the industry isn't in the habit of supporting anything other than Windows, at least not yet.
Really what it boils down to is "the industry isn't in the habit of writing stuff for EFI yet." Once they decide to join this century, we'll see more cards designed for and working with OS X.
I am reading 9723 and 10544, but still that is a 8% to the bad for a chip that is 5% slower and only $40 more expensive. Quite disappointing, and certainly a disincentive to purchase. Sure, the MacPro probably is faster for general computing, but why give your high-end customers any pause for doubt?
edit: I posted screenshots of the benchmarks, but they do not appear for some reason. Without them I'm merely repeating what I said in my previous post. Sorry.
But I think they take the median of all submitted benchmarks or something, and that may be why it fluctuates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drakulita
Anyway, what you guys seem to want that iMac doesn't give you (other than superficial "I want a separate box with the computer in it") is a way to use whatever GPU you want.
No. I need separate internal HDD's for sample libraries and PCIe slots for audio interface and DSP card. The top-tier iMac is an attractive proposition but falls short on account of expandability alone. I've done enough with FW to know what it can and can't do.
As such it kind of sucks that the base-model MacPro is outgunned by the maxed out iMac.
But I think they take the median of all submitted benchmarks or something, and that may be why it fluctuates.
No. I need separate internal HDD's for sample libraries and PCIe slots for audio interface and DSP card. The top-tier iMac is an attractive proposition but falls short on account of expandability alone. I've done enough with FW to know what it can and can't do.
As such it kind of sucks that the base-model MacPro is outgunned by the maxed out iMac.
You know, you're right. The 2.93 Core i7-870 is faster than the 2.80 W3530 Xeon, and they cost the same. But 5 to 10% faster is far from being "outclassed" or "outgunned" or whatever. It's like saying: how can the $744 1.73GHz 4C Xeon E6510 be slower than the $744 2.66GHz 4C Xeon E5640? Different platforms, different ways to judge performance.
The fact that the current low-end MP is marginally slower than the top of the line iMac is purely a coincidence. At the time Apple updated the iMac and the MP, those were their choices, they did the "best" they could... A couple of years ago, Intel used to launch the high-end models before the mainstream models, this has changed, with every tick or tock, the mainstream models are launched first and the high-end models up to 9 months later, the markets are also not the same. The fact is, the iMac will probably receive SB cpus (up to 3.40 Core i7-2600) in a couple of months, while you'll have to wait for late Q4 for the MP to receive SB Xeon cpus (and probably some kind of TB ports).
Still for many usages, the MP is a better choice, for the reasons you just described: more RAM, more internal storage, PCIe slots. Moreso, if you plan on using PCIe audio interfaces and DSP cards, the cpu performance shouldn't matter much since a lot of the processing you need happens in the cards themselves, not on the cpu. That's why the PM G4 were such a success in the audio/video industry in their time: even in a low-end $1299 PM G4 , you could used up to 3 Pro Tools cards and get very similar audio performance as with much more expensive PM models.
For all I care, this is also changing, with Thunderbolt, notebooks and AIOs will be able to handle devices that were only PCIe before, so you'll probably be able to connect AVID or Apogee interfaces to an iMac/MBP as well as Universal Audio UAD-2 DSP processors, along with Apple's Logic Pro or Avid Pro Tools 9, that should make for very nice recording/editing/mixing/mastering setups, as soon as next summer...
If Apple wants to relieve (a little) stress from the MP, they could silently update them with newer Xeon (westmere) cpus, at the same time they update the iMacs to SB:
QC 2.80 -? QC 3.20 W3565 ($294, now)
QC 3.20 -? 6C 3.20 W3670 ($583)
6C 3.33 -? 6C 3.46 W3690 (same $999)
dual QC 2.40 -? 6C 2.40 E5645 ($551)
dual 6C 2.66 -? 6C 2.80 X5660 ($1219) or price cut on the 2.66 ($996) option
You know, you're right. The 2.93 Core i7-870 is faster than the 2.80 W3530 Xeon, and they cost the same. But 5 to 10% faster is far from being "outclassed" or "outgunned" or whatever.
