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 20

post #761 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Never said it wasn't which is why this is funny.  In fact I've been saying all along that there is no need for a $2000 Mac Pro because that role is already very ably filled by the 27" iMac.

 

I'm not shouting it's just that some folks here apparently can't read.

 

 

 

Except we were discussing a specific scenario of the base Mac Pro being this uber machine for $2K.  Not generalities.  The "we don't know how much blah blah blah" is again the result of folks who apparently can't read.  For this specific scenario postulated by MacRonin to pick the 27" Core i5 iMac is just dumb.  Which is why I said that such a machine would crater iMac sales and Bergermeister got his panties in a wad as if it were a general attack on the iMac or AIOs and ignoring the entire f**king thread where I've been saying otherwise. 

 

But I don't care how well you think iMacs currently sell because if Apple releases a $3000+ Mac Pro for $2000 that completely changes the value proposition of the entire Mac lineup.  Something Apple has put tremendous thought into as opposed to someone like Dell with 6 gazillion possible machine combinations at every price point. 

 

Yah, they sure would sell a lot of Mac Pros.  And a lot less of the 27" iMacs.  Who's IPS panel is the same LG IPS panel seen in $300 retail monitors on eBay and $450 from Monoprice.

 

Just like if they put a 640M in the current Mac Mini.  A $999 2.6 Ghz Quad i7 Mac Mini with a 512MB GT 640M would crater 21" iMac sales.  Which is why no such machine exists even if it would sell well with decent margins.  A machine I would dearly love to see appear but understand it simply ain't happening.  There's a huge profit advantage in selling AIOs which is why Apple still protects the iMac line even today even with Jobs gone.  It's not whimsy or some kind of AIO fetish but why Apple makes money selling desktops and Dell not so much.  That $500 cost delta between the base $1300 quad core i5 iMac and the $800 quad Core i7 Mac Mini is mostly profit on top of the profit inherent in the mini that you pay every time you refresh your iMac.

 

So it ain't likely that Apple is going to introduce either a Mac Pro or Mini that's going to significantly impact iMac sales.

 

*crater?   B*ll*cks.

 

Apple make some overpriced desktop sh*t in their line and they nickel and dime the customer...as you pointed out with the IPS 'LG' panel seen cheaper elsewhere.  (Still a good display though.)  

 

...and so?

 

The Mini SHOULD have a 640M in it's top model at least.  (Guess it will be rendered mute by Iris...)

 

The iMac SHOULD be cheaper.  (No sub 1K model...)

 

The Mac Pro SHOULD be cheaper.  2045 inc vat for a crap Mac Pro was an outrage and prob' why pro sales where in the toilet to the tune of 50k.  (and it sells more than the mini which is an equally gimped machine.)

 

 


27-inch: 3.2GHz

  • 3.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i5
  • Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
  • 8GB (two 4GB) memory
  • 1TB hard drive1
  • NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX with 1GB
  • Dispatched:
    Within 24 hours
  • Free Delivery
  • £1,699.00Includes VAT of approx. £283.00.*

Yes.  We CAN read Apple's over priced by £250 prices.

A top end iMac which should have an i7 and a 680MX on it's top end as standard.  Especially for that price.  And an SSD/Fusion as standard.

 

Prices have been going up and sales growth has been slipping and hitting the ceiling.  

 

Studios going to the wall.  Banks not lending.  Consumers losing jobs.  

 

If they can sell an iPad for £399 they can sell a Mac Pro for £1500 F*cking quid.  Trading the IPS cheap ass monitor for a 2nd GPU.

 

It gets artists and prosumers onto the ladder.

 

Whether you or Apple feels that way doesn't matter BEEP all to me.

 

My opinion is that they priced the last Mac Pro beyond all reality for the crap specs of the starter model.

 

Pricing it £1500-£1750 with a crappy quad core and a 2nd gpu isn't beyond.  And then you have to add a crappy IPS Apple display on top.  

 

No way it's going to 'crater' any iMac.  Any.  Time.  Soon.

 

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 #762 of 1290

There is demand for a cheaper Mac Pro.

 

Just like there is demand for a cheaper iPhone.

 

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 #763 of 1290

People get tired of getting ass raped for up sell.

 

Want an external DVD player, Sir?  That will be £60 Sir.  But you put up the price of the iMac.  Yes Sir.  So you want an extra £160 for an external DVD player?

 

...and the same sh*t on Ram prices and the same crap on the Fusion/SSD options.

 

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 #764 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

There is demand for a cheaper Mac Pro.

Just like there is demand for a cheaper iPhone.

Lemon Bon Bon.

I don't know if calling it a Mac Pro makes sense but people do want a reasonably priced desktop performance machine. At the entry point Mac Pros have traditionally been horrible values. This is what Apple should strive to address. Frankly it is the only way I see Apple getting enough volume to justify the Mac Pro line.

The only good thing here is that I see this chassis allowing Apple to restructure the Mac Pro line and associate price points to make the hardware profitable again.
post #765 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

People get tired of getting ass raped for up sell.
True but the AIR really gives me a lot of hope here. This machine has morphed into an exceedingly good value and has the sales result to go with it. So i don' think it is impossible for Apple to adjust the pricing structure on the Mac Pro to make it a far better value than the old design was. I suspect this was one of the goals for the radical redesign of the machine, that is to be able to market high performance at an aggressive price point for a workstation.
Quote:
Want an external DVD player, Sir?  That will be £60 Sir.  But you put up the price of the iMac.  Yes Sir.  So you want an extra £160 for an external DVD player?
That isn't a good reference as like it or not DVD players are the floppy disks of this decade.
Quote:
...and the same sh*t on Ram prices and the same crap on the Fusion/SSD options.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Apple has always been a little stupid when it comes to RAM which frankly I've never grasped why as the allotted RAM some machines shipped with hardly ran the OS well. Considering that at times the upgrade cost was trivial for Apple to properly populate the Mac one would have to think this stupidity came from the marketing department.

