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 22

post #841 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

It's either deliberately a pain in the ass or Jony and his team is incompetent.

 

Or Jony and his team thought the buyer of that particular model is more concerned about a pretty, uninterrupted panel surface with no unsightly panel than in RAM upgrades.

 

Or adding a door would drive up the cost or complicate the manufacturing process for the smaller chassis.

 

Or some other explanation we haven't considered.

 

Overall the iMac strikes me as an exercise in bad choices -- so space constrained that a fast hard drive will burn up, and sealed up, preventing access to the most commonly failed part -- but we'll probably never know WHY Jony went weird.

post #842 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

It's either deliberately a pain in the ass or Jony and his team is incompetent.  We know that the latter is untrue.  What does that tell you?

I would say they just considered it a very low priority. Look at all of the Macs. You'll find that Apple hates visible seams. It doesn't have to be deliberate to be a very low design priority.

post #843 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

You've been saying that my point about how the product line is deliberately designed for the upsell is full of shit and yet you have no credible alternative reason.
Repeating the same theme over and over doesn't create truth either. You say it is all about upsell and I see that as bull crap. The fact is the three machines in Apple desktop line up serve different markets, needs or desires. The person that would be happy with a Mini will not be shopping for a Mac Pro. People that don't like unserviceable all in ones won't be looking at the iMac at all. You want to believe that the iMac is attractive enough to pull the users of these other machines in, that might happen for some but most users are rather attached to their platform of preference.

Maybe instead of believing me you should consider some of the threads here where Mini users wait patiently for computer updates even after new iMacs are reveals. Or vice versa, iMac owners have been willing to wait months for a new machine with the updated Mini already on the market. For the most part you don't see owners jumping from one platform to the other.

I just think you grossly overestimate the upsell potential of the iMac over the Mini.
Quote:
It's a pain in the ass so you buy the 27" instead unless you are of the opinion that the exact same folks that design the laptops can't figure out how to add a small door on the BACK of an even larger computer that hardly anyone ever sees.
This is really the crux of the problem, we really don't know what Apples issue is here. Do they really want to look people out of the machine or is a simple mechanical design issue. If it was a lock out issue then why have their laptops retained easy serviceability, even the Mini is relativly easy to service.
Quote:
It's either deliberately a pain in the ass or Jony and his team is incompetent.  We know that the latter is untrue.  What does that tell you?

Well obviously it is a deliberate design decision, however that doesn't imply that your explanation as to why is correct. The alternative explanations have been covered already, but I'm sure there are reasons that have been missed in the forums.

A little perspective here, I would expect that soon we will see Mac Desktops with the RAM soldered onto the motherboard. There won't even be a daughter card. The reason is pretty simple, the high speed ram specs of the future demand it. It could be suggested that Apple is prepping us for the day when such hardware is common. However for secondary storage you still have two problems to deal with.

One problem is that people outgrow secondary storage capacity often well before the machine is too old to upgrade. The second problem is that SSDs are still wear items and magnetic drives have known failure modes. Since this is likely to remain an issue well into the future why make something that is guaranteed to fail so inaccessible on the new iMacs? It is enough to put people off the iMac completely.
post #844 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Or Jony and his team thought the buyer of that particular model is more concerned about a pretty, uninterrupted panel surface with no unsightly panel than in RAM upgrades.

Or adding a door would drive up the cost or complicate the manufacturing process for the smaller chassis.

Or some other explanation we haven't considered.
There are many reasons, only Apple really knows.
Quote:

Overall the iMac strikes me as an exercise in bad choices -- so space constrained that a fast hard drive will burn up, and sealed up, preventing access to the most commonly failed part -- but we'll probably never know WHY Jony went weird.
It is a terrible choice for people that expect to keep the machine for any length of time. This so bugs me that I never recommend an iMac to people looking for computer purchasing support. In the iMacs the thermal problems are such that the disk is a special order item, so not only is it hard to get to you can't source parts through mainstream suppliers. It is like three strikes and you are out.
post #845 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

I have heard all sorts of inane suggestions regarding an external raid...like stick in a drawer or somewhere out of sight.

 

Given that the mouse and keyboard are bluetooth and you're running TB to the monitor anyway sticking an iMac out of sight is just as credible as those suggestions.

 

But many folks have space for 2 monitors.  The iMac display can be used for email and palettes if nothing else.

 

I really should log in more often so I can reply. If that's the solution, why debate about space on or around the desk at all? Just move everything except monitor, keyboard, and mouse somewhere else. Problem solved. And have you considered that not everyone has desktop space for multiple monitors?
"Geeks of All Nations, Compile!" http://amusingfool.blogspot.com/
Reply
"Geeks of All Nations, Compile!" http://amusingfool.blogspot.com/
Reply
post #846 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMusingFool View Post

I really should log in more often so I can reply. If that's the solution, why debate about space on or around the desk at all? Just move everything except monitor, keyboard, and mouse somewhere else. Problem solved. And have you considered that not everyone has desktop space for multiple monitors?

