In Geekbench, the fastest Mac Pro beats the fastest iMac by nearly 2:1. That second processor does a lot, as long as your application can use it.
But costs as much as 3 x 27" iMacs, which includes 3 x 27" LED IPS displays worth $3,000.
Intel takes too long to update the Xeons. The E5 Sandy Bridge chips are coming in Q1 2012 now, a year after the Core-i series Sandy Bridge.
I would like to see the Mac Pro get one more design refresh for the next 5 or so years before it's finally laid to rest. Even if they ditch the dual-processor models, which are way too expensive.
The 6-core 3.33GHz W3680 is only around $600. They could have a single model and cut out the extras to either match the current entry price or hit the old $1999 price. No optical drives, no PCI slots, 1GB Radeon 6990M, 4 x drive bays, 400W PSU, 4 x Thunderbolt ports.
The 12-core models do have their place for high-end rendering but you can buy multiple machines for this like the high-end companies do. You could buy 3 x $2000 Mac Pros in a slim design and outperform a 12-core for a lower cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"Where's the like button? "
On the websites that signal the degeneration of human society, where it belongs.
The 12-core models do have their place for high-end rendering but you can buy multiple machines for this like the high-end companies do. You could buy 3 x $2000 Mac Pros in a slim design and outperform a 12-core for a lower cost.
If there was some way to grid them via thunderbolt or run one that way as a server that could work. The annoying thing is that some of these renderers require an extra render node license per machine which can offset savings.
I would like to see the Mac Pro get one more design refresh for the next 5 or so years before it's finally laid to rest.
But with what will they replace it? In five years, will iMacs be twice as fast as modern Mac Pros? Or at least fast enough for the spec snobs (is it okay to call them that? I can't think of a more accurate descriptor) to not have a problem with its death?
I suppose they'll always have a problem with it. They want internal expansion, not ten Thunderbolt ports and power socket.
Apple doesn't seem to care about that, though. Recent history shows "it doesn't matter if it's better if it's also different" when it comes to pro stuff.
And before anyone gets on me about Final Cut Pro X being 'better', I completely agree that they shouldn't have shaved any features. That was one of the stupidest thing Apple has ever done. Right up there with the puck mouse, the Mighty Mouse track sphere being SO easy to get dirty, and iPod Socks. They shouldn't have shaved features from QuickTime X or iMovie '06, but they did. And people got over it as they brought them back.
Quote:
Thanks, but the worst part is, I was being completely serious.
Social networking is redefining the concept of 'friend' into a meaningless melange ranging from 'someone who actually fits the true definition of the word friend' to 'I've never met this person, I am probably either financially or physically incapable of ever meeting this person, I don't have a clue who he is, and my worldview is being shaped by his posts on my wall'. And that's just 'friends', never mind the other stuff for which it tries to write its own definition
Anyway, NOT IMPORTANT. We're talking about the death of the Mac Pro, not the death of human relationships.
Most people who buy 17'' MacBook Pro buy it as a complement to their Mac Pro, to do some work on the go. 17'' MBP is also least popular of the MacBooks. So, after MP disappears, it will be the most expensive and most powerful Apple computer, with the smallest volume of sales, and hence should be killed off next.
Apple really doesn't want to be in the computer business it seems. They want to be handheld maker.
Didn't. Didn't. You didn't see the iPhone 4S keynote, did you?
I didn't, no. What important thing did I miss? The post PC, handheld everything message was communicated before that. And it's well known in the industry where majority of Apple's income comes from.
But with what will they replace it? In five years, will iMacs be twice as fast as modern Mac Pros? Or at least fast enough for the spec snobs (is it okay to call them that? I can't think of a more accurate descriptor) to not have a problem with its death?
I wouldn't be surprised to see imacs consolidated at some point.
The 6-core 3.33GHz W3680 is only around $600. They could have a single model and cut out the extras to either match the current entry price or hit the old $1999 price. No optical drives, no PCI slots, 1GB Radeon 6990M, 4 x drive bays, 400W PSU, 4 x Thunderbolt ports.
If they did that in a new one I'd buy it. The new 6 core is also supposed to be at the $600 price point. A six core machine topped off on ram will probably be what I use next, regardless of OS (I still find windows annoying as hell and I'm still using OSX 90% of the time).