As for Fusion/SSD options, this is really perplexing as the AIR of all machines has one of the highest performing SSDs out there. Clearly this sort of tech could easily go into the likes of the Mini. The iMac could benefit from such hardware too. Even more so they could make those iMac SSd's user serviceable which would address one of the reasons I hate the iMac so much. I'm actually hoping that the coming iMac is a major overhaul that addresses most of the objections people have to this machine.
post #766 of 1290
Sometime soon LBB is going to tell us what he really thinks about the MacPro.1biggrin.gif

All joking aside, I sympathise wrt the pricing. We get a touch from Apple Australia, here in NZ. Not much but sometimes it might be 100 or so depending on the exchange rate and the item being compared.

eg AirPort Extreme usd 199 That should be aud 215 and NZd 250
Of course there's freight to consider but Apple sells the item at Aud 249 which should make it nzd 289
But no sells here in nz at 319
Edited by RobM - 7/22/13 at 5:26pm
post #767 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Never said it wasn't which is why this is funny.  In fact I've been saying all along that there is no need for a $2000 Mac Pro because that role is already very ably filled by the 27" iMac.
I guess this is the problem I have with your points. The roles as you say aren't in any way interchangeable. further a machines role is not determined by its price point.
Quote:

I'm not shouting it's just that some folks here apparently can't read.
Maybe they are reading what you are saying and then rejecting it completely?
Quote:
Except we were discussing a specific scenario of the base Mac Pro being this uber machine for $2K.  Not generalities.  The "we don't know how much blah blah blah" is again the result of folks who apparently can't read.  For this specific scenario postulated by MacRonin to pick the 27" Core i5 iMac is just dumb.  Which is why I said that such a machine would crater iMac sales and Bergermeister got his panties in a wad as if it were a general attack on the iMac or AIOs and ignoring the entire f**king thread where I've been saying otherwise. 
Such a machine would have zero impact on the iMac. The fact is the Mac Pro would be an incomplete system at $2000 requiring a monitor at the very least.
Quote:
But I don't care how well you think iMacs currently sell because if Apple releases a $3000+ Mac Pro for $2000 that completely changes the value proposition of the entire Mac lineup.  Something Apple has put tremendous thought into as opposed to someone like Dell with 6 gazillion possible machine combinations at every price point. 
Your logic is beyond explanation here. If Apple releases the base model Mac Pro for $2000 then it is a $2000 machine and nothing more. Besides as mentioned above that is just for the computer, monitor and whatever is still extra.
Quote:
Yah, they sure would sell a lot of Mac Pros.  And a lot less of the 27" iMacs.  Who's IPS panel is the same LG IPS panel seen in $300 retail monitors on eBay and $450 from Monoprice.
You may believe that but I don't buy it. The markets for the two machines are so different that there is very little in the way of overlap.
Quote:
Just like if they put a 640M in the current Mac Mini.  A $999 2.6 Ghz Quad i7 Mac Mini with a 512MB GT 640M would crater 21" iMac sales.  Which is why no such machine exists even if it would sell well with decent margins.  A machine I would dearly love to see appear but understand it simply ain't happening.  There's a huge profit advantage in selling AIOs which is why Apple still protects the iMac line even today even with Jobs gone.
I don't even buy the argument that the iMac is all that profitable. Maybe after overpriced upgrades but certainly not in the base models.
Quote:
 It's not whimsy or some kind of AIO fetish but why Apple makes money selling desktops and Dell not so much.  That $500 cost delta between the base $1300 quad core i5 iMac and the $800 quad Core i7 Mac Mini is mostly profit on top of the profit inherent in the mini that you pay every time you refresh your iMac.
Are you trying to say the screen is free to Apple on the iMacs?
Quote:
So it ain't likely that Apple is going to introduce either a Mac Pro or Mini that's going to significantly impact iMac sales.
it really doesn't matter one bit what price point Apple introduces the Mac Pro at as the markets are entirely different. Nobody interested in a Mac Pro is going to be shopping for an iMac and vis versa. beyond that I would expect far better profits form a $2000 Mac Pro than I would any of the iMacs.
post #768 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

A 6-core for $2k certainly isn't likely considering the old Mac Pro had a $294 CPU for $2499 and a 6-core CPU costs at least $406. The dual FirePro can't be less than the single 5770 they used to have. The SSD will also cost more than the single HDD they used to sell with it. I do think they will have saved money on some of the design - they probably just buy the GPU chips from AMD and design the boards elsewhere, the single heatsink is likely cheaper to build than what they had before because it's just a single piece of extruded aluminium, just 1 fan vs 6 or more, no optical nor 5.25" bays/wiring, no HDD bays, much smaller enclosure, lower shipping costs (weight and volume).
As the debut date gets closer the thoughts about how the machine will be marketed become more and more interesting. I'm pretty much convinced that part of the redesign goal was to hit a lower price point for the entry level model. This to encourage more volume for the Mac Pro. Without more volume the Mac Pro is a machine on lifer support.
Quote:
I reckon they could sell a quad Mac Pro with dual W5000 for $2k and wouldn't impact the iMac significantly. Once a display is factored in, the cost is immediately higher. $2k is perhaps overly optimistic even for a quad but the original $2199 Mac Pro price wouldn't be all that bad. It's still higher than an iMac and they should be able to build the machine with a decent gross profit while still allowing for people to spend money on external storage or peripherals.
The reality is this, the people that found the old Mac Pro to be a bad value did not look at the iMac but rather went other ways. That would be either Linux or Windows hardware. The idea that a cheaper Mac Pro will impact iMac slaes is just laughable.
Quote:
I don't expect that entry config to come with much though:

E5-1620v2 quad 3.6GHz
8GB RAM (4x 2GB)
256GB SSD
dual W5000 2GB
Up the SSD to 512GB and you would have an excellent workstation for hanging off a network. It is an area where Apple has failed to compete with anything lately And before any body says anything, NO an iMac is not acceptable for this sort of usage.
Quote:
The current $2k iMac has 3.2GHz quad i5, 8GB, 1TB HDD, 1GB GTX 675MX and this will of course change with Haswell but despite it being clearly lower spec than the MP, I think some people would still take the iMac for the display if the spec meets their needs.
I'm not convinced that many take the iMc for its display. it seems to me most avoid it because of its display.
Quote:
It wouldn't really matter one way or the other to Apple as long as the margins were high enough on both and it may convince some to buy an Apple Thunderbolt display on top of the Mac Pro.
It doesn't matter to Apple because over all the profit would be higher on a Mac Pro. More importantly they need to recover from the negative vibe they have in some professional markets now.
Quote:
The box design could be interesting as this is the first cylindrical machine they've had. I expect they'll ship it with a wireless keyboard and mouse and the wireless keyboard is taller than the Mac Pro. It could be a box that is curved on one side (heavily padded) and flat on the other with the wireless keyboard sitting vertically beside the documentation and the power plug under the mouse.