Poppycock; most desks allow for two 27" monitors. Unless you shop at Ikea.
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 #847 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


Poppycock; most desks allow for two 27" monitors. Unless you shop at Ikea.

Phil,  I have to agree with the other comment.  I had a desk, that was DEFINITELY not from Ikea and while I might be able to squeeze too 27inch monitors there wouldn't be any room for anything else.  it was a fairly expensive desk.   Two 20inchers, sure, but it would have no room for anything else and I would like to have a nice desk tamp as well.  If you stick two 27 inch monitors it will definitely limit what choices you have or don't have for a table lamp  I like those lamps that can swing in many positions and they need clearance and a fairly big radius.

post #848 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Poppycock; most desks allow for two 27" monitors. Unless you shop at Ikea.

Most desks have a lot more than a monitor sitting on them. Space usage is very workflow related.
post #849 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


Poppycock; most desks allow for two 27" monitors. Unless you shop at Ikea.

 

 

 

 

Not until my current job have I been provided a desk that could handle a single 27" display with ease.  

 

Google "japan office" and look at some of the images.  More often than not, tons of tiny desks are bunched together.  Even a 15" notebook can seem huge on some.


Edited by Bergermeister - 8/6/13 at 1:03pm

 

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 #850 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Poppycock; most desks allow for two 27" monitors. Unless you shop at Ikea.

 

Not mine. No room for a big desk, and even if there was, there's so much other stuff on it that there's no way I could make two monitors fit. Well, unless it was a REALLY big desk. But to warrant a desk that big I suspect I'd be doing a job that wouldn't require two monitors. I'd have people to do my monitor viewing for me.

post #851 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMusingFool View Post

I really should log in more often so I can reply.If that's the solution, why debate about space on or around the desk at all? Just move everything except monitor, keyboard, and mouse somewhere else. Problem solved.And have you considered that not everyone has desktop space for multiple monitors?

 

Yes, which is why I said "many folks" as opposed to "everyone".  The f**king point is that the iMac is a more than capable machine and there's not one thing listed so far that the new Mac Pro can do that the same generation iMac cannot.  The only thing I can even vaguely think of is run 6 monitors at once.  

 


It can do it faster than the iMac but unlike the old Mac Pro there's nothing you can point to (LIKE SLOTS) that the Mac Pro has and the iMac doesn't.
 

That's ignoring the fact that the monitor on the 27" iMac is actually a fairly decent one and most folks, even most pros, can use it perfectly fine and adding that 2nd monitor is only for those pros that actually need better.

post #852 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Most desks have a lot more than a monitor sitting on them. Space usage is very workflow related.

 

Most users don't need a high end NEC or Eizo instead of the perfectly good IPS panel in the iMac either.

post #853 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Poppycock; most desks allow for two 27" monitors. Unless you shop at Ikea.
Phil,  I have to agree with the other comment.  I had a desk, that was DEFINITELY not from Ikea and while I might be able to squeeze too 27inch monitors there wouldn't be any room for anything else.  it was a fairly expensive desk.   Two 20inchers, sure, but it would have no room for anything else and I would like to have a nice desk tamp as well.  If you stick two 27 inch monitors it will definitely limit what choices you have or don't have for a table lamp  I like those lamps that can swing in many positions and they need clearance and a fairly big radius.

Really? I would've expected desks in the US would be even larger than what I see here in Europe. But ok, including a lamp will of course require an even wider desk.

The TB Display is 25.7 inches (65 cm) in width. My desk at home is 150cm with a single 30" on it; 69cm in width, so a 2nd one will fit. But ok, EOL'D, and indeed hardly any room for a lamp.

The iMac next to a TB Display looks stupid:
http://wpmu.org/thunderbolt-display-imac-height/

----
...of to look at some Japanese offices right now....
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 #854 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Most users don't need a high end NEC or Eizo instead of the perfectly good IPS panel in the iMac either.

I think you mis my point completely, not everybody is an AV artist, some people have 3D printers on their desks, or a desk full of instrumentation, or pictures of the wife, maybe a PCB router, a disk array or any number of other things. Some of us run into real problems with the size of the iMac.
post #855 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Most users don't need a high end NEC or Eizo instead of the perfectly good IPS panel in the iMac either.


The reason I mention NEC at times is that you can find their best 27" for roughly the same price as a thunderbolt display through some of the online retailers, at least in the US.

post #856 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I think you mis my point completely, not everybody is an AV artist, some people have 3D printers on their desks, or a desk full of instrumentation, or pictures of the wife, maybe a PCB router, a disk array or any number of other things. Some of us run into real problems with the size of the iMac.

They have problems with even the 21" iMac? If you're that space constrained you can't fit a Mac Pro either.

Your size argument is bullshit since most (meaning 99.99%) will need some kind of monitor and it doesn't get much smaller than 21" these days.

