This is the problem with how people are viewing this: They are viewing this as a replacement for the old Mac Pro. It is NOT. It is a new order, a totally new approach. Expandability is now external. The machine itself is built around extremely high performance and an advanced, rethought thermal core.
Apple faces this sort of reaction seemingly every few years. Get rid of floppy drives?! Are you kidding?! What do mean you can't open the iMac?! Who the heck is going to buy that!? OMG, why would any serious person buy a cell phone without an actual keyboard!? WTF is the iPad, and why the hell does it cost so much?! Wait second -- you are taking away my optical drive?! EFF YOU!
Once people stop thinking about this as a replacement for the old Mac Pro, but as a new sort of platform with a new approach, it will make a lot more sense.
I'm not sure you get the difference between the stated parallels. Storage is not a legacy item. With the iphone you don't plug in an external keyboard. It's really the opposite of a phone. A modern phone is the current epitome of integration. This is more unifying the older format to a newer solution that was only warranted due to the popularity of mobile formats which lack the internal room. Forward thinking would have been more like Wizard's concept of arrays of PCI storage, not a move from external (G5 2 bays) to 10TB + possible internally back to external. That is just backwards. If you really had a point, you wouldn't need the hyperbolic references. That doesn't mean this doesn't represent a solution. It's just not the ideal solution in terms of storage. Ideally 90% of the market for that specific machine (not 90% of consumers) would have their primary storage needs solved internally with only backups pushed out of the box.
Exactly. Which is why the hackintosh community flourishes. I love OSX but hate the over priced HW apple tries to drive down our throats.
I think you over-estimate its size. Most of the hackintosh community is made up of hobbyists. Go read hackintosh forums. Many of them own genuine Macs in addition to their creations. Your views on that community are simply misguided, and that has nothing to do with Apple's pricing models.
I'm not sure you get the difference between the stated parallels. Storage is not a legacy item. With the iphone you don't plug in an external keyboard. It's really the opposite of a phone. A modern phone is the current epitome of integration. This is more unifying the older format to a newer solution that was only warranted due to the popularity of mobile formats which lack the internal room. Forward thinking would have been more like Wizard's concept of arrays of PCI storage, not a move from external (G5 2 bays) to 10TB + possible internally back to external. That is just backwards. If you really had a point, you wouldn't need the hyperbolic references. That doesn't mean this doesn't represent a solution. It's just not the ideal solution in terms of storage. Ideally 90% of the market for that specific machine (not 90% of consumers) would have their primary storage needs solved internally with only backups pushed out of the box.
Well, that goes against most everything I've heard from both supporters and detractors over the last couple of days. The supporters are saying that storage isn't a big deal because they already have a RAID array (or whatever), and the detractors are saying it IS a big deal, because they already spent all this money on external storage -- and they don't want to spend more on TB enclosures or have to deal with (perceived -- since I'm not clear on the actual truth on this matter) the difference in speed between TB and PCIe, etc.
If we forget, for the moment, the question of upgradability within the machine itself -- since there seems to be a good amount of debate, based only on a few pics, as to what is and what isn't upgradable -- and only focus on expandability, it seems from everything I've read (1000s of messages), that adjusting to a completely new expandability paradigm may be painful at first, but will eventually make a whole lot sense.
Or, for some, it won't eventually make sense, and for them the Mac Pro is not the machine.
If we forget, for the moment, the question of upgradability within the machine itself -- since there seems to be a good amount of debate, based only on a few pics, as to what is and what isn't upgradable -- and only focus on expandability, it seems from everything I've read (1000s of messages), that adjusting to a completely new expandability paradigm may be painful at first, but will eventually make a whole lot sense.
That depend on how fast storage needs, often specifically online storage needs as opposed to data that is taken offline grow. In terms of RAID arrays, cheap RAIDs are often crap. Cheap port multiplier boxes patched in through host cards can be really buggy solutions at times, but they're usually better if you match brands between JBOD box and host card, ideally same chipset vendor. In a lot of ways we have a decreasing amount of vendor support for Mac PCI cards outside of specialty hardware at the higher pricing tiers. It makes sense to go with something based off usb3 or thunderbolt there unless you require a more extreme solution like SAS for performance reasons. eSATA is the thing I wouldn't add to a machine today. The Xeon EP chipset actually has 6 available SATA connections. Without the optical drives, you could get 12-18 TB internally with backup being the only external. Centralized storage is a different thing, but I'm not aware of any thunderbolt SANs. Even if they exist, they would cost a fortune. For single user environments, internal storage can be very cost effective and stable. It eliminates one piece of hardware from the mess, even though as I mentioned, you still need backups.
Apple's solutions aren't all good ideas. Look at the Pegasus raid box. They sell it in the Apple Store with whatever brand of drives. They are using standard drives, which have longer error recovery timings, yet they list Raid 5 as supported. Raid 5 for some reason makes for good marketing, yet it's not something you should do on the cheap like that. I mentioned error recovery timings because standard ones can end up with timed out disks forcing a rebuild or crash. Even a rebuild requires it to read every bit on each drive, which is typically why you would want a raid controller with ecc ram cache for such a thing. I'm not sure they could really budget for it at the starting price listed with Apple's typical markup. The current mac pro used to have an internal raid card. It had horrible reviews and basically no support. Storage is one of those areas where I frequently disagree with Apple's solutions. Hopefully that lends some detail to my reasoning. That said, it's not a determination whether or not I will own one of these.
