or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro - Page 16

post #601 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


I suspect a better transition would have quelled much of this as opposed to a move to pull old licenses from the store and try to push the new thing with a 1.0 version.
In suppose this is so. I suspect though that Apple thought they where working with professionals not children. Stopping support on the old FCP and saying this is the way forward would have made sense.

I have to wonder if all of these complainers had everything they needed or wanted in the forts version of FCP or even the second version.
Quote:
I would agree regarding world politics, although it has gone this way for a very long time. I've begun to wonder if anyone reads about McCarthyism in their history courses. New day different boogieman.

I'm almost 54 years old and I never seen the country as bad as it is know. Probably in most respects I grew up different than many far removed from city life or even small town life by the time I got to my teens it was the mid seventies. I doubt that anybody would have approved of the drastic curtailment of freedoms we have seen in recent years back then. Sadly liberalism was indeed associated with freedom back then, today if not a nazis a liberal is just an oppressive individual take joy in tormenting others. For the voter though who do you vote for today that actually believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Hard question to answer especially with the corruption in the news media and the biased reporting associated with it.

Why even post this here? Because forums like this take people's minds off what has been lost.
post #602 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

For some people it might.  I would look at it this way.  If someone is going to spend $30K or so on ProTools PCI cards to stuff them, I would think that it might be better to have an expansion chassis to always keep the cards plugged in or be able to transport them elsewhere, and when the main box needs to be replaced, it's a simple unplugging process that would take literally a few seconds.
I would tend to agree however I still see the need for the internal slots, especially in cases where TB isn't app fast enough. The flip side is that many professionals posting here don't see it that way, I see their side of the argument too. In the end the number of users truly screwed buy this move is rather small part of the user base.
Quote:
 Same goes for the storage system.  In some ways, I do think that if they bring out TB or TB2 expansion chassis for these PCI slots, get what you need and then you keep that investment.
In the long run it could work to most users advantage.
Quote:
I think this box maybe priced less than a current MacPro with similar CPUS because the new one doesn't have a more powerful, expensive power supply, it does't have a TON of fans, PCI slots, cage, etc. etc. so they might be able to bring the cost down enough to afford an external TB or TB 2 based expansion chassis for PCI boards if you need it, and then an external storage system.  Both of which can be used when the time comes to upgrade.
I agree! The potential is there for a drastically lower priced entry level model.
Quote:

Apple has a history of replacing existing systems for the same price or even less. Only once in a while have they ever increased the price of the unit.  But, as you said, we'll have to wait until we know the actual cost and configurations.

This is huge, Apple can totally screw up any potential for success here by over pricing the unit. Frankly I'm still wishing for an XMac equivalent. That is a machine with one GPU card and a desktop processor all for $1250 or so. Such a machine would shake up the PC market and almost assuredly get my money.
post #603 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I also think that the days of internal PCI slots is over and Apple is just taking the bold step in letting people know that if you REALLY need PCI slots, buy an external Thunderbolt (or maybe Thunderbolt 2?) chassis

 

I've been told that even Thunderbolt 2 is only about one-THIRD the bandwidth of a PCIe slot, so external boxes are not really suitable for things like super-high-end graphics cards, and that even cards with lower bandwidth requirements may be a problem when you need a few of them. The six ports on the Mac Pro don't necessarily mean that there are six discrete busses, or even more than one.

 

I've also heard there are issues with drivers for many graphics cards. Is that a situation that's unique to placing them in an external enclosure, or is that a problem that would exist even if the Mac Pro had internal PCIe slots?

 

Anyone able to confirm or refute this?

post #604 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

In suppose this is so. I suspect though that Apple thought they where working with professionals not children.

 

Y'know Wiz, I've really enjoyed this exchange but I challenge you to back away from your insulting tone towards users until you've walked a mile in their shoes. You sympathize with the developers' challenges but not those of the users, even though the latter are the ones paying the former!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I have to wonder if all of these complainers had everything they needed or wanted in the forts version of FCP or even the second version.

 

Of course not, but what relevance does that have to the discussion? FCPX is not a 1.0 product. It's version EIGHT! The product it replaced was not a first or second generation product either. It was showing signs of neglect and needed refreshing, but it was capable and mature. As such, users had a reasonable expectation that the next version would be an improvement, not a downgrade.

 

If the rewrite resulted in a product that took such an enormous leap backwards that it's considered to have reverted to a stage of infancy like you suggest, that's a failure on the part of the developer, yes?

post #605 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

Of course not, but what relevance does that have to the discussion? FCPX is not a 1.0 product. It's version EIGHT! The product it replaced was not a first or second generation product either. It was showing signs of neglect and needed refreshing, but it was capable and mature. As such, users had a reasonable expectation that the next version would be an improvement, not a downgrade.

 

 

 

 

That's odd.  My copy says version 10.0.8.


Edited by Bergermeister - 7/9/13 at 5:23am

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #606 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

The six ports on the Mac Pro don't necessarily mean that there are six discrete busses, or even more than one.

Yep, 6 ports, but on two busses. Phil said so during the keynote.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #607 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Frankly I'm still wishing for an XMac equivalent. That is a machine with one GPU card and a desktop processor all for $1250 or so. Such a machine would shake up the PC market and almost assuredly get my money.

You can see the state of the PC market here:

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/apples-sales-are-nothing-special-but-look-at-those-profit-margins.html/?a=viewall



The average unit price of PCs is under $600 - less than half Apple's average. Apple makes more profit from PCs than the next 5 PC vendors combined. I'm sure they'd convince some PC desktop owners across to the platform but they already own the premium segment because of the iMac and it would be silly of them to sell a quad-i7 with a 7970 for $1250 and just give away a display sale to Dell or HP when they can sell a quad i7 with a 780MX or Radeon and make as much as double that.

The desktop PC market cannot be shaken up. They can't do it with $600 PCs so they can't possibly do it with $1250 PCs. They said they're using Xeons and FirePros, they'd have worded it differently if there was any chance of there being desktop components. From a consumer point of view, it would be a nice option but I don't think it would do anything for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v 
I've been told that even Thunderbolt 2 is only about one-THIRD the bandwidth of a PCIe slot, so external boxes are not really suitable for things like super-high-end graphics cards, and that even cards with lower bandwidth requirements may be a problem when you need a few of them. The six ports on the Mac Pro don't necessarily mean that there are six discrete busses, or even more than one.