--------------
Still for many usages, the MP is a better choice, for the reasons you just described: more RAM, more internal storage, PCIe slots. Moreso, if you plan on using PCIe audio interfaces and DSP cards, the cpu performance shouldn't matter much since a lot of the processing you need happens in the cards themselves, not on the cpu.
I know. It got a little muddled with the post above, but I actually posted this on the previous page. BTW, thanks to its superior architecture the MacPro is only marginally slower in the Geekbench. Its CPU is quite a bit slower than the i7.
This is not to say that the MacPro can't be faster for general computing.
I have it on good authority that the i7's and Xeons are essentially the same, other than the latter's multi-processor support. That is obviously not an issue with single-CPU MacPros, hence my plea for a cheaper base-model with an i7, rather than the Xeon.
I know. It got a little muddled with the post above, but I actually posted this on the previous page. BTW, thanks to its superior architecture the MacPro is only marginally slower in the Geekbench. Its CPU is quite a bit slower than the i7.
I have it on good authority that the i7's and Xeons are essentially the same, other than the latter's multi-processor support. That is obviously not an issue with single-CPU MacPros, hence my plea for a cheaper base-model with an i7, rather than the Xeon.
OK. I didn't want to go there. But if you insist...
1- The Xeon W3xxx don't support multi-processor, they support ECC RAM, they have a triple-channel memory controller, and use a different chipset (X58) in order to offer more PCIe slots. Essentially the Xeon W3xxx (used in the single-cpu MP) are Core i7-900 cpus with ECC RAM support, the Xeon X34xx (not used by Apple) are Core i7-800 cpus with ECC RAM support.
2- While geekbench and cpu benchmarks can give you an idea of the "raw" power, they also can be flawed: simple example, in "your" cpu benchmarks the 2.80 Xeon X3460 is faster than the 2.93 Xeon X3470 (WTF?) as well as the 2.93 Core i7-940, the 2.93 Core i7-870 and even the 3.20 Xeon W3565, that's absolutly ridiculous. So. IMO, any number within 10% should not be taken as significant.
3- Why would Apple offer an headless model based on the same cpu configurations as the iMac, as they would cost less than the iMacs, hence offer less revenus/margins.
4- If you want to use plenty of PCIe cards with your cheaper Mac (Pro), the Core i7-800 family is not a good idea: the chipset only offers few free PCIe lanes if you already use a 16x graphics card. Only the X58 chipset (and higher-end Xeons chipsets) offer more PCIe lanes. The X58 chipset works with Core i7-900 series and the W3xxx series that are essensially the same cpus, in specs and prices, the Xeon having ECC support. Before you go there, the pricing of ECC RAM vs standard RAM is irrelevant in 3/4GB quantities.
5- The Core i7-800, as a line of cpus, is not that cheaper/faster than the Xeon W3xxx family:
$284 QC 2.80 Core i7-860 vs $284 QC 2.66 W3520, or the original Core i7-920
$294 QC 2.93 Core i7-870 vs $294 QC 3.20 W3565, or Core i7-960
$583 QC 3.06 Core i7-880 vs $583 6C 3.20 W3670, or Core i7-970
So, really, what do you think Apple should use for a MP (smaller or not)?
6- Since Intel offers so many different models in each family, it's sure that at some point you gonna get some overlapping. Yet as a manufacturer, you have to consider the platform as a whole, not one specific cpu vs another specific cpu...
----
No matter what, I would love for Apple to release a smaller rackable MP (uni-processor is fine), as long as I get a reasonable number of PCIe lanes available (either for physical PCIe slots or TB ports - each TB port using up to 4x PCIe lanes). So unless Intel releases new cpus with more integrated PCIe lanes or new chipsets that can handle more than 8 PCIe lanes, Xeon W3xxx/Core i7-900 + X58 (and their future SB versions) are still the right way to get everything you need. Even with a much smaller enclosure/PSU, numbers of bays or PCIe slots, etc. I don't expect a "xMac pricing", but starting at $1999 with a QC 3.20 W3565, would be a nice gesture.
Even with a much smaller enclosure/PSU, numbers of bays or PCIe slots, etc. I don't expect a "xMac pricing", but starting at $1999 with a QC 3.20 W3565, would be a nice gesture.
