to 12 cores. In short, these are specs that bring the Mac Pro into the modern age -- and make it ready to handle the coming onslaught of 4K content.

If you're a professional photographer, videographer, audio engineer, animator or what-have-you, you might actually be considering spending $2,999 on one of these -- maybe as much as $9,599, if you have the means. Or maybe you're just like my colleagues here at Engadget, who don't need one, and won't ever buy one, but covet it just the same. Either way, you'll want to read on to see how this thing actually performs (though you probably already have an idea).

HARDWARE

If the Mac Pro really does look like a trash can, as everyone says, it's much nicer than any rubbish bin I've ever owned. Starting with the shape, which seems to have earned it so much ridicule, the Mac Pro is basically a squat little cylinder, with a large circular opening up top where the heat creeps out. Between that and the glossy gunmetal "Space Gray" finish, it does indeed look like some sort of futuristic wastepaper basket.

Then, of course, you turn the thing around and notice the Apple logo, power button and a cutout in the anodized-aluminum exposure, making it easy to access the various ports. Not exactly a garbage can, that. All told, the Mac Pro is a compact little thing, standing 9.9 inches tall and measuring 6.6 inches in diameter. For whatever reason-- the photography on Apple's site, perhaps -- it feels smaller and shorter than I imagined it. To give you some perspective, the Pro stands around half as tall as a 27-inch monitor, like Apple's own Cinema Display, and has roughly the same footprint as an office phone. So if you have room for a landline, you almost certainly have room for the Mac Pro. And if you have enough room for a landline, you can probably get away with using the Mac Pro in other small spaces, like a music stage or the corner of a film set.

Speaking of the sort, the machine is light enough, at 11 pounds, that you could conceivably take it with you to your next shoot. Left uncovered, you'll want to handle it gingerly, of course, but if you keep the original box with the foam inserts, you should have no problem carrying it in the crook of your arm. In fact, that might not be such a bad idea: The glossy aluminum finish is also quite the fingerprint magnet, much more so than any other Apple products we've seen. If you do carry this around by hand, be prepared to wipe off some smudges now and again.

Swinging back to the ports for a moment, these include headphone and mic jacks, four USB 3.0 sockets, six Thunderbolt 2 connections, dual Gigabit Ethernet ports and an HDMI 1.4 port. As a nice, even more futuristic touch, the power button glows white briefly when you turn on the machine, as do a few other accent lights around the ports. The LEDs even fade as you shut down the computer, and flick on again one by one as it's booting up. Additionally, you'll find a locking switch that keeps the removable aluminum enclosure in place (you can't actually power on the machine unless the cover is on). One thing you won't find here: a memory card slot. This makes sense, in a way, given that pros aren't big on SD cards, and there are simply too many other formats to accommodate on one small chassis. To build in, say, a CF slot, but not one for XQD would have been rather arbitrary indeed.

INTERNALS

Six paragraphs so far and I've only described the removable case. Slip it off and you get to the heart of the machine, a tall, three-sided board Apple is calling the "thermal core." Two of the sides are taken up by the GPUs -- dual graphics cards are standard here -- whereas the CPU occupies the third. I'll get to performance and configuration options in a moment, but for now, suffice to say you can configure this thing with two AMD FirePro D700 GPUs and 12GB of video memory, amounting to up to seven teraflops of computing power (the last Mac Pro maxed out at 2.7 teraflops). Meanwhile, there are two RAM banks (with two slots each), located on either side of the CPU board. Combined, these can accommodate up to 64GB of DDR3 memory, with bandwidth of up to 60 gigabytes per second.

With the exception of the processor, everything is user-replaceable -- the RAM, the GPUs and the solid-state storage. (I still wouldn't recommend that the average person replace the GPU himself, but then again, the Mac Pro isn't exactly for the average consumer in the first place.)

Speaking of thermal performance -- this is the thermal core, after all -- Apple designed a cooling system whereby air is sucked in at the base of the machine, and gets pushed out of that large hole in the top. Rather than use multiple fans, Apple went with just one, tweaking the size, shape, speed and spacing of the blades. In the end, the company's engineering team settled on backward-curved impeller blades, which spin at fewer revolutions per minute than on the last-gen Mac Pro.

The idea, of course, is for the blades to effectively cool the system, but also to make less noise in the process. According to Apple, the new Pro reaches 15 decibels while under load, versus 30dB on the last edition. And when the machine is idle, it simmers down to just 12dB -- very similar to the lower-powered Mac mini. As I'll discuss later in the review, the machine is indeed as quiet as advertised, though that may or may not come at the expense of some warm operating temperatures.