I've also heard there are issues with drivers for many graphics cards. Is that a situation that's unique to placing them in an external enclosure, or is that a problem that would exist even if the Mac Pro had internal PCIe slots?

Anyone able to confirm or refute this?

PCIe slots don't all have the same bandwidth but Thunderbolt 2 is equivalent to a PCIe 2.0 x4 slot. The old Mac Pro had two x16 and two x4 with a GPU taking up the first x16.

This new Mac Pro essentially gives you six x4 instead of one x16 + two x4. It's the same overall bandwidth but distributed differently. A redesigned Mac Pro with PCIe 3 slots would have offered more bandwidth per slot but the extra bandwidth doesn't really get used in practice and if you had two GPUs, you'd be stuck with just two x4 PCIe 3, which is fine speed-wise but some people would run out if they wanted a RAID card too. Audio processing is very low bandwidth. Video is higher but much fewer streams. Thunderbolt 1 might have had some bottlenecks but they didn't really show up much in a whole variety of tests. TB2 shouldn't have any real-world problems.

Here's a Red Rocket over TB:



1/2 res playback of 5K with real-time export. In workstations, it's the same performance:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?63827-Why-do-we-need-a-RED-Rocket-card

"WITHOUT A REDROCKET: I can edit a 5K project without a REDrocket on CS5.5 in realtime by playing footage back between 1/8 or 1/16 resolution and take maybe 45 minutes to export a 3 minute video

WITH A REDROCKET: I can edit with a REDrocket on CS5.5 in realtime by playing footage back at 1/2 resolution and take about 3 minutes to export a 3 minute video."

One of them runs fine over TB1, so two should be ok in a TB2 chassis.

Running GPUs isn't ideal over TB but shouldn't be necessary with two high-end GPUs internally anyway. With the right drivers, TB2 bandwidth would be enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v 
Y'know Wiz, I've really enjoyed this exchange but I challenge you to back away from your insulting tone towards users until you've walked a mile in their shoes.

That's the best way to do it because you're a mile away and you have their shoes so what's the worst they can do? 1wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 
Yep, 6 ports, but on two busses. Phil said so during the keynote.

The 6 ports have 3 controllers but bandwidth contention isn't an issue here. This page explains some differences:

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/190

"1. PCI is a bus, whereas PCI Express is a point-to-point connection, i.e. it connects only two devices; no other device can share this connection. Just to clarify, on a motherboard using standard PCI slots, all PCI devices are connected to the PCI bus and share the same data path, so a bottleneck (i.e., performance decrease because more than one device wants to transmit data at the same time) may occur. On a motherboard with PCI Express slots, each PCI Express slot is connected to the motherboard chipset using a dedicated lane, not sharing this lane (data path) with other PCI Express slots. Also, devices integrated on the motherboard, such as network, SATA, and USB controllers, are usually connected to the motherboard chipset using dedicated PCI Express connections."

Every one of the 6 Thunderbolt ports should be able to sustain PCIe 2 x4 speed regardless of what any other device is doing. The only bottlenecking that would occur is while daisy-chaining.
post #608 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

I've been told that even Thunderbolt 2 is only about one-THIRD the bandwidth of a PCIe slot, so external boxes are not really suitable for things like super-high-end graphics cards, and that even cards with lower bandwidth requirements may be a problem when you need a few of them. The six ports on the Mac Pro don't necessarily mean that there are six discrete busses, or even more than one.
Actually it is far worst than that. TB is rated at 20Gbps that is Giga BITs per second. PCI Express however delivers about 985 MBps per lane, that is BYTES per lane. Most PCI Express supporting machines usually have at least one card slot supporting sixteen lanes. So you can see it is far worst than it might first seem, TB is about two lanes worth of PCI Express.
Quote:
I've also heard there are issues with drivers for many graphics cards. Is that a situation that's unique to placing them in an external enclosure, or is that a problem that would exist even if the Mac Pro had internal PCIe slots?
Drivers are always an issue, most cards won't run without drivers, anywhere. As to specifics the only way to get a straight answer would be to ask the cards manufacture after the Mac Pro ships.
Quote:
Anyone able to confirm or refute this?

Wikipedia has an excellent intro to PCI Express.

It should be noted though that few cards saturate a sixteen lane PCI Express slot. However many cards will be performance constrained in a 4 lane implementation.

As to external GPU cards that idea was nuts when it was first offered, up when TB first came out and it is still nuts. Think about why Apple offers up this new Mac Pro with the GPU card built in. They gave those fast PCI Express lanes to the hardware that needs the performance the most.

Now the flip side; do these Max rates make that much difference for many Mac Pro usages? I'd say no because you don't even need 20GBps for many DAW station usages for example.

As to the Mac Pro implementation. The rumor is that the six TB ports are implemented with 3 controller chips, if true this is a good thing and should mean that we will see very good through put on many of the ports at the same time. In the end it looks like Apple has done a very good implementation in this rev one Mac Pro. Well it is good if you can tolerate having no PCI Express slots. In effect the new Mac Pro brings the same frustrations any other technology transition has offered up. Like dropping SCSI and other hardware ports over the years people will get over it.
post #609 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Y'know Wiz, I've really enjoyed this exchange but I challenge you to back away from your insulting tone towards users until you've walked a mile in their shoes. You sympathize with the developers' challenges but not those of the users, even though the latter are the ones paying the former!
If you take what I say as insulting then that is really your problem not mine. I'm just calling it like I see it.

As to sympathies, I completely up understand the issues here. At the place I work we have just transitioned to some new metrology hardware simply because the vendor of the original hardware no longer wants to support the old machines. Part of that is directly due to an old AT style I/O card. We are talking huge bucks here for the machines plus huge dollars for validation and training. Probably more than $80,000 per machine spread across several machines.

So I really do get this from the users standpoint. Moving to new technologies can be costly. The problem is you simply can't expect your vendors to support hardware from technologies dark ages forever. Think about it, if your where still using an Apple 2 to run a process or do critical work within a process would you still expect to be able to buy hardware for that machine if and when needed?

