can you please explain to me what the current Mac Pro can't do for you?
Its not for me what my current mac pro can't do for me as how fast it can do it for me. I do a lot of video editing on my machine and a lot of redering out to h.264, this is where the mac pro's shine, multicore support and hard crunching of video data is just what these machines are designed for. The xeon processors are a workhorse processor, I can max out all my cpu's encoding video and run them that way for weeks if necessary and have complete stability. iMacs just are not designed for this kind of use. Also the expandability of the Mac Pro is another area where professionals have to have a machine that can support multiple pci cards and expandability.
Having said the above pros need faster and faster machines to do there work and keep up, The current mac pro like has been said is two years without a refresh, and starting to lag behind. Pros are people that make the things most users enjoy so apple needs to really keep them happy. There is no excuse for not taking some of those billions of dollars apple has in cash and investing it in keeping pro developers happy with a current and speedy workhorse machine.
I think the current answer to that is that the retina 15" model has far greater resolution and more screen real estate than the old 17" did.
So unless you have bad eyesight (which lets face it isn't really a computer manufacturer's problem), the 15" will work for most of those that used to use the 17". Also Apple has spent the last five years or so adding all kinds of technology to the OS to help people deal with doing more on smaller screens like multiple desktops, Mission Control, fast app switching, full screen apps, swiping, etc., so you could use those as well.
The new retina macbook pro has higher resolution but less screen real estate than 17'' MBP. Really, it has the same screen real estate as old 15'' MBP (2880x1800 pixels is exactly 4 times 1440x900) so 4 times as many pixels are used to render same size UI elements as on the old 15'' MBP. You are not going to see more of text in a web page or text editor on the new screen.
Everything seems rather confusing at the moment with the Mac.
1. We now have old and new MBPs which seems a real fudge. In the past Apple would have been bold and simply jumped onto the new technology and dumped the old MBP.
2. The MBA seems confused. Are they planning to merge the MBA and MBP as some have rumoured or keep the 2 distinct product lines?
3. Tim Cook says that they have something very interesting for Pro customers next year. He didn't actually say it would be a new Mac Pro though. It could be an entirely new product or an iMac Pro.
4. What happens to the iMac and Mac Mini in the meantime - are they getting a spec bump this year or do we have to wait until next year now?
5. Software seems to have fallen off the agenda. Aperture and Final Cut received updates purely to promote the new retina MBP rather than to add new features. iWork seems to have totally dropped of the radar.
I'm not really sure Apple knows were it's going with the Mac anymore.
"The PC wars are over. Microsoft won." ...Steve Jobs
Just like any successful companyApple looks to the future and the future does not include desktop PCs. Scream or wring your hands all you want but Apple's future lies with mobile devices. Apple does not consider itself to be a traditional computer maker anymore. AT&T now considers itself to be a wireless company, not the old wireline company it has been for over 100 years. As has been said many times lately we are entering the post-PC world. Get used to the new Apple as that's where Jobs was headed when he retired to the spirit world.
The future doesn't include laptops. Desktops are going to see a resurgence. Laptops in the short term, but they'll be useless when direct-contact multitouch comes to desktop OS'.
The timeframe of late 2013 makes me think this will be the big overhaul. While Ivy Bridge Xeons would be due at that point, I really don't think it would be wise of Intel to bother with Ivy Bridge Xeons. They have 22nm already so they might as well jump right to the Haswell architecture.
10-core/20-thread single CPU, 8" Cube design, 512GB SSD blade, 3x platter bays, fast GPU only upgradable from Apple using HSA architecture, 6x Thunderbolt ports 20Gbps each, 4x RAM slots (up to 64GB RAM), Thunderbolt daisy-chaining for compute sharing CPUs and GPUs.
No way they'd wait 3 years and build another giant box.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's a vastly different beast to the current Mac Pro. I bolded your mention of Thunderbolt because it's when Thunderbolt gets off copper and onto optics that the fun starts and Apple can really make some big changes to it's workstation-class computers. "Pro users" don't mind change, but they do need support for high-end I/O.
I'd like to know what exactly the problem is with the *current* Mac Pros? Do they not run Final Cut fast enough? They might not have the absolute newest video card, but what are you doing with it that you'll need that? I don't get all the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth. It's a workstation costing several thousand dollars, with the top-end system requiring a bank-loan for some (unless their company picks it up or writes it off, etc.) So it isn't meant to be updated very regularly. These things are built to last and built to handle heavy loads.
