or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Teardown of Apple's new Mac Pro reveals socketed, removable Intel CPU
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Teardown of Apple's new Mac Pro reveals socketed, removable Intel CPU - Page 3

post #81 of 281

It's taken almost 6 years for Apple to push out a redesigned Mac Pro that's a whopping twice as fast and supports less memory than last year's model.

I am impressed.:rolleyes:

post #82 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

It's taken almost 6 years for Apple to push out a redesigned Mac Pro that's a whopping twice as fast and supports less memory than last year's model.
I am impressed.1rolleyes.gif

How do you mean 'less memory'? OSX supports upto 96GB. Perhaps a rolleyes smiley equals /s? I actually don't know...
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #83 of 281
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post
It's taken almost 6 years for Apple to push out a redesigned Mac Pro that's a whopping twice as fast and supports less memory than last year's model.

I am impressed.:rolleyes:

 

Good for you. You don’t get it. Run along now.

Originally posted by Marvin

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

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #84 of 281
For a list of which CPUs should be theoretically compatible, please see:

http://ark.intel.com/products/family/78582/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-v2-Family/server

The stock chips are (matching specs):

E5-1620 v2 (4-Core @ 3.7 GHz)
E5-1650 v2 (6-Core @ 3.5 GHz)
_______________________________
E5-2697 v2 (12-Core @ 2.7GHz)

I don't know which one could be the 8-core, since none of the chips on Intel's current line-up match those specs that Apple listed. My best guess is it is a clocked down version of the E5-2667v2, which normally runs at 3.3GHz. My guess is they did that to differentiate the 8-core chip a little more from the 6- and 12-core models.

Though Intel doesn't explicitly say so on ARK, all of the E5 v2 chips are compatible with the C600-series chipset, which is what the Mac Pro is running. So, unless Apple has written code into OS X, or the Mac Pro EFI to purposely block out "non-stock" chips (which anybody who has installed OS X on a non-Apple machine can tell you is not the case currently), then all of the chips listed in that link will work, except perhaps the E5-2687W v2, which has a 150W TDP ceiling. All the other chips are 130W or less, as others have noted.
post #85 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I read 'user-replaceable components appear to end there' and thought that was incorrect

It is sort of the wrong way to word it as people will sell PCIe SSDs separately on eBay like they do for the Macbooks:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Samsung-512GB-SSD-for-Late-2013-MacBook-AIR-and-2013-MacBook-pro-retina-/111245442336

Those might even fit the Mac Pro. But the meaning makes sense in context:

"user-replaceable components appear to end there, as the new Mac pro uses a proprietary interface for its flash-based hard drives. It's possible that third-party accessory makers could develop compatible hardware in the future, but there's still a question as to whether those parts would be compatible with Apple's OS X operating system."

It's not saying the SSDs aren't replaceable, just that it appears that way in the context of 3rd party replacements and the fact Apple doesn't sell them separately. They could have said that explicitly but it's perhaps the better route to avoid suggesting buyers can freely opt for a lower spec at the time of purchase in the hopes of upgrading later when that might not be feasible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro 
It's taken almost 6 years for Apple to push out a redesigned Mac Pro that's a whopping twice as fast

They use the same components as everyone else. If Intel hasn't pushed their CPUs forward fast enough, how is that Apple's fault?

HP sells the exact same E5-1650v2 as Apple's $3999 model for $4030. HP has 32GB RAM vs 12GB, 512GB SATA SSD vs 256GB PCIe SSD, single 3GB Quadro K4000 vs dual 3GB D300. HP hasn't done any better than Apple in 6 years either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro 
supports less memory than last year's model.

People with between 64-96GB of RAM will just have to wait until next year for DDR4 as the 4 slots will take 128GB just like before.
post #86 of 281


Doesn't include Monitor and Mouse. But unlike the cheap-assed Apple Mac Pro, Tandy includes the keyboard.