PERFORMANCE

	MAC PRO (2013, 3.7GHZ INTEL XEON E5-1620, DUAL 2GB AMD FIREPRO D300)	IMAC (2013, 27-INCH, 3.4GHZ CORE I5, 8GB RAM, 2GB NVIDIA GTX 775M)	IMAC (2012, 27-INCH, 3.4GHZ CORE I7, 8GB RAM, 2GB NVIDIA GTX 680MX)	IMAC (2012, 21.5-INCH, 3.1GHZ CORE I7, 16GB RAM, 512MB NVIDIA GEFORCE GT 650M)
Geekbench (multi-core)	12,650 (32-bit) / 14,207 (64-bit)	10,920 (32-bit) / 11,867 (64-bit)	13,045 (32-bit)	12,577 (32-bit)
Xbench	601.98	539.73	560.44	531.91

Though the unit we have here is very nearly an entry-level configuration (quad-core Intel Xeon E5-1620 processor, 16GB of RAM, 256GB SSD, dual 2GB AMD FirePro D300 GPUs), I also had the chance to test out a more tricked-out version. That was an $8,099 model with an eight-core CPU, 64GB of RAM, a 1TB SSD and two FirePro D700 GPUs -- the best graphics Apple is offering. With the newest version of Final Cut Pro X, which has been specifically optimized to take advantage of the Mac Pro's dual GPUs, I saw the machine play back 16 picture-in-picture 4K streams simultaneously.

Editing is a seamless affair too -- you can apply a filter to a video and see it go into effect immediately. Zero rendering time here. Ditto for previews: You can instantly see how an effect will look without having to wait for the machine to catch up. Last example: Retiming a four-and-a-half-minute clip to just a few seconds was also instantaneous -- I could immediately play back a much shorter version of that same footage. I'm no videographer, as you all know, but if I were, it would be nice not to have to wait while I had a director or client looking over my shoulder, asking me to make changes. (Because in my fantasy life as a videographer, I'm always on location.)

Fortunately, you don't need an $8,100 configuration to enjoy that kind of performance. Even on the more modestly specced machine, I was able to preview and apply effects and transitions with zero waiting time. As on the higher-end model, I could play back multiple 4K streams at once. Additionally, I was able to add effects to clips while playing back my project, and could immediately jump to that clip to see the effect in action. At one point, I went a little overboard and added 15 filters and the footage still ran flawlessly. (N.B.: There's an option in settings that causes playback to stop as soon as a frame drops, but that never happened during my testing. Not once.) Truth be told, I probably could have applied even more than 15 effects, but by that time, I had conceded defeat, and was starting to feel bored with my little game.

Other stats: Importing a 9.23GB folder of .MOV files from the desktop took less than two seconds -- I had barely pressed the start button on my stopwatch and the import was already over. When it came time to export, exporting that 9.23GB project from ProRes 422 to H.264 took five minutes and 16 seconds. As a side note, when I timed the export, I made sure I wasn't doing anything else in Final Cut Pro, since the program is designed to slow background processes if there's something going on in the foreground. That said, I found that I could play other 4K clips while exporting a project, though at one point I hit a clip that included a 4K picture-in-picture overlay, which caused a brief slowdown.

I won't dwell too much on benchmark scores here, for the simple reason that most tests have not yet been optimized to take advantage of dual GPUs. As you can see in the above table, for instance, the numbers are on par with a recent iMac, even though the real-world performance here is far superior, especially in apps like Final Cut Pro X, which have been designed to leverage both graphics cards. Meanwhile, our test system ran the Cinebench R15 Open GL test at 74 frames per second -- that, too, is a good showing, but still not as fast as you'd expect of a dual-GPU machine.

It's a similar story with gaming: I ran Batman: Arkham City (the Game of the Year Edition), but suspect it was using just one of the GPUs. With resolution set to 2,560 x 1,440, details on high and anti-aliasing at its highest setting (8x), the Mac Pro managed an average of 56 frames per second, with frame rates running the gamut from 28 to 83 fps. It wasn't until I dropped the anti-aliasing and detail levels to medium that I saw rates climb to 60 frames per second, with a peak of 88 fps. Even then, that was only a modest improvement. In the Mac Pro's defense, though, gameplay is smooth, especially if you disable V Sync, which caps frame rates. The performance just isn't quite as robust as you'd expect on a machine this powerful.

Without belaboring the point, this brings me to one of my few concerns about the Mac Pro, which is that right now, at least, most programs won't fully harness its graphics capabilities. One of the reasons I spent so much time in Final Cut Pro is that it's one of the few programs designed specifically to run well on a new Mac Pro. It reminds me a bit of how Retina display MacBook Pros were initially short on compatible software. If that analogy holds true, we should see more apps retooled to play nice with the Mac Pro's dual-GPU setup. Just be prepared for some slim pickings if you buy one this week.

	READ SPEEDS	WRITE SPEEDS
1GB	912.5 MB/s	764.7 MB/s
2GB	919.3 MB/s	753.3 MB/s
3GB	910.0 MB/s	758.3 MB/s
4GB	933.0 MB/s	761.2 MB/s
5GB	918.3 MB/s	768.3 MB/s

As for tasks that aren't GPU-intensive, start-up consistently took around 46 seconds -- a moot point if you're one of those people who never shuts down before leaving the office. (If you do shut down regularly, you might find the boot-up sequence slightly tedious, though you'll of course make up for it in rendering time.) Copying a nearly 10GB file from the downloads folder to the desktop was basically instantaneous. Most apps launched with virtually zero wait time. Even Final Cut Pro, a fairly heavy-duty program, was up and running in under three seconds.