Now obviously PCI Express is a different story here as there is a certain mass of hardware within the industry that will be around for a long time. Apple could build hardware to support the past but then their ability to innovate goes out the Window.
Quote:


Of course not, but what relevance does that have to the discussion? FCPX is not a 1.0 product.
Sure it is, it is a complete rewrite that readiness the concept a bit.
Quote:
It's version EIGHT! The product it replaced was not a first or second generation product either. It was showing signs of neglect and needed refreshing, but it was capable and mature. As such, users had a reasonable expectation that the next version would be an improvement, not a downgrade.
Downgrade? That is an opinion not a fact. Many users adapted to FCPx right out of the box on the first day seeing it as an improvement.
Quote:
If the rewrite resulted in a product that took such an enormous leap backwards that it's considered to have reverted to a stage of infancy like you suggest, that's a failure on the part of the developer, yes?
There isn't much I can do or say here that will alter your very negative outlook with respect to FCPx. You see it as a step backwards while many see it as a step forward. I suspect it is the people using it as a productive tool that are right here. Jumping on a mass hysteria bandwagon is never the smart thing to do.
post #610 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Yep, 6 ports, but on two busses. Phil said so during the keynote.

Interesting because I heard six ports on three busses. In other words two port share a common TB chip.
post #611 of 1290
Quote:
PCIe slots don't all have the same bandwidth but Thunderbolt 2 is equivalent to a PCIe 2.0 x4 slot. The old Mac Pro had two x16 and two x4 with a GPU taking up the first x16.

This new Mac Pro essentially gives you six x4 instead of one x16 + two x4. It's the same overall bandwidth but distributed differently. A redesigned Mac Pro with PCIe 3 slots would have offered more bandwidth per slot but the extra bandwidth doesn't really get used in practice and if you had two GPUs, you'd be stuck with just two x4 PCIe 3, which is fine speed-wise but some people would run out if they wanted a RAID card too. Audio processing is very low bandwidth. Video is higher but much fewer streams. Thunderbolt 1 might have had some bottlenecks but they didn't really show up much in a whole variety of tests. TB2 shouldn't have any real-world problems.

 

So what you're saying is that we're getting a PCI slot 'upgrade' in practice.  Sure, they're not as fast, technically as PCIe 3?  ...but you get a practical upgrade because we're not dealing with only theoretical bottlenecks?  eg you have the 'two' gpus taking up what would have been the '16' lane PCI slots.  (which is what you would have had anyway in the old design...except that Apple never offered SLI and there was no chance they were ever going to do that...many said...Apple doesn't do 'SLI', right?  Apple doesn't even do decent GPUs on their old Pro design shipping with crap gpus as standard but with the new one...oh wait...2 gpus and wow Pro-GPU-ness...)  Plus you get 6 external '4' lane slots.  In practice, it's more.  All external.  Add them.  Don't add them.  At least 80% of buyers won't be sitting with a big ass empty case with no 'kit' taking up the PCI slots...  Plus...With the vram on the Ati cards you can run 3x 4k monitors.  Want storage?  Take it outside, boys...

 

This sounds like an improvement.  Plus.  You can keep your external investments if the time comes to get rid of the Mac Pro and buy a 'new' one from Apple.  And let's face it.  Apple have always wanted you to buy a 'new' machine anyhow.  *looks at their computer line up.  The new Pro is just the final seal on that.  (It's not like we had a vast GPU market for the Pro anyhow.  It failed to take off even when Steve and McCarmack were hangin' back in the Blue and White G3 tower days...)

 

Anyway.  Well reasoned post, Marvin.

 

And there is another link I thought you may like.  This time a very interesting interview with OCW boss (I think...)

 

See what you (and Wizard, ofc... ;) think...

 

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/owcs-larry-oconnor-the-new-mac-pro-is-both-disappointing-exciting

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #612 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

You can see the state of the PC market here:

The average unit price of PCs is under $600 - less than half Apple's average. Apple makes more profit from PCs than the next 5 PC vendors combined. I'm sure they'd convince some PC desktop owners across to the platform but they already own the premium segment because of the iMac and it would be silly of them to sell a quad-i7 with a 7970 for $1250 and just give away a display sale to Dell or HP when they can sell a quad i7 with a 780MX or Radeon and make as much as double that.
You always come back with this idea that they give away something by offering a headless PC. Yet Apple already offers the Mini and the Mac Pro. I really don't see a valid argument here.
Quote:
The desktop PC market cannot be shaken up. They can't do it with $600 PCs so they can't possibly do it with $1250 PCs. They said they're using Xeons and FirePros, they'd have worded it differently if there was any chance of there being desktop components. From a consumer point of view, it would be a nice option but I don't think it would do anything for Apple.
I'd be the first to admit that such a machine is a wish! As for shaking up the PC market I think Apple has been doing so for the last three years with the iPad. It has successfully sold the iPad while maintaining strong PC sales.

In any event a so called XMac on the same chassis as this Mac Pro to me would offer enough extra sales to bring a bit of stability to the product line. As nice as this new Mac Pro is, I don't see it providing a huge sales boost relative to the old machine at Apples traditional prices. At least not after early adopter sales are done. Considering things like the Airs and some other Apple products there is some hope that the entry level model will come in at a rational price point. That entry Level Mac Pro though still won't be priced in XMac territory.
Quote:

PCIe slots don't all have the same bandwidth but Thunderbolt 2 is equivalent to a PCIe 2.0 x4 slot. The old Mac Pro had two x16 and two x4 with a GPU taking up the first x16.

This new Mac Pro essentially gives you six x4 instead of one x16 + two x4. It's the same overall bandwidth but distributed differently. A redesigned Mac Pro with PCIe 3 slots would have offered more bandwidth per slot but the extra bandwidth doesn't really get used in practice and if you had two GPUs, you'd be stuck with just two x4 PCIe 3, which is fine speed-wise but some people would run out if they wanted a RAID card too. Audio processing is very low bandwidth. Video is higher but much fewer streams. Thunderbolt 1 might have had some bottlenecks but they didn't really show up much in a whole variety of tests. TB2 shouldn't have any real-world problems.
It is important for people to realize that the two cards that most likely would need a lot of bandwidth are already in the Mac Pro. This takes care of the vast majority of user needs. It does suck though for those users that do have cards that go beyond the bandwidth offered by greater than x4 slots.
Quote:
Here's a Red Rocket over TB:





1/2 res playback of 5K with real-time export. In workstations, it's the same performance:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?63827-Why-do-we-need-a-RED-Rocket-card

"WITHOUT A REDROCKET: I can edit a 5K project without a REDrocket on CS5.5 in realtime by playing footage back between 1/8 or 1/16 resolution and take maybe 45 minutes to export a 3 minute video

WITH A REDROCKET: I can edit with a REDrocket on CS5.5 in realtime by playing footage back at 1/2 resolution and take about 3 minutes to export a 3 minute video."
It will be very interesting to see if Red Rocket cards are even needed in a year or two. I wonder what they will be able to accomplish with GPU compute on this Mac.
Quote:
One of them runs fine over TB1, so two should be ok in a TB2 chassis.