It will be unbundled..
post #769 of 1290
Wiz, I don't think you can say that those who would buy a MacPro would ever consider an iMac.
About 2-3 years ago many small shops of fcp were using iMacs successfully. Even some of the larger players started incorporating iMacs.
http://www.biscardicreative.com/blog/2012/08/anatomy-of-an-imac-suite/

A year or so before that - all MacPro. Many switched over to iMacs because of the price if they didn't need the expansion capabilities.
Of course there are still heaps of other users, like me, who are still running MP 1,1 and 2,1 replacing the gpus and upgrading hard drives to handle editing requirements of hd video.
Have I ever considered a 27" iMac ? Hell, yes. Had other stuff to buy tho
If the new MacPro does not hit the right price points for me - it'll either be an iMac or beefed MacMini (depending on what they do with it, of course).
jus my 0.02c
post #770 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

Wiz, I don't think you can say that those who would buy a MacPro would ever consider an iMac.
About 2-3 years ago many small shops of fcp were using iMacs successfully. Even some of the larger players started incorporating iMacs.
http://www.biscardicreative.com/blog/2012/08/anatomy-of-an-imac-suite/

A year or so before that - all MacPro. Many switched over to iMacs because of the price if they didn't need the expansion capabilities.
Of course there are still heaps of other users, like me, who are still running MP 1,1 and 2,1 replacing the gpus and upgrading hard drives to handle editing requirements of hd video.
Have I ever considered a 27" iMac ? Hell, yes. Had other stuff to buy tho
If the new MacPro does not hit the right price points for me - it'll either be an iMac or beefed MacMini (depending on what they do with it, of course).
jus my 0.02c


You should make sure you view his words in context. He mentions the continued use of big iron, even though they aren't Macs. He acknowledges that one man shops may need a single more powerful station, although in terms of raw power, it's not quite possible to match the current imac on a mac pro 1,1. Even with 8 core setups the old fsb can be a slight bottleneck. They didn't go any higher prior to replacing it with quickpath interconnect. There are clarifications. I've personally articulated what I like and dislike about the machine, although I'm not primarily involved in video editing. With the new mac pro, the price won't be softened by extra space, so the choice is likely to come solely down to performance there. The extra thunderbolt ports on the mac pro are probably just to allow people to hook up more displays without tapping out all available ports on the system. Anyway if you read through his blog posts, he phased them in for lighter duties initially and doesn't really use them for finishing suites or the most demanding use cases. For a lot of people, probably the majority, they will work, but it's important to retain context on this stuff. I do wish we had more good DAS options for thunderbolt storage. Cheap DAS is not a headache anyone wants to endure, which would be why I'm such a proponent of internal bays.

post #771 of 1290
ohh absolutely - the limitations are there, no doubt. One of the reasons why Ive hung to my old rigs.
Go back a year or two - Thunderbolt not quite there, much of the new tech not there or some doubt as the new direction tech might take, although you can argue that some of those concerns have been resolved now.

Simple fact Is tho for a one two man shop you can rig the iMacs to fly.
If you're a straight shooter (little or no editingl - then it's a toss up going forward.

The peripherals and third party hardware that we had to have, AJA BMD cards, are now being replaced with other solutions, which can applied to any of the Mac range. This is fantastic because in the past it was a dualie G4,G5, MacPro tower solution or nothing. Unless you were DV via fw only.

Wiz is correct as is nht as is Marvin, LBB, yourself, et al - the new MacPro will have to represent good value going forward for it to succeed. There will be the maxed out version that is for the 4k crowd, it's the configs beneath that that Im interested in.

That said, imo, no matter if it succeeds or fails sales wise Apple still needs to continue to develop this machine.
Edited by RobM - 7/22/13 at 11:20pm
post #772 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

(...)That said, imo, no matter if it succeeds or fails sales wise Apple still needs to continue to develop this machine.

I agree. I think Apple 'needs' this machine for internal use as well. Doesn't really matter if they sell it to clients or not. The current MP is being used t their headquarter, scattered throughout the building. Many pics can be found of employees using the MP. They also have a couple in their Executive Briefing Center:

"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #773 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

ohh absolutely - the limitations are there, no doubt. One of the reasons why Ive hung to my old rigs.
I'd be the first to admit that as lower end machines become more powerful it is possible to move what was once considered advanced apps to the platform. However the thing with many "pro" apps (no matter the industry) is that they evolve in such a way as to demand the higher performance hardware.
Quote:
Go back a year or two - Thunderbolt not quite there, much of the new tech not there or some doubt as the new direction tech might take, although you can argue that some of those concerns have been resolved now.

Simple fact Is tho for a one two man shop you can rig the iMacs to fly.
If you're a straight shooter (little or no editingl - then it's a toss up going forward.
Maybe they work well in some applications but I dismiss the iMacs out of hand due to what I consider to be a terrible design for a desktop machine. Think about it, it is easier to replace secondary storage on Apples laptops than it is on the iMac. That is pathetic as secondary store is a wear item with all technologies we have today. That is just one item that causes me concerns about the iMac.
Quote:
The peripherals and third party hardware that we had to have, AJA BMD cards, are now being replaced with other solutions, which can applied to any of the Mac range. This is fantastic because in the past it was a dualie G4,G5, MacPro tower solution or nothing. Unless you were DV via fw only.
For many people the move to TB based I/O will be a huge win. It means that hardware used in a studio will be equally functional out in the field connected to a MBP. I know many, including me, have bitched about no slots but going forward it should mean that professional apps are now useful on a far wider array of Mac hardware.
Quote:
Wiz is correct as is nht as is Marvin, LBB, yourself, et al - the new MacPro will have to represent good value going forward for it to succeed. There will be the maxed out version that is for the 4k crowd, it's the configs beneath that that Im interested in.
The same here. I know their is a limited market for the high end machines. The bread and butter though are the machines below that. People that think the Mac Pro can sustain itself only with a maxed out model are nuts in my opinion. Apple really needs a volume shifting machine and that is only possible if the value equation is right.
Quote:
That said, imo, no matter if it succeeds or fails sales wise Apple still needs to continue to develop this machine.

If it fails sales wise you can kiss the machine good by. I really think Apple will dump it like an XServe if they can't improve sales over the old model. Frankly the machines design is a big gamble, it is more of what I expected from an XMac than a Pro, if you remove the workstation processors. That is good and bad. The good part is that they might meet a rational price point with low end XEONs in the base model. Apples marketing of the AIR gives me hope that they will be aggressive pricing wise. The really bad part from my perspective is the lack of slots, this means that some functionality will never be supported on the machine. The funny thing here is that I don't see the AV professionals having a problem here as there is enough demand to make sure the hardware they use transitions to TB.
post #774 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post



Simple fact Is tho for a one two man shop you can rig the iMacs to fly.
If you're a straight shooter (little or no editingl - then it's a toss up going forward.
 

I haven't really tested it in depth. For the things Biscardi mentions, I am not surprised performance was as he described, although cpu performance was never my biggest hangup with it. I've gone into greater detail before. Freelancers in any field usually base purchases on something that can cover 90% of their workload without hiccups. In spite of what I dislike about it, I wonder if the imac would have seen even greater growth with a better range of potential thunderbolt DAS options. I would still say listing Raid 5 support on that box is a mistake as it uses standard drives, and I have no idea whether it has ECC ram. ECC ram isn't critical in all situations, but that changes when we're talking about Raid 5, as a single bit error during rebuild can cause the array to crash. At that point you have more downtime restoring from backup.

post #775 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Just like if they put a 640M in the current Mac Mini.  A $999 2.6 Ghz Quad i7 Mac Mini with a 512MB GT 640M would crater 21" iMac sales.  