This was pretty much my point, anyway. At the current price the entry-level MacPro is not very good value.
we need to address the future and thin client devices such as iMac ect will not suffice in studio requirements, we do need a redesign of the Macpro to heft the heavy lifting of sound and video editing and the ideal is a twin Zeon based 8PCIe card computer utilising PCI SSD cards we can configure any make up as required from that even 8 graphics cards if necessary.
Intel will be making logic boards accommodating Both NVMexpress and PCIe 3.0 will support more than 1Gbt/sec /link, later this year, now thats thunderbolt lightning evolution!!!
one simple 3u 19" rack frame re-design of the Macpro to accommodate Mother and PCI GPU daughter hight without any mechanical drives, can simply be configured to any professional edit workstation or totam poled server pool also satisfying the guys who are wondering what life after xserve.
if an entry level m/c at an entry price constraint is what you desire buy an iMac wich is plenty powerful for a whole range of professional cloud thin client jobs but not suitable in the main studio.
Anyway, what you guys seem to want that iMac doesn't give you (other than superficial "I want a separate box with the computer in it") is a way to use whatever GPU you want. I think this is intentional on Apple's part because of the driver issues, they're controlling your experience here because the industry isn't in the habit of supporting anything other than Windows, at least not yet.
I'm sure some buy the Mac Pro for its GPU flexibility but in the context of the dislike for the iMac I don't see that as the reason the majority object to the platform. Rather the problem is flexibility, something the iMac doesn't have at all. Flexibility means different things to different people but in all cases it means the iMac and Mini platforms fail for these users. Likewise the Mac pro often fails due the high cost of the machine and possibly its size.
Lets face it with todays chip, mother board and storage technologies one doesn't need a massive box to give the user the flexibility they need. Slots for SSD's, and laptops disks don't take a lot of space. Laptop parts run much cooler today while providing extremely good performance. All of this tech can now be condensed into a small volume allowing for more room for the flexibility features. What we are really talking about is a machine that is positioned someplace between a Mini and a Mac Pro.
Ok if i was to specify a new redesign of the macpro it would be thus...
Much smaller but still industrial rack mounting size case to match the target professional unit size housing a single or duel processor mother board option and PSU, NO mechanical drives necessary, with 32mbt or more of ram slots.
8 full size PCI slots, so I can choose to configure what I need for the job.
thats it simple, you can buy PCI cards with harddrives or SSD as you please maxed out for server use, specify any GPUs as you need, or fit any protools or logic cards for the rack of i/o units or specific monitor use in studio or on stage.
and if more is needed TB totempole macpros together, job sorted.
iMacs are great designs but not suitable for studio use as is and has been for many years the Apple flagship Macpro.
Ok if i was to specify a new redesign of the macpro it would be thus...
Much smaller but still industrial rack mounting size case to match the target professional unit size housing a single or duel processor mother board option and PSU, NO mechanical drives necessary, with 32mbt or more of ram slots.
8 full size PCI slots, so I can choose to configure what I need for the job.
thats it simple, you can buy PCI cards with harddrives or SSD as you please maxed out for server use, specify any GPUs as you need, or fit any protools or logic cards for the rack of i/o units or specific monitor use in studio or on stage.
and if more is needed TB totempole macpros together, job sorted.
iMacs are great designs but not suitable for studio use as is and has been for many years the Apple flagship Macpro.
The current MP only offers 4 slots in a size that's bigger than a 5U rack enclosure, just try to imagine the size of a MP with 8 full size PCI slots... The 4 HDDs in a MP don't take much more space than a single PCIe card.
As more and more Thunderbolt devices (other than storage) will be available (from AJA, Blackmagic, AVID=Pro Tools, Apogee=Symphony, Universal Audio, Canon,...), it will reduce the need for physical PCIe slots.
Sure, the need for some PCIe slots will continue for (probably) many years, but knowing Apple, they will probably choose to offer smaller, thinner, more power- efficient models than the opposite. Good luck!
I'm still convince that the way to go is to offer a much smaller single cpu MP, SSD storage, multiple TB controllers/ports, and a "regular" dual-cpu MP, with HDD/SSD, PCIe slots,...
The current MP only offers 4 slots in a size that's bigger than a 5U rack enclosure, just try to imagine the size of a MP with 8 full size PCI slots... The 4 HDDs in a MP don't take much more space than a single PCIe card.