I'd like to know how Apple's current Mac Pro upgrade cycle is having such a detrimental effect on Pros that they're *losing money* because the machines can't do the work necessary to fulfill contractual obligations to clients.
I'm betting that the above is hardly the case.
Here was the mid-2010 lineup. Let's not even talk about the most recent spec bump.
Mid-2010 Mac Pro Lineup
Quad-Core
8-Core
12-Core
CPU
1 x Xeon W3530 (2.8GHz - 4C/8T)
2 x Xeon E5620 (2.4GHz - 4C/8T)
2 x Xeon X5650 (2.66GHz - 6C/12T)
Memory
3 x 1GB DDR3-1066
6GB DDR3-1066
6GB DDR3-1333
Graphics
Radeon HD 5770 1GB
ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
Hard Drive
1TB
1TB 7200RPM SATA
1TB 7200RPM SATA
Optical
18x DL SuperDrive
18x DL SuperDrive
18x DL SuperDrive
Prices
$2499
$3499
$4999
And there's opportunity for expandability there. Unmatched build quality. By the looks of it, lots of power. And it runs OS X.
Companies and individual pros have budgets you know. We buy new computers every once in a while, when it is justified or when budget allows. We will not put our money into a dieing platform or 2 year old computer that still costs exactly the same as the first day it came out. It is simply a senseless purchasing decision to do that.
This is not about current machine not meeting needs as much as it is about future planning and budgeting and knowing your platform of choice is going to be supported when you do need a new machine. Otherwise, we need to plan and budget for total platform switch, which is costly and disruptive. This is why typical Apple silence on their long term plans is so frustrating.
I'd like to know what exactly the problem is with the *current* Mac Pros? Do they not run Final Cut fast enough? They might not have the absolute newest video card, but what are you doing with it that you'll need that? I don't get
You don't get it, we get that. "Run Final Cut"? It's not about 'running' software, it's about how the computer is able to handle the codecs. Our '08 Mac Pros 'run' FCS fine, but are struggling big-time with current codecs - something that has really hit hard in the last 12 months. We have already upgraded to custom GPUs for our suites running Davinci Resolve for grading, and we'll grab one of the "new" Mac Pros just released as a stop-gap measure only.
Given that the top end Mac Pro is an expensive beast, production houses like ours not only keep these machines for as long as possible but also look to new purchases to be able to have a long life. We need them to not only come with more grunt to be able to support modern codecs (HD/2K/4K/5K) but to have up-to-date I/O, ie Thunderbolt and USB3 in order to work with and to be able to get massive amounts of media in and out as quickly as possible.
What do you mean it is pretty obvious that the petition was a waste of time. Unless you call this "new" Mac Pro the type of machine Mac Pro users where expecting.
Is that how you see it? If so then I think you mistake the intention of the petition as well as the concerns of those using Mac Pros in a production environment. As much as getting a new model it was about getting some kind of indication as to whether or not they were going to have to jump from a platform that they have invested heavily into. The fact that Tim Cook responded means that it wasn't a waste of time at all.
Its not for me what my current mac pro can't do for me as how fast it can do it for me. I do a lot of video editing on my machine and a lot of redering out to h.264, this is where the mac pro's shine, multicore support and hard crunching of video data is just what these machines are designed for. The xeon processors are a workhorse processor, I can max out all my cpu's encoding video and run them that way for weeks if necessary and have complete stability. iMacs just are not designed for this kind of use. Also the expandability of the Mac Pro is another area where professionals have to have a machine that can support multiple pci cards and expandability.
Having said the above pros need faster and faster machines to do there work and keep up, The current mac pro like has been said is two years without a refresh, and starting to lag behind. Pros are people that make the things most users enjoy so apple needs to really keep them happy. There is no excuse for not taking some of those billions of dollars apple has in cash and investing it in keeping pro developers happy with a current and speedy workhorse machine.
It might be a waste of time answering the questions below. I will give it a shot though.
First; the current Pros are crap. Basically you have I/O that would have been great 3 or 4 years ago but is now an impediment to fast operation. Second; no one cares about Final Cut. Third; if you don't know why paying a premium price for a 3 year old GPU card is a problem you need to get a life and a bit of an education.
The problem is it is a workstation costing thousands of dollars as such people expect modern hardware for that cash out lay. Think about it a bit why in hell would you spend multiple thousands of dollars for a machine that doesn't support modern I/O? We can focus on USB 3 or any other part of the system if you like but really why would you lay out cash for hardware that has been dated for three years now? Especially a machine that is an investment and has to last.
