I had thought that I was contributing to an intelligent conversation here about the future of the Macpro, obviously I have offended mjteix in some way but surely you need to also contribute your own ideas rather than scoring points by merely criticizing others for the gainsake of contradiction rather than appreciating the development concept in context.
I am an Electronics r&d engineer in the professional sound industry and have been for 36 years, I expect the job of "rolling cables" is one of fitters derogatory as it was intended I'm sure.
Gosh blinkers are for horses. I can see that few have ever owned a MacPro or if you have then probably not used it.
Firstly the MacPro is far too much computer for casual home use it is a professional machine with configuration ability for purpose and few home users would need such raw power especially in todays computers, this fact renders the current setup of the MacPro outdated,
Which is exactly why the Mac Pro is out of consideration and there is demand for for something midway between the Mini and the Mac Pro. This should be easy for Apple to do.
Quote:
Professional users don't need legacy drives! Professional users cost a machine for its use and potential "Return On Investment", speed, reliability and interface-ability is paramount.
So some do. However many professionals never bother to do the Math. Here I'm talking professionals that actually use the power in the Pro.
Quote:
Intel are adopting the next generation architecture PCI interface standard this ups the anti for new PCIe cards like Aga, Blackmagic and Apogee, and also brings the new FusionIO Flash ssd type PCIe cards with up to 5Terrabt/card, and 32mbt ram cards but all this cost is well beyond the average personal user, ie "horses for courses".
those are pretty poor examples as they would not perform well up against a real PCI Express solution.
Quote:
On the other hand the Macmicro does not give the user any upgradeability at all as you cant add Toshiba ssd Blades and is therefor severely limited.
Imac is a wonderful integrated desktop that coupled with future cloud computing is an ideal office and home thin client user interface, no professional user would use it as a main computer in the studio because you can't configure it for the industry standard PCIe cards that Intel are furthering to the next generation of for the future.
A lot of words to say nothing.
Quote:
The Idea that a studio server or render farm would use tens of wired boxes to do the job of the Macpro is ludicrous, the Macpro is designed to house all this in one neat package avoiding all such mayhem and technical hassles that go along with such idioticy.
I more or less agree with this except for one thing. Studios need a mix of internal and external storage systems, one isn't superior to another. Rather they each have there tasks to perform.
Quote:
There are two simple requirements in separates,
1, Macmicro could be redesigned as a standalone miniPCIe expantion server for SOHO/Home use through thunderbolt.
2, MacPro can be redesigned to better serve an expanding Pro market & cloud service providers such as their new Datacentre,
Pro users often 19" rackmount their computers hence width(tower hight) needs to remain the same perhaps with the addition of mounting wings. the size of the power supply is twice that of standard 1K PWM PSUs so no problem with reducing size there. Sandy bridge/Ivy bridge processors can use more efficient smaller cooling heat-sink transfer systems... see Overclockers website.
therefor the hight of motherboard and 8 full size PCIe slots can easily fit in a case reduced to 4.5 unit hight, and depth reduced by 3", therefor the resultant design would be some 40% by volume smaller in size, It would only need 2 thunderbolt connectors for totompoling stacks. as thunderbolt has multi fan out to six deep connectivity level will provide for any peripheral, all other specialized purpose interface will be afforded by the specialized PCIe cards made within the industry Thunderbolt video HDMI SDI...
This would allow almost limitless professional configurability neatly maintained in the MacPro with integrated MacOS/ServerOS. would be highly cost effective solution for business, and if you can't configure a purpose within 8 PCIe slots then double your machines in tandem or get another JOB.
You could even consider a single 6core processor board as low end in the same cost effective casing for super gaming machine status.
Well theres my take on it but if Apple don't want to take advantage of that market with their perfectly positioned developed and supported Macpro, then I agree the MacPro is dead and it will be time to move on.
One other last thing Now the other major players have seen Apple doing so well in the domestic market designs it is only a matter of time before they step up to take their market share, Sony have already announced their Adoption of thundrbolt, one needs to retain all arrows to the bow in business.
I remember back in the day before the iPhone, iPod and iPad...when the Mac Pros would get updated first with the latest and greatest technology. When Apple catered to all the graphic design firms and artists first. Now it seems the regular consumer comes first. Although the line is blurring between the two now. Many pros are using matchbooks and iMacs these days.
I remember back in the day before the iPhone, iPod and iPad...when the Mac Pros would get updated first with the latest and greatest technology. When Apple catered to all the graphic design firms and artists first. Now it seems the regular consumer comes first. Although the line is blurring between the two now. Many pros are using matchbooks and iMacs these days.
I remember back in the day it was Apple Computer. Steve tactfully slipped the change in during the iPhone Keynote in aught seven so that no one would notice through the "RDF high" from the iPhone.
I was a Mac Pro user until last year, winter 2010. I wanted the most powerfull machines Apple could sell and they weren't powerfull enough for my needs. Now, this time has ended. I'm now an happy Mac mini and MacBook Pro 13" user and still can do everything that I was doing before, even better and faster !
So yes, in my case, the Mac Pro is totally and definitely dead. I'll never buy that old, costly, fat, clunky and noisy concept again.
I remember back in the day before the iPhone, iPod and iPad...when the Mac Pros would get updated first with the latest and greatest technology.
"Mac Pros" as in professionl Mac users? The actual Mac Pro machine was the slowest to be released, slowest to be updated.
Quote:
When Apple catered to all the graphic design firms and artists first. Now it seems the regular consumer comes first. Although the line is blurring between the two now. Many pros are using matchbooks and iMacs these days.