Running GPUs isn't ideal over TB but shouldn't be necessary with two high-end GPUs internally anyway. With the right drivers, TB2 bandwidth would be enough.
That's the best way to do it because you're a mile away and you have their shoes so what's the worst they can do? 1wink.gif
The 6 ports have 3 controllers but bandwidth contention isn't an issue here. This page explains some differences:

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/190

"1. PCI is a bus, whereas PCI Express is a point-to-point connection, i.e. it connects only two devices; no other device can share this connection. Just to clarify, on a motherboard using standard PCI slots, all PCI devices are connected to the PCI bus and share the same data path, so a bottleneck (i.e., performance decrease because more than one device wants to transmit data at the same time) may occur. On a motherboard with PCI Express slots, each PCI Express slot is connected to the motherboard chipset using a dedicated lane, not sharing this lane (data path) with other PCI Express slots. Also, devices integrated on the motherboard, such as network, SATA, and USB controllers, are usually connected to the motherboard chipset using dedicated PCI Express connections."

Every one of the 6 Thunderbolt ports should be able to sustain PCIe 2 x4 speed regardless of what any other device is doing. The only bottlenecking that would occur is while daisy-chaining.
I'm not certain this is true. That is I was under the impression that the two ports on one controller could see contention. Maybe not - I forgot where I read that so confusion is a possibility.

Even if I'm right the bandwidth available externally with this machine is pretty impressive. Many users will never have a problem with external bandwidth. It might take awhile for the right devices to become available but that shouldn't surprise anybody. It shouldn't but I can see lots of whining one day after the Mac Pro goes on sale asking where are the TB2 devices.
post #613 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Yep, 6 ports, but on two busses. Phil said so during the keynote.

Interesting because I heard six ports on three busses. In other words two port share a common TB chip.

I was wrong, Phil said 3 controllers. Though incorrectly naming them FireWire, but he, it was an exciting moment. Clock in at 59'00'' (1080p version, not that this would matter)
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #614 of 1290
Walked into a gallery down my street this week, and I'm not the only one waiting for the new Mac Pro (though my 5.1 is still going through everything "like butter" (oh how I miss him) but I digress.



Yes, € 1450. But he, it's art.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #615 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

So what you're saying is that we're getting a PCI slot 'upgrade' in practice.  Sure, they're not as fast, technically as PCIe 3?  ...but you get a practical upgrade because we're not dealing with only theoretical bottlenecks?  eg you have the 'two' gpus taking up what would have been the '16' lane PCI slots.  (which is what you would have had anyway in the old design...except that Apple never offered SLI and there was no chance they were ever going to do that...many said...Apple doesn't do 'SLI', right?  Apple doesn't even do decent GPUs on their old Pro design shipping with crap gpus as standard but with the new one...oh wait...2 gpus and wow Pro-GPU-ness...)  Plus you get 6 external '4' lane slots.  In practice, it's more.  All external.  Add them.  Don't add them.  At least 80% of buyers won't be sitting with a big ass empty case with no 'kit' taking up the PCI slots...  Plus...With the vram on the Ati cards you can run 3x 4k monitors.  Want storage?   Take it outside, boys...
For most users this will be an upgrade. Well it will be if they accept the transition to TB.
Quote:
This sounds like an improvement.  Plus.  You can keep your external investments if the time comes to get rid of the Mac Pro and buy a 'new' one from Apple.  And let's face it.  Apple have always wanted you to buy a 'new' machine anyhow.  *looks at their computer line up.  The new Pro is just the final seal on that.  (It's not like we had a vast GPU market for the Pro anyhow.  It failed to take off even when Steve and McCarmack were hangin' back in the Blue and White G3 tower days...)
I do think people underestimate the value or importance of being able to plug in and go.
Quote:
Anyway.  Well reasoned post, Marvin.

And there is another link I thought you may like.  This time a very interesting interview with OCW boss (I think...)

See what you (and Wizard, ofc... 1wink.gif think...

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/owcs-larry-oconnor-the-new-mac-pro-is-both-disappointing-exciting

Lemon Bon Bon.
O'Connor has some good points. For example the industry seemingly has glossed over that the new Airs have PCI Express based SSDs in them. This is very significant as they have put high performance in an entry level model that is priced reasonably. Effectively Apple has made SATA a dead technology.

As for the Mac Pro I think some of his points are valid. One interesting comment was that sales are around 50,000 per quarter, that is actually better than I thought. I was thinking sales might be around 100,000 a year so that is twice as much.

What I found perplexing is that he expects sales to go up along with price. I don't see this as. A successful strategy at all as I honestly believe that sales suck due to high pricing for what you get in a Mac Pro. Apple really needs an entry level model that comes in around the $2000 mark for a machine that doesn't suck. If Apple can't do this then I see a sales explosion for a quarter or two as pent up demand is handled and then a roll off of sales to the point that sales are wort than the current model.

He also hits on what a surprise the new Mac Pro is. This is certainly throwing a lot of people, especially those set in the old ways of doing things. Personally I believe Apple has the right concept here but it may take awhile for people to come around.

The one thing that bothers me with this machine is that apparently they have decided to leave off the extra SSD socket on one of the GPU cards. I have to wonder why. Is it management being stupid or did they run out of PCI Express lanes? I ask because that would be the perfect place for a PCI Express based scratch "disk". Such an option would significantly enhance the machine for many users.
post #616 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Actually it is far worst than that. TB is rated at 20Gbps that is Giga BITs per second. PCI Express however delivers about 985 MBps per lane, that is BYTES per lane. Most PCI Express supporting machines usually have at least one card slot supporting sixteen lanes. So you can see it is far worst than it might first seem, TB is about two lanes worth of PCI Express.
Drivers are always an issue, most cards won't run without drivers, anywhere. As to specifics the only way to get a straight answer would be to ask the cards manufacture after the Mac Pro ships.
Wikipedia has an excellent intro to PCI Express.

It should be noted though that few cards saturate a sixteen lane PCI Express slot. However many cards will be performance constrained in a 4 lane implementation.

As to external GPU cards that idea was nuts when it was first offered, up when TB first came out and it is still nuts. Think about why Apple offers up this new Mac Pro with the GPU card built in. They gave those fast PCI Express lanes to the hardware that needs the performance the most.