 

I have no doubt that Apple believes that, but I wonder if it's true. A mini buyer seems to me to be a much different animal than an iMac buyer. I don't think either is particularly specification-conscious, so I don't think similarity in configuration would be all that likely to sway most buyers of those machines from one to the other.

 

An iMac buyer wants a complete general-purpose computer, ready to go. I suspect most mini buyers have a specific application in mind (server, media center, cabinet or stand computer), with the display being either superfluous or a disadvantage due to size.

 

I have no data to back that up, it's just a gut feeling, and obviously it wouldn't apply to AI readers who tend to be much more tech-aware than the average buyer.

post #776 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The idea that a cheaper Mac Pro will impact iMac slaes is just laughable.

 

I don't know... for our latest round of capital requests I put together a good/better/best proposal for a simple audio workstation, and for the first time ever I based the cheapest option on an iMac. The performance is good enough, it includes a display and has sufficient I/O to do that job.

 

If Apple were to offer a Mac Pro in a price category that let me add storage and display without costing a lot more than the iMac (i.e. within $500 or so) I'd almost certainly grab that instead.

post #777 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

I have no doubt that Apple believes that, but I wonder if it's true. A mini buyer seems to me to be a much different animal than an iMac buyer. I don't think either is particularly specification-conscious, so I don't think similarity in configuration would be all that likely to sway most buyers of those machines from one to the other.

An iMac buyer wants a complete general-purpose computer, ready to go. I suspect most mini buyers have a specific application in mind (server, media center, cabinet or stand computer), with the display being either superfluous or a disadvantage due to size.

I have no data to back that up, it's just a gut feeling, and obviously it wouldn't apply to AI readers who tend to be much more tech-aware than the average buyer.

I fully concur with your assumption. I bought a Mini and put it under the TV, as the AppleTV can't do everything. I also use the Mini as a download server (TV shows that I can't rent on iTunes etc). I was surprised the little thing can do quite a lot of stuff concurrently, and perhaps will function as a 'good enough PC' if you put a SSD in it. Even though I've always bought Mac Pro's, I actually think about trying a Mini out if my current 5.1 MP dies. Supposedly it has no real trouble running Aperture with a 100GB DB.

I wouldn't choose an iMac as I don't like the reflection from the glossy screens. I know, it's way less than it used to be, but for me a matte screen rules.
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #778 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

If it fails sales wise you can kiss the machine good by. I really think Apple will dump it like an XServe if they can't improve sales over the old model. Frankly the machines design is a big gamble, it is more of what I expected from an XMac than a Pro, if you remove the workstation processors. That is good and bad. The good part is that they might meet a rational price point with low end XEONs in the base model. Apples marketing of the AIR gives me hope that they will be aggressive pricing wise. The really bad part from my perspective is the lack of slots, this means that some functionality will never be supported on the machine. The funny thing here is that I don't see the AV professionals having a problem here as there is enough demand to make sure the hardware they use transitions to TB.

I agree that the machines design is a gamble - who knows how it will pan out ?
Difficult for Apple to try and accomodate the different requirements of all users.
I was in favour of a half rack style of machine design, something that could be incorporated in with existing hardware - well the new MacPro certainly isn't anything like that lol, wtf do I know.
It's a standalone design and engineering statement.

I can see this new design as being functional for most once users get their head around it and what it means.

One thing Apple has made crystal clear going forward - it's make the change to TB and TB devices or move to another platform.
Edited by RobM - 7/23/13 at 4:05pm
post #779 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

I don't know... for our latest round of capital requests I put together a good/better/best proposal for a simple audio workstation, and for the first time ever I based the cheapest option on an iMac. The performance is good enough, it includes a display and has sufficient I/O to do that job.
Doesn't this sort of prove some of my points though, you aren't considering that iMac to be anything more than an entry level machine.
Quote:
If Apple were to offer a Mac Pro in a price category that let me add storage and display without costing a lot more than the iMac (i.e. within $500 or so) I'd almost certainly grab that instead.

This is my point, most professionals wold be far better off with the new Mac Pro than an iMac Further cost is a factor here. The interesting thing with the new iMac is its support for cheap monitors right out of the box. The HDMI port means that very cheap monitors are possible though maybe not ideal. These won't be 4K monitors obviously but certainly a low end choice.

The thing is the Mac Pro can grow in ways the iMac really can't, that due to more I/O and dramatically better processing capabilities. I could easily see people out growing an iMac or worst having the machine become a problem with a simple software update where an app becomes too much for the machine. In the end an entry level solution at best.

Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with entry level, I just don't see most professionals seeing such a machine as a long term investment. At least not this year. Every year the equations change which you pretty much highlight here - is it fair to say this is the first year you have even considered an iMac? This is an important consideration because in 2014 we should see 14 nm chips from Intel which has the potential to redefine the iMac yet again. Ideally Apple would see too more TB ports in the iMac if they really wanted to set it off as a pro machine.

On the flips side 14 nm could make the Mac Pro far more interesting than it will be at release this fall. The advantage will stay with the pro for a very long time. While it is true that the iMac can pick up more and more work traditionally done on a Mac Pro, the Mac Pro just continues to pick up more capability support more advance app functions.
post #780 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I fully concur with your assumption. I bought a Mini and put it under the TV, as the AppleTV can't do everything. I also use the Mini as a download server (TV shows that I can't rent on iTunes etc). I was surprised the little thing can do quite a lot of stuff concurrently, and perhaps will function as a 'good enough PC' if you put a SSD in it.
The Mini for a long time was a terrible machine value wise, it has gotten a lot better in the last couple of revisions in that respect. Much of that is due to dramatically lower power requirements in new processors. Today it is a very passable light duty workstation as TB gives it exceptional capabilities considering its size.
Quote:
Even though I've always bought Mac Pro's, I actually think about trying a Mini out if my current 5.1 MP dies. Supposedly it has no real trouble running Aperture with a 100GB DB.
If you are considering a Mini I might suggest that you didn't need a Mac Pro in the first place. A Mini shouldn't be a problem as I've had Aperture running on old laptops just fine. Of course that doesn't mean that the current Minis do much for you in the way of OpenCL support.

For that matter we don't know how the next version of Aperture will be able to leverage the Mini. For me this is the biggest issue with going extreme low end. You either loose features completely in an app or the app reverts to very low performance implementations of a feature. So you have to ask your self what will the next version of Aperture do with respect to the Mini. Also any plug ins that might leverage GPU computing become a problem.

The way I look at it is that we have entry level hardware which is fine, nut you have to be careful when you take advice like "supposedly it has no real trouble running Aperture". It could very well be perfect or it could crap out on you with long run times if a pet feature isn't supported well. You need to investigate these things carefully and not take anyone opinion as gospel.