That's true, but graphic design users don't need a tower machine nearly as much anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I remember back in the day it was Apple Computer. Steve tactfully slipped the change in during the iPhone Keynote in aught seven so that no one would notice through the "RDF high" from the iPhone.
If he intended to slip "below the radar" on that one, then I would suggest he failed. But even if it were still Apple Computer, it would still fit because most of Apple's product line are computers in one degree or another.
So yes, in my case, the Mac Pro is totally and definitely dead. I'll never buy that old, costly, fat, clunky and noisy concept again.
Noisy? You're remembering the G5s, not the Mac Pro. I can't even hear my Mac Pro's fans over the hideous grinding of my hard drives. Thing's dead silent when not writing to/from them. Need me some multi-terabyte SSDs, I do.
Noisy? You're remembering the G5s, not the Mac Pro. I can't even hear my Mac Pro's fans over the hideous grinding of my hard drives. Thing's dead silent when not writing to/from them. Need me some multi-terabyte SSDs, I do.
I think you mean the G4. The G5 was an oasis of quiet compared to the "vacuum cleaner" G4.
BTW, are we expecting an eminent update to Mac Pros anytime soon? With the demise of Sony's tape factory in Japan we are facing a lot more tapeless workflow which means lots of compressing and uploading. The worn out Dual G5 system in our machine room won't cut it. We will be buying a new 12 core Mac Pro soon, but I might be able to delay a little if there is something good waiting in the wings.
but Apple don't use the 8-core chips it replaces anyway. They use Intel's power efficient and cheaper Xeons, the 5500/5600 series. Intel's roadmap pdf is here:
It says the Sandy Bridge-EP models replace those in Q3/Q4 2011 with up to 8-cores per chip vs 6-cores. Because Apple's unit shipments are so low, especially for the Pro, Intel could offer chips to them early - this happened at least once before and they got the chips way before anyone else.
Intel confirmed the official launch to be about 5 months from now:
It does push the update cycle out by quite a long way and would probably be far longer than any update so it would actually make sense to have a minor update in time for NAB with Thunderbolt and a new Final Cut that supports Thunderbolt audio/video capture cards. Avid are going to have Thunderbolt technology. There's actually not that much reason for them to compete any more tbh, that race is really done.
While it may seem odd to expect people to buy a new Mac Pro now vs wait 5 months, the update in 5 months probably won't be worth waiting for and will likely have quad-cores on the entry level due to cost.
The longer updates take to the pro line, the more expensive it is, the more that hardware becomes externalised and the faster, cheaper, smaller everything else gets, it just nudges the Mac Pro ever closer to the grave. The Mac Pro mainly just offers expansion and Thunderbolt will kill that need.
If you get a 6-core i7 iMac with a 256GB internal SSD, a decent GPU, connected to a fast RAID and capture device and multiple displays with one cable what does a Mac Pro offer? Sure you get the option for 12-core but you'd be cheaper buying two iMacs.
The longer updates take to the pro line, the more expensive it is, the more that hardware becomes externalised and the faster, cheaper, smaller everything else gets, it just nudges the Mac Pro ever closer to the grave. The Mac Pro mainly just offers expansion and Thunderbolt will kill that need.
If you get a 6-core i7 iMac with a 256GB internal SSD, a decent GPU, connected to a fast RAID and capture device and multiple displays with one cable what does a Mac Pro offer? Sure you get the option for 12-core but you'd be cheaper buying two iMacs.[/QUOTE]
That's what I'm thinking.
Cheaper buying two iMacs than one twelve core Mac Pro and you get two gorgeous 27 inch displays into the bargain. With Thunderbolt expansion that takes care of the rest.
It's not even a competition.
How long before we get a 6 core iMac...hmm...drools.
The longer updates take to the pro line, the more expensive it is, the more that hardware becomes externalised and the faster, cheaper, smaller everything else gets, it just nudges the Mac Pro ever closer to the grave. The Mac Pro mainly just offers expansion and Thunderbolt will kill that need.
If you get a 6-core i7 iMac with a 256GB internal SSD, a decent GPU, connected to a fast RAID and capture device and multiple displays with one cable what does a Mac Pro offer? Sure you get the option for 12-core but you'd be cheaper buying two iMacs.
[/quote]
It offers internal drive storage and multiple slots. Slots that by the way run far faster than a TB link.
The big issue with TB is the rather limited bandwidth to external devices that you have with only one TB port. I'd be the first to suggest though that new desktop Macs will likely have multiple TB ports. Even so I don't think you will see a rapid adoption of TB I/O by professionals.
Quote:
That's what I'm thinking.
Cheaper buying two iMacs than one twelve core Mac Pro and you get two gorgeous 27 inch displays into the bargain. With Thunderbolt expansion that takes care of the rest.
This can only be weighed on an individual basis. The reality is there is a huge difference between x number o CPUs in one box and the same number divided over two or more boxes. Honestly I see the utility of massively parallel machines only growing. More and more work flows will leverage all those cores.
Quote:
It's not even a competition.
Sooner or later hardware catches up with a users needs.
Quote:
How long before we get a 6 core iMac...hmm...drools.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Go with AMD hardware and we could have one this year. Maybe those cores won't set any bench mark fires but it is possible. What is very interesting is that 32 mm and smaller means future cores will be very capable of much higher clock rates. An iMac with a SB chip running at twice the clock rate of the new MBPs will be impressive.
One just needs to realize that the Mac Pro will soon see a new generation of hardware too.
It offers internal drive storage and multiple slots. Slots that by the way run far faster than a TB link.
