I'm not sure they increased the bandwidth per channel, it looks more like they bonded channels to get one pipe in each direction. If I read the graphic right we still get full duplex that is a good thing.
Maybe it is a bonding of data + display data channels. All I seem to be able to confirm 100% is some kind of channel bonding with PCIe 3.0 thunderbolt bandwidth coming later. It will be interesting to see if this develops into a healthy product line.
Quote:
As I've said before I think Apple has already gotten 90% of what they want out of TB, it is an ideal docking solution for them. That it can be exploited on the new Mac Pro is just icing on the cake so to speak. Contrary to popular opinion I don't think Apple ever intends to replace USB with TB
I've said that before too. Their best selling Macs are portables, and thunderbolt enables a synergic peripheral device to accompany that.
Quote:
I haven't had a real chance to do some reading on TB 2 but it see it as more than a rebranding. The 1.2 designation may be correct though as it looks like that was the intention all along.
I meant calling it a "2.0" version to suggest a milestone may have been more of a branding effort than an accurate description, depending of course on what it actually signifies.
Quote:
True but after the PCI Express solution in the AIR I can't see Apple staying with SATA.
You call it PCI express, but it could be exactly what I described. Is the 2013 one using different protocols or something?
I do wonder if TB 2 forces a port for video usage to be video only though when hooked up to a display 4 K or greater.
The bandwidth to run a 4K display at 60Hz is 3840 x 2160 x 60Hz x 24-bits-per-pixel = 11.9Gbps (10-bit panels would be 14.9Gbps) so more than the 10Gbps of Cactus Ridge and Redwood Ridge. Redwood Ridge supports Displayport 1.2 passthrough though so it supports 4K displays but Apple is skipping Redwood Ridge (the recent Macbook Air still only says up to 2560x1600) and going right to Falcon Ridge (Thunderbolt 2).
I'd have expected 6 TB2 ports to be able to support 6x 4K displays but each port certainly couldn't support more than one 4K display. It should however be able to support peripherals on top of the display (otherwise it would make the Thunderbolt display's docking capability useless). You wouldn't do that on the Mac Pro of course, you'd plug Thunderbolt peripherals into the free ports. Apple's limit of 3 displays could be down to the GPU performance. There's a test here of 3x 4K displays and the performance suffers on a single 7970:
To get 60Hz, they had to split the display in half and run each stream at a higher refresh rate. This still worked over a single connection and might have worked with a single GPU but they used 2x 7970s anyway and tested a single 4K display. They ran into trouble going up to 3x 4K displays because it required 6 video streams so they eventually had to get a custom driver from AMD and they got 8fps while gaming with 2 GPUs. They had to add a 3rd 7970 GPU and adjust settings in order to get the performance up above 60fps.
Dell is coming out with a 32" 3840x2160 IGZO display and Asus has the same on preorder for $3500 (spec says it supports 10-bit):
Dell hasn't released their pricing yet but their displays right now only go up to $1250. Apple managed to undercut Dell when they first launched their 27" Cinema Display. Apple can't catch a break though even when they're cheaper:
"$1,000 is a tough pill to swallow for a display with such a focused intended use, especially with the availability of other monitors like the Dell UltraSharp U2711, which has slightly better performance and is only $100 more."
Apple used to sell displays above $2,000 so perhaps they'll have a 32" 4K in addition to their current 27". It's really up to whoever they buy the panels from that determines the price.
The bandwidth to run a 4K display at 60Hz is 3840 x 2160 x 60Hz x 24-bits-per-pixel = 11.9Gbps (10-bit panels would be 14.9Gbps) so more than the 10Gbps of Cactus Ridge and Redwood Ridge. Redwood Ridge supports Displayport 1.2 passthrough though so it supports 4K displays but Apple is skipping Redwood Ridge (the recent Macbook Air still only says up to 2560x1600) and going right to Falcon Ridge (Thunderbolt 2).
I would think that if Apple wants to deliver a panel to the professional AV market they would go beyond 4k. The goal being to support a 4 K movie with room for a mix of editing controls on screen. The problem is then getting enough bits to the screen. The interesting thing here is that AMDs documentation indicated that the ports on their chips can support data rates beyond what DisplayPort 1.2 requires. How much customization this requires is unknown. In any event saturation of the bus going to the display still seems like a possibility.