I am an engineer and have just taken the cover off my Macpro and if you take out the HDs and DVD drives and reduce the PCI space to full PCI board size hight -2.5" and -4" depth that still leaves plenty of room for 4 more full size PCI cards slots and reduces the case size necessary by some 40% volume, thats not counting the future Ivy bridge reduction in new 32nm board requirements.
Quote:
As more and more Thunderbolt devices (other than storage) will be available (from AJA, Blackmagic, AVID=Pro Tools, Apogee=Symphony, Universal Audio, Canon,...), it will reduce the need for physical PCIe slots.
Sure, the need for some PCIe slots will continue for (probably) many years, but knowing Apple, they will probably choose to offer smaller, thinner, more power- efficient models than the opposite. Good luck!
All bar Canon quoted above require a PCI processor card connected in a Macpro or similar PC computer for all professional studio use, I am also a professional Canon 1D photographer which currently use XD cards or usb direct to Aperture in any mac so not sure what you mean there.
Quote:
Sure, the need for some PCIe slots will continue for (probably) many years, but knowing Apple, they will probably choose to offer smaller, thinner, more power- efficient models than the opposite. Good luck!
I'm still convince that the way to go is to offer a much smaller single cpu MP, SSD storage, multiple TB controllers/ports, and a "regular" dual-cpu MP, with HDD/SSD, PCIe slots,...
You have just proven my point, Mini's need more PCI, Pro's need to come down in size, PCI SSD storage will replace HDs completely needing 4 more PCI slots instead of the HDs. and taking advantage of the much faster PCI interface reducing the SATA bottlenecking problem and allowing much reduced size cases.
the much reduced size pro case could offer both single and twin processor solutions keeping the Apple Flagship flying in the pro market aswell without affecting the imac who's semi pro artists solutions through TB will equally be viable, we are though talking about two different target markets though.
Comments
the industry isn't in the habit of supporting anything other than Windows, at least not yet.
Really what it boils down to is "the industry isn't in the habit of writing stuff for EFI yet." Once they decide to join this century, we'll see more cards designed for and working with OS X.
I am reading 9723 and 10544, but still that is a 8% to the bad for a chip that is 5% slower and only $40 more expensive. Quite disappointing, and certainly a disincentive to purchase. Sure, the MacPro probably is faster for general computing, but why give your high-end customers any pause for doubt?
edit: I posted screenshots of the benchmarks, but they do not appear for some reason. Without them I'm merely repeating what I said in my previous post. Sorry.
http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/
reposted:
But I think they take the median of all submitted benchmarks or something, and that may be why it fluctuates.
Anyway, what you guys seem to want that iMac doesn't give you (other than superficial "I want a separate box with the computer in it") is a way to use whatever GPU you want.
No. I need separate internal HDD's for sample libraries and PCIe slots for audio interface and DSP card. The top-tier iMac is an attractive proposition but falls short on account of expandability alone. I've done enough with FW to know what it can and can't do.
As such it kind of sucks that the base-model MacPro is outgunned by the maxed out iMac.
http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/
But I think they take the median of all submitted benchmarks or something, and that may be why it fluctuates.
No. I need separate internal HDD's for sample libraries and PCIe slots for audio interface and DSP card. The top-tier iMac is an attractive proposition but falls short on account of expandability alone. I've done enough with FW to know what it can and can't do.
As such it kind of sucks that the base-model MacPro is outgunned by the maxed out iMac.
You know, you're right. The 2.93 Core i7-870 is faster than the 2.80 W3530 Xeon, and they cost the same. But 5 to 10% faster is far from being "outclassed" or "outgunned" or whatever. It's like saying: how can the $744 1.73GHz 4C Xeon E6510 be slower than the $744 2.66GHz 4C Xeon E5640? Different platforms, different ways to judge performance.
The fact that the current low-end MP is marginally slower than the top of the line iMac is purely a coincidence. At the time Apple updated the iMac and the MP, those were their choices, they did the "best" they could... A couple of years ago, Intel used to launch the high-end models before the mainstream models, this has changed, with every tick or tock, the mainstream models are launched first and the high-end models up to 9 months later, the markets are also not the same. The fact is, the iMac will probably receive SB cpus (up to 3.40 Core i7-2600) in a couple of months, while you'll have to wait for late Q4 for the MP to receive SB Xeon cpus (and probably some kind of TB ports).