What's the issue with modern I/O?
1) Many of the Pro users I know are running FC or SAS HBAs and not USB3.
2) You can always add a USB3 card now. Just like you have to add a FC card. Mostly useful for 3TB external drives for sneaker netting...at least around here.
3) TB is great but most of the products are geared toward mobile and not workstation. Many high end workflow TB solutions involve buying a PCIe chassis from Sonnet and sticking in PCIe cards...which you can just do in the Mac Pro. TB really helps iMac and MBP/MBA users a heck of a lot more than Mac Pro users. In fact, TB helps you transition from needing a Mac Pro for expansion to a smaller footprint.
4) The Mac Pro has not been dated for 3 years. This is either a typo or a truly idiotic statement.
The old GPU does suck...hopefully a new one will appear soon. If you need a new Mac Pro today it kinda sucks but you get to depreciate it 50% this year and you need it to get work done. Generally the billable hours outweigh the cost. Most Pro users will just wait till next year and hope it's actually EARLY next year and not late.
This new forum system can't quote properly at all.
What i was going to respond to is what the Mac Pro replacement will look like. I think you are a bit negative here in describing it as a Mac Mini as I'm really hoping for more. Note I said hoping, I've lost confidence that Apple has really good plans for the desktop.
I do expect a dramatic change in size for the pro replacement. If they put half as much effort into it that they put into the retina Laptop it could be one hell of a machine. That is if they keep an eye on the ball and truly design a machine for professional usage. There is a real and justified fear that they don't grasp professional needs anymore. Of course most professionals can't see beyond their own needs so this is no surprise. What they do need to do is to make sure they end up with a machine that appeals to a wide array of users.
Given that the top end Mac Pro is an expensive beast, production houses like ours not only keep these machines for as long as possible but also look to new purchases to be able to have a long life. We need them to not only come with more grunt to be able to support modern codecs (HD/2K/4K/5K) but to have up-to-date I/O, ie Thunderbolt and USB3 in order to work with and to be able to get massive amounts of media in and out as quickly as possible.
What are you using today? Harsh language? Tell me you're using FW800 and I'll ask you to pull the other one. What do you expect TB to do that 8 Gbps FC cannot? Do you really think you're better off connecting to a Promise Pegasus via TB over a Promise Ex30 with 8 Gbps FC ports? You'd really prefer to use an Aja IO over an Aja Kona?
I guess everyone runs out of slots sometime but still I don't get it...yeah TB ports on the Pro would be nice but the PCIe lanes come from somewhere. There are a lot of use cases where you might want those 4 PCIe lanes not configured as 2 x 10Gb bi-directional.
As for USB3, I guess the Mac Pro has enough CPU power that you'll never notice but it appears that many times higher end legacy interfaces run faster with less of a hit on the CPU. Like say eSATA.
It is no different than in the hard econmy goods. Take a machine shop for example that has a CNC lathe capable of making one part at X speed and a competitor across the street with a different lathe that can make the part 4 times faster. Given equal hardware costs who do you think will make money on producing these parts.
What many people can't fathom here is that it is exactly the same deal with the Mac Pro. The Pro user might not be fabricating valve parts on a lathe but rather the parts might be video files, a structural analysis or a sequencing code. Whatever they are doing the complexity demands powerful computers and staying up to date. If the competition can buy 4x computer performance for the same number of dollars then he has a huge advantage over someone running an aging Mac Pro. Right now 4X is a realistic number though the cost might be higher.
In the end it is the old yarn about time being money. Time here being computer time.
Another way to look at this is the concept of a job submission. Let's say user X has to submit his jobs at the end of the work day to view the results the next morning. That is a job might take ten or more hours. Now user Y has a much faster computer that can run the same job in a couple of hours. So he submits the job before lunch, takes some time to do some banking or surprises the wife for some afternoon delight. User Y comes back to his work station after that long lunch and has several hours to review the job that just finished up. The review finds the need to tweak a few things so the job is resubmitted again that day. User Y is already well ahead of User X, a two hour turn around is giving him a huge advantage over user X. Realistically he can turn the job around three times in one day if he has too. The same job might cause user X three days of effort.
Now obviously the above is slightly contrived. However modern hardware and OpenCL type acceleration has caused such jumps in performance such that overnight jobs become a couple of hours of processing time. In the context of the Mac Pro it would not be impossible to find a workstation today that can run 4X faster on some jobs. It is a real concern if you are in business and have agressive competition.