I'd have expected 6 TB2 ports to be able to support 6x 4K displays but each port certainly couldn't support more than one 4K display. It should however be able to support peripherals on top of the display (otherwise it would make the Thunderbolt display's docking capability useless). You wouldn't do that on the Mac Pro of course, you'd plug Thunderbolt peripherals into the free ports. Apple's limit of 3 displays could be down to the GPU performance. There's a test here of 3x 4K displays and the performance suffers on a single 7970:
It might be related to how many input ports there are on the TB controller chip for video data. If there is only one stream into the TB chip then the cross bar can only send that data to one output port. Hard to say for sure because it is difficult to find any info at all on the TB chips released or not.
To get 60Hz, they had to split the display in half and run each stream at a higher refresh rate. This still worked over a single connection and might have worked with a single GPU but they used 2x 7970s anyway and tested a single 4K display. They ran into trouble going up to 3x 4K displays because it required 6 video streams so they eventually had to get a custom driver from AMD and they got 8fps while gaming with 2 GPUs. They had to add a 3rd 7970 GPU and adjust settings in order to get the performance up above 60fps.
The funny thing here was a thread I visited maybe over a year ago where somebody claimed that the evolution of GPUs was done, that they didn't need to become more powerful. My how quickly that has been proven wrong.
Dell is coming out with a 32" 3840x2160 IGZO display and Asus has the same on preorder for $3500 (spec says it supports 10-bit):
Something caught my eye at the beginning of that video, I had to concentrate to remain focused on the screen on display.
Dell hasn't released their pricing yet but their displays right now only go up to $1250. Apple managed to undercut Dell when they first launched their 27" Cinema Display. Apple can't catch a break though even when they're cheaper:
Apple is commonly raked over by the PC crowd. I'm actually surprised at the acceptance of the AIR by PC users. I guess when superiority is so obvious you realize you would look rather silly trying to dis it.
"$1,000 is a tough pill to swallow for a display with such a focused intended use, especially with the availability of other monitors like the Dell UltraSharp U2711, which has slightly better performance and is only $100 more."
Apple used to sell displays above $2,000 so perhaps they'll have a 32" 4K in addition to their current 27". It's really up to whoever they buy the panels from that determines the price.
I can't imagine a 32" IGZO screen being cheap. If Apple was smart they would throw in a few goodies to make the price a little easier to take. The current dock functionality is a good start but they really should ad in a TV tuner. Like it or not sometimes the local news is the right source for what's happening. As long as it does pip it would be a great feature to have.
The Dell U2711 has been replaced by the U2713H and HM, at $100 or so cheaper than the Apple 27" TB monitor. Regarding the Apple monitor, the reviews on Apple's site are pretty mixed. The Dells also comes with a 3 year warranty.
Regarding the new Mac Pro, I'm not familiar with PCI Express memory and how much it costs. I did a Google search and the results were all over the place. Any guess on how much memory the entry level MP might come with? From the picture on Apple's site does anybody have an idea if it's user replaceable?
The Dell U2711 has been replaced by the U2713H and HM, at $100 or so cheaper than the Apple 27" TB monitor. Regarding the Apple monitor, the reviews on Apple's site are pretty mixed. The Dells also comes with a 3 year warranty.
Regarding the new Mac Pro, I'm not familiar with PCI Express memory and how much it costs. I did a Google search and the results were all over the place. Any guess on how much memory the entry level MP might come with? From the picture on Apple's site does anybody have an idea if it's user replaceable?
RAM yes, PCIE SSD, I don't think so, even if you could nobody makes them, yet.
I would think that if Apple wants to deliver a panel to the professional AV market they would go beyond 4k. The goal being to support a 4 K movie with room for a mix of editing controls on screen.
They could devote 1 4K monitor to playback. Some of the stuff in the video insinuates it for a cad workflow, which I expected. Who wouldn't want to view at both high tessellation and resolution in cad software as long as the underlying hardware can handle it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73
The Dell U2711 has been replaced by the U2713H and HM, at $100 or so cheaper than the Apple 27" TB monitor. Regarding the Apple monitor, the reviews on Apple's site are pretty mixed. The Dells also comes with a 3 year warranty.