The big issue with TB is the rather limited bandwidth to external devices that you have with only one TB port.
Apple's implementation is apparently two-channel full 10Gbps each channel bidirectional. So you won't be sharing display bandwidth with data over the same cable.
Also, while you're right about the Mac Pro having faster slots, you only get two x16 ports (64Gbps) and two x4 slots (16Gbps) and you can only use 300W maximum across all slots so you're not going to be running multiple high-end graphics cards in there.
It's a fair point to say that you get more ports but when do you need to use that bandwidth at the same time? Even if you have a capture card and a RAID array, you're limited by the read speed of the drive. Even a very fast SSD in a camera will give at most 500MB/s speeds. TB gives you 1.2GB/s each way.
Dual/triple displays on the same cable doesn't affect it as it goes over the other channel. An external GPU would suck up all the bandwidth but again, it might use the display channel and you aren't likely to need capture + RAID + all the bandwidth a GPU requires at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Even so I don't think you will see a rapid adoption of TB I/O by professionals.
I think the tapeless HD video crowd will go crazy over this. When they get FW800 adaptors, it will spell the end to those ports.
Apple's implementation is apparently two-channel full 10Gbps each channel bidirectional. So you won't be sharing display bandwidth with data over the same cable.
Also, while you're right about the Mac Pro having faster slots, you only get two x16 ports (64Gbps) and two x4 slots (16Gbps) and you can only use 300W maximum across all slots so you're not going to be running multiple high-end graphics cards in there.
It's a fair point to say that you get more ports but when do you need to use that bandwidth at the same time? Even if you have a capture card and a RAID array, you're limited by the read speed of the drive. Even a very fast SSD in a camera will give at most 500MB/s speeds. TB gives you 1.2GB/s each way.
Dual/triple displays on the same cable doesn't affect it as it goes over the other channel. An external GPU would suck up all the bandwidth but again, it might use the display channel and you aren't likely to need capture + RAID + all the bandwidth a GPU requires at the same time.
I think the tapeless HD video crowd will go crazy over this. When they get FW800 adaptors, it will spell the end to those ports.
"you're limited by the read speed of the drive" in both situations, it's not because TB "runs" at up to 1.2GB/s that anything you put on TB will "run" at 1.2GB/s. Best case scenario with TB, using RAID for multiple 500MB/s drives is up to 4x PCIe speed. With a RAID PCIe controller card you can reach up to 8x PCIe speeds (you will need many many drives, but still).
You can't use more that 2 displays on each TB port. And yes, the more devices you put on a single port the less total bandwidth will be available for each device. With just 2 displays (up to 8.64Gb/s), you can saturate one channel one way (from the computer to the devices), than means that on that channel only the other way is available, while the other channel if still free. As some devices work both ways (read/write storage, real-time DSP devices input/output, even audio interfaces input/ouput), depending on the devices on the chain, you could saturate a single TB port with just 4 devices that work at up to 1x speed both ways.
Some setups can be active all the time, for example: an audio interface in recording/playback mode, real-time DSP processing, storage units in recording/playback mode, displays. I'm pretty sure that when available some people will try something like how many UAD-2 QUAD can i use on a single TB port, with/without display, with/without an Apogee symphony,...? If users can do something real quick is learning how to saturate any technology.
And just because you can put up to two 16x cards in the MP, it offers already different usages than TB ports alone: in a single 16x port you can use graphics cards with up to 6 outputs (Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity Edition only 188W), 8x RAID cards that offer more bandwidth than any planned TB device, and two more cards that can be as powerful as a single TB chain. It really depends on your usage, but in any case case you'll need more than a single TB port to threaten the MP in terms of I/O expansion. And we're not even adding SB Xeons to the mix that could offer up to six 16x PCIe 2.0 slots with two E5-2400 cpus (more with E5-2600 cpus, even more with E5-4600 cpus).
While TB is a high-end I/O interface, it will shine on small computers (notebooks, AIOs, mini desktops) offering PCIe-like capabilities to designs that don't offer PCIe slots. Most designs will only offer one or two TB controllers/ports since very few PCIe lanes are available on mainstream cpus/chipsets (16x on the cpu, and a few on the chipset that already takes care of other tasks) as soon as you add dedicated graphics, and each TB controller/port needs 4x PCIe 2.0 lanes and at least one DP output to be fully compliant...
I don't know what you mean by FW800 adaptors, but TB probably means the end of FW in less than a year (provided enough TB devices are available at a reasonable price). A future MBP could get two TB ports, up to three USB3 ports and no FW800 port.
If users can do something real quick is learning how to saturate any technology.
Usually not in any practical sense though. Like some people try to use SLI/Crossfire in a Mac Pro by adding an extra power supply and it's not really worth doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
in a single 16x port you can use graphics cards with up to 6 outputs (Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity Edition only 188W)
Yes, this is one area where TB won't work but they can have a single 5870 in a single x16 slot with 6 MDP/TB ports if it was in a Mac Pro. In an iMac, we'd have to wait for a future iteration of TB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
you'll need more than a single TB port to threaten the MP in terms of I/O expansion.
Just a newer iteration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
we're not even adding SB Xeons to the mix that could offer up to six 16x PCIe 2.0 slots
I don't think we'll see more than 4 slots in the MP and due to the power limit, there's no point in going to x16.
but Apple don't use the 8-core chips it replaces anyway. They use Intel's power efficient and cheaper Xeons, the 5500/5600 series. Intel's roadmap pdf is here:
It says the Sandy Bridge-EP models replace those in Q3/Q4 2011 with up to 8-cores per chip vs 6-cores. Because Apple's unit shipments are so low, especially for the Pro, Intel could offer chips to them early - this happened at least once before and they got the chips way before anyone else.