Still for many usages, the MP is a better choice, for the reasons you just described: more RAM, more internal storage, PCIe slots. Moreso, if you plan on using PCIe audio interfaces and DSP cards, the cpu performance shouldn't matter much since a lot of the processing you need happens in the cards themselves, not on the cpu. That's why the PM G4 were such a success in the audio/video industry in their time: even in a low-end $1299 PM G4 , you could used up to 3 Pro Tools cards and get very similar audio performance as with much more expensive PM models.
For all I care, this is also changing, with Thunderbolt, notebooks and AIOs will be able to handle devices that were only PCIe before, so you'll probably be able to connect AVID or Apogee interfaces to an iMac/MBP as well as Universal Audio UAD-2 DSP processors, along with Apple's Logic Pro or Avid Pro Tools 9, that should make for very nice recording/editing/mixing/mastering setups, as soon as next summer...
If Apple wants to relieve (a little) stress from the MP, they could silently update them with newer Xeon (westmere) cpus, at the same time they update the iMacs to SB:
QC 2.80 -? QC 3.20 W3565 ($294, now)
QC 3.20 -? 6C 3.20 W3670 ($583)
6C 3.33 -? 6C 3.46 W3690 (same $999)
dual QC 2.40 -? 6C 2.40 E5645 ($551)
dual 6C 2.66 -? 6C 2.80 X5660 ($1219) or price cut on the 2.66 ($996) option
dual 6C 2.93 -? 6C 3.06 X5675 (same $1440)
You know, you're right. The 2.93 Core i7-870 is faster than the 2.80 W3530 Xeon, and they cost the same. But 5 to 10% faster is far from being "outclassed" or "outgunned" or whatever.
--------------
Still for many usages, the MP is a better choice, for the reasons you just described: more RAM, more internal storage, PCIe slots. Moreso, if you plan on using PCIe audio interfaces and DSP cards, the cpu performance shouldn't matter much since a lot of the processing you need happens in the cards themselves, not on the cpu.
I know. It got a little muddled with the post above, but I actually posted this on the previous page. BTW, thanks to its superior architecture the MacPro is only marginally slower in the Geekbench. Its CPU is quite a bit slower than the i7.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
i7/870-2.93GHz scores 6100
Xeon W3530-2.8GHz scores 5016
Or more Apple-related:
http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/
iMac i7/870/2.93GHz scores 9084
MacPro Quad Xeon W3530-2.8GHz scores 8360
disclaimer:
This is not to say that the MacPro can't be faster for general computing.
I have it on good authority that the i7's and Xeons are essentially the same, other than the latter's multi-processor support. That is obviously not an issue with single-CPU MacPros, hence my plea for a cheaper base-model with an i7, rather than the Xeon.
I know. It got a little muddled with the post above, but I actually posted this on the previous page. BTW, thanks to its superior architecture the MacPro is only marginally slower in the Geekbench. Its CPU is quite a bit slower than the i7.
I have it on good authority that the i7's and Xeons are essentially the same, other than the latter's multi-processor support. That is obviously not an issue with single-CPU MacPros, hence my plea for a cheaper base-model with an i7, rather than the Xeon.
OK. I didn't want to go there. But if you insist...
1- The Xeon W3xxx don't support multi-processor, they support ECC RAM, they have a triple-channel memory controller, and use a different chipset (X58) in order to offer more PCIe slots. Essentially the Xeon W3xxx (used in the single-cpu MP) are Core i7-900 cpus with ECC RAM support, the Xeon X34xx (not used by Apple) are Core i7-800 cpus with ECC RAM support.
2- While geekbench and cpu benchmarks can give you an idea of the "raw" power, they also can be flawed: simple example, in "your" cpu benchmarks the 2.80 Xeon X3460 is faster than the 2.93 Xeon X3470 (WTF?) as well as the 2.93 Core i7-940, the 2.93 Core i7-870 and even the 3.20 Xeon W3565, that's absolutly ridiculous. So. IMO, any number within 10% should not be taken as significant.
3- Why would Apple offer an headless model based on the same cpu configurations as the iMac, as they would cost less than the iMacs, hence offer less revenus/margins.