Regarding the new Mac Pro, I'm not familiar with PCI Express memory and how much it costs. I did a Google search and the results were all over the place. Any guess on how much memory the entry level MP might come with? From the picture on Apple's site does anybody have an idea if it's user replaceable?
My guess would be 8GB. When you say PCI express memory, it sounds like you mean ram. Ram doesn't exist that way. It requires specific placement to minimize read time on a cache miss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The bandwidth to run a 4K display at 60Hz is 3840 x 2160 x 60Hz x 24-bits-per-pixel = 11.9Gbps (10-bit panels would be 14.9Gbps) so more than the 10Gbps of Cactus Ridge and Redwood Ridge. Redwood Ridge supports Displayport 1.2 passthrough though so it supports 4K displays but Apple is skipping Redwood Ridge (the recent Macbook Air still only says up to 2560x1600) and going right to Falcon Ridge (Thunderbolt 2).
"$1,000 is a tough pill to swallow for a display with such a focused intended use, especially with the availability of other monitors like the Dell UltraSharp U2711, which has slightly better performance and is only $100 more."
Apple used to sell displays above $2,000 so perhaps they'll have a 32" 4K in addition to their current 27". It's really up to whoever they buy the panels from that determines the price.
What they really said was
Quote:
The bottom line:As a desktop display and USB extender, the 27-inch Apple LED Cinema Display works wonderfully; however, for $1,000, there are better monitors that offer more options, including PC and Mac compatibility.
I kind of view Apple's displays as notebook peripherals. The cord and features seem to be structured with that in mind. Most displays over $1000 in general tend to be aimed at a somewhat narrow market, but a few really good ones do exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The funny thing here was a thread I visited maybe over a year ago where somebody claimed that the evolution of GPUs was done, that they didn't need to become more powerful. My how quickly that has been proven wrong.
I'm glad I never came across that thread. It probably would have resulted in another ad hominem infraction.
Quote:
Apple is commonly raked over by the PC crowd. I'm actually surprised at the acceptance of the AIR by PC users. I guess when superiority is so obvious you realize you would look rather silly trying to dis it.
It's one of their better defined products. Even if it's not for them, they aren't likely to claim it's identical to the majority of the PC market.
The Dell U2711 has been replaced by the U2713H and HM, at $100 or so cheaper than the Apple 27" TB monitor. Regarding the Apple monitor, the reviews on Apple's site are pretty mixed. The Dells also comes with a 3 year warranty.
It all depends upon how critical your needs are.
Regarding the new Mac Pro, I'm not familiar with PCI Express memory and how much it costs.
I'm not sure if by PCI Express memory you mean main memory or secondary store. However on the Mac Pro, both main memory and the secondary store (the SSD or flash) are both socketed.
I did a Google search and the results were all over the place. Any guess on how much memory the entry level MP might come with?
My guess would be 512 GB, this based on how cheap the SSD upgrades on the AIR are.
From the picture on Apple's site does anybody have an idea if it's user replaceable?
Yes both main memory and secondary memory are upgradable. As to the SSD nobody really knows (publicly at least) what the interface is for Apples PCI Express based SSDs. By interface I mean the virtual or command set and corresponding protocols. There is more than one way to do secondary store over PCI Express. In any event how fast third party solutions arrive is an open question, it is possible but then again there has to be demand. So I don't expect viable upgrades to happen real fast.
They could devote 1 4K monitor to playback. Some of the stuff in the video insinuates it for a cad workflow, which I expected. Who wouldn't want to view at both high tessellation and resolution in cad software as long as the underlying hardware can handle it?
CAD would be great on a generic 4K monitor. Funny but saying " generic 4K monitor" had me laughing to myself. I still remember the blotches one would get for pixels on tube based TVs hooked to all of those 6502 based computers back in the day.
My guess would be 8GB. When you say PCI express memory, it sounds like you mean ram. Ram doesn't exist that way. It requires specific placement to minimize read time on a cache miss.
Yes that statement was confusing but I think he meant secondary store.
It could be a driver update thing.
Quote:
What they really said was
I'm glad I never came across that thread. It probably would have resulted in another ad hominem infraction.
A justified infraction too. It continues to amaze me that people think computers are fast enough when I'm frustrated at every turn by the lack of performance.
It's one of their better defined products. Even if it's not for them, they aren't likely to claim it's identical to the majority of the PC market.