As a side note the same thing applies to the Mini that applies to the other Macs, each hardware update changes the equation. That is Haswell could make for far better Aperture performance even if Apple never gets around to supporting OpenCL on the GPU. The new multi media instructions, once put to use, should have a very good impact on multimedia apps. In effect what is a passable machine is influx on a yearly basis.
Quote:
I wouldn't choose an iMac as I don't like the reflection from the glossy screens. I know, it's way less than it used to be, but for me a matte screen rules.
Interesting because I reject iMacs based largely on service ability which is pretty bad. I've had far to many hard drives fail over the years so access to secondary store is important.
post #781 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

I agree that the machines design is a gamble - who knows how it will pan out ?
I have good feelings as far as success goes. It might be an uphill battle but the machine does have some very good qualities. Almost everyone agrees price will be a factor and as a result it needs to actually be cheaper than the old models. If Apple tries to price it in the same slots as the old machine I see it getting rejected out of hand due to the expense of adding external storage.
Quote:
Difficult for Apple to try and accomodate the different requirements of all users.
Actually it is impossible. For one you have a large number of users that think they know what they need but in reality they don't know anything. Instead they look to the past and what worked for them.

While I'm not 100% with the new architecture the one thing I do know is that it puts a lot of power in a small box that should lead to lots of happy users. I'm really hoping that Apples design goal was to lower the cost of the base Mac Pro significantly. If not Apple will have failed to accommodate enough users to matter.
Quote:
I was in favour of a half rack style of machine design, something that could be incorporated in with existing hardware - well the new MacPro certainly isn't anything like that lol, wtf do I know.
If you look back at my posts I was of a similar mind. Such a machine could have been made to serve the needs of many users.

As for the new design it has grown on me a bit. It is a compact design that eliminates many parts to allow for high performance. It unfortunately leaves out many features that I'd consider important
Quote:
It's a standalone design and engineering statement.
Certainly interesting and a machine that uniquely solves some of the issues with high performance machines. Possibly number one here being how do you cool hot running GPU cards. Most machines of this class would have around seven fans if not more to try to keep everything within running temperatures.

Given all of that though I see this machine almost as a proof of concept like the first iPad. Sure it will work but the next generation running on 14nm technology will likely be even more impressive.
Quote:
I can see this new design as being functional for most once users get their head around it and what it means.
Yeah it does take a few minutes of thought.
Quote:
One thing Apple has made crystal clear going forward - it's make the change to TB and TB devices or move to another platform.

What if your vendor of choice decides that going forward only TB will be supported? For some products TB could end up being the better technical solution.
post #782 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

What if your vendor of choice decides that going forward only TB will be supported? For some products TB could end up being the better technical solution.

Yep - Ive arrived at that point. I'd better start allocating some money for TB externals, no matter which machine I end up buying.
A year ago or so I was skeptical of TB and what timeframe Intel would move forward with it. Well they've surprised me with TB 2 - the main third parties are more or less with it. AJA and BMD and the others are to be commended at their rate of adoption. Those companies are really responsive to new tech and how it might be applied.
The only stumbling block to wide adoption I can see is the pc guys and their seeming unwillingness to change. Remember how long it took them to offer fw ? Many of the comments on their boards don't seem to give it a chance, "The next FireWire, ho ho ho " etc They seem to think usb3 is it for the moment. Their arguments are largely based around the price and cost of cables. oh well, that pretty well sums up the pc world all over doesn't it ?
cheers, r
Edited by RobM - 7/23/13 at 7:06pm
post #783 of 1290

The benefits of TB are amazing over USB3, even considering cost IMO.

 

Speed.  Speed.  Speed.   Even more speed with TB2.  Daisy chaining.  Display.

 

I found in my tests that USB3 drives don't work well with USB3 hubs (the latter are tough to find).  Transfer rates dropped in half using the hub, even with only one device attached to it.  That eliminated USB3 drives as a cheaper alternative to TB external drives.

 

I still use USB3 drives for Time Machine and off-site storage as well as transferring huge files in-house... through direct connect only.  But I will stick with TB for regular use and any large set-up.


Edited by Bergermeister - 7/24/13 at 2:24am

 

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 #784 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post


Yep - Ive arrived at that point. I'd better start allocating some money for TB externals, no matter which machine I end up buying.
A year ago or so I was skeptical of TB and what timeframe Intel would move forward with it. Well they've surprised me with TB 2 - the main third parties are more or less with it. AJA and BMD and the others are to be commended at their rate of adoption. Those companies are really responsive to new tech and how it might be applied.
The only stumbling block to wide adoption I can see is the pc guys and their seeming unwillingness to change. Remember how long it took them to offer fw ? Many of the comments on their boards don't seem to give it a chance, "The next FireWire, ho ho ho " etc They seem to think usb3 is it for the moment. Their arguments are largely based around the price and cost of cables. oh well, that pretty well sums up the pc world all over doesn't it ?
cheers, r


USB3 is a lot cheaper to implement. Consider that you get it with the chipset in most cases (not workstations or servers). Thunderbolt is really aimed at machines with embedded and especially integrated graphics. There isn't a standard reference configuration from intel to implement it on everything, and if they really wanted ubiquity, it would have become part of the chipset.

post #785 of 1290
hmm, I don't go along with the idea that its aimed at integrated graphics and embedded chipsets only.
The tech has far wider potential as Im sure you know. And as can be seen already.

Intel has to make its intentions clear and fairly soon, I agree. At the moment they're are straddling the fence for sure. Apple, as far as I can see, are backing it 100%
post #786 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Maybe they work well in some applications but I dismiss the iMacs out of hand...

 

And this is pretty much the discussion in a nutshell.

post #787 of 1290
]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

And this is pretty much the discussion in a nutshell.

One reason for that position is that over the years the vast majority of computer failure I've had to deal with have been secondary store related probably followed closely by power supply failures. I just think it is asinine to design the iMac in the way it is today. It wouldn't bE that difficult to allow easy access to the hard drive and if they go to SSD blades only, it would be even easier. In my book it is a fatal flaw design wise.
post #788 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

hmm, I don't go along with the idea that its aimed at integrated graphics and embedded chipsets only.
The tech has far wider potential as Im sure you know. And as can be seen already.

Intel has to make its intentions clear and fairly soon, I agree. At the moment they're are straddling the fence for sure. Apple, as far as I can see, are backing it 100%

If you look at the way it's designed, it essentially bets on some form of embedded graphics. The mac pro design is somewhat of a rube goldberg one there. It has 3 thunderbolt chips hooked up to two cards. I still don't understand why everyone bought into the thunderbolt 2 kool-aid. It seems as if they merely added a half duplex mode to deal with higher bandwidth requirements inherent to 4K streams.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

]
One reason for that position is that over the years the vast majority of computer failure I've had to deal with have been secondary store related probably followed closely by power supply failures. I just think it is asinine to design the iMac in the way it is today. It wouldn't bE that difficult to allow easy access to the hard drive and if they go to SSD blades only, it would be even easier. In my book it is a fatal flaw design wise.