Intel confirmed the official launch to be about 5 months from now:
It does push the update cycle out by quite a long way and would probably be far longer than any update so it would actually make sense to have a minor update in time for NAB with Thunderbolt and a new Final Cut that supports Thunderbolt audio/video capture cards. Avid are going to have Thunderbolt technology. There's actually not that much reason for them to compete any more tbh, that race is really done.
While it may seem odd to expect people to buy a new Mac Pro now vs wait 5 months, the update in 5 months probably won't be worth waiting for and will likely have quad-cores on the entry level due to cost.
The longer updates take to the pro line, the more expensive it is, the more that hardware becomes externalised and the faster, cheaper, smaller everything else gets, it just nudges the Mac Pro ever closer to the grave. The Mac Pro mainly just offers expansion and Thunderbolt will kill that need.
If you get a 6-core i7 iMac with a 256GB internal SSD, a decent GPU, connected to a fast RAID and capture device and multiple displays with one cable what does a Mac Pro offer? Sure you get the option for 12-core but you'd be cheaper buying two iMacs.
Sorry marvin something odd happened
sometimes i mis spell bout my mac chooses its own words ..
>>>>>
My point marvin is that their are 3 streets to walk down if you buy laptops .
First, stay far away from apple .. we leave these people alone forever..
SecoundYou can change you mac ever 2 yrs or so and you can buy what you buy .But i feel that its a dumb extreme waste on our world too.
THIRD >>> You can buy a laptop that will for your needs and your families legacies needs do what you think you may need . But marvin in truth almost any MBP is so way over powered for most peoples needs that unless your playing COD /BORDERLINE /CRYSIS and shifting around 300 g of media every 2 days you would be thriledl with an entry level MBA ..
OR NOT
Because if you want to buy a laptop and use it for 5 yrs then do the math.
15" highest end $2800 VS "low end $1800.
The low end should be one dollar a day or so for 5 yrs
THE HIGH END should be $1.75 a day .
So even if you don't play games who knows what will happen in 3 yrs ?? Who knows what new thing comes along and leaves you and your cheap-o MBP useless ????
3D ??
No matter what does happen you >>if you buy the fastest most powerful model will get the highest resale or you can send this power house machine to your kid if need be .
and if you want to do one day get into or some one you love wants to get into Garage band and Aperture or Final cut pro and play games . IF IF IF
Then a high end MBP BOUGHT WITH A 4 OR 5 YR ownership plan is the only real choice ..
I waited 4 yrs for apple to get a fast laptop for games and movie making , i bought cheap models during those 4 yrs .
>>>>>>>>>
Marvin my other comments s were making fun of the doom and gloom crowd here . i am sorry for being so unclear
I wouldn't say THAT at all, but the days of the traditional idea of a desktop are certainly coming to a middle.
I feel unless your doing very large number crunching OR RUNNING A major network studio >> a 1/2 dozen mini's should fit any and all other needs /. ergo
THE APPLE desk top is dead . AND apple feels that way TOO.
9
I feel that
APPLE will bring forth a boutique line of extremely high priced and very very powerful Desk tops . Apple won't make much money but Apple will bring to the market new and great things .
Usually not in any practical sense though. Like some people try to use SLI/Crossfire in a Mac Pro by adding an extra power supply and it's not really worth doing.
Yes, this is one area where TB won't work but they can have a single 5870 in a single x16 slot with 6 MDP/TB ports if it was in a Mac Pro. In an iMac, we'd have to wait for a future iteration of TB.
Just a newer iteration.
I don't think we'll see more than 4 slots in the MP and due to the power limit, there's no point in going to x16.
I don't think you understand what Thunderbolt is whatsoever. A combo card like you described would need 40x PCIe 2.0 lanes to be fully functional.
TB supporting up to 7 devices and all the bandwidth available being 4x, there will be instances when a few TB devices will saturate the port. With two-way devices close to 1x speed (DSP processing would be an example), people will have to determine if 4 devices are fully supported with or without a display on a single port even if the port itself can handle up to 7 devices.
Never said that the MP will get more than 4 slots. I said that two E5-2400 cpus will offer six 8x PCIe 3.0 lanes that translates to six 16x PCIe 2.0 slots. In a MP, if the design is unchanged, that could mean two 16x PCIe 3.0 slots and two 8x PCIe 3.0 slots.
There are plenty of reasons to go 16x and the speed of 16x slots has nothing to do with the power requirements of the device: there are 20W 16x graphics cards (FirePro 2460 Multi-View), and there are plenty of other cards under 25W, RAID, SSD, DSP processing, audio/video,...
Don't get me wrong, TB is bound for greatness, no question. But to say that it's enough to kill the MP (and other computers with PCIe slots) is just wrong. And if you don't understand where TB comes from, you can't accuratly predict what the "next iteration" will be and how it will compete or not with PCIe slots. The other thing is that depending on the design chosen you can have TB ports as well as PCIe slots on the same computer...
------------
Still, it's funny that one can write in the same post that "THE APPLE desk top is dead" and a few words later "APPLE will bring ... very very powerful Desk tops... to the market..."
Comments
I am an Electronics r&d engineer in the professional sound industry and have been for 36 years, I expect the job of "rolling cables" is one of fitters derogatory as it was intended I'm sure.
good luck with your forum.