Which also highlights that Apple does innovate even if nobody wants to admit it. It is very interesting to see the AIR still on the market with little real competition. This is especially interesting given that it is a huge sales success.
If you are considering a Mini I might suggest that you didn't need a Mac Pro in the first place. A Mini shouldn't be a problem as I've had Aperture running on old laptops just fine. Of course that doesn't mean that the current Minis do much for you in the way of OpenCL support.
For that matter we don't know how the next version of Aperture will be able to leverage the Mini. For me this is the biggest issue with going extreme low end. You either loose features completely in an app or the app reverts to very low performance implementations of a feature. So you have to ask your self what will the next version of Aperture do with respect to the Mini. Also any plug ins that might leverage GPU computing become a problem.
The way I look at it is that we have entry level hardware which is fine, nut you have to be careful when you take advice like "supposedly it has no real trouble running Aperture". It could very well be perfect or it could crap out on you with long run times if a pet feature isn't supported well. You need to investigate these things carefully and not take anyone opinion as gospel.
Solid advise, thanks. Indeed, a Mini could be enough if Aperture doesn't get 'bloated' in a next version. And no, I certainly wouldn't go by (blog) posts to decide if it' 'ok to run Aperture on a Mini'. I'll test that by taking my Vault with me to an Apple Store and get hands on experience.
And maxing a Mini out (SSD, 16GB, 2.6) still is $1,499 nothing to sneeze at, especially when compared to the MP (Quad 3.2, 6GB, HDD, $2,499) though one cannot really compare the two...
Solid advise, thanks. Indeed, a Mini could be enough if Aperture doesn't get 'bloated' in a next version. And no, I certainly wouldn't go by (blog) posts to decide if it' 'ok to run Aperture on a Mini'. I'll test that by taking my Vault with me to an Apple Store and get hands on experience.
And maxing a Mini out (SSD, 16GB, 2.6) still is $1,499 nothing to sneeze at, especially when compared to the MP (Quad 3.2, 6GB, HDD, $2,499) though one cannot really compare the two...
Blah. There's not a lot of need to max it. Take 2.3 quad as the other is the same thing clocked higher, buy your own ram for $100 or so, buy a Samsung 840 as long as you're comfortable installing it. Before sales tax maybe $1200. It would be more desirable if they used an iris pro type. It would not tank imac sales either. That's a nonsense argument. The cpu is more expensive than any setup they have used up to this point, so that could affect such a decision.
Solid advise, thanks. Indeed, a Mini could be enough if Aperture doesn't get 'bloated' in a next version.
Bloat is always a problem. As for the Mini, I'm not sure I would even consider it if they don't get OpenCL working on Intels GPU. I'm not sure what the hold up is here but maybe they will fix it in Mavericks. Maybe somebody running the Mavericks beta can chime in on that.
Of course the flip side here is vastly improved AVX instructions which could mean that OpenCL on the GPU isn't as important. Haswell will be very interesting in this regard.
And no, I certainly wouldn't go by (blog) posts to decide if it' 'ok to run Aperture on a Mini'. I'll test that by taking my Vault with me to an Apple Store and get hands on experience.
Testing in store is good but reading isn't bad if you get a variety of opinions.
And maxing a Mini out (SSD, 16GB, 2.6) still is $1,499 nothing to sneeze at, especially when compared to the MP (Quad 3.2, 6GB, HDD, $2,499) though one cannot really compare the two...
I'm really hoping that Apple restructures the price on the Mac Pro. The intro really needs to come in at a far more reasonable price point if Apple every expects to see long term success with the Mac Pro. That MP you describe is a terrible value and one of the MP biggest problems.
That being said the Mini would be one hell of a machine with a few tweaks. Haswell of course but they could vastly improve the platform with the PCI Express blades used in the AIRs. Maybe add more RAM expansion capability too. Finally migrate to TB2. If Apple did most of this the Mini wouldn't be a bad machine for your needs.
Solid advise, thanks. Indeed, a Mini could be enough if Aperture doesn't get 'bloated' in a next version. And no, I certainly wouldn't go by (blog) posts to decide if it' 'ok to run Aperture on a Mini'. I'll test that by taking my Vault with me to an Apple Store and get hands on experience.