Regarding the ability to make upgrades, part of that is hand wringing. It's being introduced with Ivy. Your only cpu options would be based on Ivy. You could hold onto it for years and grab retired server parts from ebay on the cheap, but it wouldn't be like the popular 2.66 quad ---> Westmere 6 core post price drop. In terms of gpus, workstation variants don't change that much. Much of the difference is in the drivers, but it can make a significant difference in some use cases. You just have to understand your needs. Sometimes gaming gpus are ironically faster for calculations. Workstation gpu drivers are often highly tuned for specific OpenGL applications where much of the time even the slower workstation gpus do better than gaming cards. It varies though, so you have to look for tests.
And how much time did it take for you to figure out what products you needed to buy, buy them, unpack them and install them, including the OS? How many hours? Don't tell me 1/2 an hour, I know better. From start to finish, how many actual hours were spent until the system was fully installed up and running?
Oh gosh, I don't know, lets see about an hour or so to choose the components and then order them threw an online shop called http://stegpc.ch. I got the CPU from an overstock sell and paid only 120.00, normal price was 320.00. Build time was quick as I started out with a Barebone system already, motherboard and power-supply come pre-installed, so only 30 minutes for that, I actually think it took longer to unbox everything. The OSX install and software updates took additional 2 hours. Not to bad, but if your applying that it wasn't time worth spending, well first I love this stuff and second it was a delightful afternoon spent with my girlfriend while my husband and kids were at the movies and lunch, I don't get much time to myself as you can imagine. I've been building PC's since my first 386 DX40, I don't get to do it as often as I would like anymore because I'm a little older, wiser and prefer owning built Apple machines with a warranty. There are a lot of very friendly forums if one decides to build a Hackintosh, I frequent http://www.hackint0sh.org , they were very helpful with this build.
I was actually going to install Windows 7 on it but my friend really wanted a Mac, unfortunately her budget of 500 CHF was pretty low to buy a decent Mac and she really needed a dedicated GPU to run that huge 30" (2560 x 1600 ) Apple display decently. She's a kindergarten teacher with limited funds, so I bought her the Nvidia Quadro K600 and just told her it came from work, she's a proud women and would have never excepted it otherwise. The PowerMac G5 and monitor were donated to her by one of her students parents last year but the G5 stop functioning, I think it's the motherboard.
This is the problem with how people are viewing this: They are viewing this as a replacement for the old Mac Pro. It is NOT. It is a new order, a totally new approach.
I think this is a crucial point in the whole approach. Apple already touts the new machine as the most expandable ever. So better be it, by offering lower cost configurations. Remember the old Power Macintosh G3/G4? The base configurations were available at $1600. Given the storage trade-offs in the new machine, and possibly others also depending on the degree of integration of the parts (yet to be revealed), Apple needs absolutely to offer at least one configuration below the $2000 mark. Otherwise the risk of this to become the Cylindrical Cube is visible.
And I thought I was referring to your erroneous comment about no such thing as a 12-core processor. But I understand the human nature to refuse to admit being wrong. Won't belabor the point. ;-)
Stop being such a loser. The discussion is about Xeons, and everyone in this thread knows it, you as well.
Is there a way to calculate the number of Hackintoshed computers out there? They do the job though, I recently helped a friend with one, she bought an Asus barebone system, we added an i7-3770S, 16GB Crucial 1600Ghz Ram, OCZ 128GB SSD and a Nvidia Quadro K600, cost a little over 700 bucks. She had a Mac Pro G5 with a 30" Apple Display and the monitor worked perfectly with the Quadro. The computer is hidden in a cabinet under the desk so when someone is in her office all you see is a Mac monitor, keyboard and mouse, if you didn't know there is no way anyone could tell it wasn't a real Mac. I defiantly see the appeal.
Except when there are issues with updates and GPU drivers, then you can tell whether it's a hackintosh or an actual Mac.
Can't wait to buy one of these solar-powered hovercrafts.
Only questions I have are: (1) can i get 2 matching retina screens (with built in camera, usb hub, speakers etc), keyboard and mouse?; (2) who can offer a bomb-proof external thunderbolt 2 raid box (15-20tb) that looks half decent? On question 2, am kind of hoping synology step up to the plate
That depend on how fast storage needs, often specifically online storage needs as opposed to data that is taken offline grow. In terms of RAID arrays, cheap RAIDs are often crap.
[snip a bunch of stuff I mostly don't understand ]
I think a lot of that is the point -- and other stuff -- is the point for Apple though, don't you? They want to make how people think about solutions change, while at the same time drag the industry into the New World by pushing them to come up with reasonably priced, reliable Thunderbolt solutions. IOW, making Thunderbolt the new USB. There will be gnashing of teeth and pain, but eventually it will become the standard way you do things.
