or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple to cease European Mac Pro sales March 1 due to regulatory requirements
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple to cease European Mac Pro sales March 1 due to regulatory requirements - Page 4

post #121 of 162

Also, Adobe Premiere uses lossy cache files for editing, and then creates the visually lossless (ProRes, DnXHD) on the final render out of your program. This is why they can accept almost any format of codec on ingest without transcoding. Their greatest advantage, most think, over other NLE's. The final render out can take a LONG, time, especially with an underpowered GPU or one that is not qualified for their CUDA acceleration. More effects and more layers equals even more time. Not fun with a client waiting to FedEx it.

post #122 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez 
You realize, of course, that "rm *" is a common Bash command, available on OS X as well.

Yes. That was actually in the pre-OS X days so they couldn't even use the Mac system on their network setup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez 
The number of studios using Linux has only grown since then.  I'd wager there are many times more jobs for Linux admins in Hollywood than OS X admin jobs.

So you're saying they would switch if Apple had the right server hardware? Possibly, but it can't be the same as the Mac Pro because the Mac Pro exists and they aren't buying them and they didn't buy the XServe either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
You can run two cards in the Mac Pro, the ideal setup for Resolve color correction is one high end NVidia combined with a GT120 for computer display and a Black Magic video card (required) for color critical video out to a Flanders or other critical (up to 4k now) display. 3 cards. Can't do that with an iMac.

You can run Da Vinci Resolve on the iMac no problem, they demo it on the iMac:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WxUbQzo_nVs#t=282s

What you're saying is the Mac Pro is a more optimal solution, which is right but the iMac will do the job. The iMac has two GPUs in it too so potentially it can use both at once and Black Magic peripherals can run over Thunderbolt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
If you read Mac Performance Guide carefully, he has fully tested all forms of cache storage for Photoshop, and the OWC Accelsior is by far the fastest. His recommendation if, you can afford it, is two of them striped RAID 0.

His recommendation sounds like one card where he says:

"Most users should just stick with one card"

He even talks about putting it in a TB enclosure:

http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-OWC-Mercury-Helios.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
Roughly 270 MB/sec realistically for internal drives on 3G (need current 6G). You can run one on Thunderbolt, but you have to admit, you are then cut out of Resolve

Why are you cut out of Resolve? The iMac has two Thunderbolt ports for one thing but if the storage has dual TB ports like the Helios, you can put display output over it. The iMac has 4 bi-directional 10Gbps channels, 2 for video, 2 for data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
Why all the resistance to the Mac Pro? Seems like envy.

Just resistance to the elitism that only a Mac Pro can do certain jobs. The Mac Pro can do certain jobs better but there are other machines that can do those jobs better than the Mac Pro. There's always a compromise made somewhere.

Apple doesn't make 4K displays either (yet). Is there an urgency for them to make one for the few people who need it? No. There's nothing wrong with buying non-Apple products if they do the job better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
Or perhaps people who don't need one don't like to admit that Apple is not the best at everything anymore.

They never offered the best hardware in terms of performance and expansion. They tend to have the best quality and design, which doesn't seem to have changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
a lot of very dedicated video pros (sorry, I said pro again) who have to move to Windows to stay current.

Still hoping for an internally expandable Mac Pro type machine this year, along with about 19,000 other "Pros" on the Facebook page

Ah yes, Facebook, the hangout for all professionals. You know that 19,000 people represents under 2% of all the people who still buy a Mac Pro in a year? It's not a lot.

I think this year's Mac Pro will still have internal expansion but if they went the Thunderbolt route, it would still be a good option for a lot of people.
post #123 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W View Post

Also, Adobe Premiere uses lossy cache files for editing, and then creates the visually lossless (ProRes, DnXHD) on the final render out of your program. This is why they can accept almost any format of codec on ingest without transcoding. Their greatest advantage, most think, over other NLE's. The final render out can take a LONG, time, especially with an underpowered GPU or one that is not qualified for their CUDA acceleration. More effects and more layers equals even more time. Not fun with a client waiting to FedEx it.

Fortunately the iMac doesn't have an underpowered GPU:

http://www.barefeats.com/imac12p2.html
post #124 of 162

Sorry, but the iMac display card doesn't come close to what is available in PCIe. NVidia has announced the Quadro K5000 for the Mac Pro. It is a blazing fast card, and one bright spot for the current Mac Pro. Check it out here http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro-k5000-mac.html  Black Magic recommends the Mac Pro or a PC workstation with a truly fast graphics card combine with a dedicated computer display card to get the most out of Resolve. Get over it, the iMac is not as well suited as the Mac Pro for video/animation use. Let alone HP workstations, which many have given up the Mac for as they run Adobe software better and have kept up with the latest technolgy. Adobe is taking over that space. And yes, that FB page is full of real video pros. The moderator has a very high end broadcast position in NYC. It has attracted high end people from all over the world. Walter Biscardi who is quoted here extensively posts often on Moving to Adobe Premiere Pro on FB. I'll wager there are far more true high end video pros on those sites than you will find on Apple Insider. I respect your opinions, but you don't have to be so smug. You might also want to take a look at the Creative Cow forums as well. Almost all video there. Dozens of forums not dedicated to Apple's stock price. More people come here for stock trends. You have excellent general knowledge, but just enough to be dangerous if I were to base my video facility purchases on your advice to turn everything I do over to the iMac. Maybe in a few years when the silicon catches up and heat isn't a problem, but you just cannot cram that much performance or storage into a skinny iMac. And I don't want my desk to covered with boxes connected by Thunderbolt when all of that tech should be in one machine with excellent cooling and power.

post #125 of 162

Link's broken and their site's search is broken. Have another?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #126 of 162
post #127 of 162

Here is the one for the Mac it is working here  http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro-k5000-mac.html

Working here when I paste it in. Also just Google NVidia K5000 Mac  4GB of display RAM btw Thanks Phil

post #128 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
Sorry, but the iMac display card doesn't come close to what is available in PCIe. NVidia has announced the Quadro K5000 for the Mac Pro. It is a blazing fast card

Same processor spec as the GTX 680 but slightly lower memory bandwidth. The Mac Pro is a faster and more expandable and by those measures a better machine but the problem I have is when people keep using phrases like 'not even close'. The current iMacs are fast machines and perfectly suitable workstations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
Black Magic recommends the Mac Pro or a PC workstation with a truly fast graphics card combine with a dedicated computer display card to get the most out of Resolve.