Our '08 Mac Pros 'run' FCS fine, but are struggling big-time with current codecs - something that has really hit hard in the last 12 months. We have already upgraded to custom GPUs for our suites running Davinci Resolve for grading, and we'll grab one of the "new" Mac Pros just released as a stop-gap measure only.
Doh...erased this part in the post.
IMHO going the route with GPU-Xpander is better than the bump from a Sandy Bridge Xeon update. That burns a full x8 or x16 slot but you can cram what? 4 Teslas in the desktop model? With their own power supply? Dunno, we don't have one as far as I know but I don't work with any of those guys any more either.
I'd also much rather have 8 lanes available for this over having them dedicated to 2 x TB ports on the Mac Pro.
In this case I meant literally all I/O. I mention USB 3 because of it's fast grow or acceptance in the marketplace. However if you ignore that at the moment you will see that all I/O on these machines be it memory, disk interfaces or PCI Epress lanes is ancient in computer terms. It is hardly smart to invest in something like the current Mac Pro when everything you buy for it is effectively old and slow.
1) Many of the Pro users I know are running FC or SAS HBAs and not USB3.
Sure many are but as many are running plain old SATA devices. Devices that could perform very well given something better than the current interfaces.
2) You can always add a USB3 card now. Just like you have to add a FC card. Mostly useful for 3TB external drives for sneaker netting...at least around here.
Sure if you want to use a slot, I might suggest though that there are better uses for those slots. Especially considering it is about time to build such interfaces into the machine.
3) TB is great but most of the products are geared toward mobile and not workstation.
Really I'm under the opposite impression.
Many high end workflow TB solutions involve buying a PCIe chassis from Sonnet and sticking in PCIe cards...which you can just do in the Mac Pro. TB really helps iMac and MBP/MBA users a heck of a lot more than Mac Pro users.
Well it would considering that the Mac Pro doesn't have TB ports in the first place.
In fact, TB helps you transition from needing a Mac Pro for expansion to a smaller footprint.
Realistically TB doesn't even do that. TB is not some black magic that conjures up unlimited bandwidth. It is hater a serial connection with everything that implies.
4) The Mac Pro has not been dated for 3 years. This is either a typo or a truly idiotic statement.
Well do you call what we got yesterday an update? All we got was a pathetic bump of the processors. Not even the video card got touched which is slightly more than three years old I believe.
The old GPU does suck...hopefully a new one will appear soon. If you need a new Mac Pro today it kinda sucks but you get to depreciate it 50% this year and you need it to get work done. Generally the billable hours outweigh the cost. Most Pro users will just wait till next year and hope it's actually EARLY next year and not late.
This I agree with, many will simply wait or defect. Nobody is rationally going to invest in this technology, especially when it is clear that the platform is dead.
If the competition can buy 4x computer performance for the same number of dollars then he has a huge advantage over someone running an aging Mac Pro. Right now 4X is a realistic number though the cost might be higher.
...
Now obviously the above is slightly contrived. However modern hardware and OpenCL type acceleration has caused such jumps in performance such that overnight jobs become a couple of hours of processing time. In the context of the Mac Pro it would not be impossible to find a workstation today that can run 4X faster on some jobs. It is a real concern if you are in business and have agressive competition.
Mmm...in a new buy scenario yes an updated Sandy Bridge Xeon is obviously a no brainer over the current Mac Pro.
In the scenario where I already have a 2010 Mac Pro you kinda have to show me that you're going to get 4X performance just by switching to Sandy Bridge. Maybe I buy it because you're moving from PCIe 2.0 to PCIe 3.0...that's double the bandwidth to use on GPUs...but the scaling isn't generally linear and it's still only 2X and not 4X.
In a capex constrained environment am I better spending $$$ to replace the existing Mac Pro with the Sandy Bridge Mac Pro or fully upgrading the current one? Is it better to add to your transcoding or render or compute farm than upgrade a dozen Mac Pros to Sandy Bridge? Or hell, just buy time from Encoding.com?
That's not my line of work but I DO know it's a hell of a lot cheaper for me to buy time on Amazon EC2 for some compute tasks than the kit out my own server farm. I can get a Cluster Compute Eight Extra Large Instance (60.5GB RAM, 2x Intel Xeon E5-2670) for a HPC job for $2.40/hour. Which sounds so-so if you want to run one of these 24/7 for 365 days but some HPC use cases I'd like 1064 instances x 24 hours. That would only cost me $61K assuming Amazon could actually sell me 1064 instances at any one time. Not likely, but I have scenarios where I could use 100 compute instances for a monte carlo run. Assuming the job takes a day that's still under $6K.