And maxing a Mini out (SSD, 16GB, 2.6) still is $1,499 nothing to sneeze at, especially when compared to the MP (Quad 3.2, 6GB, HDD, $2,499) though one cannot really compare the two...
I'd have thought a Mini with i7 and SSD would be all the photoshop/aperture machine you'd ever need.
I don't know if calling it a Mac Pro makes sense but people do want a reasonably priced desktop performance machine. At the entry point Mac Pros have traditionally been horrible values. This is what Apple should strive to address. Frankly it is the only way I see Apple getting enough volume to justify the Mac Pro line.
The only good thing here is that I see this chassis allowing Apple to restructure the Mac Pro line and associate price points to make the hardware profitable again.
Top post Wizard.
Apple have broadened the appeal of the Pro by emptying what 80% of Pro users didn't use (big empty box...) and allowing the '5%' to add what they want externally without forcing their wallet onto the 'impoverished' solo artist's budget.
Sometime soon LBB is going to tell us what he really thinks about the MacPro.
All joking aside, I sympathise wrt the pricing. We get a touch from Apple Australia, here in NZ. Not much but sometimes it might be 100 or so depending on the exchange rate and the item being compared.
eg AirPort Extreme usd 199 That should be aud 215 and NZd 250
Of course there's freight to consider but Apple sells the item at Aud 249 which should make it nzd 289
But no sells here in nz at 319
:P
Rob, I'm an honoury Power Mac Clone owner or was. Back in '97. (*Grizzled vet voice...)
Starting price? £2000 then. With add ons and Monitor took me up to 4k...and that was before I got me an Adobe suite...
So...even though I have the flagship iMac...there's a tower owner that looks longingly at the new Mac Pro.
Apple aint my friend when they ass rape my wallet on upsell...or f*ck me over with £2045 inc vat for a crappy quad core with lame gpu in a big empty box.
Even the air has fast SSD as standard... :P The Mini was 'just as fast' (or not that far behind the starter pro...) with an i7 and an SSD.
If Apple are going to use the value argument to justify their prices...then they've got to pony up with the specs.
The old Mac Pro entry was a disgrace and the update last year a ****ing cheek. A slap in the face to Pro owners...
Never said it wasn't which is why this is funny. In fact I've been saying all along that there is no need for a $2000 Mac Pro because that role is already very ably filled by the 27" iMac.
I guess this is the problem I have with your points. The roles as you say aren't in any way interchangeable. further a machines role is not determined by its price point.
Quote:
I'm not shouting it's just that some folks here apparently can't read.
Maybe they are reading what you are saying and then rejecting it completely?
Quote:
Except we were discussing a specific scenario of the base Mac Pro being this uber machine for $2K. Not generalities. The "we don't know how much blah blah blah" is again the result of folks who apparently can't read. For this specific scenario postulated by MacRonin to pick the 27" Core i5 iMac is just dumb. Which is why I said that such a machine would crater iMac sales and Bergermeister got his panties in a wad as if it were a general attack on the iMac or AIOs and ignoring the entire f**king thread where I've been saying otherwise.
Such a machine would have zero impact on the iMac. The fact is the Mac Pro would be an incomplete system at $2000 requiring a monitor at the very least.
Quote:
But I don't care how well you think iMacs currently sell because if Apple releases a $3000+ Mac Pro for $2000 that completely changes the value proposition of the entire Mac lineup. Something Apple has put tremendous thought into as opposed to someone like Dell with 6 gazillion possible machine combinations at every price point.
Your logic is beyond explanation here. If Apple releases the base model Mac Pro for $2000 then it is a $2000 machine and nothing more. Besides as mentioned above that is just for the computer, monitor and whatever is still extra.
Quote:
Yah, they sure would sell a lot of Mac Pros. And a lot less of the 27" iMacs. Who's IPS panel is the same LG IPS panel seen in $300 retail monitors on eBay and $450 from Monoprice.
You may believe that but I don't buy it. The markets for the two machines are so different that there is very little in the way of overlap.
Quote:
Just like if they put a 640M in the current Mac Mini. A $999 2.6 Ghz Quad i7 Mac Mini with a 512MB GT 640M would crater 21" iMac sales. Which is why no such machine exists even if it would sell well with decent margins. A machine I would dearly love to see appear but understand it simply ain't happening. There's a huge profit advantage in selling AIOs which is why Apple still protects the iMac line even today even with Jobs gone.