Gosh blinkers are for horses. I can see that few have ever owned a MacPro or if you have then probably not used it.
Firstly the MacPro is far too much computer for casual home use it is a professional machine with configuration ability for purpose and few home users would need such raw power especially in todays computers, this fact renders the current setup of the MacPro outdated,
Which is exactly why the Mac Pro is out of consideration and there is demand for for something midway between the Mini and the Mac Pro. This should be easy for Apple to do.
Professional users don't need legacy drives! Professional users cost a machine for its use and potential "Return On Investment", speed, reliability and interface-ability is paramount.
So some do. However many professionals never bother to do the Math. Here I'm talking professionals that actually use the power in the Pro.
Intel are adopting the next generation architecture PCI interface standard this ups the anti for new PCIe cards like Aga, Blackmagic and Apogee, and also brings the new FusionIO Flash ssd type PCIe cards with up to 5Terrabt/card, and 32mbt ram cards but all this cost is well beyond the average personal user, ie "horses for courses".
those are pretty poor examples as they would not perform well up against a real PCI Express solution.
On the other hand the Macmicro does not give the user any upgradeability at all as you cant add Toshiba ssd Blades and is therefor severely limited.
Imac is a wonderful integrated desktop that coupled with future cloud computing is an ideal office and home thin client user interface, no professional user would use it as a main computer in the studio because you can't configure it for the industry standard PCIe cards that Intel are furthering to the next generation of for the future.
A lot of words to say nothing.
The Idea that a studio server or render farm would use tens of wired boxes to do the job of the Macpro is ludicrous, the Macpro is designed to house all this in one neat package avoiding all such mayhem and technical hassles that go along with such idioticy.
I more or less agree with this except for one thing. Studios need a mix of internal and external storage systems, one isn't superior to another. Rather they each have there tasks to perform.
There are two simple requirements in separates,
1, Macmicro could be redesigned as a standalone miniPCIe expantion server for SOHO/Home use through thunderbolt.
2, MacPro can be redesigned to better serve an expanding Pro market & cloud service providers such as their new Datacentre,
Pro users often 19" rackmount their computers hence width(tower hight) needs to remain the same perhaps with the addition of mounting wings. the size of the power supply is twice that of standard 1K PWM PSUs so no problem with reducing size there. Sandy bridge/Ivy bridge processors can use more efficient smaller cooling heat-sink transfer systems... see Overclockers website.
therefor the hight of motherboard and 8 full size PCIe slots can easily fit in a case reduced to 4.5 unit hight, and depth reduced by 3", therefor the resultant design would be some 40% by volume smaller in size, It would only need 2 thunderbolt connectors for totompoling stacks. as thunderbolt has multi fan out to six deep connectivity level will provide for any peripheral, all other specialized purpose interface will be afforded by the specialized PCIe cards made within the industry Thunderbolt video HDMI SDI...
This would allow almost limitless professional configurability neatly maintained in the MacPro with integrated MacOS/ServerOS. would be highly cost effective solution for business, and if you can't configure a purpose within 8 PCIe slots then double your machines in tandem or get another JOB.
You could even consider a single 6core processor board as low end in the same cost effective casing for super gaming machine status.
Well theres my take on it but if Apple don't want to take advantage of that market with their perfectly positioned developed and supported Macpro, then I agree the MacPro is dead and it will be time to move on.
One other last thing Now the other major players have seen Apple doing so well in the domestic market designs it is only a matter of time before they step up to take their market share, Sony have already announced their Adoption of thundrbolt, one needs to retain all arrows to the bow in business.
I remember back in the day before the iPhone, iPod and iPad...when the Mac Pros would get updated first with the latest and greatest technology. When Apple catered to all the graphic design firms and artists first. Now it seems the regular consumer comes first. Although the line is blurring between the two now. Many pros are using matchbooks and iMacs these days.
I remember back in the day it was Apple Computer. Steve tactfully slipped the change in during the iPhone Keynote in aught seven so that no one would notice through the "RDF high" from the iPhone.
I was a Mac Pro user until last year, winter 2010. I wanted the most powerfull machines Apple could sell and they weren't powerfull enough for my needs. Now, this time has ended. I'm now an happy Mac mini and MacBook Pro 13" user and still can do everything that I was doing before, even better and faster !
So yes, in my case, the Mac Pro is totally and definitely dead. I'll never buy that old, costly, fat, clunky and noisy concept again.
I remember back in the day before the iPhone, iPod and iPad...when the Mac Pros would get updated first with the latest and greatest technology.
"Mac Pros" as in professionl Mac users? The actual Mac Pro machine was the slowest to be released, slowest to be updated.
When Apple catered to all the graphic design firms and artists first. Now it seems the regular consumer comes first. Although the line is blurring between the two now. Many pros are using matchbooks and iMacs these days.
That's true, but graphic design users don't need a tower machine nearly as much anymore.
I remember back in the day it was Apple Computer. Steve tactfully slipped the change in during the iPhone Keynote in aught seven so that no one would notice through the "RDF high" from the iPhone.
If he intended to slip "below the radar" on that one, then I would suggest he failed. But even if it were still Apple Computer, it would still fit because most of Apple's product line are computers in one degree or another.
So yes, in my case, the Mac Pro is totally and definitely dead. I'll never buy that old, costly, fat, clunky and noisy concept again.
Noisy? You're remembering the G5s, not the Mac Pro. I can't even hear my Mac Pro's fans over the hideous grinding of my hard drives. Thing's dead silent when not writing to/from them. Need me some multi-terabyte SSDs, I do.