At least, that's how I see it. Now, whether it will be successful, that's a different question. But that does seem to me -- with my limited understanding of these things -- to be the gambit Apple is playing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB
I think this is a crucial point in the whole approach. Apple already touts the new machine as the most expandable ever. So better be it, by offering lower cost configurations. Remember the old Power Macintosh G3/G4? The base configurations were available at $1600. Given the storage trade-offs in the new machine, and possibly others also depending on the degree of integration of the parts (yet to be revealed), Apple needs absolutely to offer at least one configuration below the $2000 mark. Otherwise the risk of this to become the Cylindrical Cube is visible.
I wish people would stop comparing this to the Cube. I see why they do it, but they aren't really comparable. The problem with the Cube was that there were better Macs available for less money at the same time. So, the Cube was a really cool, but highly underperforming (with some problems, to boot) machine that someone would buy only for its coolness. I think if anything, it would be compared to a hypothetical unsuccessful iMac -- a machine with a different approach (completely enclosed) pushing a new technology (USB).
This isn't the Cube, from what I can see. There's nothing in the 7 TFlop range that is a Mac, with this sort of GPU power, etc. The only similarity to the Cube is that it's a radical new design. But it's not like you can build an iMac that would be just as good.
As to pricing, let's face it: None of us really knows. But I STRONGLY suspect that people looking for something under $2k are dreaming. Heck, my iMac was $2700 (27", 3.2GHz i5, GTX 675MX 1GB, 3TB Fusion). And that's a consumer machine.
Anyone who is going to need the Pro is going to be able to spend (or should be) a lot more than $2k.
Can't wait to buy one of these solar-powered hovercrafts.
Only questions I have are: (1) can i get 2 matching retina screens (with built in camera, usb hub, speakers etc), keyboard and mouse?; (2) who can offer a bomb-proof external thunderbolt 2 raid box (15-20tb) that looks half decent? On question 2, am kind of hoping synology step up to the plate
I wouldn't expect full transfer speeds if you're running raid boxes and 3 4K displays. That said the issue comes up if you're maxing everything, and that would be very expensive. I wouldn't personally run into it.
As to pricing, let's face it: None of us really knows. But I STRONGLY suspect that people looking for something under $2k are dreaming. Heck, my iMac was $2700 (27", 3.2GHz i5, GTX 675MX 1GB, 3TB Fusion). And that's a consumer machine.
Exactly. This is what the low end Mac Pro should cost with a display. It is a while now that the high end iMac is more or less in the same league as the low end Mac Pro in terms of raw CPU/GPU power. For example, the late 2012 high end iMac can beat even the 6-core 3.33 GHz MP, which is not a low end model but it sits in the middle of the range. The added value of the Mac Pro was the internal expandability, and the much more material needed to build it. Both are gone now.
The new machine has fully the potential to start in the traditional Power Mac configurations of around $1500 by just using slower components. It remains to be seen seen if Apple wants to do so or not.
If you don't like it, you have the choice not to order it. Personally, I think it looks fantastic and is specced up the yin yang.
Another dont-buy-if-its-bad comment. Listen, many Apple users (incl me) are fond of the UI in the OS and the beautiful form of the hardware. This, here is a big letdown. And when one does say it out (memes and above analogies included), all the neo-apple fans here just cry, heckle and abuse the hell out of him. Really primitive exclusivist behavior. Pathetic.
We all have our own preferences and computational needs, but some people can't see past their own brain-meat and try to impose their needs on everyone. It happens in politics, humanist sciences, and everywhere else. Just look at the current-gen console debate. Neither console is superior on all fronts; they are based around different people's needs. Some people don't have reliable internet (hello, deployed military!) and others feel "invested" in the meaningless achievement points they "earned." But you will always see people imposing their needs on everyone.
Frank777
On the other hand, the power supply is internal, which is a significant problem for server farms.
Why? Are rack-mounted power supplies particularly fail-prone? I doubt this would have the same reliability issues.
The level of stupid at Apple these days is overwhelming.
That has to be the worst possible design for a pro machine that I could imagine. Pros don't want cutesy cylinders, they want EXPANSION. Things like slots, lots of RAM slots, lots of PCI Express slots, and multiple hard drive bays, at least 4 of them. Pros still need optical drives. Pros want to be able to upgrade their graphics cards. Pros want multiple processors.
Think about what they could have done with this in the existing case: Dual 12 core processors. Up to 128GB RAM. 2 solid state drives AND 4 hard drives. And two Blu-Ray drives. And 4 PCI Express slots.
And the design is terrible too. This thing looks like a black aluminum can. Oh, wait, that's what it is.
This is where Apple as revolutionise the desktop PC imo, all this can be done with the thunderbolt ports, which is easier to do for consumer than popping up the hood. So the spaces needed for the setup will depend on youre expansion needs, while maybe a lot of users wont feel to need to upgrade anything.
That being said, this is NOT a server and it is not design for this use. There is no debate about it, companies dont spend $ on GPU in servers and those machine need to be rack mountable.
Since this is an high end desktop PC, I hope they will have an entry model price below 3K. I am personnaly hoping for something around 2k since there are no monitors.