The ssd blades they have used thus far aren't really standard implementations like mSATA or SATA express types. They're whatever Apple concocted. Even if you could easily access them, you might not be able to do much. Personally I think Apple's design team really hates visible seams.

post #789 of 1290
damn you, hmm.
Now Im going to have to research further !
Thanks, I think 1biggrin.gif
As I have said before - for many of us it's as much about third party devices as it is about the computer.
External equipment can monster the cost of the computer easily.
Might let this shake down for a little while longer.
cheers
post #790 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

If you look at the way it's designed, it essentially bets on some form of embedded graphics. The mac pro design is somewhat of a rube goldberg one there. It has 3 thunderbolt chips hooked up to two cards.
It isn't anymore Rube Goldberg than the iMac. There is nothing about TB that bets on embedded graphics.
Quote:
I still don't understand why everyone bought into the thunderbolt 2 kool-aid. It seems as if they merely added a half duplex mode to deal with higher bandwidth requirements inherent to 4K streams.
Because the bandwidth isn't suitable for many uses in the TB 1 design? Video is one example but TB 1 is slow for many uses including storage arrays. TB2 gives users and designers sim breathing room. I do wonder if TB 2 forces a port for video usage to be video only though when hooked up to a display 4 K or greater.

I really don't get the KoolAid statement, without TB 2 the new Mac Pro would be far less of a machine.
Quote:

The ssd blades they have used thus far aren't really standard implementations like mSATA or SATA express types. They're whatever Apple concocted. Even if you could easily access them, you might not be able to do much. Personally I think Apple's design team really hates visible seams.

I realize there are mental issues at Apple with seams, I think it is time for them to see the doctor and get over this defect! Personally I wouldn't want nor recommend an iMac to anybody until they address this problem.

As to the blade implementations you bring up a good question. The physical interface is obviously Apples own as I don't see it documented with any standards body. At least not yet. The virtual interface is an even bigger mystery, I'm wondering if NVMe is being used. Apple does not appear to be a member of the standards group driving NVMe which frankly saddens me. I can understand Apple going its own way with the physical profile, but it would be nice to know that they are supporting a standard industry command set. This simply to allow for lots of third party competition.

In any event it looks lke SATA is dead at Apple. This is a very good thing in my estimation, hopefully the iMac and Mini complete the transition this year.
post #791 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

damn you, hmm.
Now Im going to have to research further !
Unfortunately information is sparse at the moment. If you find some good documentation on TB 2 post a link.
Quote:
Thanks, I think 1biggrin.gif
As I have said before - for many of us it's as much about third party devices as it is about the computer.
External equipment can monster the cost of the computer easily.
This is the case in many industries, buy a milling machine for $x and add another $1.5x for tooling. The problem here is the mystery of what the real capabilities of the new Mac Pro are. Yeah Apple has some specs up but we don't know how high bandwidth things like 4K displays impact the TB multi drop capability. Or for that matter the companion port on each chip.
Quote:
Might let this shake down for a little while longer.
cheers

It is always good to allow for some shake down time. Even the AIRs had a few glitches that needed ironing out.
post #792 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


It isn't anymore Rube Goldberg than the iMac. There is nothing about TB that bets on embedded graphics.
Because the bandwidth isn't suitable for many uses in the TB 1 design? Video is one example but TB 1 is slow for many uses including storage arrays. TB2 gives users and designers sim breathing room. I do wonder if TB 2 forces a port for video usage to be video only though when hooked up to a display 4 K or greater.

The i7 3770 has integrated graphics included. The chip itself was designed as part of the logic board. I'm not sure whether 4K completely saturates it. I haven't done the math at 60hz, although I would assume it may. As I mentioned the increase in bandwidth is accomplished by a half duplex mode and channel bonding. I could be wrong on this. My bet was on falcon ridge. Your favorite news site1devil.gif suggests redwood ridge could be out sooner than I expected, and that is the one that bumps the per channel bandwidth. Falcon ridge to me is more of a stop gap to add in 4K support. It could also be a cost thing. Falcon ridge is the first that I really consider truly impressive. I could definitely see it appearing on higher end PC notebooks as well, and it does bet on notebooks and integrated graphics. Intel came up with these to align with areas where they see continued growth.

Quote:

 

 

I really don't get the KoolAid statement, without TB 2 the new Mac Pro would be far less of a machine.
I realize there are mental issues at Apple with seams, I think it is time for them to see the doctor and get over this defect! Personally I wouldn't want nor recommend an iMac to anybody until they address this problem.

It's not really harvesting more bandwidth so much as it is boning upstream and downstream channels. 4K might completely saturate a chip. Further the "thunderbolt 2" designation is really more of a rebranding than anything. It's more of a 1.2 kind of revision. A year ago what people considered thunderbolt 2 was a chip that won't be out for another 1-2 years at this point. It brings bandwidth up to PCIe 3.0 levels.

 

 

Quote:
As to the blade implementations you bring up a good question. The physical interface is obviously Apples own as I don't see it documented with any standards body. At least not yet. The virtual interface is an even bigger mystery, I'm wondering if NVMe is being used. Apple does not appear to be a member of the standards group driving NVMe which frankly saddens me. I can understand Apple going its own way with the physical profile, but it would be nice to know that they are supporting a standard industry command set. This simply to allow for lots of third party competition.

Standard is generally good.

 

 

Quote:

In any event it looks lke SATA is dead at Apple. This is a very good thing in my estimation, hopefully the iMac and Mini complete the transition this year.

 

The rmbp still uses SATA, just with its different connector. They may adopt something like sata express (sata over pcie). Personally I hate proprietary solutions. They tend to be very expensive if something fails.

post #793 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

The i7 3770 has integrated graphics included. The chip itself was designed as part of the logic board. I'm not sure whether 4K completely saturates it. I haven't done the math at 60hz, although I would assume it may. As I mentioned the increase in bandwidth is accomplished by a half duplex mode and channel bonding. I could be wrong on this. My bet was on falcon ridge. Your favorite news site1devil.gif suggests redwood ridge could be out sooner than I expected, and that is the one that bumps the per channel bandwidth.
I'm not sure they increased the bandwidth per channel, it looks more like they bonded channels to get one pipe in each direction. If I read the graphic right we still get full duplex that is a good thing.
Quote:
Falcon ridge to me is more of a stop gap to add in 4K support. It could also be a cost thing. Falcon ridge is the first that I really consider truly impressive. I could definitely see it appearing on higher end PC notebooks as well, and it does bet on notebooks and integrated graphics. Intel came up with these to align with areas where they see continued growth.
As I've said before I think Apple has already gotten 90% of what they want out of TB, it is an ideal docking solution for them. That it can be exploited on the new Mac Pro is just icing on the cake so to speak. Contrary to popular opinion I don't think Apple ever intends to replace USB with TB
Quote:
It's not really harvesting more bandwidth so much as it is boning upstream and downstream channels. 4K might completely saturate a chip. Further the "thunderbolt 2" designation is really more of a rebranding than anything. It's more of a 1.2 kind of revision. A year ago what people considered thunderbolt 2 was a chip that won't be out for another 1-2 years at this point. It brings bandwidth up to PCIe 3.0 levels.
I haven't had a real chance to do some reading on TB 2 but it see it as more than a rebranding. The 1.2 designation may be correct though as it looks like that was the intention all along.
Quote:

Standard is generally good.
This is one problem I do have with Apple, public documentation sucks.
Quote:

The rmbp still uses SATA, just with its different connector. They may adopt something like sata express (sata over pcie). Personally I hate proprietary solutions. They tend to be very expensive if something fails.