Noisy? You're remembering the G5s, not the Mac Pro. I can't even hear my Mac Pro's fans over the hideous grinding of my hard drives. Thing's dead silent when not writing to/from them. Need me some multi-terabyte SSDs, I do.
I think you mean the G4. The G5 was an oasis of quiet compared to the "vacuum cleaner" G4.
sorry
Sel you stck now
sell you firr borm
Hmmm, Google Translate tells me it detected English but didn't help decode it. I think it is supposed to read:
Sell your stock now, sell your first born.
Are you using an Android phone to write this?
BTW, are we expecting an eminent update to Mac Pros anytime soon?
I don't think a major update anyway. Intel brought out Sandy Bridge Xeons but they cost too much. A 10-core chip is coming:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/21999...irst_half.html
but Apple don't use the 8-core chips it replaces anyway. They use Intel's power efficient and cheaper Xeons, the 5500/5600 series. Intel's roadmap pdf is here:
http://download.intel.com/products/roadmap/roadmap.pdf
It says the Sandy Bridge-EP models replace those in Q3/Q4 2011 with up to 8-cores per chip vs 6-cores. Because Apple's unit shipments are so low, especially for the Pro, Intel could offer chips to them early - this happened at least once before and they got the chips way before anyone else.
Intel confirmed the official launch to be about 5 months from now:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel...n-187568.shtml
It does push the update cycle out by quite a long way and would probably be far longer than any update so it would actually make sense to have a minor update in time for NAB with Thunderbolt and a new Final Cut that supports Thunderbolt audio/video capture cards. Avid are going to have Thunderbolt technology. There's actually not that much reason for them to compete any more tbh, that race is really done.
While it may seem odd to expect people to buy a new Mac Pro now vs wait 5 months, the update in 5 months probably won't be worth waiting for and will likely have quad-cores on the entry level due to cost.
The longer updates take to the pro line, the more expensive it is, the more that hardware becomes externalised and the faster, cheaper, smaller everything else gets, it just nudges the Mac Pro ever closer to the grave. The Mac Pro mainly just offers expansion and Thunderbolt will kill that need.
If you get a 6-core i7 iMac with a 256GB internal SSD, a decent GPU, connected to a fast RAID and capture device and multiple displays with one cable what does a Mac Pro offer? Sure you get the option for 12-core but you'd be cheaper buying two iMacs.
Hmmm, Google Translate tells me it detected English but didn't help decode it. I think it is supposed to read:
Sell your stock now, sell your first born.
Are you using an Android phone to write this?
roflmao
<OT>Speaking of FCP/FCS for NAB - I'll be happy if they've finally got around to rewriting it for 64 bit.
It's been quite a revelation for me playing around with the new versions of AE and C4D way, way faster than on 32<OT>
The longer updates take to the pro line, the more expensive it is, the more that hardware becomes externalised and the faster, cheaper, smaller everything else gets, it just nudges the Mac Pro ever closer to the grave. The Mac Pro mainly just offers expansion and Thunderbolt will kill that need.
If you get a 6-core i7 iMac with a 256GB internal SSD, a decent GPU, connected to a fast RAID and capture device and multiple displays with one cable what does a Mac Pro offer? Sure you get the option for 12-core but you'd be cheaper buying two iMacs.[/QUOTE]
That's what I'm thinking.
Cheaper buying two iMacs than one twelve core Mac Pro and you get two gorgeous 27 inch displays into the bargain. With Thunderbolt expansion that takes care of the rest.
It's not even a competition.
How long before we get a 6 core iMac...hmm...drools.
Lemon Bon Bon.
[QUOTE
The longer updates take to the pro line, the more expensive it is, the more that hardware becomes externalised and the faster, cheaper, smaller everything else gets, it just nudges the Mac Pro ever closer to the grave. The Mac Pro mainly just offers expansion and Thunderbolt will kill that need.
If you get a 6-core i7 iMac with a 256GB internal SSD, a decent GPU, connected to a fast RAID and capture device and multiple displays with one cable what does a Mac Pro offer? Sure you get the option for 12-core but you'd be cheaper buying two iMacs.
[/quote]
It offers internal drive storage and multiple slots. Slots that by the way run far faster than a TB link.
The big issue with TB is the rather limited bandwidth to external devices that you have with only one TB port. I'd be the first to suggest though that new desktop Macs will likely have multiple TB ports. Even so I don't think you will see a rapid adoption of TB I/O by professionals.
That's what I'm thinking.
Cheaper buying two iMacs than one twelve core Mac Pro and you get two gorgeous 27 inch displays into the bargain. With Thunderbolt expansion that takes care of the rest.
This can only be weighed on an individual basis. The reality is there is a huge difference between x number o CPUs in one box and the same number divided over two or more boxes. Honestly I see the utility of massively parallel machines only growing. More and more work flows will leverage all those cores.
It's not even a competition.
Sooner or later hardware catches up with a users needs.
How long before we get a 6 core iMac...hmm...drools.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Go with AMD hardware and we could have one this year. Maybe those cores won't set any bench mark fires but it is possible. What is very interesting is that 32 mm and smaller means future cores will be very capable of much higher clock rates. An iMac with a SB chip running at twice the clock rate of the new MBPs will be impressive.
One just needs to realize that the Mac Pro will soon see a new generation of hardware too.
It offers internal drive storage and multiple slots. Slots that by the way run far faster than a TB link.
The big issue with TB is the rather limited bandwidth to external devices that you have with only one TB port.
Apple's implementation is apparently two-channel full 10Gbps each channel bidirectional. So you won't be sharing display bandwidth with data over the same cable.