I think a lot of that is the point -- and other stuff -- is the point for Apple though, don't you? They want to make how people think about solutions change, while at the same time drag the industry into the New World by pushing them to come up with reasonably priced, reliable Thunderbolt solutions. IOW, making Thunderbolt the new USB. There will be gnashing of teeth and pain, but eventually it will become the standard way you do things.
At least, that's how I see it. Now, whether it will be successful, that's a different question. But that does seem to me -- with my limited understanding of these things -- to be the gambit Apple is playing.
You say this. I wonder if you get your own words. To me the iPad is far more forward thinking. Tablets in general are. Phones are very forward thinking. Look at how many things they've brought together in a cohesive manner. Most of the time you bring one piece of electronics with you. It's not that great for heavy use, but you can take your computing device with you, and it fits in your pocket. Generally I like to see things integrated if they can be integrated well. I won't get into the imac screen argument here as I haven't seen the new ones. I did have a number of experiences with the older ones. The gnashing of teeth is usually when things go in the opposite direction. As for thunderbolt being the new USB, that is unlikely at this point in time. It lacks the same licensing terms and integration. Adoption has been slow so far, and moving one of the decidedly niche lines to it isn't really going to change that.
It's not 100% good or bad. I just don't think you're really considering everything equally. I'm only comparing based on what I know so far. When the new machine has been out for 5 or 6 months, I'll have a much better idea what the matrix of configurations and available peripheral devices looks like in both structure and price. Like I said if thunderbolt does take off (which it should), it won't be due to this, when every other machine is better aligned. I think the reason for 3 chips was due to a desire to support multiple 4K future displays without killing all available bandwidth. Even one of those sucks up quite a bit. The last thing I will point out is that just typical displayport 1.2 has much of the functionality offered by thunderbolt, and it came out earlier. It has specs for daisy chaining and display based usb hubs. Thunderbolt is mostly good for data. It was designed for notebooks as I said. Notebooks have a limited number of PCI lanes and historically lacked any practical form of IO that delivered that level of bandwidth unless you use 10Gb/s usb3 + displayport 1.2 out.
Quote:
I wish people would stop comparing this to the Cube. I see why they do it, but they aren't really comparable. The problem with the Cube was that there were better Macs available for less money at the same time. So, the Cube was a really cool, but highly underperforming (with some problems, to boot) machine that someone would buy only for its coolness. I think if anything, it would be compared to a hypothetical unsuccessful iMac -- a machine with a different approach (completely enclosed) pushing a new technology (USB).
This isn't the Cube, from what I can see. There's nothing in the 7 TFlop range that is a Mac, with this sort of GPU power, etc. The only similarity to the Cube is that it's a radical new design. But it's not like you can build an iMac that would be just as good.
You're still getting sucked into marketing. This isn't 7TFlops of X86 power. Your software has to be able to take advantage of it. As for the cube, I never got caught up in that stupid Cube comparison anyway. In fact I called that prediction "fan fiction shoehorned into a troll post".
Quote:
As to pricing, let's face it: None of us really knows. But I STRONGLY suspect that people looking for something under $2k are dreaming. Heck, my iMac was $2700 (27", 3.2GHz i5, GTX 675MX 1GB, 3TB Fusion). And that's a consumer machine.
Anyone who is going to need the Pro is going to be able to spend (or should be) a lot more than $2k.
I don't think it will be sub $2k, but you are likely to have overlap in comparing cto configurations on one to the base on the other. Typically they require some minimum volume for it to remain viable. It has to cover engineering costs and whatever lease assuming dedicated facilities. They likely have some idea how many they can sell at different starting prices, and typically cheaper configurations will carry a significant portion of the volume in any line, as price is relative to that line. I wouldn't call the imac a 100% consumer machine. The real consumer machines these days are notebooks, phones, tablets. Even those reach a wide market, but just going for a 27" with cto options brings you well into the minority of users like myself. The difference there is that the imac line has remained healthy and viable. I wouldn't buy into the silly marketing and bastardized monikers though. Apple's management team would have some idea who will buy what, but in the end they just want people to buy Macs rather than Windows or Linux boxes.
Your force to use a trailer hitch if you want to haul more crap, which drags down the truck.:)
If that hitch is TB v2 and the trailer is an equally attractive external, matching case ... compared to my two ton Mac Pro I'm all in.
I wonder if Apple will have such things that stack on top and use the central air duct as a shaft for all ... you could have a ten foot tower with ann external vent in the corner of the room and hardly notice it .
If that hitch is TB v2 and the trailer is an equally attractive external, matching case ... compared to my two ton Mac Pro I'm all in.
I wonder if Apple will have such things that stack on top and use the central air duct as a shaft for all ... you could have a ten foot tower with ann external vent in the corner of the room and hardly notice it .
"Is that a black drain pipe in the corner?"
"NO, it's my Mac Pro stack!"
No, It's my dual CPU stripper pole, you know for graphic work and spicing up my marriage.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ
This is the problem with how people are viewing this: They are viewing this as a replacement for the old Mac Pro. It is NOT. It is a new order, a totally new approach. Expandability is now external. The machine itself is built around extremely high performance and an advanced, rethought thermal core.