Just axe the mobile gpu for one reason. That drives costs up, not down at equivalent performance levels. The imac is heavily leveraged by volume so they get around some of these issues that way. Anyway macs have never had a solid selection of workstation cards, but if by some chance they could get something like one of the low tdp firepros at least as an option that could be pretty awesome assuming few people buy them for gaming. Some of them are no more power hungry than the card you just listed which is if I recall correctly, constructed from underclocked desktop parts. Yeah I realize the quadros are better, but it could still be a nice option and they don't require a power connector (I think they max around 75W, current imac card is just above that).
Edit: I really don't have any confidence that Apple will do something like this. I wonder if they're talking about what the response would be if people dump their mac pros, as in if those same people would dump their iphones, macbook pros, ipads, etc. Some people own the whole ienvironment.
I run a professional photography studio - and use a huge camera system that is 245 MP - producing 600 MB images. After upsizing to 40X60 inches and adding a few layers, I work on 1.5GB images that need to get ready for printing onto canvas.
I've been waiting for several months to replace my 2009 Mac Pro (I have 2 of them) with a newer, faster model. I also have 15 external hard drives (eSATA) in bays for image storage, and I run 2 large displays.
I'd like a fast processor and 24 GB of RAM -- and my cc is ready.
If you need one now, buy one now. A 12-core Mac Pro will be a lot faster than your 2009 Mac Pro.
Just because the Pro line of products, both hardware and software, may not be as profitable as the consumer machines and portable gadgets (iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad etc), this is not a valid business reason to dump them. If the Pro machines are turning a modest profit and there remains a continued demand for them, especially from countless audio and video professionals and semi-professionals all over the world who are invested in the platform, then it would behoove Apple to maintain the development of the Mac Pro, or an equivalent (updated) product line that covers the top end.
IMHO it would be a false economy, no... it's worse than that... more like shooting themselves in the leg, if they ditched the Pro line, just on account of the obsession with profit maximization, as if that is the only relevant factor in running a business.... (reflecting the impossible/unrealistic demand from shareholders for each quarterly statement to increase at an unsustainable pace).
The Mac Pro and their higher end software like Final Cut, DVD Studio Pro, Logic etc. represent the prestige (and history) of the company. Its what gave machines bearing the Apple logo the sense of "quality" over competing hardware from Dell, HP, Gateway etc, and the Windows OS. It is already proven that Mac users are more productive than their Windows counterparts.. and this fact has even filtered down to the IT world, previously vehemently anti-Mac, but now open minded or even starting to get positive about it.
There is a potentially huge market for high end Apple products in the corporate/IT world, if only Cupertino had the vision to look a little further than the next frickin' quarter (and maybe even invest in some promotion in this area). The boom in Apple gizmos and gadgets sales over the last few years will undoubtedly fall off as other manufacturers carve their own market share and undercut Apple's prices. Also the novelty value of "machines that can do everything, but nothing very well" will grow pretty old, pretty fast.
There will always be a demand for machines with as much media crunching power as possible. Just ask any recording engineer or video producer... and believe me, people in the creative area *need* as much horsepower power as they can get their sweaty hands on. It's all about time and productivity in the ultra competitive world of multimedia.
Re. the high end... a slightly exaggerated analogy here, can you imagine Ferrari abandoning their line of hand built and very expensive high performance cars, in favor of churning out millions of cars that look and feel like a Ford Mustang instead? Um... no.
For Apple to ditch the top end might be the beginning of the end of Apple's current riding the wave... and possibly might even kill the company for good.... unless they are very careful.
Losing the Pro would really, really suck for me. I have an eight core, and waiting for the next platform to get a 12 core. I use all cores every day for development and testing of a large data aggregation application. (and I run Win VMs for development of another part) A 4-core iMac just won't cut it for me at all. Yeah, I know they're fast now, but the next Xeon will be even faster. Faster saves me time and money.
It was a major blow to my server farm to lose Xserves. To lose my primary development platform would suck even more.
Find a way to lower the friggin cost, sell it to me at the same price. Don't cancel it!!!!!!
I've noticed an awful lot of 1st time poster, new accounts on this thread. People outraged by the rumor of change enough to make an account and post or sock puppets to make an issue seem larger than it is. You decide.
I've noticed an awful lot of 1st time poster, new accounts on this thread. People outraged by the rumor of change enough to make an account and post or sock puppets to make an issue seem larger than it is. You decide.