Now the flip side; do these Max rates make that much difference for many Mac Pro usages? I'd say no because you don't even need 20GBps for many DAW station usages for example.

As to the Mac Pro implementation. The rumor is that the six TB ports are implemented with 3 controller chips, if true this is a good thing and should mean that we will see very good through put on many of the ports at the same time. In the end it looks like Apple has done a very good implementation in this rev one Mac Pro. Well it is good if you can tolerate having no PCI Express slots. In effect the new Mac Pro brings the same frustrations any other technology transition has offered up. Like dropping SCSI and other hardware ports over the years people will get over it.

I would think that the ProTools HD HDX cards are PROBABLY going to saturate when utilized to their fullest level.  Just a hunch.   To connect up to an external RAID box, I wouldn't think they would since hard drives aren't THAT fast.  I'm just spiff balling and I've done no calculations.  I have no idea what the RED PCI cards require in terms of bandwidth or other video capture.  Same applies to MADI cards.

post #617 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


Yep, 6 ports, but on two busses. Phil said so during the keynote.

I thought it had 3 chips. The chips cover 2 ports each. There was no reference spec for greater than 1 chip, so it's obviously custom work. It appears to be designed with Xeon 1600s chips in mind more than anything.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post




This new Mac Pro essentially gives you six x4 instead of one x16 + two x4. It's the same overall bandwidth but distributed differently. A redesigned Mac Pro with PCIe 3 slots would have offered more bandwidth per slot but the extra bandwidth doesn't really get used in practice and if you had two GPUs, you'd be stuck with just two x4 PCIe 3, which is fine speed-wise but some people would run out if they wanted a RAID card too. Audio processing is very low bandwidth. Video is higher but much fewer streams. Thunderbolt 1 might have had some bottlenecks but they didn't really show up much in a whole variety of tests. TB2 shouldn't have any real-world problems.

 

No disagreements on the rest of it, but I am pretty sure bandwidth allocation is per chip rather than per port meaning three x4 spread over 6 total. TB2 seems aimed more at 4k display support than anything, as it introduces channel bonding as opposed to separate display and data channels.

post #618 of 1290
I can't say either as I don't know much about these cards and possible transfer rates. In the end though I suspect that they will be replaced with new technology. Some of this stuff is rather old (speaking in electronic terms) and frankly could use an update. I've also been wondering about dynamic compression and decompression of the data stream which could impact transfer rates some. I say some because often the data is already compressed to some extent.

It will be interesting to watch how this all plays out over the next year or two. I suspect progressive companies will embrace TB 2 with open arms. Effectively TB 2 eliminates some of the interconnect issues that the use of PCI express cards create.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I would think that the ProTools HD HDX cards are PROBABLY going to saturate when utilized to their fullest level.  Just a hunch.   To connect up to an external RAID box, I wouldn't think they would since hard drives aren't THAT fast.  I'm just spiff balling and I've done no calculations.  I have no idea what the RED PCI cards require in terms of bandwidth or other video capture.  Same applies to MADI cards.
post #619 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

So what you're saying is that we're getting a PCI slot 'upgrade' in practice.  Sure, they're not as fast, technically as PCIe 3?  ...but you get a practical upgrade because we're not dealing with only theoretical bottlenecks?  eg you have the 'two' gpus taking up what would have been the '16' lane PCI slots.  (which is what you would have had anyway in the old design...except that Apple never offered SLI and there was no chance they were ever going to do that...many said...Apple doesn't do 'SLI', right?  Apple doesn't even do decent GPUs on their old Pro design shipping with crap gpus as standard but with the new one...oh wait...2 gpus and wow Pro-GPU-ness...)  Plus you get 6 external '4' lane slots.  In practice, it's more.

That's it, if Apple had put two GPUs in a machine designed like the old one, it would have left just two slots. People could have removed a GPU but Thunderbolt gives people up to 36 devices with chaining. People have chained a Red Rocket to a Pegasus to a display from a single laptop port. It's difficult to mix and match that easily with PCIe as it's not plug and play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

And there is another link I thought you may like.  This time a very interesting interview with OCW boss (I think...)

I noticed he said the old Mac Pro was down to 50,000 units per quarter. I wonder if he read that about the 17" MBP:

http://investorplace.com/2012/04/monday-apple-rumors-end-of-the-17-inch-macbook-pro/

"Kuo said sales of the 17-inch MacBook Pro amounted to about 50,000 units during the first quarter of 2012, compared to 1.5 million of the 13-inch models and 500,000 for the 15-inch models."

It's believable for the MP too though.

He mentioned the idea that they might go back to adding slots in a future model. I think for a while, people will have doubts about living without slots but external PCIe ports will just keep getting faster. Someone here is running BF3 on ultra 1080p 35FPS+ using a GPU on a pass-through adaptor for expressCard (PCIe x1):



You can see it's not plug and play as he has to reboot with it connected. This is why TB drivers have to be reworked but bandwidth should be fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
You always come back with this idea that they give away something by offering a headless PC. Yet Apple already offers the Mini and the Mac Pro. I really don't see a valid argument here.

It would be harder to upsell from a $1250 MP to a $2500 iMac when a Cinema Display is $1000. It would be faster and cheaper to get a MP. You can bet MP buyers would then get 3rd party displays so Apple's average selling prices drop as do their profits. I think having a $2k starting price would be a good idea but I don't think the lower end of the $1-2k range would work out better for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 
I was under the impression that the two ports on one controller could see contention

There are different controllers: 2-channel and 4-channel. They use 2-channel in the Air but 4-channel in the dual-port Macs. The channels are all dedicated so there's no bandwidth sharing between devices on different ports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm 
No disagreements on the rest of it, but I am pretty sure bandwidth allocation is per chip rather than per port meaning three x4 spread over 6 total.

Right but the MP has PCIe 3 lanes so 3x PCIe 3.0 x4 would allow two PCIe 2.0 x4 per controller. It could well be that it's shared between the ports in this case but that hasn't been the case in other dual TB Macs - the achievable bandwidth has topped the bandwidth of a single port.
post #620 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I thought it had 3 chips. The chips cover 2 ports each. There was no reference spec for greater than 1 chip, so it's obviously custom work. It appears to be designed with Xeon 1600s chips in mind more than anything.
I could see three chips or maybe better three interface units. Intel could squeeze them into one package if they wanted.
Quote:
No disagreements on the rest of it, but I am pretty sure bandwidth allocation is per chip rather than per port meaning three x4 spread over 6 total.
That is my impression also. After all if you have only 4x PCI Express lanes feeding a chip you can only achieve so much bandwidth. PCI Express though is full duplex so you might get interesting results where you can effectively receive on one channel at full bandwidth and transmit on the other at full bandwidth. Possibly though that might create other issues with drivers and such that make it impossible to realize full duplex data transfers from two separate devices.
Quote:
TB2 seems aimed more at 4k display support than anything, as it introduces channel bonding as opposed to separate display and data channels.