Apple faces this sort of reaction seemingly every few years. Get rid of floppy drives?! Are you kidding?! What do mean you can't open the iMac?! Who the heck is going to buy that!? OMG, why would any serious person buy a cell phone without an actual keyboard!? WTF is the iPad, and why the hell does it cost so much?! Wait second -- you are taking away my optical drive?! EFF YOU!
Once people stop thinking about this as a replacement for the old Mac Pro, but as a new sort of platform with a new approach, it will make a lot more sense.
I'm not sure you get the difference between the stated parallels. Storage is not a legacy item. With the iphone you don't plug in an external keyboard. It's really the opposite of a phone. A modern phone is the current epitome of integration. This is more unifying the older format to a newer solution that was only warranted due to the popularity of mobile formats which lack the internal room. Forward thinking would have been more like Wizard's concept of arrays of PCI storage, not a move from external (G5 2 bays) to 10TB + possible internally back to external. That is just backwards. If you really had a point, you wouldn't need the hyperbolic references. That doesn't mean this doesn't represent a solution. It's just not the ideal solution in terms of storage. Ideally 90% of the market for that specific machine (not 90% of consumers) would have their primary storage needs solved internally with only backups pushed out of the box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyZ
Exactly. Which is why the hackintosh community flourishes. I love OSX but hate the over priced HW apple tries to drive down our throats.
I think you over-estimate its size. Most of the hackintosh community is made up of hobbyists. Go read hackintosh forums. Many of them own genuine Macs in addition to their creations. Your views on that community are simply misguided, and that has nothing to do with Apple's pricing models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I'm not sure you get the difference between the stated parallels. Storage is not a legacy item. With the iphone you don't plug in an external keyboard. It's really the opposite of a phone. A modern phone is the current epitome of integration. This is more unifying the older format to a newer solution that was only warranted due to the popularity of mobile formats which lack the internal room. Forward thinking would have been more like Wizard's concept of arrays of PCI storage, not a move from external (G5 2 bays) to 10TB + possible internally back to external. That is just backwards. If you really had a point, you wouldn't need the hyperbolic references. That doesn't mean this doesn't represent a solution. It's just not the ideal solution in terms of storage. Ideally 90% of the market for that specific machine (not 90% of consumers) would have their primary storage needs solved internally with only backups pushed out of the box.
Well, that goes against most everything I've heard from both supporters and detractors over the last couple of days. The supporters are saying that storage isn't a big deal because they already have a RAID array (or whatever), and the detractors are saying it IS a big deal, because they already spent all this money on external storage -- and they don't want to spend more on TB enclosures or have to deal with (perceived -- since I'm not clear on the actual truth on this matter) the difference in speed between TB and PCIe, etc.
If we forget, for the moment, the question of upgradability within the machine itself -- since there seems to be a good amount of debate, based only on a few pics, as to what is and what isn't upgradable -- and only focus on expandability, it seems from everything I've read (1000s of messages), that adjusting to a completely new expandability paradigm may be painful at first, but will eventually make a whole lot sense.
Or, for some, it won't eventually make sense, and for them the Mac Pro is not the machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ
If we forget, for the moment, the question of upgradability within the machine itself -- since there seems to be a good amount of debate, based only on a few pics, as to what is and what isn't upgradable -- and only focus on expandability, it seems from everything I've read (1000s of messages), that adjusting to a completely new expandability paradigm may be painful at first, but will eventually make a whole lot sense.
That depend on how fast storage needs, often specifically online storage needs as opposed to data that is taken offline grow. In terms of RAID arrays, cheap RAIDs are often crap. Cheap port multiplier boxes patched in through host cards can be really buggy solutions at times, but they're usually better if you match brands between JBOD box and host card, ideally same chipset vendor. In a lot of ways we have a decreasing amount of vendor support for Mac PCI cards outside of specialty hardware at the higher pricing tiers. It makes sense to go with something based off usb3 or thunderbolt there unless you require a more extreme solution like SAS for performance reasons. eSATA is the thing I wouldn't add to a machine today. The Xeon EP chipset actually has 6 available SATA connections. Without the optical drives, you could get 12-18 TB internally with backup being the only external. Centralized storage is a different thing, but I'm not aware of any thunderbolt SANs. Even if they exist, they would cost a fortune. For single user environments, internal storage can be very cost effective and stable. It eliminates one piece of hardware from the mess, even though as I mentioned, you still need backups.
Apple's solutions aren't all good ideas. Look at the Pegasus raid box. They sell it in the Apple Store with whatever brand of drives. They are using standard drives, which have longer error recovery timings, yet they list Raid 5 as supported. Raid 5 for some reason makes for good marketing, yet it's not something you should do on the cheap like that. I mentioned error recovery timings because standard ones can end up with timed out disks forcing a rebuild or crash. Even a rebuild requires it to read every bit on each drive, which is typically why you would want a raid controller with ecc ram cache for such a thing. I'm not sure they could really budget for it at the starting price listed with Apple's typical markup. The current mac pro used to have an internal raid card. It had horrible reviews and basically no support. Storage is one of those areas where I frequently disagree with Apple's solutions. Hopefully that lends some detail to my reasoning. That said, it's not a determination whether or not I will own one of these.