4- If you want to use plenty of PCIe cards with your cheaper Mac (Pro), the Core i7-800 family is not a good idea: the chipset only offers few free PCIe lanes if you already use a 16x graphics card. Only the X58 chipset (and higher-end Xeons chipsets) offer more PCIe lanes. The X58 chipset works with Core i7-900 series and the W3xxx series that are essensially the same cpus, in specs and prices, the Xeon having ECC support. Before you go there, the pricing of ECC RAM vs standard RAM is irrelevant in 3/4GB quantities.
5- The Core i7-800, as a line of cpus, is not that cheaper/faster than the Xeon W3xxx family:
$284 QC 2.80 Core i7-860 vs $284 QC 2.66 W3520, or the original Core i7-920
$294 QC 2.93 Core i7-870 vs $294 QC 3.20 W3565, or Core i7-960
$583 QC 3.06 Core i7-880 vs $583 6C 3.20 W3670, or Core i7-970
So, really, what do you think Apple should use for a MP (smaller or not)?
6- Since Intel offers so many different models in each family, it's sure that at some point you gonna get some overlapping. Yet as a manufacturer, you have to consider the platform as a whole, not one specific cpu vs another specific cpu...
----
No matter what, I would love for Apple to release a smaller rackable MP (uni-processor is fine), as long as I get a reasonable number of PCIe lanes available (either for physical PCIe slots or TB ports - each TB port using up to 4x PCIe lanes). So unless Intel releases new cpus with more integrated PCIe lanes or new chipsets that can handle more than 8 PCIe lanes, Xeon W3xxx/Core i7-900 + X58 (and their future SB versions) are still the right way to get everything you need. Even with a much smaller enclosure/PSU, numbers of bays or PCIe slots, etc. I don't expect a "xMac pricing", but starting at $1999 with a QC 3.20 W3565, would be a nice gesture.
Even with a much smaller enclosure/PSU, numbers of bays or PCIe slots, etc. I don't expect a "xMac pricing", but starting at $1999 with a QC 3.20 W3565, would be a nice gesture.
This was pretty much my point, anyway. At the current price the entry-level MacPro is not very good value.
we need to address the future and thin client devices such as iMac ect will not suffice in studio requirements, we do need a redesign of the Macpro to heft the heavy lifting of sound and video editing and the ideal is a twin Zeon based 8PCIe card computer utilising PCI SSD cards we can configure any make up as required from that even 8 graphics cards if necessary.
Intel will be making logic boards accommodating Both NVMexpress and PCIe 3.0 will support more than 1Gbt/sec /link, later this year, now thats thunderbolt lightning evolution!!!
one simple 3u 19" rack frame re-design of the Macpro to accommodate Mother and PCI GPU daughter hight without any mechanical drives, can simply be configured to any professional edit workstation or totam poled server pool also satisfying the guys who are wondering what life after xserve.
if an entry level m/c at an entry price constraint is what you desire buy an iMac wich is plenty powerful for a whole range of professional cloud thin client jobs but not suitable in the main studio.
..........
Anyway, what you guys seem to want that iMac doesn't give you (other than superficial "I want a separate box with the computer in it") is a way to use whatever GPU you want. I think this is intentional on Apple's part because of the driver issues, they're controlling your experience here because the industry isn't in the habit of supporting anything other than Windows, at least not yet.
I'm sure some buy the Mac Pro for its GPU flexibility but in the context of the dislike for the iMac I don't see that as the reason the majority object to the platform. Rather the problem is flexibility, something the iMac doesn't have at all. Flexibility means different things to different people but in all cases it means the iMac and Mini platforms fail for these users. Likewise the Mac pro often fails due the high cost of the machine and possibly its size.
Lets face it with todays chip, mother board and storage technologies one doesn't need a massive box to give the user the flexibility they need. Slots for SSD's, and laptops disks don't take a lot of space. Laptop parts run much cooler today while providing extremely good performance. All of this tech can now be condensed into a small volume allowing for more room for the flexibility features. What we are really talking about is a machine that is positioned someplace between a Mini and a Mac Pro.
What we are really talking about is a machine that is positioned someplace between a Mini and a Mac Pro.