If I need to use CUDA I can buy a Cluster GPU instance with 2xXeon X5570 and 2xM2050 Fermis for $2.10 an hour. Each card is still around a grand each. I can get 1000 hours for the price of buying two of these cards.
I assume the economies of scale work about the same way with something like Encoding.com.
So no, I don't buy into Mac Pro shops are doomed vs competitors sporting new HP or Dell Sandy Bridge Xeon workstations.
This trickle of information really makes it difficult to recommend Apple's products to clients. They don't update the Mac Pro for two years and then give it a minor update. It's hardly a "Pro" product anymore. I gues they don't care about this stuff anymore: http://jeff-with-a-g.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/apples-high-order-bit.html
This I agree with, many will simply wait or defect. Nobody is rationally going to invest in this technology, especially when it is clear that the platform is dead.
Where the hell do you get that? Cook just promised a full update in 2013. That doesn't preclude another spec bump before then.
Mostly I expect a case mod in 2013 to allow for rack mounting. Slapping Sandy Bridge into the existing MP is still a possibility.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedude
Mac Pro fans scare me.
can you please explain to me what the current Mac Pro can't do for you?
Its not for me what my current mac pro can't do for me as how fast it can do it for me. I do a lot of video editing on my machine and a lot of redering out to h.264, this is where the mac pro's shine, multicore support and hard crunching of video data is just what these machines are designed for. The xeon processors are a workhorse processor, I can max out all my cpu's encoding video and run them that way for weeks if necessary and have complete stability. iMacs just are not designed for this kind of use. Also the expandability of the Mac Pro is another area where professionals have to have a machine that can support multiple pci cards and expandability.
Having said the above pros need faster and faster machines to do there work and keep up, The current mac pro like has been said is two years without a refresh, and starting to lag behind. Pros are people that make the things most users enjoy so apple needs to really keep them happy. There is no excuse for not taking some of those billions of dollars apple has in cash and investing it in keeping pro developers happy with a current and speedy workhorse machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I think the current answer to that is that the retina 15" model has far greater resolution and more screen real estate than the old 17" did.
So unless you have bad eyesight (which lets face it isn't really a computer manufacturer's problem), the 15" will work for most of those that used to use the 17". Also Apple has spent the last five years or so adding all kinds of technology to the OS to help people deal with doing more on smaller screens like multiple desktops, Mission Control, fast app switching, full screen apps, swiping, etc., so you could use those as well.
The new retina macbook pro has higher resolution but less screen real estate than 17'' MBP. Really, it has the same screen real estate as old 15'' MBP (2880x1800 pixels is exactly 4 times 1440x900) so 4 times as many pixels are used to render same size UI elements as on the old 15'' MBP. You are not going to see more of text in a web page or text editor on the new screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
Everything seems rather confusing at the moment with the Mac.
1. We now have old and new MBPs which seems a real fudge. In the past Apple would have been bold and simply jumped onto the new technology and dumped the old MBP.
2. The MBA seems confused. Are they planning to merge the MBA and MBP as some have rumoured or keep the 2 distinct product lines?
3. Tim Cook says that they have something very interesting for Pro customers next year. He didn't actually say it would be a new Mac Pro though. It could be an entirely new product or an iMac Pro.
4. What happens to the iMac and Mac Mini in the meantime - are they getting a spec bump this year or do we have to wait until next year now?
5. Software seems to have fallen off the agenda. Aperture and Final Cut received updates purely to promote the new retina MBP rather than to add new features. iWork seems to have totally dropped of the radar.
I'm not really sure Apple knows were it's going with the Mac anymore.
"The PC wars are over. Microsoft won." ...Steve Jobs
Just like any successful companyApple looks to the future and the future does not include desktop PCs. Scream or wring your hands all you want but Apple's future lies with mobile devices. Apple does not consider itself to be a traditional computer maker anymore. AT&T now considers itself to be a wireless company, not the old wireline company it has been for over 100 years. As has been said many times lately we are entering the post-PC world. Get used to the new Apple as that's where Jobs was headed when he retired to the spirit world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
…and the future does not include desktop PCs.
The future doesn't include laptops. Desktops are going to see a resurgence. Laptops in the short term, but they'll be useless when direct-contact multitouch comes to desktop OS'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The timeframe of late 2013 makes me think this will be the big overhaul. While Ivy Bridge Xeons would be due at that point, I really don't think it would be wise of Intel to bother with Ivy Bridge Xeons. They have 22nm already so they might as well jump right to the Haswell architecture.