Pretty clear that the bulk of respondents are very, very genuine. Although I make do quite happily with an i7 iMac, working with large data sets, I can understand the concerns. The Mac Pro is a fantastic example of engineering utility, design and purpose. I too hope that it is continued as it (1) represents lessons learned from the dark days of non-expandable systems and therefore provides power and flexibility and (2) will possibly for some time provide the most outright powerful Mac platform.
I'd be happy to see the optical drive bays go away and the form factor therefore reduced, however, the aesthetic is great, this computer is a work of art!
I guess I'm more defending the progress of tech rather than the iMac itself. Most arguments against the death of the Mac Pro tend to require the iMac to never receive an update ever again until the end of time.
That doesn't seem to be the case in this thread.
There *is* an assumption that the design constraints of the iMac will prevent it from being equipped with the same amount of CPU power, for instance, as its contemporary Mac Pro models. It's possible that this may change with time, but for now, those big heat-sinks just won't fit. This is aside from all other issues of expandability, displays, etc. So, sure, iMacs can do a lot now, and they'll be able to do more in the future - but a less-constrained physical design (e.g. Mac Pro) seems likely to maintain an edge.
There's also an assumption that the amount of processing power required (or at least useful) for certain tasks, such as video editing, rendering, audio/music production, etc. will continue to increase as well, as standards continue to be raised based on what's newly possible. Not infinitely, probably, but at least for a while into the future.
I'm using a current 12 core Mac Pro and I have render times of up to 20 minutes a frame, sometimes longer. So I don't want to wait a few years for an iMac or Mac Mini to have the power of what is needed NOW.
If Apple drops the Mac Pro, I'm am switching, and I'm not just switching at the desktop level, I'm switching the whole studio. Then their halo is broken...and when my friends that aren't professionals see me using something other than Apple, they're going to question why they're using it, if the professionals aren't. Consumers always and will continue to want what the professionals/famous people use. That will not be Apple if they kill the Mac Pro. As I will switch within 3 months of that announcement.
Agreed 100%.
I would love to see Apple developing a massively parallel hardware rendering engine for we Final Cut users. At $thousands it would be an expensive piece, but it would pay itself back quickly, especially for the professional user for whom time really *is* money. And hardware is what makes Apple its bucks. Unfortunately, but they have gotten on a bender with consumer gadgets, while ditching the section of the market which has been Apple's life blood for decades.
I'll switch as well, if the Mac Pro is discontinued. No iMac cuts it, even close.
Comments
In Geekbench, the fastest Mac Pro beats the fastest iMac by nearly 2:1. That second processor does a lot, as long as your application can use it.
But costs as much as 3 x 27" iMacs, which includes 3 x 27" LED IPS displays worth $3,000.
Intel takes too long to update the Xeons. The E5 Sandy Bridge chips are coming in Q1 2012 now, a year after the Core-i series Sandy Bridge.
I would like to see the Mac Pro get one more design refresh for the next 5 or so years before it's finally laid to rest. Even if they ditch the dual-processor models, which are way too expensive.
The 6-core 3.33GHz W3680 is only around $600. They could have a single model and cut out the extras to either match the current entry price or hit the old $1999 price. No optical drives, no PCI slots, 1GB Radeon 6990M, 4 x drive bays, 400W PSU, 4 x Thunderbolt ports.
The 12-core models do have their place for high-end rendering but you can buy multiple machines for this like the high-end companies do. You could buy 3 x $2000 Mac Pros in a slim design and outperform a 12-core for a lower cost.
"Where's the like button?
On the websites that signal the degeneration of human society, where it belongs.
The 12-core models do have their place for high-end rendering but you can buy multiple machines for this like the high-end companies do. You could buy 3 x $2000 Mac Pros in a slim design and outperform a 12-core for a lower cost.
If there was some way to grid them via thunderbolt or run one that way as a server that could work. The annoying thing is that some of these renderers require an extra render node license per machine which can offset savings.
I would like to see the Mac Pro get one more design refresh for the next 5 or so years before it's finally laid to rest.
But with what will they replace it? In five years, will iMacs be twice as fast as modern Mac Pros? Or at least fast enough for the spec snobs (is it okay to call them that? I can't think of a more accurate descriptor) to not have a problem with its death?
I suppose they'll always have a problem with it. They want internal expansion, not ten Thunderbolt ports and power socket.