Yep! I'm expecting a "surprise" announcement of a greater than 4K display panel, at the time Mac Pro starts to ship. I will even go and say that this is a far higher probability than the XMac I've been promoting over the years.1smoking.gif
post #621 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I can't say either as I don't know much about these cards and possible transfer rates. In the end though I suspect that they will be replaced with new technology. Some of this stuff is rather old (speaking in electronic terms) and frankly could use an update. I've also been wondering about dynamic compression and decompression of the data stream which could impact transfer rates some. I say some because often the data is already compressed to some extent.

It will be interesting to watch how this all plays out over the next year or two. I suspect progressive companies will embrace TB 2 with open arms. Effectively TB 2 eliminates some of the interconnect issues that the use of PCI express cards create.

What ProTools cards to is all of the audio processing and plug-ins specific for ProTools which is the de facto standard in the audio recording industry. yeah some put a HD or HDX card in an external chassis and run from a MBP or IMac, but they aren't doing production work that I can tell for the higher end film production.  Example. If you are doing audio recording.  MOST recordings don't use much more than maybe 24, 32, 48 tracks.  That's not a lot of processing needed. But a film or even a sound track for a game can use up to 200 or even up to the maximum 768 tracks.  each noise, actor's dialog, etc. takes one track, even if the track is 2 seconds long in a movie.  They have to have adjustability before they mix down into 2, 5 or 7 tracks for final release.

 

If you go to Magma, they have the rack mounted PCI card systems that have a PCI card interface that cost around $5000. If that PCI interface card can be changed into a TB 2 solution, then problem solved, but I don't know enough to say they can or can't, since if you have a large audio/video production studio that has a Magma PCI chassis, they will have many HD or HDX cards, MADI, of GOD knows what else since they can stuff a BUNCH of cards into one chassis.  Those are the guys that I would think would be best to address this issue.  IF they can do it, then that's the answer.

post #622 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

That's odd.  My copy says version 10.0.8.

 

Yup, and your iPhone says "5" even though it's actually not the fifth iPhone.

 

The current version followed version 7. There was no version 8 or 9. You're right though, I shouldn't have referred to it as "version 8" and instead called it the eighth version or incarnation or something.

post #623 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

If you take what I say as insulting then that is really your problem not mine.

 

You don't believe calling users "children" and "whiners" is insulting?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The problem is you simply can't expect your vendors to support hardware from technologies dark ages forever

 

I already addressed this: it's NOT about retiring old technologies, it's about dropping support for CURRENT, in-use systems with a vague promise to add it back later. The former is understandable and reasonable. The latter is a "downgrade."

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

\Now obviously PCI Express is a different story here as there is a certain mass of hardware within the industry that will be around for a long time. Apple could build hardware to support the past but then their ability to innovate goes out the Window.\

 

I don't understand what you're getting at. I don't get what the revision of the Mac Pro has to do with the change to FCP?

 

 

 

 

 

Overall I'm not sure I'm clear on your position towards FCPX except that you'e down on those who didn't like it. On one hand you say it's an improvement, but then say those who need advanced features have to accept that they're missing in a "new" product. It can't be both. Either it's an upgrade, in which case the advanced features should have been retained, or it's a new product that doesn't yet support advanced features. Either way, it lacked advanced features that were included in the previous version. The fact that *some* users were unaffected by the loss of those features doesn't alter the fact.

 

And I'm not negative towards FCPX anymore. My understanding is that it's just fine now. It took two years, but it eventually got there. What I'm negative about is the way Apple handled the transition. I think they blew it.


Edited by v5v - 7/10/13 at 9:30am
post #624 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post


 

And I'm not negative towards FCPX anymore. My understanding is that it's just fine now. It took two years, but it eventually got there. What I'm negative about is the way Apple handled the transition. I think they blew it.

That is basically what I said from the start. Bad transition. Multi-cam was one of the biggest ones as you may need to track and edit footage captured from different cameras. That is certainly not a deprecated feature. I would argue with the number of capable dslrs out there today, overall demand has probably increased. I do not spend a lot of time editing video, so I am not exactly an authority on the matter. I was just pointing out that you can buy secondary cameras for less money today in relation to that feature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


I could see three chips or maybe better three interface units. Intel could squeeze them into one package if they wanted.
That is my impression also. After all if you have only 4x PCI Express lanes feeding a chip you can only achieve so much bandwidth. PCI Express though is full duplex so you might get interesting results where you can effectively receive on one channel at full bandwidth and transmit on the other at full bandwidth. Possibly though that might create other issues with drivers and such that make it impossible to realize full duplex data transfers from two separate devices.
Yep! I'm expecting a "surprise" announcement of a greater than 4K display panel, at the time Mac Pro starts to ship. I will even go and say that this is a far higher probability than the XMac I've been promoting over the years.1smoking.gif

It may happen at some point depending on voltage, including what it has to pass to peripherals, assuming that is still within the spec. I haven't looked. The tests are somewhat variable. There are tons of thunderbolt gpu tests as an example. The results do drop on some of the more bandwidth intensive tests. On lighter ones they aren't so bad. Personally I don't see this machine as a move toward that. If that was all that was required or all that would sell, the mac pro would no longer exist.