10-core/20-thread single CPU, 8" Cube design, 512GB SSD blade, 3x platter bays, fast GPU only upgradable from Apple using HSA architecture, 6x Thunderbolt ports 20Gbps each, 4x RAM slots (up to 64GB RAM), Thunderbolt daisy-chaining for compute sharing CPUs and GPUs.
No way they'd wait 3 years and build another giant box.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's a vastly different beast to the current Mac Pro. I bolded your mention of Thunderbolt because it's when Thunderbolt gets off copper and onto optics that the fun starts and Apple can really make some big changes to it's workstation-class computers. "Pro users" don't mind change, but they do need support for high-end I/O.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
I'd like to know what exactly the problem is with the *current* Mac Pros? Do they not run Final Cut fast enough? They might not have the absolute newest video card, but what are you doing with it that you'll need that? I don't get all the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth. It's a workstation costing several thousand dollars, with the top-end system requiring a bank-loan for some (unless their company picks it up or writes it off, etc.) So it isn't meant to be updated very regularly. These things are built to last and built to handle heavy loads.
I'd like to know how Apple's current Mac Pro upgrade cycle is having such a detrimental effect on Pros that they're *losing money* because the machines can't do the work necessary to fulfill contractual obligations to clients.
I'm betting that the above is hardly the case.
Here was the mid-2010 lineup. Let's not even talk about the most recent spec bump.
Mid-2010 Mac Pro Lineup
Quad-Core
8-Core
12-Core
CPU
1 x Xeon W3530 (2.8GHz - 4C/8T)
2 x Xeon E5620 (2.4GHz - 4C/8T)
2 x Xeon X5650 (2.66GHz - 6C/12T)
Memory
3 x 1GB DDR3-1066
6GB DDR3-1066
6GB DDR3-1333
Graphics
Radeon HD 5770 1GB
ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
Hard Drive
1TB
1TB 7200RPM SATA
1TB 7200RPM SATA
Optical
18x DL SuperDrive
18x DL SuperDrive
18x DL SuperDrive
Prices
$2499
$3499
$4999
And there's opportunity for expandability there. Unmatched build quality. By the looks of it, lots of power. And it runs OS X.
Companies and individual pros have budgets you know. We buy new computers every once in a while, when it is justified or when budget allows. We will not put our money into a dieing platform or 2 year old computer that still costs exactly the same as the first day it came out. It is simply a senseless purchasing decision to do that.
This is not about current machine not meeting needs as much as it is about future planning and budgeting and knowing your platform of choice is going to be supported when you do need a new machine. Otherwise, we need to plan and budget for total platform switch, which is costly and disruptive. This is why typical Apple silence on their long term plans is so frustrating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
I'd like to know what exactly the problem is with the *current* Mac Pros? Do they not run Final Cut fast enough? They might not have the absolute newest video card, but what are you doing with it that you'll need that? I don't get
You don't get it, we get that. "Run Final Cut"? It's not about 'running' software, it's about how the computer is able to handle the codecs. Our '08 Mac Pros 'run' FCS fine, but are struggling big-time with current codecs - something that has really hit hard in the last 12 months. We have already upgraded to custom GPUs for our suites running Davinci Resolve for grading, and we'll grab one of the "new" Mac Pros just released as a stop-gap measure only.
Given that the top end Mac Pro is an expensive beast, production houses like ours not only keep these machines for as long as possible but also look to new purchases to be able to have a long life. We need them to not only come with more grunt to be able to support modern codecs (HD/2K/4K/5K) but to have up-to-date I/O, ie Thunderbolt and USB3 in order to work with and to be able to get massive amounts of media in and out as quickly as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
What do you mean it is pretty obvious that the petition was a waste of time. Unless you call this "new" Mac Pro the type of machine Mac Pro users where expecting.
Is that how you see it? If so then I think you mistake the intention of the petition as well as the concerns of those using Mac Pros in a production environment. As much as getting a new model it was about getting some kind of indication as to whether or not they were going to have to jump from a platform that they have invested heavily into. The fact that Tim Cook responded means that it wasn't a waste of time at all.
Are you using FCP or FCP X?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
It might be a waste of time answering the questions below. I will give it a shot though.
First; the current Pros are crap. Basically you have I/O that would have been great 3 or 4 years ago but is now an impediment to fast operation. Second; no one cares about Final Cut. Third; if you don't know why paying a premium price for a 3 year old GPU card is a problem you need to get a life and a bit of an education.