Apple doesn't seem to care about that, though. Recent history shows "it doesn't matter if it's better if it's also different" when it comes to pro stuff.
And before anyone gets on me about Final Cut Pro X being 'better', I completely agree that they shouldn't have shaved any features. That was one of the stupidest thing Apple has ever done. Right up there with the puck mouse, the Mighty Mouse track sphere being SO easy to get dirty, and iPod Socks. They shouldn't have shaved features from QuickTime X or iMovie '06, but they did. And people got over it as they brought them back.
Thanks, but the worst part is, I was being completely serious.
Social networking is redefining the concept of 'friend' into a meaningless melange ranging from 'someone who actually fits the true definition of the word friend' to 'I've never met this person, I am probably either financially or physically incapable of ever meeting this person, I don't have a clue who he is, and my worldview is being shaped by his posts on my wall'. And that's just 'friends', never mind the other stuff for which it tries to write its own definition
Anyway, NOT IMPORTANT. We're talking about the death of the Mac Pro, not the death of human relationships.
Apple really doesn't want to be in the computer business it seems. They want to be handheld maker.
Apple really doesn't want to be in the computer business it seems. They want to be handheld maker.
Didn't. Didn't. You didn't see the iPhone 4S keynote, did you?
Didn't. Didn't. You didn't see the iPhone 4S keynote, did you?
I didn't, no. What important thing did I miss? The post PC, handheld everything message was communicated before that. And it's well known in the industry where majority of Apple's income comes from.
But with what will they replace it? In five years, will iMacs be twice as fast as modern Mac Pros? Or at least fast enough for the spec snobs (is it okay to call them that? I can't think of a more accurate descriptor) to not have a problem with its death?
I wouldn't be surprised to see imacs consolidated at some point.
I didn't, no. What important thing did I miss?
The nuances of the way that Tim Cook talked about the Mac and Mac marketshare at the beginning.
Gave me chills. He CARES.
The 6-core 3.33GHz W3680 is only around $600. They could have a single model and cut out the extras to either match the current entry price or hit the old $1999 price. No optical drives, no PCI slots, 1GB Radeon 6990M, 4 x drive bays, 400W PSU, 4 x Thunderbolt ports.
If they did that in a new one I'd buy it. The new 6 core is also supposed to be at the $600 price point. A six core machine topped off on ram will probably be what I use next, regardless of OS (I still find windows annoying as hell and I'm still using OSX 90% of the time).
Just axe the mobile gpu for one reason. That drives costs up, not down at equivalent performance levels. The imac is heavily leveraged by volume so they get around some of these issues that way. Anyway macs have never had a solid selection of workstation cards, but if by some chance they could get something like one of the low tdp firepros at least as an option that could be pretty awesome assuming few people buy them for gaming. Some of them are no more power hungry than the card you just listed which is if I recall correctly, constructed from underclocked desktop parts. Yeah I realize the quadros are better, but it could still be a nice option and they don't require a power connector (I think they max around 75W, current imac card is just above that).
Edit: I really don't have any confidence that Apple will do something like this. I wonder if they're talking about what the response would be if people dump their mac pros, as in if those same people would dump their iphones, macbook pros, ipads, etc. Some people own the whole ienvironment.
Good luck if your integrated screen burns out!
(This is not a comment on built in screens vs. standalone) ...burns out!. You do realise that Apple monitors are no longer using CRTs?
I run a professional photography studio - and use a huge camera system that is 245 MP - producing 600 MB images. After upsizing to 40X60 inches and adding a few layers, I work on 1.5GB images that need to get ready for printing onto canvas.
I've been waiting for several months to replace my 2009 Mac Pro (I have 2 of them) with a newer, faster model. I also have 15 external hard drives (eSATA) in bays for image storage, and I run 2 large displays.
I'd like a fast processor and 24 GB of RAM -- and my cc is ready.
If you need one now, buy one now. A 12-core Mac Pro will be a lot faster than your 2009 Mac Pro.
You certainly are, and should stay confused
You certainly are, and should stay confused
Broken quotes do not a post make.
Broken quotes do not a post make.
IMHO it would be a false economy, no... it's worse than that... more like shooting themselves in the leg, if they ditched the Pro line, just on account of the obsession with profit maximization, as if that is the only relevant factor in running a business.... (reflecting the impossible/unrealistic demand from shareholders for each quarterly statement to increase at an unsustainable pace).