True but after the PCI Express solution in the AIR I can't see Apple staying with SATA.
post #794 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


I'm not sure they increased the bandwidth per channel, it looks more like they bonded channels to get one pipe in each direction. If I read the graphic right we still get full duplex that is a good thing.

 

Maybe it is a bonding of data + display data channels. All I seem to be able to confirm 100% is some kind of channel bonding with PCIe 3.0 thunderbolt bandwidth coming later. It will be interesting to see if this develops into a healthy product line.

Quote:

 

As I've said before I think Apple has already gotten 90% of what they want out of TB, it is an ideal docking solution for them. That it can be exploited on the new Mac Pro is just icing on the cake so to speak. Contrary to popular opinion I don't think Apple ever intends to replace USB with TB

I've said that before too. Their best selling Macs are portables, and thunderbolt enables a synergic peripheral device to accompany that. 

 

Quote:
I haven't had a real chance to do some reading on TB 2 but it see it as more than a rebranding. The 1.2 designation may be correct though as it looks like that was the intention all along.

I meant calling it a "2.0" version to suggest a milestone may have been more of a branding effort than an accurate description, depending of course on what it actually signifies.

 

Quote:

True but after the PCI Express solution in the AIR I can't see Apple staying with SATA.

You call it PCI express, but it could be exactly what I described. Is the 2013 one using different protocols or something?

post #795 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I do wonder if TB 2 forces a port for video usage to be video only though when hooked up to a display 4 K or greater.

The bandwidth to run a 4K display at 60Hz is 3840 x 2160 x 60Hz x 24-bits-per-pixel = 11.9Gbps (10-bit panels would be 14.9Gbps) so more than the 10Gbps of Cactus Ridge and Redwood Ridge. Redwood Ridge supports Displayport 1.2 passthrough though so it supports 4K displays but Apple is skipping Redwood Ridge (the recent Macbook Air still only says up to 2560x1600) and going right to Falcon Ridge (Thunderbolt 2).

I'd have expected 6 TB2 ports to be able to support 6x 4K displays but each port certainly couldn't support more than one 4K display. It should however be able to support peripherals on top of the display (otherwise it would make the Thunderbolt display's docking capability useless). You wouldn't do that on the Mac Pro of course, you'd plug Thunderbolt peripherals into the free ports. Apple's limit of 3 displays could be down to the GPU performance. There's a test here of 3x 4K displays and the performance suffers on a single 7970:

http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/extremewindows/archive/2013/07/25/pushing-the-12k-pc-gaming-boundary-at-1-5-billion-pixels-per-second.aspx

To get 60Hz, they had to split the display in half and run each stream at a higher refresh rate. This still worked over a single connection and might have worked with a single GPU but they used 2x 7970s anyway and tested a single 4K display. They ran into trouble going up to 3x 4K displays because it required 6 video streams so they eventually had to get a custom driver from AMD and they got 8fps while gaming with 2 GPUs. They had to add a 3rd 7970 GPU and adjust settings in order to get the performance up above 60fps.

Dell is coming out with a 32" 3840x2160 IGZO display and Asus has the same on preorder for $3500 (spec says it supports 10-bit):

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/asus-4k-resolution-monitor-available-for-pre-order/



Dell hasn't released their pricing yet but their displays right now only go up to $1250. Apple managed to undercut Dell when they first launched their 27" Cinema Display. Apple can't catch a break though even when they're cheaper:

http://reviews.cnet.com/apple-led-cinema-display-review

"$1,000 is a tough pill to swallow for a display with such a focused intended use, especially with the availability of other monitors like the Dell UltraSharp U2711, which has slightly better performance and is only $100 more."

Apple used to sell displays above $2,000 so perhaps they'll have a 32" 4K in addition to their current 27". It's really up to whoever they buy the panels from that determines the price.
post #796 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The bandwidth to run a 4K display at 60Hz is 3840 x 2160 x 60Hz x 24-bits-per-pixel = 11.9Gbps (10-bit panels would be 14.9Gbps) so more than the 10Gbps of Cactus Ridge and Redwood Ridge. Redwood Ridge supports Displayport 1.2 passthrough though so it supports 4K displays but Apple is skipping Redwood Ridge (the recent Macbook Air still only says up to 2560x1600) and going right to Falcon Ridge (Thunderbolt 2).
I would think that if Apple wants to deliver a panel to the professional AV market they would go beyond 4k. The goal being to support a 4 K movie with room for a mix of editing controls on screen. The problem is then getting enough bits to the screen. The interesting thing here is that AMDs documentation indicated that the ports on their chips can support data rates beyond what DisplayPort 1.2 requires. How much customization this requires is unknown. In any event saturation of the bus going to the display still seems like a possibility.
Quote:
I'd have expected 6 TB2 ports to be able to support 6x 4K displays but each port certainly couldn't support more than one 4K display. It should however be able to support peripherals on top of the display (otherwise it would make the Thunderbolt display's docking capability useless). You wouldn't do that on the Mac Pro of course, you'd plug Thunderbolt peripherals into the free ports. Apple's limit of 3 displays could be down to the GPU performance. There's a test here of 3x 4K displays and the performance suffers on a single 7970:
It might be related to how many input ports there are on the TB controller chip for video data. If there is only one stream into the TB chip then the cross bar can only send that data to one output port. Hard to say for sure because it is difficult to find any info at all on the TB chips released or not.
Quote:
http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/extremewindows/archive/2013/07/25/pushing-the-12k-pc-gaming-boundary-at-1-5-billion-pixels-per-second.aspx

To get 60Hz, they had to split the display in half and run each stream at a higher refresh rate. This still worked over a single connection and might have worked with a single GPU but they used 2x 7970s anyway and tested a single 4K display. They ran into trouble going up to 3x 4K displays because it required 6 video streams so they eventually had to get a custom driver from AMD and they got 8fps while gaming with 2 GPUs. They had to add a 3rd 7970 GPU and adjust settings in order to get the performance up above 60fps.
The funny thing here was a thread I visited maybe over a year ago where somebody claimed that the evolution of GPUs was done, that they didn't need to become more powerful. My how quickly that has been proven wrong.
Quote:
Dell is coming out with a 32" 3840x2160 IGZO display and Asus has the same on preorder for $3500 (spec says it supports 10-bit):