Regarding the ability to make upgrades, part of that is hand wringing. It's being introduced with Ivy. Your only cpu options would be based on Ivy. You could hold onto it for years and grab retired server parts from ebay on the cheap, but it wouldn't be like the popular 2.66 quad ---> Westmere 6 core post price drop. In terms of gpus, workstation variants don't change that much. Much of the difference is in the drivers, but it can make a significant difference in some use cases. You just have to understand your needs. Sometimes gaming gpus are ironically faster for calculations. Workstation gpu drivers are often highly tuned for specific OpenGL applications where much of the time even the slower workstation gpus do better than gaming cards. It varies though, so you have to look for tests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
And how much time did it take for you to figure out what products you needed to buy, buy them, unpack them and install them, including the OS? How many hours? Don't tell me 1/2 an hour, I know better. From start to finish, how many actual hours were spent until the system was fully installed up and running?
Oh gosh, I don't know, lets see about an hour or so to choose the components and then order them threw an online shop called http://stegpc.ch. I got the CPU from an overstock sell and paid only 120.00, normal price was 320.00. Build time was quick as I started out with a Barebone system already, motherboard and power-supply come pre-installed, so only 30 minutes for that, I actually think it took longer to unbox everything. The OSX install and software updates took additional 2 hours. Not to bad, but if your applying that it wasn't time worth spending, well first I love this stuff and second it was a delightful afternoon spent with my girlfriend while my husband and kids were at the movies and lunch, I don't get much time to myself as you can imagine. I've been building PC's since my first 386 DX40, I don't get to do it as often as I would like anymore because I'm a little older, wiser and prefer owning built Apple machines with a warranty. There are a lot of very friendly forums if one decides to build a Hackintosh, I frequent http://www.hackint0sh.org , they were very helpful with this build.
I was actually going to install Windows 7 on it but my friend really wanted a Mac, unfortunately her budget of 500 CHF was pretty low to buy a decent Mac and she really needed a dedicated GPU to run that huge 30" (2560 x 1600 ) Apple display decently. She's a kindergarten teacher with limited funds, so I bought her the Nvidia Quadro K600 and just told her it came from work, she's a proud women and would have never excepted it otherwise. The PowerMac G5 and monitor were donated to her by one of her students parents last year but the G5 stop functioning, I think it's the motherboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ
This is the problem with how people are viewing this: They are viewing this as a replacement for the old Mac Pro. It is NOT. It is a new order, a totally new approach.
I think this is a crucial point in the whole approach. Apple already touts the new machine as the most expandable ever. So better be it, by offering lower cost configurations. Remember the old Power Macintosh G3/G4? The base configurations were available at $1600. Given the storage trade-offs in the new machine, and possibly others also depending on the degree of integration of the parts (yet to be revealed), Apple needs absolutely to offer at least one configuration below the $2000 mark. Otherwise the risk of this to become the Cylindrical Cube is visible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Ha Ha! There are many things that belong to past eras that are never appreciated by the new generation.
Pros ask for a one ton 4x4 diesel truck and Apple delivers a solar powered hovercraft. This Mac Pro was designed for modern hipsters, wanna be "Pros".
Yes, "pros" want a 4x4 diesel truck to haul tons of product.
Apple delivers a solar powered hovercraft that can haul tons of product. Twice as fast. In 1/8th the space.
What's the problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper
I was talking about that? Huh?
And I thought I was referring to your erroneous comment about no such thing as a 12-core processor. But I understand the human nature to refuse to admit being wrong. Won't belabor the point. ;-)
Stop being such a loser. The discussion is about Xeons, and everyone in this thread knows it, you as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Is there a way to calculate the number of Hackintoshed computers out there? They do the job though, I recently helped a friend with one, she bought an Asus barebone system, we added an i7-3770S, 16GB Crucial 1600Ghz Ram, OCZ 128GB SSD and a Nvidia Quadro K600, cost a little over 700 bucks. She had a Mac Pro G5 with a 30" Apple Display and the monitor worked perfectly with the Quadro. The computer is hidden in a cabinet under the desk so when someone is in her office all you see is a Mac monitor, keyboard and mouse, if you didn't know there is no way anyone could tell it wasn't a real Mac. I defiantly see the appeal.
Except when there are issues with updates and GPU drivers, then you can tell whether it's a hackintosh or an actual Mac.
Can't wait to buy one of these solar-powered hovercrafts.
Only questions I have are: (1) can i get 2 matching retina screens (with built in camera, usb hub, speakers etc), keyboard and mouse?; (2) who can offer a bomb-proof external thunderbolt 2 raid box (15-20tb) that looks half decent? On question 2, am kind of hoping synology step up to the plate
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
That depend on how fast storage needs, often specifically online storage needs as opposed to data that is taken offline grow. In terms of RAID arrays, cheap RAIDs are often crap.
[snip a bunch of stuff I mostly don't understand
I think a lot of that is the point -- and other stuff -- is the point for Apple though, don't you? They want to make how people think about solutions change, while at the same time drag the industry into the New World by pushing them to come up with reasonably priced, reliable Thunderbolt solutions. IOW, making Thunderbolt the new USB. There will be gnashing of teeth and pain, but eventually it will become the standard way you do things.