You just dislike AIOs which is fine. What is not fine is BS about how the iMac sucks and can't do the same job as a Mac Pro or your mythical xMac.
post #857 of 1290
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 #858 of 1290

This confirms the older scores. The multi-threaded render benchmark was 38% faster than the E5-2687W. The latter scores 25.3 in Cinebench with dual CPUs so single is about 12.65 x 1.38 = 17.5 vs 16 in the current 12-core (9% faster). The 64-bit Geekbench score was noted as over 30,000 and the 64-bit of the 2012 12-core MP is ~25800 (16% faster).

The CPUs in the old one cost $1440x2 = $2880 x 1.3 markup = $3744
The single CPU likely won't cost over $2000 x1.3 = $2600

This price difference means that there will be an opportunity for Apple to sell a machine faster than the top 2012 12-core over $1000 cheaper.

The performance benchmarks will disappoint spec whores just like the RAM limit and the bandwidth on the TB ports but it ensures higher growth rates. A dual 12-core would cost over $7k and a lot of people don't spend that much regularly. By improving performance-per-dollar, it makes it more accessible to a higher volume of buyers while leaving some in need of upgrades.

Some people might find a dual E5-2697v2 workstation tower for over $7k more appealing than a single CPU Mac Pro for $5k and migrate away but I think a higher volume of people will prefer the lower prices on the 12-core CPUs than people who want the highest possible dual-CPUs.

Intel's improvements have been a bit disappointing. Although they doubled the core count in 3 years, they dropped the clock speed and they delayed the CPU architecture so now the MP is on Ivy Bridge rather than Haswell. If that wasn't the case, the new MP would have a much more significant upgrade.

Still, when you think about the roadmap ahead, consider that Intel might be able to double core count again in 2-3 years so that means a 24-core/48-thread MP. Obviously a dual-CPU provides that now but how many people does a 48 CPU core machine really appeal to? The Mac Pro is a workstation and is designed for real-time work. The dual GPUs will crunch through OpenCL processes much better than the Xeon does and workflows involving Da Vinci and Adobe CS will benefit hugely from that. For people who absolutely need the CPUs for bulk computing, they can buy more than one machine. CPU compute tasks typically don't require real-time feedback.

I like the direction they've taken with it because although they are taking away some control from the user, they are making great decisions like forcing every user to have a PCIe SSD. Not every Mac Pro owner is going to be technically minded enough to know how big a difference that will make. Even people who put in their own SSDs have been stuck on 3Gbps. Dual GPUs are regarded as redundant additions to some people but they'll manage to drive 4K/Retina displays better than typical workstations where a second GPU might not even be a consideration.
post #859 of 1290
Marvin, what you wrote is interesting, I guess, but IMO what the majority of users are most interested in will be the configuration of the base model and its price. Based on past history Apple should offer more than just a high end model. So I guess in order to find out we just wait and wait and wait... .
post #860 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73 View Post

Marvin, what you wrote is interesting, I guess, but IMO what the majority of users are most interested in will be the configuration of the base model and its price. Based on past history Apple should offer more than just a high end model. So I guess in order to find out we just wait and wait and wait... .

I have to concur though I'm not sure Apple realizes this yet! The market for uber workstations just isn't that huge these days. Actually it never has been huge.

My hope is that Apple took the approach they did, with the new Mac Pro, to in part control cost to actually be able to market the machine at a far more reasonable price. If they haven't recognized the Mac Pros previous failure in the market place was partly due to an abusive price structure they will have learned nothing. In simplest terms the old Mac Pro wasn't a good value in terms of the base machine for several years now so hopefully the New Mac Pro corrects this.
post #861 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73 View Post

Marvin, what you wrote is interesting, I guess, but IMO what the majority of users are most interested in will be the configuration of the base model and its price. Based on past history Apple should offer more than just a high end model. So I guess in order to find out we just wait and wait and wait...

The current low-end uses a $294 processor. There is an Ivy Bridge quad at this price:

http://www.techpowerup.com/cpudb/1672/xeon-e5-1620-v2.html

There are entry FirePro GPUs too. SSDs can scale from 256GB. They can hit anywhere in the region $1999-2499.

I don't know where people are getting the idea they'll only have a high-end model. They have no reason to jump from a quad-core iMac to a 12-core MP and leave nothing in between and they've never done this.

It's only 3 weeks until the next event. If that's just for iOS, then it'll be another month but TB2 should be introduced in 3 weeks as well as all the CPUs.
post #862 of 1290

The current Mac Pro 2.93 gets a 15.21 on cinebench...  The new mac pro, that we've been waiting years for...scores 17.63.  Apple should remove their 2x processing power from their product page for the new mac pro.  

post #863 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post

The current Mac Pro 2.93 gets a 15.21 on cinebench...  The new mac pro, that we've been waiting years for...scores 17.63.  Apple should remove their 2x processing power from their product page for the new mac pro.  

How did they get a product to test when there is no final released product?  Remember, the only MacPros that exist are in Apple's research labs.  They still have to get Intel to ship the processors and chip sets so they can begin production.


Even 10.9 which is required hasn't been sent to Golden Master yet, so any tests that you see with regards to these new systems is 100% complete BULLSQUAT.

post #864 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post

The current Mac Pro 2.93 gets a 15.21 on cinebench...  The new mac pro, that we've been waiting years for...scores 17.63.  Apple should remove their 2x processing power from their product page for the new mac pro.  