How does the Mac Pro compare to Tandy's "Lightning-fast 20 MHz" CPU?

The Tandy has a 32-bit wide data path for VIRTUALLY SIMULTANEOUS data transfer... Eat your heart out Apple lovers!

This professional model doesn't come with a hard disk, but it does sport a floppy drive. That bad boy can hold ONE MEG of data!
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #87 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Ain’t it the truth! Also, journalism died with the introduction of blogging.

Journalism died when the news agencies decided that selling commercial slots was the only thing that mattered. CNN some time ago disbanded their entire investigative journalism department. News anchors of the old era have long been telling us that it's now all about selling commercial slots.
post #88 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post


Ah yes, the Tandy PC. That's where I got my start. Tandy 1000 TL, then 2500 TL. 1000 TL had built-in 3-voice DAC and beeper for sound when other PCs were still stuck with simple mono beepers. Had 16-color graphics just before EGA came out. Was a clone of the IBM PCjr, which was a massive failure, so Tandy quickly avoided marketing it as a PCjr clone. Sierra games looked and sounded best on the Tandy (well, Apple IIgs had awesome music capabilities and lots of color for the time too, but not a lot of software).
post #89 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post


Ah yes, the Tandy PC. That's where I got my start. Tandy 1000 TL, then 2500 TL. 1000 TL had built-in 3-voice DAC and beeper for sound when other PCs were still stuck with simple mono beepers. Had 16-color graphics just before EGA came out. Was a clone of the IBM PCjr, which was a massive failure, so Tandy quickly avoided marketing it as a PCjr clone. Sierra games looked and sounded best on the Tandy (well, Apple IIgs had awesome music capabilities and lots of color for the time too, but not a lot of software).

 

Here is where I got my start, It only had 2K!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timex_Sinclair_1000

 

And I had to put it together and it didn't work because I was a horrible solderer!

 

So I had to also buy the preassembled one!  

 

So when I get the new Mac Pro it will be worth every penny!

post #90 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post

Ah yes, the Tandy PC. That's where I got my start. Tandy 1000 TL, then 2500 TL. 1000 TL had built-in 3-voice DAC and beeper for sound when other PCs were still stuck with simple mono beepers. Had 16-color graphics just before EGA came out. Was a clone of the IBM PCjr, which was a massive failure, so Tandy quickly avoided marketing it as a PCjr clone. Sierra games looked and sounded best on the Tandy (well, Apple IIgs had awesome music capabilities and lots of color for the time too, but not a lot of software).

My first computer was an IBM PCjr. It didn't do much... but it kept the 9 year old me busy.

My first "real" computer was a 486SX-33 with Windows 3.0 when I was a freshman in high school.
post #91 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

How do you mean 'less memory'? OSX supports upto 96GB. Perhaps a rolleyes smiley equals /s? I actually don't know...

4 DIMM slots in a $10K computer is ridiculous. Tell me how to fit more than 64 GB in this Dysan today without emptying one's retirement account.

Limiting a dual-processor-capable CPU to just one CPU is ridiculous.

This thing should have an option to ditch a graphics card for a second CPU and 4 more DIMM slots.

post #92 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

4 DIMM slots in a $10K computer is ridiculous.

Why? I don't understand how the cost of all the components should be based on the number of RAM slots. How many Mac Pro buyers have used more than 32GB? So why does it need 8(?) sticks for a maximum of 128GB? This isn't a rack mounted server that needs hundreds of GB of RAM, but since I've mentioned it I've seen specialized machines that have only 1 or 2 RAM slots and cost a lot more than $10k.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #93 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

How do you mean 'less memory'? OSX supports upto 96GB. Perhaps a rolleyes smiley equals /s? I actually don't know...
4 DIMM slots in a $10K computer is ridiculous. Tell me how to fit more than 64 GB in this Dysan today without emptying one's retirement account.
Limiting a dual-processor-capable CPU to just one CPU is ridiculous.

Good grief man! Get a grip. If Apple isn't going to do some serious forward-thinking, then who is? Otherwise we'd be stuck with floppies, user-removable batteries, physical keyboards and DVD's, to name just a few.

Besides, 64GB costs less than $895 if you sent the original sticks back to OWC:

Memory from 1866MHz DDR3 DIMM Mac Pro 2013 systems:

Apple Original 12GB Set (4GB x 3) - $75.00
Apple Original 16GB Set (4GB x 4) - $100.00
Apple Original 32GB Set (8GB x 4) - $225.00
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #94 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

They use the same components as everyone else. If Intel hasn't pushed their CPUs forward fast enough, how is that Apple's fault?

To not introduce a new Mac Pro when SandyBridge-E(P) came out was completely Apples fault!

Intel introduced the CPU line in Q4 2011.

 

And the current modell will not accept DDR4 DIMMs but it may accept registered DDR3 DIMMs.


Edited by smalM - 12/28/13 at 7:55pm
post #95 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrayven View Post
 

 

CPU and RAM upgradable.. SSD and Video upgradable if/when 3rd parties release products for the custom form-factor and release solid drivers / support.

 

I can TOTALLY see an nVidia 3rd party card being created, pushing their CUDA drivers. The GPU upgrades will likely cost a left nut.. but certainly and likely possible.

 

This system seems a lot more upgradable than everyone was making it. No large storage bays,.. so what.. most professionals goto external storage anyway. As long as we're going to see CPU, RAM, and eventually SSD and GPU upgrades... those are the 4 most important areas IMO..

Given how much Tesla cards cost, hooking them up via TB seems like a perfectly reasonable solution.

post #96 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Why? I don't understand how the cost of all the components should be based on the number of RAM slots. How many Mac Pro buyers have used more than 32GB? So why does it need 8(?) sticks for a maximum of 128GB? This isn't a rack mounted server that needs hundreds of GB of RAM, but since I've mentioned it I've seen specialized machines that have only 1 or 2 RAM slots and cost a lot more than $10k.

Because 64GB is at the bottom end of workstation memory configurations these days, and the MP is not a bottom end workstation.

post #97 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by smalM View Post

To not introduce a new Mac Pro when SandyBridge-E(P) came out was completely Apples fault!
Intel introduced the CPU line in Q4 2011.

And the current modell will not accept DDR4 DIMMs but it may accept registered DDR3 DIMMs.

It will accept 16GB registered DDR3 DIMMSs but you can't mix registered and unregistered DIMMs. Check the Crucial website.
post #98 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post

Because 64GB is at the bottom end of workstation memory configurations these days, and the MP is not a bottom end workstation.

I've seen no evidence that 64GB is the bottom end for the typical workstation, but can't Mac OS X only address a maximum of 96GB? How is 64GB the bottom end if only 50% more is the current max.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #99 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I've seen no evidence that 64GB is the bottom end for the typical workstation, but can't Mac OS X only address a maximum of 96GB? How is 64GB the bottom end if only 50% more is the current max.

 

Well, you are right if one goes by the Dell web site, but in my line of work (scientific/mathematical computing) people have been running 256GB machines for a couple of years now. Your point re OS X is well-taken, but what is the chicken and what is the egg (in other words, is the lack of hardware using more than 64GB stopping Apple from upgrading the OS addressing limit, or the other way around?)

post #100 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post

Because 64GB is at the bottom end of workstation memory configurations these days

Eh. I do think it's a bit of a disappointment the MP doesn't have more slots, but that's not near the "bottom end" for work stations.

Not all workstation needs require such amounts. I can do solid model CAD in 2GB if I was so inclined, though it likes 4GB much better. I'm wishing for 32GB in my iMac because I run several different 3D & 2D CAD, drawing and other programs at the same time.

At a glance Dell's Precisions start out at 2, 4 or 8GB, depending on model. One of the models I checked tops out at 64GB. That said, HP Z820 tops out at whopping 512GB RAM. That's the size of the SSD in my main computer. $520 for 16GB registered ECC sticks though.

And woah, HP sells an all-in-one that supports Xeon processors & Quadro graphics: http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaigns/workstations/z1.html It tops out at 32GB though.
post #101 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post

Well, you are right if one goes by the Dell web site, but in my line of work (scientific/mathematical computing) people have been running 256GB machines for a couple of years now. Your point re OS X is well-taken, but what is the chicken and what is the egg (in other words, is the lack of hardware using more than 64GB stopping Apple from upgrading the OS addressing limit, or the other way around?)

Clearly Apple hasn't designed the Mac Pro for a utility that requires 4x as much RAM than is possible so their focus for their workstation must be targeting a different market. I don't see why this is a problem.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #102 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post

in my line of work (scientific/mathematical computing) people have been running 256GB machines for a couple of years now.

Are they using Macs for that kind of scientific work?

I don't know the maximum RAM of the previous Mac Pros.
post #103 of 281
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post
I don't know the maximum RAM of the previous Mac Pros.

 

96GB, 128 in Windows.

Originally posted by Marvin

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

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #104 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

96GB, 128 in Windows.

Thanks!

So someone who is looking for a workstation that has 256GB of RAM wouldn't be looking at a Mac anyway.

That's what I was trying to figure out 1smile.gif
post #105 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

...can't Mac OS X only address a maximum of 96GB?

This used to be true, until 10.9.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

I don't know the maximum RAM of the previous Mac Pros.

Before Mavericks, you could install 8*16=128GB but OSX only saw 96GB. Windows in BootCamp saw all 128GB.

OWC has confirmed what follows: Mavericks properly supports 128GB in 8/12 core 2010 Mac Pro.

**Mac OS X versions prior to 10.9 Mavericks are unable to utilize more then 96GB RAM due to an operating system limitation. 128GB can be fully utilized by a 2009-2010 Mac Pro if running 10.9 Mavericks or later, Bootcamp with 64-bit versions of Windows XP and later as well as with 64-bit versions of Linux.


source:
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1333-memory
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #106 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
I don't know the maximum RAM of the previous Mac Pros.

96GB, 128 in Windows.

Not anymore since 10.9, see post below. Or here: http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1333-memory
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #107 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by smalM View Post

To not introduce a new Mac Pro when SandyBridge-E(P) came out was completely Apples fault!
Intel introduced the CPU line in Q4 2011.

They lowered the prices instead so the performance per dollar wouldn't have been significantly different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smalM View Post

And the current modell will not accept DDR4 DIMMs but it may accept registered DDR3 DIMMs.

Right but next year's model should do so people who would like that option can wait until next year or struggle by with 64GB this year and upgrade as soon as 128GB becomes available:

http://techreport.com/news/25298/samsung-mass-producing-32gb-ddr4-modules-for-servers
post #108 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

OWC probably cracked open champagne when they found this out.

 

iFixit will still give it a 2/10.

I don't think it should have been a surprise. There's no specification for soldering Xeons, and that makes repairs or changes too expensive.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I think some, if not most, would be better served by a user-upgradable SSD, but alas.

I wonder how much of a cheaper upgrade this CPU option will turn out to be.

Wait until servers hit retirement age. It could be several years. The first really cheap one, assuming it works, would be a Sandy Bridge 8 core. That might show up on ebay cheap within a couple years.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I thought of the "2/10 would not bang" meme when I read that. You want to make a graphic? 1biggrin.gif

I can kind of picture how that would go.

 

Computer has electronic anorexia nervosa.

Missing 4th dimm WTF!!11

Designed to look like a designer trash can.

Where is the matte version?!

 

2/10 would not upgrade.

 

Something like that? It's late. I could probably do better.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


They lowered the prices instead so the performance per dollar wouldn't have been significantly different.

Do you mean intel?

post #109 of 281
Now, the HDMI version 1.4 of the Mac Pro overhear standards apply. But 4K TV manufacturers are equipped with HDMI 2.0 standard base. This is somewhat unfortunate Mac Pro specifications. Terminals are replacing the CPU, but I think the structure will be replaced should not. More to come in the future hardware upgrades, right?
post #110 of 281
Originally Posted by earthend99 View Post
This is somewhat unfortunate Mac Pro specifications.

 

Nice FUD. Got any more for us?

 
Terminals are replacing the CPU

 

No, they’re not.

Originally posted by Marvin

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

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #111 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


Are they using Macs for that kind of scientific work?

I don't know the maximum RAM of the previous Mac Pros.

Not as much as they would like to (given that everyone carries Apple laptops/iDevices), and obviously if OS X does not support that much memory, that's pretty much a deal breaker. Cost is not really an issue, so Apple is missing out on a pretty good market.

post #112 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


Not anymore since 10.9, see post below. Or here: http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1333-memory

 

So, you/they are saying that 10.9 actually supports 128GB? Sad (not that it supports it, but that the Mac Pro does not).

post #113 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


Thanks!

So someone who is looking for a workstation that has 256GB of RAM wouldn't be looking at a Mac anyway.

That's what I was trying to figure out 1smile.gif

They would look until they figured out the memory limitation (the natural assumption would be that since OS X is a unix variant, it would have the same memory limitations as Linux, that is, none)

post #114 of 281
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post

So, you/they are saying that 10.9 actually supports 128GB?

 

Yep, that’s what those words say.

 
Sad (not that it supports it, but that the Mac Pro does not).

 

Mac Pro does.

Originally posted by Marvin

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

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #115 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


Are they using Macs for that kind of scientific work?

I don't know the maximum RAM of the previous Mac Pros.

Not as much as they would like to (given that everyone carries Apple laptops/iDevices), and obviously if OS X does not support that much memory, that's pretty much a deal breaker. Cost is not really an issue, so Apple is missing out on a pretty good market.

 

I'm confused - what kind of computing are you doing? From the memory requirements that you are quoting it sounds like large 3D numerical simulation, but that field has not been dominated by workstations for many years. We use clusters of Mac Pros for small problems to avoid the hassle of getting on the big machines, but not for anything serious. What kind of workstation setups are you referring to with 256 GB?

post #116 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

 

I'm confused - what kind of computing are you doing? From the memory requirements that you are quoting it sounds like large 3D numerical simulation, but that field has not been dominated by workstations for many years. We use clusters of Mac Pros for small problems to avoid the hassle of getting on the big machines, but not for anything serious. What kind of workstation setups are you referring to with 256 GB?

 

No, not 3D numerical simulations primarily. A lot of symbolic stuff (Mathematica/Maple), mostly, and this tends to be VERY memory hungry. The machines are 100% linux boxes. Now mathematica does have "grid" technology (so you can have your iMac as a front end box, and do most of the computation on the herd of linux boxen hooked up to it, but this works less well in practice than in theory. The new Mac Pro (except for memory constraint) looks like a pretty good machine for this sort of thing, but of course, I don't know how good the AMD GPUs are for computing (compared to the nVidia Keplers). My guess is that Apple's much ballyhooed "thermal core" design does not have all the bugs worked out, and can only handle so much heat dissipation, so they are seriously constrained on what the parts they can throw at it.

post #117 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post
My guess is that Apple's much ballyhooed "thermal core" design does not have all the bugs worked out, and can only handle so much heat dissipation, so they are seriously constrained on what the parts they can throw at it.

 

I'm somewhat curious about this. The rumors have suggested that they use a fairly small power source for such a machine. I think we'll see quite a few tests in the near future. I don't personally like to pay for my beta - testing, but that's the only way to get unbiased results. Review sites tend to compete for available test units, because they know the resulting articles will draw large numbers of views.

post #118 of 281

Scientific compute servers (from Sun, HP and Dell) have supported 256 GB and more for over 10 years (albeit at a hefty price). In 2013, a fully redesigned Mac Pro handles only 64 GB--just double that of a 2006 Mac Pro. For professionals who don't need graphics computation, it would have been far better to include a second processor to reach 24 cores (48 hyperthreads) and more DIMM slots, while ditching the superfluous second graphics card. As indicated above, I for one am very disappointed in the new design. As for FCPX users, have fun. As for everyone else, meh.

post #119 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Scientific compute servers (from Sun, HP and Dell) have supported 256 GB and more for over 10 years (albeit at a hefty price). In 2013, a fully redesigned Mac Pro handles only 64 GB--just double that of a 2006 Mac Pro. For professionals who don't need graphics computation, it would have been far better to include a second processor to reach 24 cores (48 hyperthreads) and more DIMM slots, while ditching the superfluous second graphics card. As indicated above, I for one am very disappointed in the new design. As for FCPX users, have fun. As for everyone else, meh.

1) I don't understand why the Mac Pro is all of a sudden being negatively compared against specialized computers that need a lot more RAM than its ever had. Why wasn't this "it sucks because it does't have 32 DIMM slots on 8 risers"-style argument not ever brought up before? Why now is there such a comparison when it's never been designed for the specialized tasks it's being compared to. It's like looking at a brand new Rolls Royce Phantom and complaining that it's a horrible cargo plane.

2) Apple knows who is buying what Mac Pros at a certain price point. With the cost of that 12-core CPU I would doubt there are enough consumers to warrant having an entirely new design to suit those buyers. I don't know if that's true but I would say Apple likely did their research in the years it took to bring the Mac Pro to market to make sure they were targeting their Mac Pro customers.

3) Same as with point 2, I think it's a poor argument to claim the 2nd GPU is superfluous. Why would any company do that? They have a deal with AMD? Tim Cook is trying to Brewster's Millions Apple? The new Mac Pro might ultimately end up being a bad move for Apple (but based on how quickly the time to delivery was pushed back that seems doubtful) but it's clear they researched this in ways we can't imagine so I don't know what additional evidence we would have that would show it need be de duel socket and only have 1 GPU for it to be a success.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #120 of 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post
 

Scientific compute servers (from Sun, HP and Dell) have supported 256 GB and more for over 10 years (albeit at a hefty price). In 2013, a fully redesigned Mac Pro handles only 64 GB--just double that of a 2006 Mac Pro. For professionals who don't need graphics computation, it would have been far better to include a second processor to reach 24 cores (48 hyperthreads) and more DIMM slots, while ditching the superfluous second graphics card. As indicated above, I for one am very disappointed in the new design. As for FCPX users, have fun. As for everyone else, meh.

 

Your emphasis of "professionals" seems to suggest that only people who don't need graphics computation are professionals, and then your final point again dismisses some of Apple's big users. 

 

Personally, I don't like the plastic iPhone (and I absolutely cannot stand iOS7).  That's life.  I don't have to buy it.  But, it is selling, which is good for Apple, which is their business. They are not in business to create a custom, made-to-order phone just for me.  I can guarantee it would not sell well!  The new MP may not be for for you.  That's life.  But if your comments about RAM are correct, then the MP has never been the machine for you.  That doesn't make it a bad machine.

 

But, regarding those GPUs, they run OpenCL.  Apple has already reworked (yes, reworked) Final Cut to utilize the GPUs.  I know of at least two other developers (one has publicly committed to doing so) who are reworking their apps to use the GPUs to milk the machines for all they've got.  Would it be possible for the "professionals" in your line of work to look into the possibility of reworking apps so that they could use the GPUs and the MP would be a very useful machine for you?

 

I confess to not being a techie and I have no idea what OpenCl really is or what it can and cannot do.  

 

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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Teardown of Apple's new Mac Pro reveals socketed, removable Intel CPU