The Mac Pro and their higher end software like Final Cut, DVD Studio Pro, Logic etc. represent the prestige (and history) of the company. Its what gave machines bearing the Apple logo the sense of "quality" over competing hardware from Dell, HP, Gateway etc, and the Windows OS. It is already proven that Mac users are more productive than their Windows counterparts.. and this fact has even filtered down to the IT world, previously vehemently anti-Mac, but now open minded or even starting to get positive about it.
There is a potentially huge market for high end Apple products in the corporate/IT world, if only Cupertino had the vision to look a little further than the next frickin' quarter (and maybe even invest in some promotion in this area). The boom in Apple gizmos and gadgets sales over the last few years will undoubtedly fall off as other manufacturers carve their own market share and undercut Apple's prices. Also the novelty value of "machines that can do everything, but nothing very well" will grow pretty old, pretty fast.
There will always be a demand for machines with as much media crunching power as possible. Just ask any recording engineer or video producer... and believe me, people in the creative area *need* as much horsepower power as they can get their sweaty hands on. It's all about time and productivity in the ultra competitive world of multimedia.
Re. the high end... a slightly exaggerated analogy here, can you imagine Ferrari abandoning their line of hand built and very expensive high performance cars, in favor of churning out millions of cars that look and feel like a Ford Mustang instead? Um... no.
For Apple to ditch the top end might be the beginning of the end of Apple's current riding the wave... and possibly might even kill the company for good.... unless they are very careful.
It was a major blow to my server farm to lose Xserves. To lose my primary development platform would suck even more.
Find a way to lower the friggin cost, sell it to me at the same price. Don't cancel it!!!!!!
I've noticed an awful lot of 1st time poster, new accounts on this thread. People outraged by the rumor of change enough to make an account and post or sock puppets to make an issue seem larger than it is. You decide.
Pretty clear that the bulk of respondents are very, very genuine. Although I make do quite happily with an i7 iMac, working with large data sets, I can understand the concerns. The Mac Pro is a fantastic example of engineering utility, design and purpose. I too hope that it is continued as it (1) represents lessons learned from the dark days of non-expandable systems and therefore provides power and flexibility and (2) will possibly for some time provide the most outright powerful Mac platform.
I'd be happy to see the optical drive bays go away and the form factor therefore reduced, however, the aesthetic is great, this computer is a work of art!
All the best.
p.s. (1) I am tempted...
p.s. (2) Welcome to our new members.
Hmm. All right, fair enough.
I guess I'm more defending the progress of tech rather than the iMac itself. Most arguments against the death of the Mac Pro tend to require the iMac to never receive an update ever again until the end of time.
That doesn't seem to be the case in this thread.
There *is* an assumption that the design constraints of the iMac will prevent it from being equipped with the same amount of CPU power, for instance, as its contemporary Mac Pro models. It's possible that this may change with time, but for now, those big heat-sinks just won't fit. This is aside from all other issues of expandability, displays, etc. So, sure, iMacs can do a lot now, and they'll be able to do more in the future - but a less-constrained physical design (e.g. Mac Pro) seems likely to maintain an edge.
There's also an assumption that the amount of processing power required (or at least useful) for certain tasks, such as video editing, rendering, audio/music production, etc. will continue to increase as well, as standards continue to be raised based on what's newly possible. Not infinitely, probably, but at least for a while into the future.
I'm using a current 12 core Mac Pro and I have render times of up to 20 minutes a frame, sometimes longer. So I don't want to wait a few years for an iMac or Mac Mini to have the power of what is needed NOW.
If Apple drops the Mac Pro, I'm am switching, and I'm not just switching at the desktop level, I'm switching the whole studio. Then their halo is broken...and when my friends that aren't professionals see me using something other than Apple, they're going to question why they're using it, if the professionals aren't. Consumers always and will continue to want what the professionals/famous people use. That will not be Apple if they kill the Mac Pro. As I will switch within 3 months of that announcement.
Agreed 100%.
I would love to see Apple developing a massively parallel hardware rendering engine for we Final Cut users. At $thousands it would be an expensive piece, but it would pay itself back quickly, especially for the professional user for whom time really *is* money. And hardware is what makes Apple its bucks. Unfortunately, but they have gotten on a bender with consumer gadgets, while ditching the section of the market which has been Apple's life blood for decades.
I'll switch as well, if the Mac Pro is discontinued. No iMac cuts it, even close.