Oh, Cinebench only tests Open GL, but doesn't seem to test Open CL.  so, i would wait until the actual product is released and then look at all of the different tests and then see how well it runs a specific application that you want to run vs another OS system running a similarly priced box that supposed to be as close as possible.

post #865 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post

The current Mac Pro 2.93 gets a 15.21 on cinebench...  The new mac pro, that we've been waiting years for...scores 17.63.  Apple should remove their 2x processing power from their product page for the new mac pro.  

You might also check AFTER 10.9 gets released because I'm sure Cinebench will probably have to go through an update process to make it run for 10.9. The current version of Cinebench is for 10.8, 10.7, but makes no mention of 10.9, which hasn't been Golden Master, yet.  Patience grasshopper.

post #866 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post

The current Mac Pro 2.93 gets a 15.21 on cinebench...  The new mac pro, that we've been waiting years for...scores 17.63.  Apple should remove their 2x processing power from their product page for the new mac pro.

They did the same thing with the 2012 Mac Pro where they compared a 12-core to a previous 8-core. Price has to factor into it because if they sell a new architecture 12-core at the same price as a previous architecture 8-core then they'd be right to say you get up to double the performance at the same price point.

What they say on the site is up to double the floating point performance. If you look at a Geekbench score of the 2.4GHz 2012 12-core (this one happens to be running Windows so the scores will differ a little - the OS X score is listed as 17431 but the score sheet isn't showing up):

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2046462

you can see the floating point score is 20892. The leaked 12-core Mac Pro score is here:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2064275

That shows a floating point score of 40753.

I don't expect they'll be selling the top 12-core CPU at $3799 so I think they'd struggle to justify 2x faster but they would have last year too with the 12-core to 8-core comparison they used as I don't think they matched the price points either. These numbers are used for marketing. If buyers don't like the performance-per-dollar of the new Mac Pro then they don't have to buy it but it will use the same CPUs as anybody else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank 
How did they get a product to test when there is no final released product? Remember, the only MacPros that exist are in Apple's research labs. They still have to get Intel to ship the processors and chip sets so they can begin production.

Even 10.9 which is required hasn't been sent to Golden Master yet, so any tests that you see with regards to these new systems is 100% complete BULLSQUAT.

They had working models on stage at WWDC used for a software demo. They were running a beta version of Mavericks. They don't just get the CPUs when Intel releases them as they have to build machines to ship when the processors launch. The CPU launch is when Intel goes into mass production.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank 
Oh, Cinebench only tests Open GL, but doesn't seem to test Open CL.

Cinebench tests CPU rendering as well as OpenGL.
post #867 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


The iMac next to a TB Display looks stupid:
http://wpmu.org/thunderbolt-display-imac-height/

 

Within a week of setting up my iMac and TBD, that height difference began to really annoy me, so I ordered a SlimKey Stand for the display that puts the TBD approximately .100" or so above the top of the iMac's display - something only I would notice. An added benefit was that I also picked up 4 USB ports and some extra storage space for the Magic Trackpad and the remote (which I seldom use).

 

I'm now searching for some sort of connection bar or spacer to prevent the displays from accidentally bumping each other - and yeah, it would be more aesthetically pleasing. I haven't found anything yet, so I may have to go the DIY route.

 

Sorry for going off topic, but this did catch my eye.

If two people always agree, then one of them is redundant.
Reply
If two people always agree, then one of them is redundant.
Reply
post #868 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


They did the same thing with the 2012 Mac Pro where they compared a 12-core to a previous 8-core. Price has to factor into it because if they sell a new architecture 12-core at the same price as a previous architecture 8-core then they'd be right to say you get up to double the performance at the same price point.

What they say on the site is up to double the floating point performance. If you look at a Geekbench score of the 2.4GHz 2012 12-core (this one happens to be running Windows so the scores will differ a little - the OS X score is listed as 17431 but the score sheet isn't showing up):

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2046462

you can see the floating point score is 20892. The leaked 12-core Mac Pro score is here:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2064275

That shows a floating point score of 40753.

I don't expect they'll be selling the top 12-core CPU at $3799 so I think they'd struggle to justify 2x faster but they would have last year too with the 12-core to 8-core comparison they used as I don't think they matched the price points either. These numbers are used for marketing. If buyers don't like the performance-per-dollar of the new Mac Pro then they don't have to buy it but it will use the same CPUs as anybody else.
They had working models on stage at WWDC used for a software demo. They were running a beta version of Mavericks. They don't just get the CPUs when Intel releases them as they have to build machines to ship when the processors launch. The CPU launch is when Intel goes into mass production.
Cinebench tests CPU rendering as well as OpenGL.

 

Running Geekbench tests on Beta software thinking that that is reliable?  Really?
 

I know cinebench goes CPU, I thought that would be a given, but it doesn't test for Open CL. 


My suggestion, don't be shackled to these figures.

