Nab release?

I say zero.

The Mac Pro and Macbook Pro are due for an update so it would be an easy way to intro them but they haven't done hardware intros at 3rd party events (e.g MacWorld) for a long time and I don't think they've ever used NAB for hardware, just FCS.

I might be misjudging how people feel towards FCPX but something tells me they wouldn't want to take the stage at NAB this year. Randy went to Antarctica not long after the last one - nobody goes there for a vacation. Even Superman went there to hide away from everyone and he could fly anywhere. It wouldn't be a completely bad idea to have some presence at NAB as they could explain that the FCPX updates have addressed most of the feedback but I don't see a hardware announcement on the cards at NAB.

HP, Autodesk and Intel will be showing off the Xeons at NAB:

http://area.autodesk.com/nab2012/intel

but Apple would use the same hardware so they aren't going to demo on the same turf as they charge more for their product.

It's hard to say how they will release updates because redesigns are expected but typically they always have an event. However, now the updates are close to WWDC so do they delay the updates or stage press events or use NAB?

They've delayed hardware updates for WWDC before and it is only 7.5 weeks away now. Then they'd be able to announce updates to the entire lineup. I think there will be a consolidation of the laptop line that can't happen before June.

...which will only mean something when we see it in a Mac Pro? :o

Lemon Bon Bon.

Are there any benches for Sandy E out yet? What sort of % are we talking about over the current Pro?

Lemon Bon Bon.

For the highest-end E5-2690, Cinebench is 24 vs 15 for the 12-core Mac Pro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MMDBXaHCeI

Apple don't use the most expensive Xeons though (the above chip is $2,000 per CPU) so at best, it would be the E5-2670 or something like that, which gets 21:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/mot...-2670-review/4

This would mean 40% speed increase with likely chips and 60% with the highest-end. Not really worth the 2-year wait but naturally 'pros' need that 40% or they will switch within a matter of days.

There are benchmarks that show much higher memory bandwidth or something but it's not going to affect any desktop use for the Mac Pro.

As a motion graphics designer/animator... The day of switching to PC is getting closer.

I'm not sure why you bother to post here as nobody wants to hear your noise. Apple will debut the Pros replacement when it is ready and no sooner.


Goodbye, have a good time.

Bye. Enjoy. We'll stick with the right solution.

So, about 20% per year of the near two year wait. Pretty evolutionary. Hmm. :/

Still, if you're going from the current Mac Pro to +40%, it's nearly half again as fast. Nothing to sniff at. They seem competitive performance wise.

If you're going from a single chip for 3D rendering to a dual chip you're definitely going to notice the extra clip of the 2nd cpu.

So, someone like me with a Core 2 Duo iMac would see an Earthquake of difference going to a 'new' dual Mac Pro for 3D rendering. (If they ever ship.) Mind you. I recall a PC owning pal who had an i7 hyper threaded cpu and the difference in Cinebench between his i7 rig and my iMac with Core Duo 2 was significant (spank worthy) and that's on a single chip vs single chip basis.

Thanks for the links.

Lemon Bon Bon.

PCs suck.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Heh.

Lemon Bon Bon.

That's it for me.

I wouldn't take a dual processor PC over an i7 Mac given the choice. I'd happily wait the extra minutes/hours on a render.

I've tried Windows. I'm under whelmed by the hardware and hate the OS.

Yeesh. You can buy (an admittedly) two year old Mac Pro with 12 cores. How hard can life be with 12 cores, all of which hyper threaded.

I suppose I'm not on mission critical deadlines. I wouldn't want to be if it meant going to Windows. It would just be another reason to hate my job.

Lemon Bon Bon.

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.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-trin...it-/15511.html

Interesting link. AMD trying to get back in the game with this one. I'm all for them providing competition. Sure, it's in the laptop segment. I hope they can get back to it in the desktop segment too.

Lemon Bon Bon.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-to-s...ll-/15564.html

Interesting tea leaves regarding the future prospects of AMD.

A two year turnaround by the looks of it on Server/Desktop cpus to attack Intel once more. 2014? Looks like the prospects of any AMD chips in an iMac or Pro are as remote as ever. At least there appears to be a more optimistic leadership there again...and a plan! Competitive is good.

Lemon Bon Bon.