And that's fine but it doesn't mean you can't use an iMac for color grading. You get people like here:

http://nofilmschool.com/2012/08/colorists-perspective-practical-comparisons-davinci-resolve-apple-color/

who say:

"I run Resolve on a 27″ iMac with a quad core i5. I only have 4gb of ram and I’m able to handle basic grades in real time."

and you get people who reply with things like:

"your iMac is going to die soon… Hapenned to me when I thought it has being handled by my machine, and one day it just went off… Nothing possible to do to get it back…"

That seems to be what you get at with the anti-iMac comments. There's no need to look down on other solutions like that. Larry Jordan bought an iMac recently:

http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/wordpress/archives/2084

"Frankly, this 27″ iMac blows the doors off my MacPro. It edits single camera projects easily. Its ability to edit multicam projects is limited only by the speed of your storage – with the caveat that optimizing media into ProRes is strongly encouraged.

If you are looking for a system that can handle whatever video format you throw at it, I am VERY impressed with this new iMac."

It doesn't mean everyone should run out and get one. It doesn't mean Apple should drop the Mac Pro because of it. It just means that high-resource workloads can be done on cheaper hardware now and there's no reason for people to dismiss that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
your advice to turn everything I do over to the iMac.

I didn't advise that. People are free to use what they want and Apple is free to sell what they want. My advice is to open up to the possibility that a Mac Pro isn't a minimum requirement for every creative professional.
post #129 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Same processor spec as the GTX 680 but slightly lower memory bandwidth. The Mac Pro is a faster and more expandable and by those measures a better machine but the problem I have is when people keep using phrases like 'not even close'. The current iMacs are fast machines and perfectly suitable workstations.
And that's fine but it doesn't mean you can't use an iMac for color grading. You get people like here:
 

I'm just going to comment on this portion. You pay for drivers that are optimized differently and often additional vram. Workstation cards are sometimes clocked lower. Sometimes 10 bit display drivers are only released for workstation cards. They're actually slower if you're just gaming, but NVidia seems to have limited computation in the gaming cards this round. You may see significantly better performance in double precision math there and better optimized OpenGL once drivers stabilize. Quadro cards tend to be primarily aimed at 3d apps. You can use gaming cards too, but they can really choke on heavy scenes. Ram is a very precious resource when it comes to gpus, and they use DDR5. Just the extra 2GB alone is a huge deal if it's needed (otherwise worthless). It's a big deal with some of the 3d paint apps and gpu accelerated rendering in some cases due to the sheer amount of information that can be present. I know you're going to mention future designs where the gpu will have access to primary ram, but we aren't due for a shift away from DDR3 until at least 2014 to 2015. Even then I'm not sure what the performance difference will look like. I haven't actively poured over the details of OpenCL and CUDA APIs. Perhaps I need to do that. Your details about the mac pro and its pci power limits simply highlight the age of the design. Since then cpus of that class have gotten a little hotter. Mid to high end gpus from AMD and NVidia have definitely gotten hotter. I'm admittedly interested in what Apple will release, although hardware isn't my biggest irritation at the moment. Whenever I look at activity monitor and notice a failure to free up inactive ram, it fills me with rage. Better tuning of OSX would benefit me far more than getting everything I want in terms of hardware. I don't mean so much features either, but that is me personally.

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402021,00.asp

 

 

 

Quote:
6. Less focus on compute. All of Nvidia's changes have resulted in what is, overall, the fastest and the most electricity-bill-friendly single-GPU gaming video card we've yet seen. But this title hasn't come without one sacrifice: compute. Fermi GPUs were sold, at least partially, on their ability to perform mathematical calculations à la CPUs, and displayed impressive facility doing just that, but Nvidia stripped some of those abilities away in order to improve power efficiency.  Using LuxMark 2.0, an application designed for testing OpenCL compute performance, we compared last generation's GeForce GTX 580 (based on an updated Fermi-style GPU) with the GTX 680, and the earlier card came out ahead in every test—and AMD's new cards, like the Radeon HD 7970, did even better. If you want a card that's every bit as good for work as play, Kepler-based GPUs may not be the way to go. But the GTX 680 is the runaway champs for playing 3D games on your PC.
post #130 of 162

The Mac Pro shows the creative community that Apple is committed to them. That is why it is called "Pro". We can talk about specs until we are blue in the face. Without a Pro machine you will see a movement from Mac to Windows. My fear is that it has already begun. And if you can't see the difference between a K 5000 that costs as much as an entire iMac, then there is something you must be missing. 4GB of VRAM for one. Download the manual for Resolve. They even recommend an expansion chassis for the Mac Pro for full blown systems. Get back to me when you are making your living doing video. I'm glad you are happy with your iMac. You are one of the lucky ones who has been able to get one. And regarding Barefeats,, comparing a basically 4 year old Mac Pro design to anything current is absurd, even though they still hold their own with outdated CPU, GPU, and bus speed. Imagine a Pro with current technology. That is what we want, and no one will talk us out of it. I'll finish my career with my 2010 or 2012 if I have to. No Windows here. But I have several hundred people here in Hawaii who were my clients when I was the exclusive Avid dealer, and Media 100 for that matter, when those systems cost between 50 and 125k. I am in touch with them, and they are not interested in iMacs.

post #131 of 162

Excellent, well thought out post, hmm. OSX does need work. I'm afraid that since 10.6.8 is going in the wrong direction. My fear is that the focus on the low to midrange hardware by Apple is also indicative of their lack of commitment to performance in the OS and professional applications. iOS rules. Not interested in more consumer oriented bling. Have to say it reminds me of Microsoft's current direction. They have been copying Apple for years. Latest attempt to leapfrog,

Windows 8 (anyone?)

post #132 of 162
Originally Posted by Jim W View Post
I'm afraid that since 10.6.8 is going in the wrong direction.

 

People said that in 1976 and 1983. No one listens to them anymore.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #133 of 162

I was there then, and welcomed the changes. I have to say , I don't welcome many of the changes is in Mt. Lion. Much less user control.

post #134 of 162
Originally Posted by Jim W View Post
Much less user control.


Than the move from the Apple II to the Macintosh? Really?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #135 of 162

I was there. I was at the first showing of the Apple II at the Civic Center Auditorium in SF with Jobs and Wozniak running the booth. Had 16 color monitor output, people flipped. Bought one 2 weeks later. Apple IIe, still have four from a prototype video synthesizer it ran on that I helped develop. First Mac in 1984. FIrst Mac II (with slots) invested in first video output card, the Video Explorer, dealer.  First Mac II controlled linear video editor, tape based, the Digital F/X , exclusive Hawaii dealership, then exclusive Avid dealer in Hawaii, then Media 100, etc.  Remember the uproar surrounding release of OS 7. Apple sent reps to major cities, Honolulu included, to convince them the world wouldn't end. You could say I bleed rainbow when it comes to computers and video. Career, WTTW, producer, PBS Chicago, some of first docs shot on portable video in world, 1973. Then with TVTV, Belushi, Harold Ramis, et al first feature shot on video for PBS national in Hollywood, TD, 1976. 1977, One Pass Video, first films style video production company in the world, first one inch video facility in the US, before networks. Chronicle Productions, San Francisco, NBC, 1980 remote video technical director and cameraperson. Moved to Hawaii 1985. Then the dealerships and broadcast production work. Board member Film and Video Association of Hawaii. Enough? Some people could figure out who I am from this, but yes, I know Apple and video, and believe me, I still keep up. One thing I know, expandable computers are necessary for innovation.