At least, that's how I see it. Now, whether it will be successful, that's a different question. But that does seem to me -- with my limited understanding of these things -- to be the gambit Apple is playing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB
I think this is a crucial point in the whole approach. Apple already touts the new machine as the most expandable ever. So better be it, by offering lower cost configurations. Remember the old Power Macintosh G3/G4? The base configurations were available at $1600. Given the storage trade-offs in the new machine, and possibly others also depending on the degree of integration of the parts (yet to be revealed), Apple needs absolutely to offer at least one configuration below the $2000 mark. Otherwise the risk of this to become the Cylindrical Cube is visible.
I wish people would stop comparing this to the Cube. I see why they do it, but they aren't really comparable. The problem with the Cube was that there were better Macs available for less money at the same time. So, the Cube was a really cool, but highly underperforming (with some problems, to boot) machine that someone would buy only for its coolness. I think if anything, it would be compared to a hypothetical unsuccessful iMac -- a machine with a different approach (completely enclosed) pushing a new technology (USB).
This isn't the Cube, from what I can see. There's nothing in the 7 TFlop range that is a Mac, with this sort of GPU power, etc. The only similarity to the Cube is that it's a radical new design. But it's not like you can build an iMac that would be just as good.
As to pricing, let's face it: None of us really knows. But I STRONGLY suspect that people looking for something under $2k are dreaming. Heck, my iMac was $2700 (27", 3.2GHz i5, GTX 675MX 1GB, 3TB Fusion). And that's a consumer machine.
Anyone who is going to need the Pro is going to be able to spend (or should be) a lot more than $2k.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McCrab
Can't wait to buy one of these solar-powered hovercrafts.
Only questions I have are: (1) can i get 2 matching retina screens (with built in camera, usb hub, speakers etc), keyboard and mouse?; (2) who can offer a bomb-proof external thunderbolt 2 raid box (15-20tb) that looks half decent? On question 2, am kind of hoping synology step up to the plate
I wouldn't expect full transfer speeds if you're running raid boxes and 3 4K displays. That said the issue comes up if you're maxing everything, and that would be very expensive. I wouldn't personally run into it.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7049/intel-thunderbolt-2-everything-you-need-to-know
Brilliant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ
As to pricing, let's face it: None of us really knows. But I STRONGLY suspect that people looking for something under $2k are dreaming. Heck, my iMac was $2700 (27", 3.2GHz i5, GTX 675MX 1GB, 3TB Fusion). And that's a consumer machine.
Exactly. This is what the low end Mac Pro should cost with a display. It is a while now that the high end iMac is more or less in the same league as the low end Mac Pro in terms of raw CPU/GPU power. For example, the late 2012 high end iMac can beat even the 6-core 3.33 GHz MP, which is not a low end model but it sits in the middle of the range. The added value of the Mac Pro was the internal expandability, and the much more material needed to build it. Both are gone now.
The new machine has fully the potential to start in the traditional Power Mac configurations of around $1500 by just using slower components. It remains to be seen seen if Apple wants to do so or not.
spacerays
SpamSandwich
If you don't like it, you have the choice not to order it. Personally, I think it looks fantastic and is specced up the yin yang.
Another dont-buy-if-its-bad comment. Listen, many Apple users (incl me) are fond of the UI in the OS and the beautiful form of the hardware. This, here is a big letdown. And when one does say it out (memes and above analogies included), all the neo-apple fans here just cry, heckle and abuse the hell out of him. Really primitive exclusivist behavior. Pathetic.
We all have our own preferences and computational needs, but some people can't see past their own brain-meat and try to impose their needs on everyone. It happens in politics, humanist sciences, and everywhere else. Just look at the current-gen console debate. Neither console is superior on all fronts; they are based around different people's needs. Some people don't have reliable internet (hello, deployed military!) and others feel "invested" in the meaningless achievement points they "earned." But you will always see people imposing their needs on everyone.
Frank777
On the other hand, the power supply is internal, which is a significant problem for server farms.
Why? Are rack-mounted power supplies particularly fail-prone? I doubt this would have the same reliability issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader
The level of stupid at Apple these days is overwhelming.
That has to be the worst possible design for a pro machine that I could imagine. Pros don't want cutesy cylinders, they want EXPANSION. Things like slots, lots of RAM slots, lots of PCI Express slots, and multiple hard drive bays, at least 4 of them. Pros still need optical drives. Pros want to be able to upgrade their graphics cards. Pros want multiple processors.
Think about what they could have done with this in the existing case: Dual 12 core processors. Up to 128GB RAM. 2 solid state drives AND 4 hard drives. And two Blu-Ray drives. And 4 PCI Express slots.
And the design is terrible too. This thing looks like a black aluminum can. Oh, wait, that's what it is.
This is where Apple as revolutionise the desktop PC imo, all this can be done with the thunderbolt ports, which is easier to do for consumer than popping up the hood. So the spaces needed for the setup will depend on youre expansion needs, while maybe a lot of users wont feel to need to upgrade anything.
That being said, this is NOT a server and it is not design for this use. There is no debate about it, companies dont spend $ on GPU in servers and those machine need to be rack mountable.
