Originally Posted by Marvin
There was a huge jump that happened when Apple held onto the Core 2 Duos while Intel moved to the Core-i series. When Apple finally moved to Core-i, it was a double-generation jump so a full 100% increase in one update. The top-end iMacs are 4x faster than the old C2Ds now, even the ULV chip in the 11" MBA is faster.
But the consumer machines generally managed to jump 100% every two years. That makes a 40% jump over 2 years for the Pro very underwhelming because people buy it for the performance. The only people complaining about the Pro are concerned about software getting choked because there's not enough rendering power.
Their render times would go from 30 minutes to 22 minutes, from 6 hours to 4.5 hours with an update. The longer the render, the more noticeable the time saving but is the saving worth the upgrade cost? If you render overnight, you won't even notice the difference.
The problem right now of course is that Intel ballsed something up with Sandy Bridge so the Mac Pro ought to be on Ivy Bridge by now i.e if Sandy Bridge is 1.4x and Ivy Bridge is a further 1.15x, the jump should be closer to 1.6x with 10-core CPU options. Now this won't arrive until next year:http://vr-zone.com/articles/ivy-brid...ven/15488.html
Very dangerous move to put an already flagging product line a whole year behind the consumer products.
Yes. The i7 was quite the leap. x4 on the current iMac vs mine? Wow. Another reason to make me lust after the top end iMac. By the time I upgrade to a 30-32 inch retina/HiDPI iMac(?) it will be a rocket powered jump for me.
You make the note of consumer rate of improvement every two years vs the rate of performance progress on the Pro.
it's a sign of the times, Laptops, iMacs, iPads are growing rapidly in power. They're all the computer most people need and the investment and focus by Intel, Arm and Apple in that type of 'computer' is a sign of the times.
Desktops are not massively faster than laptops any more. The gap has closed. Same with gpu power in desktops vs laptops. The Xeon chips are bit meh speed wise compared to desktop chips. I don't see the point. If it's an over night render. It's an over night render. The % you mention of improvement is underwhelming for Sandy. Especially when I'm being asked for thousands for an extra hour or so faster over night or minutes or so faster during a smaller workload. Some may disagree.
Big honking boxes are going the way of the 90s with Windows 95 beige tower set ups. The money, the focus, the design, the momentum isn't with big boxes. Though these 'trucks' will linger a little longer...if only in PC land.
A delay to Ivy heavy Xeon iron is another sign of the times plus a lack of competitive pressure to force Intel to pull its laggardly finger out.
Lemon Bon Bon.