 

Sorry if I got carried away, but I have bona fides...

post #136 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

You can see in the studio they have it's all iMac workstations and they take their Macbook Pro workstation on set.

But but but the heavy lifting gets done on AWS because the iMac can't do it and they didn't want to invest 1M in the required hardware.

Still, thanks for the links; a good read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W View Post

If you read Mac Performance Guide carefully,

I love that site. That guy is admirable. He's very kind, responsive to email and respects any feedback you give him.

I don't know what to make of 19k FB users in this, but yeah, if it gets Tim's attention than great. I never believed they would kill the Mac Pro anyhow, so to me FB doesn't mean anything. Heck, FB doesn't mean anything to me - period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Given the scope of free software for large tasks and the commoditization of the hardware to run it, I support Apple's decision to abandon the server space so they can focus on more lucrative solutions.

Good point. One taken to heart by them as well.
post #137 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W View Post

I was there. I was...

Sorry if I got carried away, but I have bona fides...

Fantastic career! If I only had a fraction of your knowledge & experience. Man, I like video, editors, the technique, the possibilities. Gees, if I had time to get my hands dirty...so many things I want to read, try out. Why are there only 24 hours in a day??
post #138 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm 
You may see significantly better performance in double precision math there and better optimized OpenGL once drivers stabilize. Quadro cards tend to be primarily aimed at 3d apps. You can use gaming cards too, but they can really choke on heavy scenes.

But do those things actually happen? You seem to decide these problems exist without seeing that they exist. The compute tests that have been done with the CS suite in OpenCL don't really back up what you're saying. You seem to be happy to keep price out of the equation too. The starting price for the Quadro K5000 is said to be $2249. That's more than a whole iMac with a GTX 680M.

On the one hand people talk about reliability being more important than performance and then in the same breath suggest people put their work on a RAID 0 drive. People talk about this being ideal for one man shops but then suggest they buy a minimum 8-core $3800 workstation, minimum 64GB RAM ($590), Quadro K5000 ($2249), dual accelsior SSD cards (2x 480GB = $1520). Then you need your NEC or Eizo display at $1500 so $9500 total.

This is before you add a single PCI expansion card and the performance of that whole machine is still comparable to a $2200 iMac. The Mac Pro is better no question but not so much better to be worth a one man shop paying $7300 more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm 
Ram is a very precious resource when it comes to gpus, and they use DDR5.

So are you saying the 2GB Quadro 4000 you previously decided would be your choice is no longer good enough?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm 
Whenever I look at activity monitor and notice a failure to free up inactive ram, it fills me with rage.

Yes, it's very annoying. Having to type purge into the terminal regularly shouldn't be necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
The Mac Pro shows the creative community that Apple is committed to them. That is why it is called "Pro".

As does the Retina Macbook "Pro" and of course the iMac as it's faster than the Macbook Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
Without a Pro machine you will see a movement from Mac to Windows.

I agree, without the Macbook Pro or iMac, people would definitely start switching to Windows PCs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
And if you can't see the difference between a K 5000 that costs as much as an entire iMac, then there is something you must be missing. 4GB of VRAM for one.

Ok what else? You're not suggesting it's worth paying over $1700 more than a 680 for 2GB of memory?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
Download the manual for Resolve. They even recommend an expansion chassis for the Mac Pro for full blown systems.

I couldn't find that part but they also recommend Linux on occasions. They also have things like this though:

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/ultrastudio4k/features

"You can even color grade on set with UltraStudio 4K and DaVinci Resolve on your MacBook Pro while viewing a real time preview on a big screen TV or projector!"

The guys from Black Magic tested out the latest iMacs here:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/277/22630

"The NVIDIA GeForce GT650M would comfortably play 3 nodes with color correction and some blur at 24fps while decoding HD DNxHD and the NVIDIA GeForce GT680MX 9 nodes."

"People used to buy $20,000 machines to run Photoshop better. Now Photoshop (unless you're doing something very odd with it) just isn't that demanding; it runs quite well on pretty much any modern system. While it's not quite there yet, Resolve is well on its way to achieving that same status."

"I think 9 nodes on the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX looks very respectable for a one man shop like mine.
IMHO, I don't think my client will care much whether it's running on an imac or macpro."

"9 nodes? I graded at least a dozen feature films on a 2008 Mac Pro GTX 285 + GT 120 combo with that sort of performance (perhaps even slightly worse). Sure, it would be a step down from the i7 3930K + GTX 580 Classified system I built for our larger suite, but... not much of one, in real-world use. At least the way I grade, there probably aren't more than a half-dozen shots in a feature-length project that actually need more than 9 nodes, and there's always render caching for those.

And what'll it be on next year's iMacs? 12 nodes? 15? Unless 4K finishing suddenly becomes the norm over the next 12 months, dual-socket Xeon workstations are bordering on being surplus to requirements for most work."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
comparing a basically 4 year old Mac Pro design to anything current is absurd

It's 3 years old and it had the same class GPU as the iMac. There isn't a faster card available for them to test with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
I'll finish my career with my 2010 or 2012 if I have to. No Windows here. But I have several hundred people here in Hawaii who were my clients when I was the exclusive Avid dealer, and Media 100 for that matter, when those systems cost between 50 and 125k. I am in touch with them, and they are not interested in iMacs.

Well if you can convince those 700 people in Hawaii to buy the next Mac Pro, that will help convince Apple to keep making them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
One thing I know, expandable computers are necessary for innovation.

But this is what Thunderbolt is. It's PCIe on the outside. I see people arguing that USB 3 is going to make Thunderbolt irrelevant and at the same time argue that PCIe is essential. High-end expansion is essential and that's why Thunderbolt is great because it means that a laptop can connect to BlackMagic's high-end devices. That's surely not a bad thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 
But but but the heavy lifting gets done on AWS because the iMac can't do it and they didn't want to invest 1M in the required hardware.