 

I'm not sure about a 4K display this year, but it absolutely should have that capability. Consider that it is unlikely to see a single major update prior to 2015. Someone buying in 2014 would not enjoy being told a year later that their machine can't run the new display. It seems perfectly logical to me. The displays are primarily aimed at the notebook docking station market with everything else sort of leveraged. They can sell a 27" display + dock for $1000 as opposed to users buying a Belkin for $400 and a cheaper 1080 27" for $400. It's close enough to leverage those guys. Some people will also buy it because they can add it at the time of purchase including Applecare, but I don't think it's going after the top 5% or so that is mostly catered to by NEC, Eizo, Dreamcolor, Quato, as well as Panasonic and a few others when it comes to true broadcast displays. I don't know how many people are dropping $4k or more for a broadcast display + the $7k~ for a deck, but I've never viewed those guys as Apple's market territory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post




I'm almost 54 years old and I never seen the country as bad as it is know. Probably in most respects I grew up different than many far removed from city life or even small town life by the time I got to my teens it was the mid seventies. I doubt that anybody would have approved of the drastic curtailment of freedoms we have seen in recent years back then. Sadly liberalism was indeed associated with freedom back then, today if not a nazis a liberal is just an oppressive individual take joy in tormenting others. For the voter though who do you vote for today that actually believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Hard question to answer especially with the corruption in the news media and the biased reporting associated with it.

Why even post this here? Because forums like this take people's minds off what has been lost.

I'm not old enough to remember that. Personally I've tried to avoid the political label abstractions as I prefer topics to ideologies. It's also more interesting to hear someone's personal reason rather than something wrapped in ideology. Today politicians don't seem that different to me. It seems like many of the differences are exaggerated through out of context quotes. It's annoying as it can be a lot of work to dig up the real statement on every one of them.

post #625 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Yep, 6 ports, but on two busses. Phil said so during the keynote.
I thought it had 3 chips.

Indeed, I later corrected that, a few posts above yours. It's at 59 minutes into the keynote.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #626 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

…a 27" display + dock for $1000 as opposed to users buying a Belkin for $400 and a cheaper 1080 27" for $400.

Just remember, the 27" Apple Thunderbolt Display also has stereo speakers, a mic and an iSight camera built-in…

 

I am hoping Apple keeps the 27" Thunderbolt Display in the line-up, just bump the I/O specs to have USB3 & TB2 onboard & go with the less-glossy of the current iMacs…

 

I WOULD like to see a second display available from Apple, if this would be 27" or larger (30"+), I do not know…

 

But I WOULD expect it to be the Apple Retina Display, increasing the resolution to 5120x2880…!

 

I would expect this to be at LEAST US$2,000.00 and to be marketed towards the Mac Pro market…

 

An Apple Retina Display & a Wacom Cintiq 24HD touch monitor driven by a top-end Mac Pro would be a SWEET DCC workstation…!

Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #627 of 1290
..."merely posting for the sake of discussion"

How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #628 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

..."merely posting for the sake of discussion"


So what is the point here? Even with the old Mac Pro you still have a bling breakout ones or worst octopus like split cables. At least with the new MAC Pro you have an opportunity to put te I/O in a decent box near where it is used.
post #629 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

So what is the point here? Even with the old Mac Pro you still have a bling breakout ones or worst octopus like split cables. At least with the new MAC Pro you have an opportunity to put te I/O in a decent box near where it is used.

Point being that 'everything' is now external, as opposed to the tower model. Not that I fully agree; it looks like some video equipment shown would be external with the old tower as well, but like I said, merely posting the pic for discussion.

And so, you made a good point, thanks.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #630 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

Just remember, the 27" Apple Thunderbolt Display also has stereo speakers, a mic and an iSight camera built-in…

 

I am hoping Apple keeps the 27" Thunderbolt Display in the line-up, just bump the I/O specs to have USB3 & TB2 onboard & go with the less-glossy of the current iMacs…

 

I WOULD like to see a second display available from Apple, if this would be 27" or larger (30"+), I do not know…

 

But I WOULD expect it to be the Apple Retina Display, increasing the resolution to 5120x2880…!

 

I would expect this to be at LEAST US$2,000.00 and to be marketed towards the Mac Pro market…

 

An Apple Retina Display & a Wacom Cintiq 24HD touch monitor driven by a top-end Mac Pro would be a SWEET DCC workstation…!

Well they weren't the only ones to drop the 30" lines. Every brand basically went to 27", even if their implementations differed. I will probably stick with NEC regardless. You got me on the additional stuff. I don't own one, so I hadn't thought of any of that. 27" to me seems like a good size to scan visually. You mention the Wacom. I like the Cintiqs due to their mapping. Your hand and cursor are in much better synchronization. I've used them, but I don't own one personally. I find an extra screen still helps for some things. It's generally just reference or documents or whatever for me, but that way I don't have to deal with overlaps.

post #631 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

..."merely posting for the sake of discussion"

The picture assumes that the Mac Pro changes but everything else stays the same,  i.e. people still want DVD, Blu Ray and hard drives. Is that a valid assumption though?

 

What if DVD dies out within a year, Bu Ray within 2 years, and external storage quickly changes from HDs in boxes to small memory sticks that plug in to the back of the Mac Pro, out of sight?

post #632 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Well they weren't the only ones to drop the 30" lines. Every brand basically went to 27", even if their implementations differed.

Dell still sells the 30"
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=225-4429


Unfortunately Apple doesn't, so now they don't have any matte displays anymore. I wonder if they'll make them again, presuming we can get a 4k monitor together with the new Pro.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #633 of 1290

A new 4k Monitor for the Mac Pro would be very nice.

Hope this one is bigger than 27".

post #634 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Overall I'm not sure I'm clear on your position towards FCPX except that you'e down on those who didn't like it. On one hand you say it's an improvement, but then say those who need advanced features have to accept that they're missing in a "new" product. It can't be both. Either it's an upgrade, in which case the advanced features should have been retained, or it's a new product that doesn't yet support advanced features. Either way, it lacked advanced features that were included in the previous version. The fact that *some* users were unaffected by the loss of those features doesn't alter the fact.

 

And I'm not negative towards FCPX anymore. My understanding is that it's just fine now. It took two years, but it eventually got there. What I'm negative about is the way Apple handled the transition. I think they blew it.

Apple values the broader market far more than any niche. If there are a million professional video editors in the world (and I’m just pulling that out of thin air for the sake of debate), then there are 500 million amateur video editors. And it’s that larger group that Apple really wants to hit.

 

I feel the same way about the new Mac Pro, I really don't believe their going after the uber professional market here. Yes their will be those cool ultra high spec'd configurations that cater to that market segment but the overall sales will be minuscule in comparison to the starting and mid level configurations. The prosumer crowd or whatever term is being thrown around nowadays is Apple's target audience here. Just looking back at all of those great professional applications that have been canceled, add the Xserver and now closed box Mac Pro to equation, well it just shouts Apple's vision of tomorrow doesn't include the professional market.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #635 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

Just remember, the 27" Apple Thunderbolt Display also has stereo speakers, a mic and an iSight camera built-in…

 

I am hoping Apple keeps the 27" Thunderbolt Display in the line-up, just bump the I/O specs to have USB3 & TB2 onboard & go with the less-glossy of the current iMacs…

 

I WOULD like to see a second display available from Apple, if this would be 27" or larger (30"+), I do not know…

 

But I WOULD expect it to be the Apple Retina Display, increasing the resolution to 5120x2880…!