The problem is it is a workstation costing thousands of dollars as such people expect modern hardware for that cash out lay. Think about it a bit why in hell would you spend multiple thousands of dollars for a machine that doesn't support modern I/O? We can focus on USB 3 or any other part of the system if you like but really why would you lay out cash for hardware that has been dated for three years now? Especially a machine that is an investment and has to last.
What's the issue with modern I/O?
1) Many of the Pro users I know are running FC or SAS HBAs and not USB3.
2) You can always add a USB3 card now. Just like you have to add a FC card. Mostly useful for 3TB external drives for sneaker netting...at least around here.
3) TB is great but most of the products are geared toward mobile and not workstation. Many high end workflow TB solutions involve buying a PCIe chassis from Sonnet and sticking in PCIe cards...which you can just do in the Mac Pro. TB really helps iMac and MBP/MBA users a heck of a lot more than Mac Pro users. In fact, TB helps you transition from needing a Mac Pro for expansion to a smaller footprint.
4) The Mac Pro has not been dated for 3 years. This is either a typo or a truly idiotic statement.
The old GPU does suck...hopefully a new one will appear soon. If you need a new Mac Pro today it kinda sucks but you get to depreciate it 50% this year and you need it to get work done. Generally the billable hours outweigh the cost. Most Pro users will just wait till next year and hope it's actually EARLY next year and not late.
This new forum system can't quote properly at all.
What i was going to respond to is what the Mac Pro replacement will look like. I think you are a bit negative here in describing it as a Mac Mini as I'm really hoping for more. Note I said hoping, I've lost confidence that Apple has really good plans for the desktop.
I do expect a dramatic change in size for the pro replacement. If they put half as much effort into it that they put into the retina Laptop it could be one hell of a machine. That is if they keep an eye on the ball and truly design a machine for professional usage. There is a real and justified fear that they don't grasp professional needs anymore. Of course most professionals can't see beyond their own needs so this is no surprise. What they do need to do is to make sure they end up with a machine that appeals to a wide array of users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
Given that the top end Mac Pro is an expensive beast, production houses like ours not only keep these machines for as long as possible but also look to new purchases to be able to have a long life. We need them to not only come with more grunt to be able to support modern codecs (HD/2K/4K/5K) but to have up-to-date I/O, ie Thunderbolt and USB3 in order to work with and to be able to get massive amounts of media in and out as quickly as possible.
What are you using today? Harsh language? Tell me you're using FW800 and I'll ask you to pull the other one. What do you expect TB to do that 8 Gbps FC cannot? Do you really think you're better off connecting to a Promise Pegasus via TB over a Promise Ex30 with 8 Gbps FC ports? You'd really prefer to use an Aja IO over an Aja Kona?
I guess everyone runs out of slots sometime but still I don't get it...yeah TB ports on the Pro would be nice but the PCIe lanes come from somewhere. There are a lot of use cases where you might want those 4 PCIe lanes not configured as 2 x 10Gb bi-directional.
As for USB3, I guess the Mac Pro has enough CPU power that you'll never notice but it appears that many times higher end legacy interfaces run faster with less of a hit on the CPU. Like say eSATA.
It is no different than in the hard econmy goods. Take a machine shop for example that has a CNC lathe capable of making one part at X speed and a competitor across the street with a different lathe that can make the part 4 times faster. Given equal hardware costs who do you think will make money on producing these parts.
What many people can't fathom here is that it is exactly the same deal with the Mac Pro. The Pro user might not be fabricating valve parts on a lathe but rather the parts might be video files, a structural analysis or a sequencing code. Whatever they are doing the complexity demands powerful computers and staying up to date. If the competition can buy 4x computer performance for the same number of dollars then he has a huge advantage over someone running an aging Mac Pro. Right now 4X is a realistic number though the cost might be higher.
In the end it is the old yarn about time being money. Time here being computer time.
Another way to look at this is the concept of a job submission. Let's say user X has to submit his jobs at the end of the work day to view the results the next morning. That is a job might take ten or more hours. Now user Y has a much faster computer that can run the same job in a couple of hours. So he submits the job before lunch, takes some time to do some banking or surprises the wife for some afternoon delight. User Y comes back to his work station after that long lunch and has several hours to review the job that just finished up. The review finds the need to tweak a few things so the job is resubmitted again that day. User Y is already well ahead of User X, a two hour turn around is giving him a huge advantage over user X. Realistically he can turn the job around three times in one day if he has too. The same job might cause user X three days of effort.