I know but the Mac Pro in a workstation setup can't do that heavy lifting either. It requires too much hardware. The point is that for the workstation part, loads of computer models are capable of it. There doesn't need to be some platinum members only club mentality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 
I never believed they would kill the Mac Pro anyhow

This update will be nearly 3 years out. That's got to be the longest product refresh gap in the company history. The Mini only went 1.5 years without an update and people were saying it was dead before that. I think they must have seriously considered it.
post #139 of 162

If I'm not mistaken, Thunderbolt is the equivalent of one 16x PCIe 2 lane. Really hasn't been an issue for me and my setup. This is going to be a bottleneck for high end GPU plus Kona video card, plus say a Red Rocket, no? Using a Magma external chassis. As far as I know they only have 2 slots available. A workstation, such as the HP (or a new Mac Pro) can have many multiple lane slots. Plus plenty of power and cooling.

post #140 of 162

Also, if you get involved in threads on Adobe Premiere and After Effects, people are switching primarily to PC workstations, not iMacs. Adobe has been developing that software (esp Premiere) on Windows for years. They are now going after the people on Macs alienated by Final Cut X, which are many. But they have some work to do to get it up to parity with the PC version where it was for years when FCP 7 was dominant. Without a new Mac Pro, I only see that migration continuing. Hardware requirements for Premiere/After Effects are high when you get into complex work, which many shops do, even the one man facilities. Adobe seems to be benefiting the most from the migration from Final Cut 7. Avid as well, but mostly Hollywood and possibly NYC. Avid doesn't play as nice with many codecs, the main strength of Premiere. That and the tight integration with After Effects and Photoshop.

post #141 of 162

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/5/13 at 3:16pm
post #142 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
If I'm not mistaken, Thunderbolt is the equivalent of one 16x PCIe 2 lane. Really hasn't been an issue for me and my setup. This is going to be a bottleneck for high end GPU plus Kona video card, plus say a Red Rocket, no?

It wouldn't be the norm to run an extra GPU card externally, the GTX 680 class of card is among the best and while you can get marginally better performance from other desktop cards vs the 2GB GTX 680M, it's not going to be worth investing in that. If you ran a whole load of things at once over Thunderbolt, you might hit a bottleneck somewhere but it's all bi-directional channels and out of all the tests done in various setups, they don't seem to have run into any show-stopping bottlenecks.

One good demo showing the power of it is the following where they are using 4K RED footage coming off a Promise RAID and a BlackMagic Ultrastudio to record the video itself and recording the screen session out to the RAID at the same time and still real-time 4K on a Macbook Air with a single Thunderbolt port:



It's not a setup anyone should adopt for that kind of work by any means but it's cool that it can do that and with dual Thunderbolt ports and Thunderbolt going to 20Gbps next year, the options are just going to get better.

Thunderbolt is only nearly 2 years old, had a 1 year Apple exclusivity and is proprietary to Intel and has a certification process. New technology tends to get an immediate resistance, especially when it conflicts with a 20 year-old status quo but it's enabling a lot of nice, affordable solutions so there's little reason to be against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
Using a Magma external chassis. As far as I know they only have 2 slots available. A workstation, such as the HP (or a new Mac Pro) can have many multiple lane slots. Plus plenty of power and cooling.

The Mac Pro has a GPU in one of the x16 slots and uses up to 200W of power so that leaves about 100W and 1 x16 and 2 x4s for expansion. Dual TB on the iMac is like the 2 x4 slots so the MP offers the extra x16 but one good thing TB offers is plug and play so you can have a setup of peripherals for video editing and switch them for different peripherals for audio editing just by changing a plug.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
Also, if you get involved in threads on Adobe Premiere and After Effects, people are switching primarily to PC workstations, not iMacs. They are now going after the people on Macs alienated by Final Cut X, which are many. Without a new Mac Pro, I only see that migration continuing.

It's not a good thing for anyone to have a reason to migrate away from the platform, even if it is less than 5% of Mac users and a new Mac Pro will give some of those people a reason not to move. I think some people will move because of FCPX alone because FCP would have been their only reason to use the platform in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W 
Hardware requirements for Premiere/After Effects are high when you get into complex work, which many shops do, even the one man facilities.

Faster hardware will always give faster results but they always stop somewhere. No matter how many slots they put in, you'd still only be able to run 2 GPUs at most and it'll fall far short of systems that can run 8 GPUs:



Apple can't build a machine based on the needs of the highest imaginable task someone can use a computer for because there's no limit to that. They have to build a machine that hits a certain price range, has a sizeable market and has a future. They will never offer Intel's fastest CPUs for example because they are too expensive.

I doubt the Mac Pro they will introduce this Summer will be exactly the same as before, otherwise they'd have put in Sandy Bridge. The only question now is what compromises they've made.
post #143 of 162

Well, if indeed there is Thunderbolt in the next Mac Pro, and why not, I would hope that would be in addition to slots, and also multiple easily removable HD's and/or SSDs. So fast external peripherals should be possible there as well. Perhaps more power (watts), but who knows. Not to nitpick, but the Quadro K5000, the most powerful GPU for the Mac Pro draws 122 watts, not 200. Also 32GB of RAM is not enough for a lot of Photoshop work unless you want to be swapping data out of RAM on very large compositions. The current Mac Pro will go to 128GB of OWC memory. With the advent of cameras like the Nikon D800 for $2995, producing 75MB RAW images, layered compositions in PS can easily reach 500MB and more. That's a lot of swapping. Mac Performance Guide has great documentation on this.

 

I'm not saying that 27" iMac tricked out is not a good choice for many people, perhaps for most. It is over $3000, however, cheaper, but not by much over current models of MacPro like the Hexacore 3.33 Ghz with a decent GPU and the ability to upgrade to the best, internal HDs and lots of RAM. Most people in the business already have a computer monitor that is suitable. That being said there is a real need for a workstation class computer in the Mac lineup. Just hope we get one and not a box with a lot of Thunderbolt ports and little internal expansion capability. But anything would show that Apple still cares about the video market. That is important to software developers as well as customers.

post #144 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


But do those things actually happen? You seem to decide these problems exist without seeing that they exist. The compute tests that have been done with the CS suite in OpenCL don't really back up what you're saying. You seem to be happy to keep price out of the equation too. The starting price for the Quadro K5000 is said to be $2249. That's more than a whole iMac with a GTX 680M.
 

Actually the only times I've looked at Quadro cards have been a bit after their release. They often drop in price fairly quick, and I compare first to what people are getting from the gaming cards. I've tested Mudbox on a couple different configurations (not all of them owned by me), including a macbook pro. Keep in mind I was talking about options. Note my prior comment about the Quadro K5000. It's just what they've brought out in the current generation so far. If you read my post below from another thread. I mentioned it as being one that is probably more commonly used in hero suites. They might be much more widespread at top end facilities, but I wasn't referring to those. A lot of this stuff just wasn't feasible on almost anything a couple years ago. In my 3d paint example, that's mostly driven by video memory. I don't think I would have tried to load up that kind of resolution in the past in a program that loads it all to video memory. As far as freelancers are concerned, Macs are reasonably popular but extremely inflexible as you just noted. Also you didn't note with NEC and Eizo, you do get more out of them. Eizo bundles the calibration software. Color Navigator has a lot of tracking functions. They also have a lot of compensation for panel uniformity. NEC does the same with colorcomp and spectraview. In the case of NEC you buy their colorimeter + software package for $400 or so. They're both good. If you were talking about graphic design or compositing and grading, I'd say they're worth it. Even the mini would have a lot of potential with a better gpu.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


1GB wasn't even high when the mac pro 2010 revision debuted. That would be the area where it really irritates me. The common "average user just checks facebook" argument isn't exactly valid when we restrict the comparison to workstation level hardware. Check out the P90X of graphics cards.  It's a pretty extreme comparison, but I'm not sure any of the current mac gpus including the 680mx could load even half of that without crashing. Companies probably buy hardware like that for hero suites so that it can be displayed for clients at full resolution without exporting to an offline renderer when a change is made. That's my guess.

 

 

Quote:

This is before you add a single PCI expansion card and the performance of that whole machine is still comparable to a $2200 iMac. The Mac Pro is better no question but not so much better to be worth a one man shop paying $7300 more.
 

I always ended up upgrading in bits and pieces. The display thing was due to consistent irritations with cheaper displays. I don't recall ever suggesting the dual ssd cards there, although I own a couple ssds, one of them being a 512. I haven't personally suggested 64GB of ram. Adobe suggests that for After Effects rendering with a 16 core machine to render on all cores. This is due to hyperthreading. 16*2 = 32 logical cores * 2GB/core. If you're going with a 16 core machine, the extra cost is probably doable. 32GB isn't uncommon for a new machine today.  You can achieve that on the imac. Prior to 2012, if you really had high ram requirements, it was definitely in favor of the mac pro due to the price disparity between 4GB and 8GB dimms. A mac pro with 32GB was cheaper than the same in an imac.

 

Quote:

So are you saying the 2GB Quadro 4000 you previously decided would be your choice is no longer good enough?

 

You know I've been waiting for video memory to increase for a while. Some applications hitting the market in recent years have relied more on the gpu where they're loading huge files onto it. Once you go past a certain size, you notice a huge drop in frame rate where orbiting around something becomes really choppy. I wouldn't want to work like that for hours at a time. The workstation cards have different driver tuning. I'm not sure how they compensated, but it doesn't seem to get as bad. You can hit a wall either way. Note the link above. You'll see why I said it seemed to be designed for hero stations. You can work with a ton of resolution without it bogging down. Several years from now, that will probably be doable in desktop graphics.

 

Anyway back to the question regarding one man shops. Typically a slightly customized solution is ideal. Some of them need a lot of power to support their workflow. Otherwise low end probably something like a 3770k. Otherwise go for one of the more cost effective solutions in a 6 or 12 core LGA2011 package depending on available configurations. If you use anything that is heavy on the gpu, in gaming cards I'd go with something like this assuming drivers are stable in the applications in question. Ram is a much bigger help for these things than the clock speed of the card once you're using at least a mid range card. Driver stability is often an issue in 3d apps, even under OSX. There are obviously other things. An example would be if you use After Effects or Premiere, you're reliant on CUDA. This means if Apple releases all AMD this year (as they seem to alternate)  you're waiting that one out. If the gpu drivers are flakey or don't support a specific hardware feature you want, it's whatever is available in the Quadros. Unfortunately there is no Quadro K4000 at this point. It might show up later. On ram I'd suggest using 8GB dimms. Install 2. Memtest them prior to placing the machine back in service. If the system still hits the disk frequently, install 2 more bringing it to 32GB. An SSD boot drive is only critical if it has to frequently read information on that drive or it needs to double as a scratch disk for whatever app (if 32GB isn't enough). If you're doing anything that involves a lot of color, I'd at least go with NEC. It's easier to keep them fairly consistent over time with their LUT system. They perform better over their brightness range than Apple, which always seems to tune for max brightness. If you ever have to bring images up side by side to check changes, you learn the value of uniformity pretty quickly. It's annoying when two can be identical yet look a bit different. In terms of price, you can get a PA271w around the price of a thunderbolt display and just use a mini displayport --> displayport cable.

 

Does that clarify my opinions a bit better? They're fairly consistent, although re-reading I can see where you might have perceived a conflict.

Quote:

Yes, it's very annoying. Having to type purge into the terminal regularly shouldn't be necessary.

 

I hate that. I hate it when finder corrupts. I hate HFS+ and the continued need for disk warrior with optical drives phasing out. I hate the lack of full displayport 1.2 support. There are many things about OSX that genuinely piss me off. I hate spotlight conflicts with hidden scratch disk files. It makes me mad that Apple keeps adding features rather than fixing old problems.

 

 

I'm just going to add what I dislike about thunderbolt. It's proprietary rather than something that is easy to implement across various classes of devices. It's more limiting than you would suggest. It's not the same as PCI. Thunderbolt is its own protocol. I'm amazed people are this surprised that it hasn't caught on. Apple claimed they removed the express card slot because hardly anyone used it. What would make thunderbolt any different outside of available Apple's dedicated peripherals? I would have preferred to see a higher bandwidth PCI spec dedicated to notebooks "and" mobile devices that can be implemented across various designs rather than tied to intel products.


Edited by hmm - 2/5/13 at 10:34am
post #145 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 
But but but the heavy lifting gets done on AWS because the iMac can't do it and they didn't want to invest 1M in the required hardware.

I know but the Mac Pro in a workstation setup can't do that heavy lifting either. It requires too much hardware. The point is that for the workstation part, loads of computer models are capable of it. There doesn't need to be some platinum members only club mentality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 
I never believed they would kill the Mac Pro anyhow

This update will be nearly 3 years out. That's got to be the longest product refresh gap in the company history. The Mini only went 1.5 years without an update and people were saying it was dead before that. I think they must have seriously considered it.

Valid points.

A different thing, but still, is Aperture. In 4 days it's 3.0 version will be 3 years old. Many dot releases have come since, but there are many feature requests being ignored. Good to get updates for free these past years, but I'd rather pay for a 'catchup to the competition'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W View Post

Well, if indeed there is Thunderbolt in the next Mac Pro, and why not..