Also, while you're right about the Mac Pro having faster slots, you only get two x16 ports (64Gbps) and two x4 slots (16Gbps) and you can only use 300W maximum across all slots so you're not going to be running multiple high-end graphics cards in there.
It's a fair point to say that you get more ports but when do you need to use that bandwidth at the same time? Even if you have a capture card and a RAID array, you're limited by the read speed of the drive. Even a very fast SSD in a camera will give at most 500MB/s speeds. TB gives you 1.2GB/s each way.
Dual/triple displays on the same cable doesn't affect it as it goes over the other channel. An external GPU would suck up all the bandwidth but again, it might use the display channel and you aren't likely to need capture + RAID + all the bandwidth a GPU requires at the same time.
Even so I don't think you will see a rapid adoption of TB I/O by professionals.
I think the tapeless HD video crowd will go crazy over this. When they get FW800 adaptors, it will spell the end to those ports.
Apple's implementation is apparently two-channel full 10Gbps each channel bidirectional. So you won't be sharing display bandwidth with data over the same cable.
Also, while you're right about the Mac Pro having faster slots, you only get two x16 ports (64Gbps) and two x4 slots (16Gbps) and you can only use 300W maximum across all slots so you're not going to be running multiple high-end graphics cards in there.
It's a fair point to say that you get more ports but when do you need to use that bandwidth at the same time? Even if you have a capture card and a RAID array, you're limited by the read speed of the drive. Even a very fast SSD in a camera will give at most 500MB/s speeds. TB gives you 1.2GB/s each way.
Dual/triple displays on the same cable doesn't affect it as it goes over the other channel. An external GPU would suck up all the bandwidth but again, it might use the display channel and you aren't likely to need capture + RAID + all the bandwidth a GPU requires at the same time.
I think the tapeless HD video crowd will go crazy over this. When they get FW800 adaptors, it will spell the end to those ports.
"you're limited by the read speed of the drive" in both situations, it's not because TB "runs" at up to 1.2GB/s that anything you put on TB will "run" at 1.2GB/s. Best case scenario with TB, using RAID for multiple 500MB/s drives is up to 4x PCIe speed. With a RAID PCIe controller card you can reach up to 8x PCIe speeds (you will need many many drives, but still).
You can't use more that 2 displays on each TB port. And yes, the more devices you put on a single port the less total bandwidth will be available for each device. With just 2 displays (up to 8.64Gb/s), you can saturate one channel one way (from the computer to the devices), than means that on that channel only the other way is available, while the other channel if still free. As some devices work both ways (read/write storage, real-time DSP devices input/output, even audio interfaces input/ouput), depending on the devices on the chain, you could saturate a single TB port with just 4 devices that work at up to 1x speed both ways.
Some setups can be active all the time, for example: an audio interface in recording/playback mode, real-time DSP processing, storage units in recording/playback mode, displays. I'm pretty sure that when available some people will try something like how many UAD-2 QUAD can i use on a single TB port, with/without display, with/without an Apogee symphony,...? If users can do something real quick is learning how to saturate any technology.
And just because you can put up to two 16x cards in the MP, it offers already different usages than TB ports alone: in a single 16x port you can use graphics cards with up to 6 outputs (Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity Edition only 188W), 8x RAID cards that offer more bandwidth than any planned TB device, and two more cards that can be as powerful as a single TB chain. It really depends on your usage, but in any case case you'll need more than a single TB port to threaten the MP in terms of I/O expansion. And we're not even adding SB Xeons to the mix that could offer up to six 16x PCIe 2.0 slots with two E5-2400 cpus (more with E5-2600 cpus, even more with E5-4600 cpus).
While TB is a high-end I/O interface, it will shine on small computers (notebooks, AIOs, mini desktops) offering PCIe-like capabilities to designs that don't offer PCIe slots. Most designs will only offer one or two TB controllers/ports since very few PCIe lanes are available on mainstream cpus/chipsets (16x on the cpu, and a few on the chipset that already takes care of other tasks) as soon as you add dedicated graphics, and each TB controller/port needs 4x PCIe 2.0 lanes and at least one DP output to be fully compliant...
I don't know what you mean by FW800 adaptors, but TB probably means the end of FW in less than a year (provided enough TB devices are available at a reasonable price). A future MBP could get two TB ports, up to three USB3 ports and no FW800 port.
If users can do something real quick is learning how to saturate any technology.
Usually not in any practical sense though. Like some people try to use SLI/Crossfire in a Mac Pro by adding an extra power supply and it's not really worth doing.
in a single 16x port you can use graphics cards with up to 6 outputs (Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity Edition only 188W)
Yes, this is one area where TB won't work but they can have a single 5870 in a single x16 slot with 6 MDP/TB ports if it was in a Mac Pro. In an iMac, we'd have to wait for a future iteration of TB.
you'll need more than a single TB port to threaten the MP in terms of I/O expansion.
Just a newer iteration.
we're not even adding SB Xeons to the mix that could offer up to six 16x PCIe 2.0 slots
I don't think we'll see more than 4 slots in the MP and due to the power limit, there's no point in going to x16.
Hmmm, Google Translate tells me it detected English but didn't help decode it. I think it is supposed to read:
Sell your stock now, sell your first born.
Are you using an Android phone to write this?