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/asus-4k-resolution-monitor-available-for-pre-order/

Something caught my eye at the beginning of that video, I had to concentrate to remain focused on the screen on display.
Quote:

Dell hasn't released their pricing yet but their displays right now only go up to $1250. Apple managed to undercut Dell when they first launched their 27" Cinema Display. Apple can't catch a break though even when they're cheaper:
Apple is commonly raked over by the PC crowd. I'm actually surprised at the acceptance of the AIR by PC users. I guess when superiority is so obvious you realize you would look rather silly trying to dis it.
Quote:
http://reviews.cnet.com/apple-led-cinema-display-review

"$1,000 is a tough pill to swallow for a display with such a focused intended use, especially with the availability of other monitors like the Dell UltraSharp U2711, which has slightly better performance and is only $100 more."

Apple used to sell displays above $2,000 so perhaps they'll have a 32" 4K in addition to their current 27". It's really up to whoever they buy the panels from that determines the price.

I can't imagine a 32" IGZO screen being cheap. If Apple was smart they would throw in a few goodies to make the price a little easier to take. The current dock functionality is a good start but they really should ad in a TV tuner. Like it or not sometimes the local news is the right source for what's happening. As long as it does pip it would be a great feature to have.
post #797 of 1290

The Dell U2711 has been replaced by the U2713H and HM, at $100 or so cheaper than the Apple 27" TB monitor. Regarding the Apple monitor, the reviews on Apple's site are pretty mixed. The Dells also comes with a 3 year warranty.

 

Regarding the new Mac Pro, I'm not familiar with PCI Express memory and how much it costs. I did a Google search and the results were all over the place. Any guess on how much memory the entry level MP might come with? From the picture on Apple's site does anybody have an idea if it's user replaceable?

post #798 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73 View Post

The Dell U2711 has been replaced by the U2713H and HM, at $100 or so cheaper than the Apple 27" TB monitor. Regarding the Apple monitor, the reviews on Apple's site are pretty mixed. The Dells also comes with a 3 year warranty.

Regarding the new Mac Pro, I'm not familiar with PCI Express memory and how much it costs. I did a Google search and the results were all over the place. Any guess on how much memory the entry level MP might come with? From the picture on Apple's site does anybody have an idea if it's user replaceable?

RAM yes, PCIE SSD, I don't think so, even if you could nobody makes them, yet.
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 #799 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


I would think that if Apple wants to deliver a panel to the professional AV market they would go beyond 4k. The goal being to support a 4 K movie with room for a mix of editing controls on screen.

They could devote 1 4K monitor to playback. Some of the stuff in the video insinuates it for a cad workflow, which I expected. Who wouldn't want to view at both high tessellation and resolution in cad software as long as the underlying hardware can handle it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73 View Post

The Dell U2711 has been replaced by the U2713H and HM, at $100 or so cheaper than the Apple 27" TB monitor. Regarding the Apple monitor, the reviews on Apple's site are pretty mixed. The Dells also comes with a 3 year warranty.

 

Regarding the new Mac Pro, I'm not familiar with PCI Express memory and how much it costs. I did a Google search and the results were all over the place. Any guess on how much memory the entry level MP might come with? From the picture on Apple's site does anybody have an idea if it's user replaceable?

 

My guess would be 8GB. When you say PCI express memory, it sounds like you mean ram. Ram doesn't exist that way. It requires specific placement to minimize read time on a cache miss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


The bandwidth to run a 4K display at 60Hz is 3840 x 2160 x 60Hz x 24-bits-per-pixel = 11.9Gbps (10-bit panels would be 14.9Gbps) so more than the 10Gbps of Cactus Ridge and Redwood Ridge. Redwood Ridge supports Displayport 1.2 passthrough though so it supports 4K displays but Apple is skipping Redwood Ridge (the recent Macbook Air still only says up to 2560x1600) and going right to Falcon Ridge (Thunderbolt 2).

It could be a driver update thing.

 

Quote:

http://reviews.cnet.com/apple-led-cinema-display-review

"$1,000 is a tough pill to swallow for a display with such a focused intended use, especially with the availability of other monitors like the Dell UltraSharp U2711, which has slightly better performance and is only $100 more."

Apple used to sell displays above $2,000 so perhaps they'll have a 32" 4K in addition to their current 27". It's really up to whoever they buy the panels from that determines the price.

 

What they really said was

 

 

Quote:

The bottom line: As a desktop display and USB extender, the 27-inch Apple LED Cinema Display works wonderfully; however, for $1,000, there are better monitors that offer more options, including PC and Mac compatibility.

 

I kind of view Apple's displays as notebook peripherals. The cord and features seem to be structured with that in mind. Most displays over $1000 in general tend to be aimed at a somewhat narrow market, but a few really good ones do exist.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



The funny thing here was a thread I visited maybe over a year ago where somebody claimed that the evolution of GPUs was done, that they didn't need to become more powerful. My how quickly that has been proven wrong.

 

I'm glad I never came across that thread. It probably would have resulted in another ad hominem infraction.

 

Quote:
Apple is commonly raked over by the PC crowd. I'm actually surprised at the acceptance of the AIR by PC users. I guess when superiority is so obvious you realize you would look rather silly trying to dis it.

It's one of their better defined products. Even if it's not for them, they aren't likely to claim it's identical to the majority of the PC market.

post #800 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73 View Post

The Dell U2711 has been replaced by the U2713H and HM, at $100 or so cheaper than the Apple 27" TB monitor. Regarding the Apple monitor, the reviews on Apple's site are pretty mixed. The Dells also comes with a 3 year warranty.
It all depends upon how critical your needs are.
Quote:
Regarding the new Mac Pro, I'm not familiar with PCI Express memory and how much it costs.
I'm not sure if by PCI Express memory you mean main memory or secondary store. However on the Mac Pro, both main memory and the secondary store (the SSD or flash) are both socketed.
Quote:
I did a Google search and the results were all over the place. Any guess on how much memory the entry level MP might come with?
My guess would be 512 GB, this based on how cheap the SSD upgrades on the AIR are.
Quote:
From the picture on Apple's site does anybody have an idea if it's user replaceable?

Yes both main memory and secondary memory are upgradable. As to the SSD nobody really knows (publicly at least) what the interface is for Apples PCI Express based SSDs. By interface I mean the virtual or command set and corresponding protocols. There is more than one way to do secondary store over PCI Express. In any event how fast third party solutions arrive is an open question, it is possible but then again there has to be demand. So I don't expect viable upgrades to happen real fast.
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