They can't put in TB; that requires a new CPU that Intel simply doesn't make.
Quote:
Also 32GB of RAM is not enough for a lot of Photoshop work unless you want to be swapping data out of RAM on very large compositions.

That is very true, many people use way more than that. See here
Quote:
The current Mac Pro will go to 128GB of OWC memory.

That's not true; OSX only uses 96GB. Take it from someone that knows this stuff:
http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2012/20120106_1-OWC-16GB-modules.html

A MP does take 128GB, and Windows sees all of it. Just not OSX.
post #146 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm 
Apple claimed they removed the express card slot because hardly anyone used it. What would make thunderbolt any different outside of available Apple's dedicated peripherals? I would have preferred to see a higher bandwidth PCI spec dedicated to notebooks "and" mobile devices that can be implemented across various designs rather than tied to intel products.

That might come about but TB has already gained a fair amount of traction in hardware:

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/296786,expect-hundreds-of-thunderbolt-devices-says-intel.aspx

Once Intel takes more control of the motherboard market with Broadwell, it'll be adopted a lot more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 
A different thing, but still, is Aperture. In 4 days it's 3.0 version will be 3 years old.

Don't worry, Facebook has you covered:

https://www.facebook.com/WeWantAperture4
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 
They can't put in TB; that requires a new CPU that Intel simply doesn't make.

Not necessarily a custom CPU but it would likely need some form of GPU soldered onto the motherboard in addition to any PCI cards. It's not essential for them to include Thunderbolt on the Mac Pro but it would allow easily sharing peripherals between it and other machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 
That is very true, many people use way more than that. See here

They said they were doing a big photo comparison using loads of layers, which sounds like loads of stills next to each other to compare them. If you set your render cache in After Effects to 90% of say 96GB RAM and hit play on a long movie, it'll fill it up too . You can even make a RAM disk and put your whole filesystem on it but being able to use it doesn't make it a requirement. It would be a better use of RAM not to put photos for comparison into a single comp but to use an app meant for photo comparisons.

There are massive image comps like the gigapixel images you see. There's one here done on a machine with 8GB RAM:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2009-12/21/18-gigapixel-panorama-offers-breathtaking-view-of-prague

192,000 by 96,000 pixels, Photoshop file was 120GB, built from 600 photos. 8GB shouldn't be the aim - that was done in 2009 - but it's possible to do these things with much lower resources. The higher resources just make them easier to do.

Once you do things like that, it's better having a database-like setup. Like how FCPX uses a database instead of loading an entire file into memory or how running Google Maps doesn't load the entire world into your web browser. Photoshop should allow you to open a folder of images like a .bundle and it would just load the tiles you were looking at. It would be quicker to dynamically load things like that than put everything in RAM.
post #147 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W View Post

Well, if indeed there is Thunderbolt in the next Mac Pro, and why not, I would hope that would be in addition to slots, and also multiple easily removable HD's and/or SSDs. So fast external peripherals should be possible there as well. Perhaps more power (watts), but who knows. Not to nitpick, but the Quadro K5000, the most powerful GPU for the Mac Pro draws 122 watts, not 200. Also 32GB of RAM is not enough for a lot of Photoshop work unless you want to be swapping data out of RAM on very large compositions. The current Mac Pro will go to 128GB of OWC memory. With the advent of cameras like the Nikon D800 for $2995, producing 75MB RAW images, layered compositions in PS can easily reach 500MB and more. That's a lot of swapping. Mac Performance Guide has great documentation on this.

It varies. OSX is absolute shit at memory management, but even at 16 bpc with a large comp that saves out a 2-3GB compressed psb, 32GB should not generate slow results. I've tested this with 10-15k comps, spherical panos, and layered texture maps. You just max out ram and add scratch disks. You should not experience brush lag or find it impossible to apply adjustments due to memory. If the objective is photoshop filter drag racing, that doesn't align well with any typical workload I've ever seen. It was a 32 bit app on OSX until CS5 anyway where scratch disks were even more crucial with inflated file sizes. Now you just push as much of that as possible onto ram, but the mechanic is still present in its programming.  Further I can attest to the need for a lot of memory at 32bpc, but support for floating point formats in photoshop is terrible. They don't prioritize it at all, so you're left with a very limited toolset. It's a very stagnant program compared to those used in video compositing (nuke, fusion, after effects). They keep adding new poorly implemented features. Further D800 files aren't that large if you had to deal with P45 files at the end of the PowerPC era. These were around 110MB as 8 bit tiffs or twice that at 16. Obviously add layers and the sizes ballooned quickly. I will say this again. 500MB is nothing. People dealt with that on G4 towers, even if it wasn't pleasant.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



They can't put in TB; that requires a new CPU that Intel simply doesn't make.

 

That isn't true. What is true is that they can't route it through integrated graphics. There are certain placement requirements in that it demands specific logic board space, but anyone in charge of engineering might present several possible solutions to how this might be routed. It might require some form of embedded graphics if it is seen as a priority. Frankly none of the thunderbolt peripherals were designed with the mac pro in mind. Note the short display cord.

post #148 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


That might come about but TB has already gained a fair amount of traction in hardware:

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/296786,expect-hundreds-of-thunderbolt-devices-says-intel.aspx

Once Intel takes more control of the motherboard market with Broadwell, it'll be adopted a lot more.
Don't worry, Facebook has you covered:
 

I'd like to see something that could be implemented in future tablets and phones as well regardless of their reliance on intel and not encumbered by Apple's licensing clauses for the connector. Phones are still pretty slow in terms of transfer rates, but they have been improving. I dislike specialized solutions until you're at a level where only a smaller number of individuals really needs that capability. I've mentioned SAS. It serves a purpose, yet I don't think every computer requires a SAS or mini-SAS HBA.

 

Quote:
There are massive image comps like the gigapixel images you see. There's one here done on a machine with 8GB RAM:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2009-12/21/18-gigapixel-panorama-offers-breathtaking-view-of-prague

192,000 by 96,000 pixels, Photoshop file was 120GB, built from 600 photos. 8GB shouldn't be the aim - that was done in 2009 - but it's possible to do these things with much lower resources. The higher resources just make them easier to do.

Once you do things like that, it's better having a database-like setup. Like how FCPX uses a database instead of loading an entire file into memory or how running Google Maps doesn't load the entire world into your web browser. Photoshop should allow you to open a folder of images like a .bundle and it would just load the tiles you were looking at. It would be quicker to dynamically load things like that than put everything in RAM.