I don't think a major update anyway. Intel brought out Sandy Bridge Xeons but they cost too much. A 10-core chip is coming:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/21999...irst_half.html
but Apple don't use the 8-core chips it replaces anyway. They use Intel's power efficient and cheaper Xeons, the 5500/5600 series. Intel's roadmap pdf is here:
http://download.intel.com/products/roadmap/roadmap.pdf
It says the Sandy Bridge-EP models replace those in Q3/Q4 2011 with up to 8-cores per chip vs 6-cores. Because Apple's unit shipments are so low, especially for the Pro, Intel could offer chips to them early - this happened at least once before and they got the chips way before anyone else.
Intel confirmed the official launch to be about 5 months from now:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel...n-187568.shtml
It does push the update cycle out by quite a long way and would probably be far longer than any update so it would actually make sense to have a minor update in time for NAB with Thunderbolt and a new Final Cut that supports Thunderbolt audio/video capture cards. Avid are going to have Thunderbolt technology. There's actually not that much reason for them to compete any more tbh, that race is really done.
While it may seem odd to expect people to buy a new Mac Pro now vs wait 5 months, the update in 5 months probably won't be worth waiting for and will likely have quad-cores on the entry level due to cost.
The longer updates take to the pro line, the more expensive it is, the more that hardware becomes externalised and the faster, cheaper, smaller everything else gets, it just nudges the Mac Pro ever closer to the grave. The Mac Pro mainly just offers expansion and Thunderbolt will kill that need.
If you get a 6-core i7 iMac with a 256GB internal SSD, a decent GPU, connected to a fast RAID and capture device and multiple displays with one cable what does a Mac Pro offer? Sure you get the option for 12-core but you'd be cheaper buying two iMacs.
Sorry marvin something odd happened
sometimes i mis spell bout my mac chooses its own words ..
>>>>>
My point marvin is that their are 3 streets to walk down if you buy laptops .
First, stay far away from apple .. we leave these people alone forever..
SecoundYou can change you mac ever 2 yrs or so and you can buy what you buy .But i feel that its a dumb extreme waste on our world too.
THIRD >>> You can buy a laptop that will for your needs and your families legacies needs do what you think you may need . But marvin in truth almost any MBP is so way over powered for most peoples needs that unless your playing COD /BORDERLINE /CRYSIS and shifting around 300 g of media every 2 days you would be thriledl with an entry level MBA ..
OR NOT
Because if you want to buy a laptop and use it for 5 yrs then do the math.
15" highest end $2800 VS "low end $1800.
The low end should be one dollar a day or so for 5 yrs
THE HIGH END should be $1.75 a day .
So even if you don't play games who knows what will happen in 3 yrs ?? Who knows what new thing comes along and leaves you and your cheap-o MBP useless ????
3D ??
No matter what does happen you >>if you buy the fastest most powerful model will get the highest resale or you can send this power house machine to your kid if need be .
and if you want to do one day get into or some one you love wants to get into Garage band and Aperture or Final cut pro and play games . IF IF IF
Then a high end MBP BOUGHT WITH A 4 OR 5 YR ownership plan is the only real choice ..
I waited 4 yrs for apple to get a fast laptop for games and movie making , i bought cheap models during those 4 yrs .
>>>>>>>>>
Marvin my other comments s were making fun of the doom and gloom crowd here . i am sorry for being so unclear
9
If
I wouldn't say THAT at all, but the days of the traditional idea of a desktop are certainly coming to a middle.
I feel unless your doing very large number crunching OR RUNNING A major network studio >> a 1/2 dozen mini's should fit any and all other needs /. ergo
THE APPLE desk top is dead . AND apple feels that way TOO.
9
I feel that
APPLE will bring forth a boutique line of extremely high priced and very very powerful Desk tops . Apple won't make much money but Apple will bring to the market new and great things .
Usually not in any practical sense though. Like some people try to use SLI/Crossfire in a Mac Pro by adding an extra power supply and it's not really worth doing.
Yes, this is one area where TB won't work but they can have a single 5870 in a single x16 slot with 6 MDP/TB ports if it was in a Mac Pro. In an iMac, we'd have to wait for a future iteration of TB.
Just a newer iteration.
I don't think we'll see more than 4 slots in the MP and due to the power limit, there's no point in going to x16.
I don't think you understand what Thunderbolt is whatsoever. A combo card like you described would need 40x PCIe 2.0 lanes to be fully functional.
TB supporting up to 7 devices and all the bandwidth available being 4x, there will be instances when a few TB devices will saturate the port. With two-way devices close to 1x speed (DSP processing would be an example), people will have to determine if 4 devices are fully supported with or without a display on a single port even if the port itself can handle up to 7 devices.
Never said that the MP will get more than 4 slots. I said that two E5-2400 cpus will offer six 8x PCIe 3.0 lanes that translates to six 16x PCIe 2.0 slots. In a MP, if the design is unchanged, that could mean two 16x PCIe 3.0 slots and two 8x PCIe 3.0 slots.
There are plenty of reasons to go 16x and the speed of 16x slots has nothing to do with the power requirements of the device: there are 20W 16x graphics cards (FirePro 2460 Multi-View), and there are plenty of other cards under 25W, RAID, SSD, DSP processing, audio/video,...
Don't get me wrong, TB is bound for greatness, no question. But to say that it's enough to kill the MP (and other computers with PCIe slots) is just wrong. And if you don't understand where TB comes from, you can't accuratly predict what the "next iteration" will be and how it will compete or not with PCIe slots. The other thing is that depending on the design chosen you can have TB ports as well as PCIe slots on the same computer...
------------
Still, it's funny that one can write in the same post that "THE APPLE desk top is dead" and a few words later "APPLE will bring ... very very powerful Desk tops... to the market..."