Right now, at least, most programs won't fully harness the Mac Pro's graphics capabilities.

Throughout, the Mac Pro gets a bit warm, but it's rarely hot, and it's always quiet. For lack of a better word, you'd have to provoke the machine to really be bothered by the heat: The warmest area is at the top of the chassis, and even then, you'd have to be sticking your hand near the vents to feel it. Otherwise, the chassis does get a tad warm -- and can take a while to cool down -- but it's much cooler than the air blowing out of the top. Avoid sticking your fist into the opening at the top and you'll be fine. As for noise, I tried hard to get the fans spinning, but they stayed quiet. Actually, if you put your ear up to the opening at the top, you will hear a faint purring, but again, you'd have to be the sort of wise guy willing to put your ear next to the hottest part of the machine (not recommended).

It's no surprise that with a high-performing machine like this, Apple went with SSDs built on the PCI Express standard. (In fact, all of its new machines, laptop and desktop alike, use PCIe.) In this case, though, the speeds are rated for 1.2GB per second, versus 800 MB/s on, say, the MacBook Air or the entry-level Retina display MacBook Pro. So, whereas the disk speeds are good on Apple's other machines, they're positively screaming here. As you can see in the above table, our read speeds averaged 918.6 MB/s across different stress loads, with write speeds coming out to 761.2 MB/s. To put that in perspective, the newest iMac managed 667.88 MB/s on the read test, and just 318.14 MB/s when it came to write speeds. Big difference, wouldn't you say?

In addition to the SSD, the Thunderbolt 2 ports bring some serious speed of their own. Thanks to their bandwidth of 20 Gbps, you can daisy-chain up to six peripherals per port, or 36 for the whole machine. Or, you can connect up to three 4K monitors. I wish I could've tested that last bit, but alas, our reviews budget doesn't stretch far enough to include three of those bad boys. One would be sweet enough.

CONFIGURATION OPTIONS

And here we arrive at what's actually one of the more important sections of this review: the part where we tell you all the ways you can trick out your new beast of a workstation. On Apple's site, you'll see two ready-made models, both of which are scheduled to ship in February. The base version goes for $2,999 with a quad-core 3.7GHz Intel Xeon E5 processor, dual AMD FirePro D300 GPUs with 2GB of VRAM each, 12GB of memory and a 256GB PCIe SSD. In other words, it's basically the same unit I tested, except ours had 16 gigs of RAM instead of 12. Otherwise, same specs.

The other model listed on Apple's site is a six-core unit with dual FirePro D500 GPUs. As a higher-end machine, this has 3GB of video memory per GPU, not two. Additionally, it comes with 16GB of RAM and a 256GB SSD, just like the base model.

But don't be fooled by the simplicity of Apple's purchasing page. Click "select" for either and you'll be opening up a wide array of customization options. And really, that's what you're most curious about, right? Let's unpack all the choices here. For starters, if you're configuring the lower-end quad-core model, you can step up to a six-core CPU ($500), an eight-core one ($2,000) or a 12-core chip ($3,500). From there, you can upgrade to 16GB ($100), 32GB ($500) or 64GB ($1,300) of RAM. As for storage, there are larger 512GB and 1TB SSDs available for $300 and $800, respectively. Finally, there's graphics. In addition to the base option, which includes two 2GB FirePro D300 GPUs, you can opt for two 3GB D500s ($400) or two 6GB D700s ($1,000).

Obviously, the upgrade prices are different if you start with the higher-end model. Regardless, the Mac Pro always comes with dual GPUs, as I said, along with other amenities like 802.11ac WiFi and Bluetooth 4.0, neither of which was included on the last-gen Mac Pro.

If you still have room in your budget, Apple is also selling a $3,595, 32-inch 4K Sharp monitor on its site, in case you don't already have a screen for viewing and playing back ultra-high-res media. Apple is also selling the keyboard and mouse separately, as it has in the past. Already, we've seen some commentary on the internet criticizing Apple for being stingy, but keep in mind that many of the folks buying this might well be businesses that already have keyboards and mice lying around, so they might not actually be missing these accessories as much as you think they are.

WRAP-UP

MORE INFO

• Apple Mac Pro eyes-on
• Apple Mac Pro hands-on
• Apple's new Mac Pro now on sale

I debated even putting the word "expensive" in the cons list of that review card you seen down there. It's hard to say if the Mac Pro is pricey, per se, given that there's nothing else quite like it. There are plenty of Windows-based workstations, certainly, but none are quite this small or quite this portable (many aren't quite this quiet, either). And if you're a creative professional already hooked into Mac-only apps like Final Cut Pro, this is really your only choice: The new Mac Pro is a serious improvement over the old model in every way, and is likely worth the upgrade. So, while $2,999 (let alone $10,000) is indeed a big investment, it's well worth it for people who live and die by their workstation, and for whom (rendering) time is money.

Zach Honig and Todd Thoenig contributed to this review.