I'll admit I've never done anything near that kind of size. This isn't uncommon though. As for databases, it's also possible to make formats that are memory mappable. In other words readable directly to virtual memory rather than loaded into ram and immediately swapped due to size. CS6 actually recommends at least 8GB of ram, but it can sometimes require significantly more to behave properly. I'd usually say add it until things no longer lag. The performance per dollar up to a certain point is much lower than the cost of ssds. If it's maxed add an ssd. Part of the problem is OSX and its terrible memory management. It's necessary not to drift off into hyperbole here. Still photography hasn't evolved much in recent years. Pretty much anything you can do today was done on PowerPC era hardware and graphics workstations prior to that. It was a lot slower on a G4 or G5, but you could do many of those things. You'd keep active indexing things like spotlight off, limit history states to something sane, use fast scratch disks, and be as efficient as possible with layer sets (they weren't called groups back then). What you're describing with databases is something like a mipmapped setup. Google maps has things cached at different levels. When you're zoomed out it's can load different files.

post #149 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

That might come about but TB has already gained a fair amount of traction in hardware:

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/296786,expect-hundreds-of-thunderbolt-devices-says-intel.aspx

I really don't think they have anything resembling traction. I think they should have already been at the "hundreds of devices" by now, it's been nearly two years already.
post #150 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM 
I really don't think they have anything resembling traction. I think they should have already been at the "hundreds of devices" by now, it's been nearly two years already.

USB 3 was quicker to get there at around 9 months - USB 3 only arrived January 2010 so I guess Intel wasn't all that far behind in supporting it:

http://hothardware.com/News/USB-30-Sees-Certified-Product-List-Soar-Beyond-100/

They're including computers, motherboards and even PCI cards there but USB has a much wider audience than Thunderbolt because it's backwards compatible with USB 2.

Apple's 1 year exclusivity with Thunderbolt was quite damaging because non-Apple people started to hate the standard just like they did with Firewire. It really should have been a much shorter exclusivity period.

It's more comparable to expressCard though. People are running GPUs over it in Windows without modifying the drivers by making Windows think it's running internally so it's PCIe but wrapped up in a way to be plug and play and put down a cable with displayport. There aren't as many devices need to be done over PCIe.

There are a few storage devices:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/my-book-thunderbolt-duo-pegasus-r4-2big,3222.html

other products are here:
https://thunderbolttechnology.net/products

Products like the Magma 3T let you use all the cards listed here:
http://www.magma.com/thunderbolt-compatibility

Intel invented PCI so they know what they're doing here. The first Intel certified motherboard (besides Apple's) only arrived May last year so the PC market hasn't even had it for a year. There's also not much point in implementing it just before Redwood Ridge in Q2 as it has displayport 1.2 support.

Some people want to see Thunderbolt fail because PCI slots are the one thing that always justifies a tower form factor. Some people want it to fail because it's Intel's product (despite PCI being Intel's too originally). If it was left up to a committee, we'd still be here in 2013 with expressCard.

Those standards are eventually passed off to 3rd party groups so maybe that's what would need to happen for TB to take off but they won't drive it forward quickly enough. If it hits 50Gbps in 2015, Intel can hand off the spec to the PCI-SIG to handle certification. They obviously have objected to the standard as it stands because the port is too big for tablets so there could well be a successor format but it doesn't make much difference because they have to allow it to be plug and play too so there's no reason the devices can't easily work on both like how Firewire 800 and 400 can go over the same cable.
post #151 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

USB 3 was quicker to get there at around 9 months - USB 3 only arrived January 2010 so I guess Intel wasn't all that far behind in supporting it:

http://hothardware.com/News/USB-30-Sees-Certified-Product-List-Soar-Beyond-100/

They're including computers, motherboards and even PCI cards there but USB has a much wider audience than Thunderbolt because it's backwards compatible with USB 2.

The Thunderbolt promo site also included cables, motherboards too.

Third party chip makers supported USB 3 much sooner, so computers could have it a year before Intel bothered to offer it. Not offering timely support in their chipsets isn't helping TB, but because Intel couldn't stop it, USB 3 simply got off to a better start.

Even if you subtract Apple's one year exclusivity, USB compares better in my opinion in device support.

Quote:
It's more comparable to expressCard though. People are running GPUs over it in Windows without modifying the drivers by making Windows think it's running internally so it's PCIe but wrapped up in a way to be plug and play and put down a cable with displayport. There aren't as many devices need to be done over PCIe.

There are a few storage devices:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/my-book-thunderbolt-duo-pegasus-r4-2big,3222.html

other products are here:
https://thunderbolttechnology.net/products

Products like the Magma 3T let you use all the cards listed here:
http://www.magma.com/thunderbolt-compatibility

I agree that the uptake is comparable to or maybe better than expressCard. It's not a flattering comparison though.

There are devices, but that's not a great variety.

The official promo site listing all the products:
https://thunderbolttechnology.net/products

Once you take out the computers and cables, it's not all that much.

The broadest category is storage, here is that list:
https://thunderbolttechnology.net/products?tid=1&field_company_nid=All&field_prod_os_value_many_to_one=All

If you weed out the drives with just one port the list diminishes a lot more than it should. Given the experiences I've seen users have with LaCie, I'd leave them off the list too. A premium brand with off-brand reliability and customer service is not something I care to tangle with.

Quote:
Some people want to see Thunderbolt fail because PCI slots are the one thing that always justifies a tower form factor. Some people want it to fail because it's Intel's product (despite PCI being Intel's too originally). If it was left up to a committee, we'd still be here in 2013 with expressCard.

Also, some people associate it with being Apple's product, despite it not being true, and want it to fail for that reason.

Just to be clear, in case you don't know what I've said on the topic before, I do want Thunderbolt to succeed. I'm also over towers too. But TB's minimal uptake is disheartening.
Edited by JeffDM - 2/6/13 at 9:30am
post #152 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM 
TB's uptake is disheartening.

There have been articles recently suggesting that Intel will try to improve this:

http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/15/thunderbolt-adoption-reportedly-slowed-by-intels-licensing-and-certification-but-improvements-coming/

"Last July, Ars Technica took a look at the state of the Thunderbolt standard developed by Apple and Intel, noting that adoption remained slow amid high pricing some eighteen months after the standard's introduction. The report did, however, suggest that pricing could begin to improve in [Q2] 2013 as the next generation of Thunderbolt chips hit the market.

Ars Technica has now published a follow-up report looking at how things have changed over the past six months, pointing to a number of improvements such as slightly lower pricing on Thunderbolt cables from Apple, the introduction of the first wave of optical cables supporting the standard, and the launch of new docking stations and other peripherals taking advantage of Thunderbolt.