 

FIrst, wait until the FINAL version of Mavericks comes out, the REAL MacPros are released, and then make sure Cinebench and Geekbench have OFFICIALLY said that the version you are running has been updated for Mavericks and THEN test.   Many times, these tests need to be be updated when a major OS release comes out.  But you should know that by now.

 

I would also see what happens with certain apps after they've been updated as well.  Some will be improving their speeds so, I would wait until updates on apps before running speed tests.

 

This is only of my pet peeves, discussing and pre-release information on speed tests when NOTHING is officially released and the testing software isn't updated.

 

It can be VERY misleading if they aren't actually accurate.


As far as pricing.

 

I don't know which processor(s) they will offer for the entry level, etc.  I did read that it's supposed to go UP to 6GB of GPU memory.  Is that per card?  So are there choices to get the product with less memory per GPU?   I know they are supposed to SHIP standard with two GPU, but the text for that section on Apple's site suggests that the amount of GPU memory maybe another option.

 

I don't know what the pricing is for the CPUs/GPUs they are using, since they aren't specific. 

post #869 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Running Geekbench tests on Beta software thinking that that is reliable?  Really?
Beta hardware most likely too! Often Intel will go through a series of engineering samples as various issues are corrected or the build process tweaked. Beyond the fact that GeekBench isn't all that great of a way to tet a system, you need a stable system free of debug code and other slow ups that don't ship with released code.
Quote:
 
I know cinebench goes CPU, I thought that would be a given, but it doesn't test for Open CL. 
In the end the only real benchmarks are those that test the software that is your primary money maker. How well the Mac Pro will perform will vary widely with the type of App being used and its revision level.
Quote:

My suggestion, don't be shackled to these figures.
Exactly! One should concern themselves with apps and work loads they actually run.
Quote:
FIrst, wait until the FINAL version of Mavericks comes out, the REAL MacPros are released, and then make sure Cinebench and Geekbench have OFFICIALLY said that the version you are running has been updated for Mavericks and THEN test.   Many times, these tests need to be be updated when a major OS release comes out.  But you should know that by now.
Beyond that new instructions can often benefit many pro apps. Without a recompile targeting the new hardware you won't see the complete picture.
Quote:
I would also see what happens with certain apps after they've been updated as well.  Some will be improving their speeds so, I would wait until updates on apps before running speed tests.

This is only of my pet peeves, discussing and pre-release information on speed tests when NOTHING is officially released and the testing software isn't updated.

It can be VERY misleading if they aren't actually accurate.
You are completely justified with respect to your peeves.
Quote:

As far as pricing.

I don't know which processor(s) they will offer for the entry level, etc.  I did read that it's supposed to go UP to 6GB of GPU memory.  Is that per card?  So are there choices to get the product with less memory per GPU?   I know they are supposed to SHIP standard with two GPU, but the text for that section on Apple's site suggests that the amount of GPU memory maybe another option.

I don't know what the pricing is for the CPUs/GPUs they are using, since they aren't specific. 
I'm really hoping Apple is taking the same tact that they have with the AIRs and other notebooks. That is to use advanced technology to gain an advantage in the marketplace that allows for fairly agressive pricing. In the end if the new Mac Pro has not addressed base price issues of the old MacPro it will tank in the market place.
post #870 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Beta hardware most likely too! Often Intel will go through a series of engineering samples as various issues are corrected or the build process tweaked. Beyond the fact that GeekBench isn't all that great of a way to tet a system, you need a stable system free of debug code and other slow ups that don't ship with released code.
In the end the only real benchmarks are those that test the software that is your primary money maker. How well the Mac Pro will perform will vary widely with the type of App being used and its revision level.
Exactly! One should concern themselves with apps and work loads they actually run.
Beyond that new instructions can often benefit many pro apps. Without a recompile targeting the new hardware you won't see the complete picture.
You are completely justified with respect to your peeves.
I'm really hoping Apple is taking the same tact that they have with the AIRs and other notebooks. That is to use advanced technology to gain an advantage in the marketplace that allows for fairly agressive pricing. In the end if the new Mac Pro has not addressed base price issues of the old MacPro it will tank in the market place.

Here's what we DON"T know.  All of the final specs and pricing.  I can wait another month or two. I think they will release the final numbers/specs in Oct. (Just a hunch).

post #871 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Often Intel will go through a series of engineering samples as various issues are corrected or the build process tweaked.

It was an engineering sample they tested here:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ivy-bridge-ep-xeon-e5-2697-v2-benchmarks,review-32756.html

but it's not going to be half the speed of the production version. The sample has to be close to the production model in clock speed, features and power consumption otherwise there's little point in having the sample.