Hear, Hear!! Bravo, Bravo. Now if only Apple could be convinced I would no longer have this wad of money burning a hole in my pocket.
.................................................. .......
A very frustrated 18 year Mac user.
Much smaller but still industrial rack mounting size case to match the target professional unit size housing a single or duel processor mother board option and PSU, NO mechanical drives necessary, with 32mbt or more of ram slots.
8 full size PCI slots, so I can choose to configure what I need for the job.
thats it simple, you can buy PCI cards with harddrives or SSD as you please maxed out for server use, specify any GPUs as you need, or fit any protools or logic cards for the rack of i/o units or specific monitor use in studio or on stage.
and if more is needed TB totempole macpros together, job sorted.
iMacs are great designs but not suitable for studio use as is and has been for many years the Apple flagship Macpro.
Ok if i was to specify a new redesign of the macpro it would be thus...
Much smaller but still industrial rack mounting size case to match the target professional unit size housing a single or duel processor mother board option and PSU, NO mechanical drives necessary, with 32mbt or more of ram slots.
8 full size PCI slots, so I can choose to configure what I need for the job.
thats it simple, you can buy PCI cards with harddrives or SSD as you please maxed out for server use, specify any GPUs as you need, or fit any protools or logic cards for the rack of i/o units or specific monitor use in studio or on stage.
and if more is needed TB totempole macpros together, job sorted.
iMacs are great designs but not suitable for studio use as is and has been for many years the Apple flagship Macpro.
The current MP only offers 4 slots in a size that's bigger than a 5U rack enclosure, just try to imagine the size of a MP with 8 full size PCI slots... The 4 HDDs in a MP don't take much more space than a single PCIe card.
As more and more Thunderbolt devices (other than storage) will be available (from AJA, Blackmagic, AVID=Pro Tools, Apogee=Symphony, Universal Audio, Canon,...), it will reduce the need for physical PCIe slots.
Sure, the need for some PCIe slots will continue for (probably) many years, but knowing Apple, they will probably choose to offer smaller, thinner, more power- efficient models than the opposite. Good luck!
I'm still convince that the way to go is to offer a much smaller single cpu MP, SSD storage, multiple TB controllers/ports, and a "regular" dual-cpu MP, with HDD/SSD, PCIe slots,...
The current MP only offers 4 slots in a size that's bigger than a 5U rack enclosure, just try to imagine the size of a MP with 8 full size PCI slots... The 4 HDDs in a MP don't take much more space than a single PCIe card.
I am an engineer and have just taken the cover off my Macpro and if you take out the HDs and DVD drives and reduce the PCI space to full PCI board size hight -2.5" and -4" depth that still leaves plenty of room for 4 more full size PCI cards slots and reduces the case size necessary by some 40% volume, thats not counting the future Ivy bridge reduction in new 32nm board requirements.
As more and more Thunderbolt devices (other than storage) will be available (from AJA, Blackmagic, AVID=Pro Tools, Apogee=Symphony, Universal Audio, Canon,...), it will reduce the need for physical PCIe slots.
Sure, the need for some PCIe slots will continue for (probably) many years, but knowing Apple, they will probably choose to offer smaller, thinner, more power- efficient models than the opposite. Good luck!
All bar Canon quoted above require a PCI processor card connected in a Macpro or similar PC computer for all professional studio use, I am also a professional Canon 1D photographer which currently use XD cards or usb direct to Aperture in any mac so not sure what you mean there.
Sure, the need for some PCIe slots will continue for (probably) many years, but knowing Apple, they will probably choose to offer smaller, thinner, more power- efficient models than the opposite. Good luck!
I'm still convince that the way to go is to offer a much smaller single cpu MP, SSD storage, multiple TB controllers/ports, and a "regular" dual-cpu MP, with HDD/SSD, PCIe slots,...
You have just proven my point, Mini's need more PCI, Pro's need to come down in size, PCI SSD storage will replace HDs completely needing 4 more PCI slots instead of the HDs. and taking advantage of the much faster PCI interface reducing the SATA bottlenecking problem and allowing much reduced size cases.
the much reduced size pro case could offer both single and twin processor solutions keeping the Apple Flagship flying in the pro market aswell without affecting the imac who's semi pro artists solutions through TB will equally be viable, we are though talking about two different target markets though.