Now obviously the above is slightly contrived. However modern hardware and OpenCL type acceleration has caused such jumps in performance such that overnight jobs become a couple of hours of processing time. In the context of the Mac Pro it would not be impossible to find a workstation today that can run 4X faster on some jobs. It is a real concern if you are in business and have agressive competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
Our '08 Mac Pros 'run' FCS fine, but are struggling big-time with current codecs - something that has really hit hard in the last 12 months. We have already upgraded to custom GPUs for our suites running Davinci Resolve for grading, and we'll grab one of the "new" Mac Pros just released as a stop-gap measure only.
Doh...erased this part in the post.
IMHO going the route with GPU-Xpander is better than the bump from a Sandy Bridge Xeon update. That burns a full x8 or x16 slot but you can cram what? 4 Teslas in the desktop model? With their own power supply? Dunno, we don't have one as far as I know but I don't work with any of those guys any more either.
I'd also much rather have 8 lanes available for this over having them dedicated to 2 x TB ports on the Mac Pro.
This I agree with, many will simply wait or defect. Nobody is rationally going to invest in this technology, especially when it is clear that the platform is dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
If the competition can buy 4x computer performance for the same number of dollars then he has a huge advantage over someone running an aging Mac Pro. Right now 4X is a realistic number though the cost might be higher.
...
Now obviously the above is slightly contrived. However modern hardware and OpenCL type acceleration has caused such jumps in performance such that overnight jobs become a couple of hours of processing time. In the context of the Mac Pro it would not be impossible to find a workstation today that can run 4X faster on some jobs. It is a real concern if you are in business and have agressive competition.
Mmm...in a new buy scenario yes an updated Sandy Bridge Xeon is obviously a no brainer over the current Mac Pro.
In the scenario where I already have a 2010 Mac Pro you kinda have to show me that you're going to get 4X performance just by switching to Sandy Bridge. Maybe I buy it because you're moving from PCIe 2.0 to PCIe 3.0...that's double the bandwidth to use on GPUs...but the scaling isn't generally linear and it's still only 2X and not 4X.
In a capex constrained environment am I better spending $$$ to replace the existing Mac Pro with the Sandy Bridge Mac Pro or fully upgrading the current one? Is it better to add to your transcoding or render or compute farm than upgrade a dozen Mac Pros to Sandy Bridge? Or hell, just buy time from Encoding.com?
That's not my line of work but I DO know it's a hell of a lot cheaper for me to buy time on Amazon EC2 for some compute tasks than the kit out my own server farm. I can get a Cluster Compute Eight Extra Large Instance (60.5GB RAM, 2x Intel Xeon E5-2670) for a HPC job for $2.40/hour. Which sounds so-so if you want to run one of these 24/7 for 365 days but some HPC use cases I'd like 1064 instances x 24 hours. That would only cost me $61K assuming Amazon could actually sell me 1064 instances at any one time. Not likely, but I have scenarios where I could use 100 compute instances for a monte carlo run. Assuming the job takes a day that's still under $6K.
If I need to use CUDA I can buy a Cluster GPU instance with 2xXeon X5570 and 2xM2050 Fermis for $2.10 an hour. Each card is still around a grand each. I can get 1000 hours for the price of buying two of these cards.
I assume the economies of scale work about the same way with something like Encoding.com.
So no, I don't buy into Mac Pro shops are doomed vs competitors sporting new HP or Dell Sandy Bridge Xeon workstations.
This trickle of information really makes it difficult to recommend Apple's products to clients. They don't update the Mac Pro for two years and then give it a minor update. It's hardly a "Pro" product anymore. I gues they don't care about this stuff anymore: http://jeff-with-a-g.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/apples-high-order-bit.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This I agree with, many will simply wait or defect. Nobody is rationally going to invest in this technology, especially when it is clear that the platform is dead.
Where the hell do you get that? Cook just promised a full update in 2013. That doesn't preclude another spec bump before then.
Mostly I expect a case mod in 2013 to allow for rack mounting. Slapping Sandy Bridge into the existing MP is still a possibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Banana
Wasn't it Steve Jobs himself that said, "isn't it funny, a ship that leaks from the top?"
A leak is an unsanctioned. This came directly from Tim. Doesn't get more official.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter
HEY TIM.............WHAT ABOUT A 17" MACBOOK PRO????
What about the Mac G4 Cube? Nope, still dead.
Mac Pro: still alive.