There may be performance improvements with final software and production hardware but the important detail as far as it applies to the objection to Apple marketing up to 2x the CPU performance is that the new top-end 12-core will not be double the performance of the old top-end 12-core nor close to it. That would require Intel's performance-per-watt to increase 4x in 2 architecture steps, which doesn't happen. There should have been 3 steps since the old Mac Pro but there weren't. It's fair for people to object to their marketing but marketing material is usually not that accurate and they typically detail the comparison they use in their marketing pages. They did the same thing last year:

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_pro/faq/mac-pro-mid-2012-performance-benchmarks.html

"in other promotional copy, Apple did reveal that the fastest custom configuration "Mid-2012" Mac Pro -- the Mac Pro "Twelve Core" 3.06 (2012/Westmere) -- is between 1.2 and 1.5 times faster than the fastest custom configuration "Early 2009" Mac Pro -- the Mac Pro "Eight Core" 2.93 (2009/Nehalem).

First, it is worth noting that this official comparison is a synthetic performance test using the "STREAM" 5.8 benchmark, and is a comparison with the much earlier "Early 2009" line rather than the previous, and effectively identical, "Mid-2010" Mac Pro line."

Some people will be disappointed they can't buy two 12-core processors but a Mac Pro like that would cost over $7500 so it affects very few people and Apple has never used the highest end processors in the past. What Apple would have used if they'd gone with two CPUs is a dual 8-core and it would have offered up to 50% more CPU performance for about $1300 more.

That extra performance option isn't essential because real-time feedback isn't required from CPU tasks. People who need more CPU performance can buy more machines e.g get a 6-core slave Mac Pro in addition to the 12-core. Less convenient in some cases but media software is using OpenCL more so the GPUs will provide good value there.
post #872 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Here's what we DON"T know.  All of the final specs and pricing.  I can wait another month or two. I think they will release the final numbers/specs in Oct. (Just a hunch).

The final specs will be interesting. Apple provides plenty of wiggle room with the use of the "up to" phrase constantly. I'm just hoping that the design affords them a wider more competitive pricing range.
post #873 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


It was an engineering sample they tested here:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ivy-bridge-ep-xeon-e5-2697-v2-benchmarks,review-32756.html

but it's not going to be half the speed of the production version. The sample has to be close to the production model in clock speed, features and power consumption otherwise there's little point in having the sample.

There may be performance improvements with final software and production hardware but the important detail as far as it applies to the objection to Apple marketing up to 2x the CPU performance is that the new top-end 12-core will not be double the performance of the old top-end 12-core nor close to it. That would require Intel's performance-per-watt to increase 4x in 2 architecture steps, which doesn't happen. There should have been 3 steps since the old Mac Pro but there weren't. It's fair for people to object to their marketing but marketing material is usually not that accurate and they typically detail the comparison they use in their marketing pages. They did the same thing last year:

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_pro/faq/mac-pro-mid-2012-performance-benchmarks.html

"in other promotional copy, Apple did reveal that the fastest custom configuration "Mid-2012" Mac Pro -- the Mac Pro "Twelve Core" 3.06 (2012/Westmere) -- is between 1.2 and 1.5 times faster than the fastest custom configuration "Early 2009" Mac Pro -- the Mac Pro "Eight Core" 2.93 (2009/Nehalem).

First, it is worth noting that this official comparison is a synthetic performance test using the "STREAM" 5.8 benchmark, and is a comparison with the much earlier "Early 2009" line rather than the previous, and effectively identical, "Mid-2010" Mac Pro line."

Some people will be disappointed they can't buy two 12-core processors but a Mac Pro like that would cost over $7500 so it affects very few people and Apple has never used the highest end processors in the past. What Apple would have used if they'd gone with two CPUs is a dual 8-core and it would have offered up to 50% more CPU performance for about $1300 more.

That extra performance option isn't essential because real-time feedback isn't required from CPU tasks. People who need more CPU performance can buy more machines e.g get a 6-core slave Mac Pro in addition to the 12-core. Less convenient in some cases but media software is using OpenCL more so the GPUs will provide good value there.

I went to Intel's site and it doesn't list a 12 core E5 series processor.  here's the link that I went to.  If anyone knows where they have information on a 12 Core E5 series processor, let me know.

 

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processor-comparison/compare-intel-processors.html?select=server

post #874 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It was an engineering sample they tested here:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ivy-bridge-ep-xeon-e5-2697-v2-benchmarks,review-32756.html

but it's not going to be half the speed of the production version. The sample has to be close to the production model in clock speed, features and power consumption otherwise there's little point in having the sample.
This is true but it has been known that from time to time engineering samples will have serious faults.
Quote:
There may be performance improvements with final software and production hardware but the important detail as far as it applies to the objection to Apple marketing up to 2x the CPU performance is that the new top-end 12-core will not be double the performance of the old top-end 12-core nor close to it.
Up to is awesome wiggle room. I don't expect every thing to be 2X faster, however anything leveraging new instructions has the possibility of being much faster. The problem is do bench marks this old really reflect what an unreleased processor can do?
Quote:
That would require Intel's performance-per-watt to increase 4x in 2 architecture steps, which doesn't happen. There should have been 3 steps since the old Mac Pro but there weren't. It's fair for people to object to their marketing but marketing material is usually not that accurate and they typically detail the comparison they use in their marketing pages. They did the same thing last year:
It is only fair to object if the marketing is completely false. The reality is this isn't even the marketing of a released product.
Quote:
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_pro/faq/mac-pro-mid-2012-performance-benchmarks.html

"in other promotional copy, Apple did reveal that the fastest custom configuration "Mid-2012" Mac Pro -- the Mac Pro "Twelve Core" 3.06 (2012/Westmere) -- is between 1.2 and 1.5 times faster than the fastest custom configuration "Early 2009" Mac Pro -- the Mac Pro "Eight Core" 2.93 (2009/Nehalem).