The report indicates that the biggest holdup to wider adoption of Thunderbolt appears to be Intel's licensing and certification process, with the company dedicating only limited resources to helping third-party vendors bring their Thunderbolt products to market.
Several vendors we have spoke to over the past year have claimed that Intel was holding up the process, cherry picking which vendors it worked with.

Though Intel had effectively denied this characterization in the past, the company explained the situation a bit differently when we spoke at CES last week. Jason Ziller, Director of Thunderbolt Marketing & Planning at Intel, told Ars that Intel has "worked closely" with vendors it felt could "offer the best products" and could meet its stringent "certification requirements." The subtext seemed to be that Intel had limited resources to support and certify new products, and so it gave priority to devices that were perhaps more novel than those proposed by other makers.
Ziller indicated that Intel would be broadening its efforts this year, suggesting that more Thunderbolt products may be able to make their way into consumers' hands. Combining those efforts with continued cost drops and the first moves into Windows machines, Apple and Intel are undoubtedly hoping that 2013 will finally see Thunderbolt turn the corner."

With USB 3, you get a broad range of much of the same types of device - mostly hard drives. I can understand if Intel wanted to prioritise more unique applications of Thunderbolt rather than just end up with a batch of hard drives that perform the same over USB 3 and are cheaper. The Blackmagic 2.5k camera is one example:



They have HD-SDI output for 1080p but you get the full live 2.5k output over Thunderbolt (1:12 in the video).



These are things you can't do with USB 3. They have USB 3 displays but you can't run FW800 over USB 3.

I see them as complimentary interfaces: USB 3 for everything unless you need faster data transfer and advanced functionality. I wouldn't buy a Thunderbolt storage pen for example if the speed was covered by USB 3 and cheaper and even if it wasn't, I can use it on USB 2 machines.

I can see people having 1 Thunderbolt device vs 3-4 USB 3 devices just like with FW/USB2 but that's not a big problem. I don't think I'll ever have a TB kb/mouse or storage pen. Maybe a hard drive but there's not much point if it's fast enough on USB 3. It's really beneficial for RAID storage, docking solutions and high-end audio/video.
post #153 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

With USB 3, you get a broad range of much of the same types of device - mostly hard drives. I can understand if Intel wanted to prioritise more unique applications of Thunderbolt rather than just end up with a batch of hard drives that perform the same over USB 3 and are cheaper. The Blackmagic 2.5k camera is one example:

Unfortunately, most of the unique applications are also niche applications. It seems that a company of Intel's resources should have handled it better, sooner.

Quote:
I see them as complimentary interfaces: USB 3 for everything unless you need faster data transfer and advanced functionality. I wouldn't buy a Thunderbolt storage pen for example if the speed was covered by USB 3 and cheaper and even if it wasn't, I can use it on USB 2 machines.

I can see people having 1 Thunderbolt device vs 3-4 USB 3 devices just like with FW/USB2 but that's not a big problem. I don't think I'll ever have a TB kb/mouse or storage pen. Maybe a hard drive but there's not much point if it's fast enough on USB 3. It's really beneficial for RAID storage, docking solutions and high-end audio/video.

They offer complimentary capabilities, I wasn't expecting USB 3 to be obsoleted in the least bit.
post #154 of 162

This story made BBC national news today. Why the delay I don't know, they seemed to think it had only just been announced.

 

They said it may be a problem for TV and film production companies and graphics art professionals. Maybe the Beeb are worrying that they won't be able to edit any TV programmes after March 1st.

 

The fan problem was mentioned as the problem.

 

When pressed the technology correspondent said Apple Pro users would probably stockpile machines until Apple bring out something new as there was no alternative for many users.

post #155 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omegazeta View Post

This story made BBC national news today. Why the delay I don't know, they seemed to think it had only just been announced.

They said it may be a problem for TV and film production companies and graphics art professionals. Maybe the Beeb are worrying that they won't be able to edit any TV programmes after March 1st.

The fan problem was mentioned as the problem.

When pressed the technology correspondent said Apple Pro users would probably stockpile machines until Apple bring out something new as there was no alternative for many users.

I read somewhere that the beeb was using a mixed environment but at some point completely switched to Mac only. With FCP as their main software editor. I wonder if there's anymore info to be found on what the beeb uses. I'd like to see numbers and editorial articles but am quite poor when it comes to using Google. For some reason they give me links to pages that haven't been updated for many many years. Yes, yes, I set the time, country and whatnot filters. It just doesn't seem to play nice with me.

/rant
post #156 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 
I read somewhere that the beeb was using a mixed environment but at some point completely switched to Mac only. With FCP as their main software editor. I wonder if there's anymore info to be found on what the beeb uses.

There are older links about their workflows here:
http://alex4d.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/broadcast-video-expo-bbc-on-fcs/
http://www.apple.com/uk/pro/profiles/fullonfood/

The following video from 2 years ago at 10:55 details some interesting numbers:



2500 seats of FCP and more than that of Avid and they use Premiere as the desktop systems. I doubt they are all Mac but they have a fair amount:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2058665/BBC-splashes-500-000-worth-iPhones-iPads-Apple-Macs--2000-staff-face-axe.html

Obviously they need at least 2500 Macs for the FCP seats but they show a MBP on the slide in the video.

The news will warm up as we get closer to March 1st. OMG it's just two weeks away. #panicbuy4kMacPro

I doubt there will be much uproar about this when March 1st arrives. People know a new one is coming anyway.
post #157 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Ah Marvin, you always come through! Thanks for the links. Good read up. I have actually read, and still read, all the Pro articles on Apple.com. Going to finish the video now. The guy is funny, telling the picture quality on the beamer is crap.

I like all these Mac Pro threads, and articles.

Thanks,
Phil.
post #158 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omegazeta View Post

This story made BBC national news today. Why the delay I don't know, they seemed to think it had only just been announced.

They said it may be a problem for TV and film production companies and graphics art professionals. Maybe the Beeb are worrying that they won't be able to edit any TV programmes after March 1st.

Because all currently installed Mac Pros suddenly disappear like Cinderella's carriage at midnight?
post #159 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Because all currently installed Mac Pros suddenly disappear like Cinderella's carriage at midnight?

Too funny! I don't understand all this talk either. Happened with other products as well. Hardware and software. I'm left in a state of oblivion ¡
post #160 of 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post

Maybe a power consumption issue?

Yeah, that stupid UK power consumption law that prevents Apple from selling the existing Mac Pro into the UK.  Freaking UK, what's their problem?

 

I wonder what the PC mfg are gonna do..  Stop selling  towers PCs into the UK?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple to cease European Mac Pro sales March 1 due to regulatory requirements