 

I would expect this to be at LEAST US$2,000.00 and to be marketed towards the Mac Pro market…

 

An Apple Retina Display & a Wacom Cintiq 24HD touch monitor driven by a top-end Mac Pro would be a SWEET DCC workstation…!

 

The cheapest 4K monitor on the market is made by Asus, has a rez of 3840 x 2160 and cost's 5,000 dollars. 2,000 is highly improbable, especially from a company who historically has very high margins on their products.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #636 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

So what you're saying is that we're getting a PCI slot 'upgrade' in practice.  Sure, they're not as fast, technically as PCIe 3?  ...but you get a practical upgrade because we're not dealing with only theoretical bottlenecks?  

 

Not in comparison to an updated classic Mac Pro.  Then you would have had 2 x16 PCIe 3.0 slots and 2 x4 PCIe 3.0 slots.  All 6 TB2 ports are equivalent to less than one single x16 slot.  A single TB2 port is equivalent to 2 and a half PCIe 3.0 lanes.

 

If you need x8 bandwidth you can't get it with TB2.  If you want an external PCIe chassis with more than one slot you have no more than 2.5 lanes available.

 

The implication here is that given that the PCIe SSD is taking over a lane that the two GPUs may not be running at 16x but 8x.

 

Bottlenecks were not theoretical when you're talking using GPUs for computational load. 

post #637 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

The picture assumes that the Mac Pro changes but everything else stays the same,  i.e. people still want DVD, Blu Ray and hard drives. Is that a valid assumption though?

 

What if DVD dies out within a year, Bu Ray within 2 years, and external storage quickly changes from HDs in boxes to small memory sticks that plug in to the back of the Mac Pro, out of sight?

 

None of these will happen in the next 2 years.  As to whether people need these things, some do and the result will be what is pictured.

post #638 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

So what is the point here? Even with the old Mac Pro you still have a bling breakout ones or worst octopus like split cables. At least with the new MAC Pro you have an opportunity to put te I/O in a decent box near where it is used.

 

The point is that you have to look at the total footprint and not just of the workstation itself. There are advantages to the new Mac Pro but there are also significant disadvantages as well.

post #639 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

..."merely posting for the sake of discussion"

If you configured the old Mac Pro like the new one, you'd have two GPUs taking up the two x16 slots and a PCIe SSD taking up one of the x4 slots. That would leave you with a single x4 PCIe slot that wouldn't have aux power so no HDX cards ( http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=323900 ) and you'd need an external RAID for bulk storage.

The mockup uses 3 separate HDDs (says 4 in the bullet list), which would have 6 cables behind it. Normally people would just use a single RAID drive.

Mac Pro - power cable + display cable, same as before
RAID (as many as 8 drives or more, which isn't possible in the Pro) - one power cable + one TB e.g http://www.areca.com.tw/products/thunderbolt.htm
It looks like it uses one of the larger optical units with power supply but these aren't necessary - you get affordable bus-powered optical drives and typically you'd only need a single Blu-Ray burner as it supports DVD too. A second bus-powered drive is needed for copying discs but not a common need.

The Apogee Duet audio device would be the same for both. If they compared the following:

http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/symphony-64-thunderbridge.php
http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/symphony-system.php

then there is the extra box but, except for the TB cable, the same cables have to come out the back. The Blackmagic Ultrastudio is an extra TB cable and so would the fibre channel box be.

A few extra cables and boxes for people who have all those things at once but how many people are going to have all those things? Who for example does both high-end video and audio work together? These are different professions.

People have to be realistic about how much it takes to match a MP. The mockup I posted a while ago shows a scenario closer to a MP:



Even excluding the Blackmagic at the end, it exceeds the current Mac Pro because the RAID is hardware RAID, which you can get with hot-swappable drives on top of a PCIe SSD boot drive, it has dual GPUs and 3 PCIe slots with 250W of power. The optical drives are plug and play as needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic 
The cheapest 4K monitor on the market is made by Asus, has a rez of 3840 x 2160 and cost's 5,000 dollars. 2,000 is highly improbable, especially from a company who historically has very high margins on their products.

It depends, there's a company here selling a 4K 39" TV for $699:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/25/seiki-launches-39-inch-4k-tv-for-699/

They are obviously selling at a profit. Other manufacturers are probably milking the sales to more affluent people first and will lower the prices over time. I don't think that Apple would rather Mac Pro owners buy 3rd party 4K displays.

The fact that they are working on an FCPX update and have TB2 coming out and have Retina displays in their Pro laptops suggests that 4K is coming to the desktop. If they went to 5K, that would be crazy (5120x2880) but the kind of crazy we've come to expect from them and it matches up with their current displays because they allow you to edit 1080p. A 5K display would allow you to view 4K video natively and still have controls on top.

Retina is nice for desktop publishing as it displays text the way it does in print.

It might not arrive this year but I think they'll have a Retina Thunderbolt display at $999 and at least one model of iMac with a Retina display by the end of 2014.
post #640 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Not in comparison to an updated classic Mac Pro.  Then you would have had 2 x16 PCIe 3.0 slots and 2 x4 PCIe 3.0 slots.  All 6 TB2 ports are equivalent to less than one single x16 slot.  A single TB2 port is equivalent to 2 and a half PCIe 3.0 lanes.

 

If you need x8 bandwidth you can't get it with TB2.  If you want an external PCIe chassis with more than one slot you have no more than 2.5 lanes available.

 

The implication here is that given that the PCIe SSD is taking over a lane that the two GPUs may not be running at 16x but 8x.

 

Bottlenecks were not theoretical when you're talking using GPUs for computational load. 

Go to Magma's web site. They have one and two slot PCi chassis for Thunderbolt.  What cards really need that bandwidth?  I think it's mostly the graphics cards, which aren't needed since Apple already gives you two rather nice GPUs standard. I honestly don't think cards (non-Graphics) are really pushing the bandwidth as much.  I could be wrong as this is a gut feeling since people can already run two HDX Pro Tools cards in an external chassis through Thunderbolt. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro