I think the kind of "big data" Pros who buy the Mac Pro are *most* in need of the latest chips. A 5% speed boost can shave hours off a big enough job.
In a way i tend to agree but not at yhe exoense of reliability. If you are running codes that take more than a few hours or days to run a stable platform is very important as a failure due to a RAM glitch could set you back a week or more.
Beyound that it isnt simply an issue of RAM/CPU stability. The whole platform may need to run reliably.
Quote:
But I agree, they want the fastest possible subject to it being stable and reliable.
Yep.
As to the current Mac Pro situation, im surprised that nobody considers tbe possibility that the delay may very well be about building a stable machine. Apple still has a QA department!!! Just delivering a stable USB3 implementation would likely be a struggle at least up until just very recently. What is bothersome is the negative conitations seen in this thread. Im still of the opinion that Apple needs to get it right before shipping.
I'm not holding my breath. Until there is a machine that can be benchmarked by a 3rd party, I'm not going to buy into the hype. Here's hoping they are at least competitive again.
I don't get it. ATI/AMD have been producing good gpus now for several years. And Intel have *never* made a gpu worth piss. Larrabe was a failure and the Intel IG are barely good enough for Apple to use a secondary gpu on their notebooks. You're optimism can't be based on history. Intel's is not very good in this regard.
Do you know something we don't because its hardly a stretch of the imagination to see AMD/ATI humble Intel, at least from a graphics standpoint, with their Fusion cpu/gpu.? Frankly I anticipate the cpu performance to trail Intel but the graphics performance to exceed Intel's IG. The interesting comps will be with OCL apps and how the total cpu/gpu performance compares platform vs platform. That's going to be the interesting part.
As a "Pro" user, every speed increase is a welcome increase. Time truly is money in my business. It's absolutely shameful that it's taking this long for a new machine. So long I've been considering other options, which is not what I'd like to do, but when you have competition, it's something that needs consideration.
I would welcome updates as often as they could appear.
The new drivers, including support for AMD's ATI 5000 series video cards, have reportedly been successfully used to get an ATI Radeon 5870 working within an existing Mac Pro. Nvidia has also released Mac OS X drivers for its GeForce GTS 480 cards, incorporating support for Fermi, the next generation of its CUDA technology.
So am I safe in assuming for the Apple pro apps like Aperture and Final Cut Studio that ATI is still the better performer, while NVidia is the best for 3d games?
Many others would say just the opposite and would rather avoid minor bumps and instead wait for a rev that offers a clear advantage. The last thing you would want to add to your cluster is a marginally different machine.
I suspect that the new Pro will be a big advance over the old one. I could be wrong here but it would not make sense for Apple to introduce a marginally better machine for 3 months if they know a major revision is just a short time away.
If Apple delivers a new Pro with nothing more than a processor bump then they deserve some of the anger seen here. If it is instead a significantly newer platform then we have a different story.
I don't get it. ATI/AMD have been producing good gpus now for several years. And Intel have *never* made a gpu worth piss. Larrabe was a failure and the Intel IG are barely good enough for Apple to use a secondary gpu on their notebooks. You're optimism can't be based on history. Intel's is not very good in this regard.
AMDs GPUs are pretty good no doubt especially when up against Intels current solutions. Further their CPUs really aren't that bad. Some of Intels CPU advantages will go away when more code ends up executing onnthe GPU. Since Apple already has a significant amount of code running on GPUs Fusion could work well for them.
So yeah i dont see where there is an issue here. Of course Intel knows the score and likely is working hard to counter AMD.
Quote:
Do you know something we don't because its hardly a stretch of the imagination to see AMD/ATI humble Intel, at least from a graphics standpoint, with their Fusion cpu/gpu.?
AMD has a significant road map for Fusion. The first couple in the family are NOT expected to be stelkar performers yet should be very competitive against systems with Integrated Graphics. The key is AMDs plans to rapidly rev the GPU part of Fusion, possibly as fast as every six months. Also initial fusion releases do not implement all of the planned capabilities.
So while i expect Fusion to look rather good against current Intel graphics i don'T expect the first releases to stun anyone. The tightly coupled nature of Fusion though will likely produce some interesting surprises.
Quote:
Frankly I anticipate the cpu performance to trail Intel but the graphics performance to exceed Intel's IG. The interesting comps will be with OCL apps and how the total cpu/gpu performance compares platform vs platform. That's going to be the interesting part.
OCL is one of the reasons i thinkbAMD has a real chance to break into Apple. INtel leaves a lot to be desired here, almost to the point that they are affraid of GPU computing.
One thing for sure between now and the beginning of next year will be very interesting. We will see an evolution in the way computers are built.
You mean except for the surge protector with the 10 power cords, coax cable and the ethernet to a wireless router. In my case I also have a UPS, external speakers, eyeTV, and a firewire external drive.
Instead of trying for no cables, which is an automatic fail, maybe you should strive for clean cable management. I have a nice modular desk system that has covered compartments for hiding cables. Works out very well. The same system I have at work, I also use at home.
Even with my minimalist approach there are still cables to manage...
...gave up on my eyeTV- no HD and an extra coax cable. Time capsule takes care of the firewire external drive and power bricks.
I think you'll find, upon further examination, Apple is tending towards wireless configurations. As are the enlightened consumers that can afford Apple's latest offerings.
So while i expect Fusion to look rather good against current Intel graphics i don'T expect the first releases to stun anyone. The tightly coupled nature of Fusion though will likely produce some interesting surprises.
Intel has claimed that the GPUs in Sandy Bridge will provide double the numbers of the current IGP they produce, and Ivy Bridge will double again in 2012. Of course, even that means that in 2012, Intel will still not be equivalent to current mid-high level graphics cards. Fusion is going to make Intel figure out WTF they are doing with graphics, at least I hope so. Their current level of capability is pitiful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
OCL is one of the reasons i thinkbAMD has a real chance to break into Apple. INtel leaves a lot to be desired here, almost to the point that they are affraid of GPU computing.
I don't think that surprises anyone. Intel has its entire business built around selling people CPUs. If GPUs as processing units get pushed hard and start making significant headway, you could well end up having their CPUs fall out of favor and that would hurt them significantly.
So am I safe in assuming for the Apple pro apps like Aperture and Final Cut Studio that ATI is still the better performer, while NVidia is the best for 3d games?
Now I need to go google for 5870s in Mac Pro's!
It's hard to say because it depends on the drivers. On the PC side ATI 5870 and 5850 have great performance but there are some driver hiccups eg. Need For Speed Shift. So for the Mac Pro it will require more research. In any case for Nvidia you should be looking at the 460 and those derivatives, 480 AFAIK is still too hot and power hungry for the performance.
Intel has claimed that the GPUs in Sandy Bridge will provide double the numbers of the current IGP they produce, and Ivy Bridge will double again in 2012. Of course, even that means that in 2012, Intel will still not be equivalent to current mid-high level graphics cards. Fusion is going to make Intel figure out WTF they are doing with graphics, at least I hope so. Their current level of capability is pitiful.
I don't think that surprises anyone. Intel has its entire business built around selling people CPUs. If GPUs as processing units get pushed hard and start making significant headway, you could well end up having their CPUs fall out of favor and that would hurt them significantly.
The current issue is that Intel CPUs are still far ahead compared to AMD, in terms of performance (not necessarily value for money). So while Fusion will deliver great integrated GPUs Intel will still have the CPU lead. Given that OpenCL has not fully taken off yet, for most users having a poorer Sandy Bridge GPU may not affect Intel that much... Gamers and Apple and so on would use a dedicated GPU anyway. Intel has the upper hand at the moment because GPU processing, I think, hasn't really taken off yet.
I don't get it. ATI/AMD have been producing good gpus now for several years..
The AMD roadmap has been slipping steadily, and their CPUs haven't been terribly impressive for a while now. Their process tech is behind. Their roadmap starts with pretty weak fusions. They aren't competing with Intel they are so low end, they are going up against ARM+powervr in a space where performance/watt rules. I don't see much evidence that they can really compete here. Then their higher end roadmap is far enough out that I'm willing to believe that Intel might actually get somewhere with GPUs (or use discrete nVidia parts still), and will probably maintain their aggressive CPU roadmap. So I'm not saying that AMD can't do it, but they'll have to prove it to me... unlike the rabid enthusiasm that surrounds their marketing pitch.
The great thing about OpenCL is that all manufacturers can step up the plate and compete on an equal footing... CPUs and GPUs alike.
The AMD roadmap has been slipping steadily, and their CPUs haven't been terribly impressive for a while now. Their process tech is behind. Their roadmap starts with pretty weak fusions. They aren't competing with Intel they are so low end, they are going up against ARM+powervr in a space where performance/watt rules. I don't see much evidence that they can really compete here. Then their higher end roadmap is far enough out that I'm willing to believe that Intel might actually get somewhere with GPUs (or use discrete nVidia parts still), and will probably maintain their aggressive CPU roadmap. So I'm not saying that AMD can't do it, but they'll have to prove it to me... unlike the rabid enthusiasm that surrounds their marketing pitch.
The great thing about OpenCL is that all manufacturers can step up the plate and compete on an equal footing... CPUs and GPUs alike.
Actually for mainstream desktop PCs AMD offers great performance for the price you pay. I still think Intel's desktop CPUs are way too expensive. However Intel's marketing clout is so great, and their relationships with HP, Dell, etc. so strong, they are able to continue to be strong in the desktop PC space.
Now, for mainstream laptop PCs, AMD has always been a step behind. Turion never really could compete with the Meroms, Penryns and now the Core i5 and so on.
AMD's GPUs are of course excellent, because of the ATI 5 series (and the 4 series was alright too). As I mentioned integrating this stuff into Fusion is great, but leveraging the GPU in day-to-day tasks (and having more software that does that) and marketing it all effectively, is a bit of a challenge for AMD.
And now with Nvidia back with the 460 after sorting out Fermi... It's a new round of AMD/ATI vs Intel/Nvidia. I think the competition will be healthy going into 2012. But AMD will continue to play second fiddle to Intel, however their ATI division will go toe-to-toe with Nvidia.
Apple is definitely covering their bases by looking into AMD, I haven't done the research but in some of that ARM market segment, a Fusion AMD chip may be just the ticket for Apple (the next MacBook Air???) for running Mac OS X since you need an x86-64 thingy there not ARM. Hard to say what Apple's plans are for the MacBook Air though.
The great thing about OpenCL is that all manufacturers can step up the plate and compete on an equal footing... CPUs and GPUs alike.
I agree and this is why I think AMD have a chance to exceed Intel on platform performance basis. They don't have to beat Intel on a cpu basis because they can make up the difference with their gpu.
I believe I read at Anandtech that Sandy Bridge is going to be very good, at least the cpu. So I don't think it'll be easy or that either platform will have an across the board advantage. It may be that under certain workloads one platform will be better than the other. This is the first time in quite awhile though were we may actually have a horserace between the two. Lets hope so anyway.
I wonder if they'll bother building a 27". The amount of sales that model will generate is bound to be so low that the price would be high enough for them to be as well making the 27" iMac take a video input. Which they have done. ...
I think you might be forgetting the 30" ACD. Once you have one of those it's hard to go back to anything else and the majority of the Mac Pro market is still in love with the 30" ACD.
I think at some point they have to have a modern replacement for this product and the 27" just doesn't do it.
It's also worth remembering that Apple has always been a leader in large, clear, high quality monitors. Apple users had 30" flat displays when 14" CRT was the norm for the PC folks. I don't think the technology is quite there yet, but I would expect Apple to step out in front again at some point and start producing some really large screens. I wouldn't be surprised if they went into TV manufacture for the same reason, although as I said, I don't think the technology to make a difference is there right now.
... I suspect that the new Pro will be a big advance over the old one. I could be wrong here but it would not make sense for Apple to introduce a marginally better machine for 3 months if they know a major revision is just a short time away.
If Apple delivers a new Pro with nothing more than a processor bump then they deserve some of the anger seen here. If it is instead a significantly newer platform then we have a different story. ...
I completely agree with this analysis. It's most likely that the delay is because this model will actually be something new.
Even though I'm not in the market for a new one right now, it will be very disappointing if all we see is a speed bump. I know some hard-core Apple-ites that are quite angry about the delay already. If what results isn't something fantastic, there will be more anger over this than "antennagate" in some circles.
I predict (just for fun and based on nothing at all) ...
... that it will be radically altered along the lines of the rest of Apple's products. This means a unibody construction that will be both lighter and slightly smaller.
The most obvious choice might be to make it like the iPhone 4 out of a machined annular ring that would comprise the front, back top, and bottom of the current unit. The sides would be fitted as panels in the same or similar way as the iPhone 4 and made of glass or plastic so as to solve the (historically horrendous) wi-fi and bluetooth performance and to allow even more access to the internals. There will likely be some kind of cool latch that pops the side off easily.
The "handles" will be gone, and the aluminium much thinner because of the changed process so the whole thing will be lighter and appear to the eye to be closer to a minitower size than the current height, satisfying the whole "X-Mac" crowd without actually changing anything about their production goals.
Many others would say just the opposite and would rather avoid minor bumps and instead wait for a rev that offers a clear advantage. The last thing you would want to add to your cluster is a marginally different machine.
I suspect that the new Pro will be a big advance over the old one. I could be wrong here but it would not make sense for Apple to introduce a marginally better machine for 3 months if they know a major revision is just a short time away.
If Apple delivers a new Pro with nothing more than a processor bump then they deserve some of the anger seen here. If it is instead a significantly newer platform then we have a different story.
That's what I'm saying though. If they can only put out a 27" LED backlit IPS display for $1499 and the 27" iMac is $1699 then why bother making a separate product line? If people are going to put out that much on a screen, they'd be as well to spend $200 more and get the iMac computer parts with it. This way it's an extra optical drive, SD slot, 4 x USB ports, FW 800 port, isight as well as a backup computer. It increases resale value too because the number of people who would buy a 27" iMac is far higher than people who'd spend near that amount on just a screen.
I'd say it would only be worth making a line of 27" Cinema screens if they can hit the $1100-1300 region.
I personally expect and hope for a redesign but all they did last year was bump the CPUs so they could easily do the same this time. I want a 2/3rds sized Mac Pro with at least a 6-core option (the AMD X6 1090T would be ideal) and a radeon 5870. Don't care about 4 drive bays or an optical drive at all. Two drives and no optical is fine by me. 8GB RAM is fine too. At the right price, that would be an instant buy. It would be a stretch to expect that for £1499 from Apple but maybe £1999 and a lower model can be built for £1499.
The monitor situation and over pricing is a goddamn disgrace. Your comparison between Dell and Apple's prices says it all. Apple want to make a killing on the monitor, a killing on the 'pro', a killing on the ram, a killing on a HD bump...a killing on the consumer wallet...
Personally, I call it 'greed.' Other's mileage may vary.
As for your suggestion on the Mac 'pro'. I'm all ears. Like always, you're the one poster on these boards that seems to 'get it' regarding common sense. Posters like yourself make 'insider worth hanging around occasionally because the 'blind' patriot sucking of certain Apple 'loyalists' defies common sense and reason.
The current 'pro' is an over priced joke. 2k for p*ss poor gpu in a workstation, stingy ram, stingy HD, a long in tooth design, 2.66 quads out performed by machines costing half as much. Seriously, take away the OS and the fancy box...would you buy one? I wouldn't. Hello 'rip off.'
£1,495 for a six core 'mini' pro with a decent gpu (AS STANDARD for gawd's sakes...) would get Apple back on the map re: value and reason again. Who knows, they might even sell more.
Are you referring to me and my reply to a comment that specified Macs as a whole, not the single model type you specified in your comment? If so, note that I?ve already made a sarcastic remark about the long delay between Mac Pro releases in this thread and have made many mentions over the years to the weakening focus on non-consumer based Apple products, but that doesn?t change the fact that Apple is focused on Macs do to the money they are making and money they can make from them for the foreseeable future.
What?
You made a sarcastic comment about Apple?
*Goes for a lay down. (But not before wanting to hunt and gold frame the 'word for word' text where Solip' castigates teh mothership for the 14 month delay to the alone and unloved 'pro' range.)
'pro' users. *fist pumps his chest. I'm feeling it for you buddies...
Comments
I think the kind of "big data" Pros who buy the Mac Pro are *most* in need of the latest chips. A 5% speed boost can shave hours off a big enough job.
In a way i tend to agree but not at yhe exoense of reliability. If you are running codes that take more than a few hours or days to run a stable platform is very important as a failure due to a RAM glitch could set you back a week or more.
Beyound that it isnt simply an issue of RAM/CPU stability. The whole platform may need to run reliably.
But I agree, they want the fastest possible subject to it being stable and reliable.
Yep.
As to the current Mac Pro situation, im surprised that nobody considers tbe possibility that the delay may very well be about building a stable machine. Apple still has a QA department!!! Just delivering a stable USB3 implementation would likely be a struggle at least up until just very recently. What is bothersome is the negative conitations seen in this thread. Im still of the opinion that Apple needs to get it right before shipping.
Dave.
I'm not holding my breath. Until there is a machine that can be benchmarked by a 3rd party, I'm not going to buy into the hype. Here's hoping they are at least competitive again.
I don't get it. ATI/AMD have been producing good gpus now for several years. And Intel have *never* made a gpu worth piss. Larrabe was a failure and the Intel IG are barely good enough for Apple to use a secondary gpu on their notebooks. You're optimism can't be based on history. Intel's is not very good in this regard.
Do you know something we don't because its hardly a stretch of the imagination to see AMD/ATI humble Intel, at least from a graphics standpoint, with their Fusion cpu/gpu.? Frankly I anticipate the cpu performance to trail Intel but the graphics performance to exceed Intel's IG. The interesting comps will be with OCL apps and how the total cpu/gpu performance compares platform vs platform. That's going to be the interesting part.
I would welcome updates as often as they could appear.
nvidia2008: Radeon 6xxx are about a month away. Hold off on that geforce 460 if only for price cuts.
The new drivers, including support for AMD's ATI 5000 series video cards, have reportedly been successfully used to get an ATI Radeon 5870 working within an existing Mac Pro. Nvidia has also released Mac OS X drivers for its GeForce GTS 480 cards, incorporating support for Fermi, the next generation of its CUDA technology.
So am I safe in assuming for the Apple pro apps like Aperture and Final Cut Studio that ATI is still the better performer, while NVidia is the best for 3d games?
Now I need to go google for 5870s in Mac Pro's!
Exactly why it needs frequent updates.
Many others would say just the opposite and would rather avoid minor bumps and instead wait for a rev that offers a clear advantage. The last thing you would want to add to your cluster is a marginally different machine.
I suspect that the new Pro will be a big advance over the old one. I could be wrong here but it would not make sense for Apple to introduce a marginally better machine for 3 months if they know a major revision is just a short time away.
If Apple delivers a new Pro with nothing more than a processor bump then they deserve some of the anger seen here. If it is instead a significantly newer platform then we have a different story.
Dave
I don't get it. ATI/AMD have been producing good gpus now for several years. And Intel have *never* made a gpu worth piss. Larrabe was a failure and the Intel IG are barely good enough for Apple to use a secondary gpu on their notebooks. You're optimism can't be based on history. Intel's is not very good in this regard.
AMDs GPUs are pretty good no doubt especially when up against Intels current solutions. Further their CPUs really aren't that bad. Some of Intels CPU advantages will go away when more code ends up executing onnthe GPU. Since Apple already has a significant amount of code running on GPUs Fusion could work well for them.
So yeah i dont see where there is an issue here. Of course Intel knows the score and likely is working hard to counter AMD.
Do you know something we don't because its hardly a stretch of the imagination to see AMD/ATI humble Intel, at least from a graphics standpoint, with their Fusion cpu/gpu.?
AMD has a significant road map for Fusion. The first couple in the family are NOT expected to be stelkar performers yet should be very competitive against systems with Integrated Graphics. The key is AMDs plans to rapidly rev the GPU part of Fusion, possibly as fast as every six months. Also initial fusion releases do not implement all of the planned capabilities.
So while i expect Fusion to look rather good against current Intel graphics i don'T expect the first releases to stun anyone. The tightly coupled nature of Fusion though will likely produce some interesting surprises.
Frankly I anticipate the cpu performance to trail Intel but the graphics performance to exceed Intel's IG. The interesting comps will be with OCL apps and how the total cpu/gpu performance compares platform vs platform. That's going to be the interesting part.
OCL is one of the reasons i thinkbAMD has a real chance to break into Apple. INtel leaves a lot to be desired here, almost to the point that they are affraid of GPU computing.
One thing for sure between now and the beginning of next year will be very interesting. We will see an evolution in the way computers are built.
Dave
You mean except for the surge protector with the 10 power cords, coax cable and the ethernet to a wireless router. In my case I also have a UPS, external speakers, eyeTV, and a firewire external drive.
Instead of trying for no cables, which is an automatic fail, maybe you should strive for clean cable management. I have a nice modular desk system that has covered compartments for hiding cables. Works out very well. The same system I have at work, I also use at home.
Even with my minimalist approach there are still cables to manage...
...gave up on my eyeTV- no HD and an extra coax cable. Time capsule takes care of the firewire external drive and power bricks.
I think you'll find, upon further examination, Apple is tending towards wireless configurations. As are the enlightened consumers that can afford Apple's latest offerings.
Best.
So while i expect Fusion to look rather good against current Intel graphics i don'T expect the first releases to stun anyone. The tightly coupled nature of Fusion though will likely produce some interesting surprises.
Intel has claimed that the GPUs in Sandy Bridge will provide double the numbers of the current IGP they produce, and Ivy Bridge will double again in 2012. Of course, even that means that in 2012, Intel will still not be equivalent to current mid-high level graphics cards. Fusion is going to make Intel figure out WTF they are doing with graphics, at least I hope so. Their current level of capability is pitiful.
OCL is one of the reasons i thinkbAMD has a real chance to break into Apple. INtel leaves a lot to be desired here, almost to the point that they are affraid of GPU computing.
I don't think that surprises anyone. Intel has its entire business built around selling people CPUs. If GPUs as processing units get pushed hard and start making significant headway, you could well end up having their CPUs fall out of favor and that would hurt them significantly.
So am I safe in assuming for the Apple pro apps like Aperture and Final Cut Studio that ATI is still the better performer, while NVidia is the best for 3d games?
Now I need to go google for 5870s in Mac Pro's!
It's hard to say because it depends on the drivers. On the PC side ATI 5870 and 5850 have great performance but there are some driver hiccups eg. Need For Speed Shift. So for the Mac Pro it will require more research. In any case for Nvidia you should be looking at the 460 and those derivatives, 480 AFAIK is still too hot and power hungry for the performance.
Drivers, drivers, drivers.
Intel has claimed that the GPUs in Sandy Bridge will provide double the numbers of the current IGP they produce, and Ivy Bridge will double again in 2012. Of course, even that means that in 2012, Intel will still not be equivalent to current mid-high level graphics cards. Fusion is going to make Intel figure out WTF they are doing with graphics, at least I hope so. Their current level of capability is pitiful.
I don't think that surprises anyone. Intel has its entire business built around selling people CPUs. If GPUs as processing units get pushed hard and start making significant headway, you could well end up having their CPUs fall out of favor and that would hurt them significantly.
The current issue is that Intel CPUs are still far ahead compared to AMD, in terms of performance (not necessarily value for money). So while Fusion will deliver great integrated GPUs Intel will still have the CPU lead. Given that OpenCL has not fully taken off yet, for most users having a poorer Sandy Bridge GPU may not affect Intel that much... Gamers and Apple and so on would use a dedicated GPU anyway. Intel has the upper hand at the moment because GPU processing, I think, hasn't really taken off yet.
I don't get it. ATI/AMD have been producing good gpus now for several years..
The AMD roadmap has been slipping steadily, and their CPUs haven't been terribly impressive for a while now. Their process tech is behind. Their roadmap starts with pretty weak fusions. They aren't competing with Intel they are so low end, they are going up against ARM+powervr in a space where performance/watt rules. I don't see much evidence that they can really compete here. Then their higher end roadmap is far enough out that I'm willing to believe that Intel might actually get somewhere with GPUs (or use discrete nVidia parts still), and will probably maintain their aggressive CPU roadmap. So I'm not saying that AMD can't do it, but they'll have to prove it to me... unlike the rabid enthusiasm that surrounds their marketing pitch.
The great thing about OpenCL is that all manufacturers can step up the plate and compete on an equal footing... CPUs and GPUs alike.
The AMD roadmap has been slipping steadily, and their CPUs haven't been terribly impressive for a while now. Their process tech is behind. Their roadmap starts with pretty weak fusions. They aren't competing with Intel they are so low end, they are going up against ARM+powervr in a space where performance/watt rules. I don't see much evidence that they can really compete here. Then their higher end roadmap is far enough out that I'm willing to believe that Intel might actually get somewhere with GPUs (or use discrete nVidia parts still), and will probably maintain their aggressive CPU roadmap. So I'm not saying that AMD can't do it, but they'll have to prove it to me... unlike the rabid enthusiasm that surrounds their marketing pitch.
The great thing about OpenCL is that all manufacturers can step up the plate and compete on an equal footing... CPUs and GPUs alike.
Actually for mainstream desktop PCs AMD offers great performance for the price you pay. I still think Intel's desktop CPUs are way too expensive. However Intel's marketing clout is so great, and their relationships with HP, Dell, etc. so strong, they are able to continue to be strong in the desktop PC space.
Now, for mainstream laptop PCs, AMD has always been a step behind. Turion never really could compete with the Meroms, Penryns and now the Core i5 and so on.
AMD's GPUs are of course excellent, because of the ATI 5 series (and the 4 series was alright too). As I mentioned integrating this stuff into Fusion is great, but leveraging the GPU in day-to-day tasks (and having more software that does that) and marketing it all effectively, is a bit of a challenge for AMD.
And now with Nvidia back with the 460 after sorting out Fermi... It's a new round of AMD/ATI vs Intel/Nvidia. I think the competition will be healthy going into 2012. But AMD will continue to play second fiddle to Intel, however their ATI division will go toe-to-toe with Nvidia.
Apple is definitely covering their bases by looking into AMD, I haven't done the research but in some of that ARM market segment, a Fusion AMD chip may be just the ticket for Apple (the next MacBook Air???) for running Mac OS X since you need an x86-64 thingy there not ARM. Hard to say what Apple's plans are for the MacBook Air though.
T
The great thing about OpenCL is that all manufacturers can step up the plate and compete on an equal footing... CPUs and GPUs alike.
I agree and this is why I think AMD have a chance to exceed Intel on platform performance basis. They don't have to beat Intel on a cpu basis because they can make up the difference with their gpu.
I believe I read at Anandtech that Sandy Bridge is going to be very good, at least the cpu. So I don't think it'll be easy or that either platform will have an across the board advantage. It may be that under certain workloads one platform will be better than the other. This is the first time in quite awhile though were we may actually have a horserace between the two. Lets hope so anyway.
Time will tell.
I wonder if they'll bother building a 27". The amount of sales that model will generate is bound to be so low that the price would be high enough for them to be as well making the 27" iMac take a video input. Which they have done. ...
I think you might be forgetting the 30" ACD. Once you have one of those it's hard to go back to anything else and the majority of the Mac Pro market is still in love with the 30" ACD.
I think at some point they have to have a modern replacement for this product and the 27" just doesn't do it.
It's also worth remembering that Apple has always been a leader in large, clear, high quality monitors. Apple users had 30" flat displays when 14" CRT was the norm for the PC folks. I don't think the technology is quite there yet, but I would expect Apple to step out in front again at some point and start producing some really large screens. I wouldn't be surprised if they went into TV manufacture for the same reason, although as I said, I don't think the technology to make a difference is there right now.
... I suspect that the new Pro will be a big advance over the old one. I could be wrong here but it would not make sense for Apple to introduce a marginally better machine for 3 months if they know a major revision is just a short time away.
If Apple delivers a new Pro with nothing more than a processor bump then they deserve some of the anger seen here. If it is instead a significantly newer platform then we have a different story. ...
I completely agree with this analysis. It's most likely that the delay is because this model will actually be something new.
Even though I'm not in the market for a new one right now, it will be very disappointing if all we see is a speed bump. I know some hard-core Apple-ites that are quite angry about the delay already. If what results isn't something fantastic, there will be more anger over this than "antennagate" in some circles.
I predict (just for fun and based on nothing at all) ...
... that it will be radically altered along the lines of the rest of Apple's products. This means a unibody construction that will be both lighter and slightly smaller.
The most obvious choice might be to make it like the iPhone 4 out of a machined annular ring that would comprise the front, back top, and bottom of the current unit. The sides would be fitted as panels in the same or similar way as the iPhone 4 and made of glass or plastic so as to solve the (historically horrendous) wi-fi and bluetooth performance and to allow even more access to the internals. There will likely be some kind of cool latch that pops the side off easily.
The "handles" will be gone, and the aluminium much thinner because of the changed process so the whole thing will be lighter and appear to the eye to be closer to a minitower size than the current height, satisfying the whole "X-Mac" crowd without actually changing anything about their production goals.
You really need to come inside the bubble. Because inside the bubble those things don't exist.
Heh.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Many others would say just the opposite and would rather avoid minor bumps and instead wait for a rev that offers a clear advantage. The last thing you would want to add to your cluster is a marginally different machine.
I suspect that the new Pro will be a big advance over the old one. I could be wrong here but it would not make sense for Apple to introduce a marginally better machine for 3 months if they know a major revision is just a short time away.
If Apple delivers a new Pro with nothing more than a processor bump then they deserve some of the anger seen here. If it is instead a significantly newer platform then we have a different story.
Dave
Ya think?
Lemon Bon Bon.
That's what I'm saying though. If they can only put out a 27" LED backlit IPS display for $1499 and the 27" iMac is $1699 then why bother making a separate product line? If people are going to put out that much on a screen, they'd be as well to spend $200 more and get the iMac computer parts with it. This way it's an extra optical drive, SD slot, 4 x USB ports, FW 800 port, isight as well as a backup computer. It increases resale value too because the number of people who would buy a 27" iMac is far higher than people who'd spend near that amount on just a screen.
I'd say it would only be worth making a line of 27" Cinema screens if they can hit the $1100-1300 region.
I personally expect and hope for a redesign but all they did last year was bump the CPUs so they could easily do the same this time. I want a 2/3rds sized Mac Pro with at least a 6-core option (the AMD X6 1090T would be ideal) and a radeon 5870. Don't care about 4 drive bays or an optical drive at all. Two drives and no optical is fine by me. 8GB RAM is fine too. At the right price, that would be an instant buy. It would be a stretch to expect that for £1499 from Apple but maybe £1999 and a lower model can be built for £1499.
The monitor situation and over pricing is a goddamn disgrace. Your comparison between Dell and Apple's prices says it all. Apple want to make a killing on the monitor, a killing on the 'pro', a killing on the ram, a killing on a HD bump...a killing on the consumer wallet...
Personally, I call it 'greed.' Other's mileage may vary.
As for your suggestion on the Mac 'pro'. I'm all ears. Like always, you're the one poster on these boards that seems to 'get it' regarding common sense. Posters like yourself make 'insider worth hanging around occasionally because the 'blind' patriot sucking of certain Apple 'loyalists' defies common sense and reason.
The current 'pro' is an over priced joke. 2k for p*ss poor gpu in a workstation, stingy ram, stingy HD, a long in tooth design, 2.66 quads out performed by machines costing half as much. Seriously, take away the OS and the fancy box...would you buy one? I wouldn't. Hello 'rip off.'
£1,495 for a six core 'mini' pro with a decent gpu (AS STANDARD for gawd's sakes...) would get Apple back on the map re: value and reason again. Who knows, they might even sell more.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Are you referring to me and my reply to a comment that specified Macs as a whole, not the single model type you specified in your comment? If so, note that I?ve already made a sarcastic remark about the long delay between Mac Pro releases in this thread and have made many mentions over the years to the weakening focus on non-consumer based Apple products, but that doesn?t change the fact that Apple is focused on Macs do to the money they are making and money they can make from them for the foreseeable future.
What?
You made a sarcastic comment about Apple?
*Goes for a lay down. (But not before wanting to hunt and gold frame the 'word for word' text where Solip' castigates teh mothership for the 14 month delay to the alone and unloved 'pro' range.)
'pro' users. *fist pumps his chest. I'm feeling it for you buddies...
*wipes away tear.
Lemon Bon Bon.