First, it is worth noting that this official comparison is a synthetic performance test using the "STREAM" 5.8 benchmark, and is a comparison with the much earlier "Early 2009" line rather than the previous, and effectively identical, "Mid-2010" Mac Pro line."
I've been on the "when is a real MacPro update coming band wagon" for a few years now as I've seen nothing to indicate a real enhancement of the machine. I know that in part that is Intels fault. However in many ways this new Mac Pro does look like a solid update many have been waiting for. It isn't just faster processors but faster memory systems and greatly enhanced GPUs. I really see many tasks running much faster on this machine.
Quote:
Some people will be disappointed they can't buy two 12-core processors but a Mac Pro like that would cost over $7500 so it affects very few people and Apple has never used the highest end processors in the past. What Apple would have used if they'd gone with two CPUs is a dual 8-core and it would have offered up to 50% more CPU performance for about $1300 more.
Most of these issues will be solved by a process shrink to 14nm or whatever feature size they hit. That could be as soon as 2014, though it might take another year for XEON to transition.

Beyond all of that the impact of cores starts to get real interesting past the 12 core level. Many apps that might be seen as embarrassing parallel end up not getting the performance increment expected due to bandwidth limitations outside the cores. I don't see a rush to many more cores in a workstation environment until this is dealt with. Fortunately the industry is trying to address this with faster RAM subsystems and other architectural improvements.

Of course XEON isn't a workstation only processor, so more cores can still be useful for server duties and the like. I just don't see the same advantage for workstations due to the highly varied workloads seen in the workstation market.
Quote:
That extra performance option isn't essential because real-time feedback isn't required from CPU tasks. People who need more CPU performance can buy more machines e.g get a 6-core slave Mac Pro in addition to the 12-core. Less convenient in some cases but media software is using OpenCL more so the GPUs will provide good value there.

It is only convenient if the software you are using can leverage the hardware. Sometimes though ore machines actually makes lots of sense especially if bandwidth issues mentioned above raise their ugly heads.

I saw a chart somewhere, can't remember where that show the ultimate performance possible from these ne intel chips based on the number of cores implemented. Due to clock rate issues with the 12 cores, the ultimate computational potential verses the other chips wasn't all that great. Many people will be just as well off sometimes far better off going with a six core or other lesser implementation simply due to the ability to run at a far higher lock rate. If your software of choice is only lightly multi threaded it may be a mistake to even look at a twelve core model this year. Of course that is this year, one process shrink and a twelve core machine could become more mainstream.

One thing for sure, I see us at the same point the industry was in when dual core machines started to arrive for mass sale. Dual, even Quad core is mainstream now, we will quickly see six and eight core machines become the mainstream. I'm not sure if the iMac will get six cores this year but it is certainly a possibility but by 2014 I can see it as a requirement. Whatever issues the new Mac Pro will have with the 12 core won't last long at all. They really have no choice because six cores will soon be mainstream for desktop machines.
post #875 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I went to Intel's site and it doesn't list a 12 core E5 series processor.  here's the link that I went to.  If anyone knows where they have information on a 12 Core E5 series processor, let me know.

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processor-comparison/compare-intel-processors.html?select=server

That is shipping hardware. Try: http://www.cpu-world.com/Releases/Server_CPU_releases_(2013).html. It is most interesting to see what Intel has coming in September, not just for workstation but processors suitable for all of Apples hardware.

On the CPU-world link above you can jump between mobile, server and desktop processors from a bar on the right. I could see suitable Mini, IMac and Mac Pro processors being available mid September. By the way take CPU-World with a grain of salt, unreleased hardware is always subject to delays or changes.

Frankly I think somebody at Intel needs to take a chill pill, they are marketing way to many variants of these processors. It is an Anti Apple method to be sure, more like let's throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and see what sticks.
post #876 of 1290

I am shackled to those Cinebench results as that's how I make my living...using CINEMA 4D for broadcast and theatrical work...IN THE REAL WORLD...

 

Which is why those numbers are troubling to me, and everyone else that I've talked to in my industry.

 

I'd gladly pay $7k for a dual CPU option, as would a lot of people that I work with. 

post #877 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior View Post

Sorry for going off topic, but this did catch my eye.

No problemo.

Maybe you can find something here: http://twelvesouth.com/products/

They sell a riser to make the two displays align
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 #878 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

it has been known that from time to time engineering samples will have serious faults.

Ok but people are making these kind of suggestions under the assumption that these benchmarks are wrong. They are in line with what people should expect. They have put higher performance than two CPUs from 2010/2011 onto a single CPU. In other words they have more than doubled the individual CPU performance but moved to a single CPU model so the overall performance is only slightly higher than the old top-end 12-core dual CPU model. It's not like the processors individually are just 10-15% faster.