Since this is an high end desktop PC, I hope they will have an entry model price below 3K. I am personnaly hoping for something around 2k since there are no monitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ
I think a lot of that is the point -- and other stuff -- is the point for Apple though, don't you? They want to make how people think about solutions change, while at the same time drag the industry into the New World by pushing them to come up with reasonably priced, reliable Thunderbolt solutions. IOW, making Thunderbolt the new USB. There will be gnashing of teeth and pain, but eventually it will become the standard way you do things.
At least, that's how I see it. Now, whether it will be successful, that's a different question. But that does seem to me -- with my limited understanding of these things -- to be the gambit Apple is playing.
You say this. I wonder if you get your own words. To me the iPad is far more forward thinking. Tablets in general are. Phones are very forward thinking. Look at how many things they've brought together in a cohesive manner. Most of the time you bring one piece of electronics with you. It's not that great for heavy use, but you can take your computing device with you, and it fits in your pocket. Generally I like to see things integrated if they can be integrated well. I won't get into the imac screen argument here as I haven't seen the new ones. I did have a number of experiences with the older ones. The gnashing of teeth is usually when things go in the opposite direction. As for thunderbolt being the new USB, that is unlikely at this point in time. It lacks the same licensing terms and integration. Adoption has been slow so far, and moving one of the decidedly niche lines to it isn't really going to change that.
It's not 100% good or bad. I just don't think you're really considering everything equally. I'm only comparing based on what I know so far. When the new machine has been out for 5 or 6 months, I'll have a much better idea what the matrix of configurations and available peripheral devices looks like in both structure and price. Like I said if thunderbolt does take off (which it should), it won't be due to this, when every other machine is better aligned. I think the reason for 3 chips was due to a desire to support multiple 4K future displays without killing all available bandwidth. Even one of those sucks up quite a bit. The last thing I will point out is that just typical displayport 1.2 has much of the functionality offered by thunderbolt, and it came out earlier. It has specs for daisy chaining and display based usb hubs. Thunderbolt is mostly good for data. It was designed for notebooks as I said. Notebooks have a limited number of PCI lanes and historically lacked any practical form of IO that delivered that level of bandwidth unless you use 10Gb/s usb3 + displayport 1.2 out.
Quote:
I wish people would stop comparing this to the Cube. I see why they do it, but they aren't really comparable. The problem with the Cube was that there were better Macs available for less money at the same time. So, the Cube was a really cool, but highly underperforming (with some problems, to boot) machine that someone would buy only for its coolness. I think if anything, it would be compared to a hypothetical unsuccessful iMac -- a machine with a different approach (completely enclosed) pushing a new technology (USB).
This isn't the Cube, from what I can see. There's nothing in the 7 TFlop range that is a Mac, with this sort of GPU power, etc. The only similarity to the Cube is that it's a radical new design. But it's not like you can build an iMac that would be just as good.
You're still getting sucked into marketing. This isn't 7TFlops of X86 power. Your software has to be able to take advantage of it. As for the cube, I never got caught up in that stupid Cube comparison anyway. In fact I called that prediction "fan fiction shoehorned into a troll post".
Quote:
As to pricing, let's face it: None of us really knows. But I STRONGLY suspect that people looking for something under $2k are dreaming. Heck, my iMac was $2700 (27", 3.2GHz i5, GTX 675MX 1GB, 3TB Fusion). And that's a consumer machine.
Anyone who is going to need the Pro is going to be able to spend (or should be) a lot more than $2k.
I don't think it will be sub $2k, but you are likely to have overlap in comparing cto configurations on one to the base on the other. Typically they require some minimum volume for it to remain viable. It has to cover engineering costs and whatever lease assuming dedicated facilities. They likely have some idea how many they can sell at different starting prices, and typically cheaper configurations will carry a significant portion of the volume in any line, as price is relative to that line. I wouldn't call the imac a 100% consumer machine. The real consumer machines these days are notebooks, phones, tablets. Even those reach a wide market, but just going for a 27" with cto options brings you well into the minority of users like myself. The difference there is that the imac line has remained healthy and viable. I wouldn't buy into the silly marketing and bastardized monikers though. Apple's management team would have some idea who will buy what, but in the end they just want people to buy Macs rather than Windows or Linux boxes.
Your forced to use a trailer hitch if you want to haul more crap.:)
If that hitch is TB v2 and the trailer is an equally attractive external, matching case ... compared to my two ton Mac Pro I'm all in.
I wonder if Apple will have such things that stack on top and use the central air duct as a shaft for all ... you could have a ten foot tower with ann external vent in the corner of the room and hardly notice it .
"Is that a black drain pipe in the corner?"
"NO, it's my Mac Pro stack!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
If that hitch is TB v2 and the trailer is an equally attractive external, matching case ... compared to my two ton Mac Pro I'm all in.
I wonder if Apple will have such things that stack on top and use the central air duct as a shaft for all ... you could have a ten foot tower with ann external vent in the corner of the room and hardly notice it .
"Is that a black drain pipe in the corner?"
"NO, it's my Mac Pro stack!"
No, It's my dual CPU stripper pole, you know for graphic work and spicing up my marriage.