You can see here the single 130W 2.7GHz E5-2697v2 gets 17.63 in Cinebench:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-ep-xeon-e5-2697-v2-benchmarks,3585-6.html

The old Mac Pro with dual 95W 3.06GHz X5675s (190W) was around 16. This would mean the new top-end is 10% faster but that option may cost up to $1300 less.

If Apple was able to run the E5-2697 with all cores at the turbo clock speed of 3.5GHz, they'd manage 22.85 but that extra 30% doesn't make much difference in real world usage. 50-60% would start to be noticeable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I don't expect every thing to be 2X faster, however anything leveraging new instructions has the possibility of being much faster. The problem is do bench marks this old really reflect what an unreleased processor can do?

This is still Ivy Bridge remember. There's no dramatic performance jump from Sandy Bridge architecture-wise, most of the improvement comes from the core count. There might be a bigger jump next year with Haswell though because they won't allocate space to an IGP on server hardware so rather than drop the TDP down from 130W to say 95W, they can boost performance 30-40%. Haswell-EP is rumoured to have up to 15 cores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fix 
those numbers are troubling to me, and everyone else that I've talked to in my industry.

That phrase gets used about pretty much anything Apple does. Some people have spoken to everyone they know in the audio industry and they're all troubled by the lack of a 17" laptop. Apple will make the choices they want regardless. They chose to skip over Sandy Bridge in 2012 while competitors had options up to the E5-2687W that scored 24 in Cinebench and the MP was at 16.

It's not as if people are going to migrate away from OS X for lack of a potential 50% speed bump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fix 
I'd gladly pay $7k for a dual CPU option, as would a lot of people that I work with.

You could supplement the Mac Pro with another Mac Mini or Mac Pro on the network. The next Mini will probably score 7.4 in Cinebench so on top of the 18 of the 12-core Pro, that's the same as a dual CPU Apple would have offered. If the 12-core with the base GPUs is $5k and the Mini is $800, that would even be cheaper than a dual CPU setup.
post #879 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post

I am shackled to those Cinebench results as that's how I make my living...using CINEMA 4D for broadcast and theatrical work...IN THE REAL WORLD...
In the real world you shouldn't be concerned with Cinebench. Rather you need to be concerned with your software vendors and the direction they are going to leverage new hardware technologies. In other words will Cinema 4D be leveraging GPU compute on this new Mac Pro.
Quote:
Which is why those numbers are troubling to me, and everyone else that I've talked to in my industry.
The question I would have is can Cinema 4D leverage different computer machines. That is spread the work across multiple machines. Ultimately this would be the better approach
Quote:
I'd gladly pay $7k for a dual CPU option, as would a lot of people that I work with. 
Just buy two machines or look for software that leverages the GPUs.
post #880 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

In the real world you shouldn't be concerned with Cinebench. Rather you need to be concerned with your software vendors and the direction they are going to leverage new hardware technologies. In other words will Cinema 4D be leveraging GPU compute on this new Mac Pro.

Cinebench is made by the same people that make Cinema 4D - it's pretty much a direct test of how Cinema 4D will run - so it's one of the least synthetic benchmarks around. This kind of processing has difficulties migrating to OpenCL because of the function calls. GPUs seem to only be able to handle smaller chunks of code. It's not so much OpenCL itself but OpenCL on the GPUs. Hopefully AMD and NVidia will eventually manage to work around these problems but what would help is if AMD actually got raytracing code to work themselves so that external developers could just use an API. NVidia has done this but they used CUDA - this is why Adobe's raytracer in After Effects isn't accelerated with AMD GPUs.

One thing with the Cinebench scores is that the numbers do lead you to think there's a bigger difference the higher the scores get. For example, a score of 27 compared to 18 looks like it might be a huge difference whereas 7 vs 4 doesn't look that much different. The latter difference however is 75% and the former difference is 50%. This perception will get worse the higher it goes e.g a Mac Pro at 35 compared to an HP at 53 - the HP is still just 50% faster though.

Apple has the sales data for their machines and I suspect that they will have found that people who buy the highest CPU models don't upgrade very often and may even extend the life of the machine doing their own GPUs upgrades as many online accounts of breaking the GPU tabs would indicate. GPUs go out of date quicker than CPUs so tying those down means that it encourages more frequent upgrades.

I'd say the performance of this Xeon is very much down to being an architecture step behind. The Haswell i7-4770k, which may end up in the iMac scores 8.48 in Cinebench. Previously, the top-end Mac Pro has been 3x faster than an iMac but will now just be 2x despite comparing 4-core to 12-core. The 15-core Haswell should sort this and Haswell might run into delays, which would move the architectures back into alignment:

http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Intel+Delays+14+nm+Broadwell+Schedules+Haswell+Refresh+for+2014/article31770.htm

Instead of Broadwell in 2014, they'd hold the consumer chips back on Haswell. Then when the Xeon moves to Haswell, it will look better.
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