I don't even buy the argument that the iMac is all that profitable. Maybe after overpriced upgrades but certainly not in the base models.
Quote:
It's not whimsy or some kind of AIO fetish but why Apple makes money selling desktops and Dell not so much. That $500 cost delta between the base $1300 quad core i5 iMac and the $800 quad Core i7 Mac Mini is mostly profit on top of the profit inherent in the mini that you pay every time you refresh your iMac.
Are you trying to say the screen is free to Apple on the iMacs?
Quote:
So it ain't likely that Apple is going to introduce either a Mac Pro or Mini that's going to significantly impact iMac sales.
it really doesn't matter one bit what price point Apple introduces the Mac Pro at as the markets are entirely different. Nobody interested in a Mac Pro is going to be shopping for an iMac and vis versa. beyond that I would expect far better profits form a $2000 Mac Pro than I would any of the iMacs.
Some interesting arguments here.
iMac profitable? *look what happened when they didn't have any to sell and Apple missed projections. :P
*look at the entry specs of the iMac. 21 inch monitor (how much for Apple to buy in bulk?), cheap ass 1 TB HD? 640M in entry machine? No DVD? Entry price?
£1099 inc vat?
They don't make a profit on this i5 wonder? :P
3 times the cost of any entry PC...
Apple? Not make a profit on what they sell?
ROFLMAO.
Want a DVD player? Extra £60... (whether you think they're old hat or not...) AND they upped the entry price by £100 to boot.
Your logic is beyond explanation here. If Apple releases the base model Mac Pro for $2000 then it is a $2000 machine and nothing more. Besides as mentioned above that is just for the computer, monitor and whatever is still extra.
Back in the Blue and White G3 days you were still talking way in excess of the top end iMac if you added a monitor as well. That was when Apple tower machines were sane.
I'm not convinced that many take the iMc for its display. it seems to me most avoid it because of its display.
It's better than the last display which was very decent. Damn fine display. Not bad for a display they're giving away for 'free' (*stifles a laugh....Apple 'give' stuff away...bwah..ahahahahahah....)
The only way to get a better display is a retina...for fork out big bucks. For a prosumer to Pro range machine...this display seems to be enjoyed by the best part of 1 million buyers. Are the displays in Apple laptops inferior as well?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I'm not sure they increased the bandwidth per channel, it looks more like they bonded channels to get one pipe in each direction. If I read the graphic right we still get full duplex that is a good thing.
Maybe it is a bonding of data + display data channels. All I seem to be able to confirm 100% is some kind of channel bonding with PCIe 3.0 thunderbolt bandwidth coming later. It will be interesting to see if this develops into a healthy product line.
Quote:
As I've said before I think Apple has already gotten 90% of what they want out of TB, it is an ideal docking solution for them. That it can be exploited on the new Mac Pro is just icing on the cake so to speak. Contrary to popular opinion I don't think Apple ever intends to replace USB with TB
I've said that before too. Their best selling Macs are portables, and thunderbolt enables a synergic peripheral device to accompany that.
Quote:
I haven't had a real chance to do some reading on TB 2 but it see it as more than a rebranding. The 1.2 designation may be correct though as it looks like that was the intention all along.
I meant calling it a "2.0" version to suggest a milestone may have been more of a branding effort than an accurate description, depending of course on what it actually signifies.
Quote:
True but after the PCI Express solution in the AIR I can't see Apple staying with SATA.
You call it PCI express, but it could be exactly what I described. Is the 2013 one using different protocols or something?
The bandwidth to run a 4K display at 60Hz is 3840 x 2160 x 60Hz x 24-bits-per-pixel = 11.9Gbps (10-bit panels would be 14.9Gbps) so more than the 10Gbps of Cactus Ridge and Redwood Ridge. Redwood Ridge supports Displayport 1.2 passthrough though so it supports 4K displays but Apple is skipping Redwood Ridge (the recent Macbook Air still only says up to 2560x1600) and going right to Falcon Ridge (Thunderbolt 2).
I'd have expected 6 TB2 ports to be able to support 6x 4K displays but each port certainly couldn't support more than one 4K display. It should however be able to support peripherals on top of the display (otherwise it would make the Thunderbolt display's docking capability useless). You wouldn't do that on the Mac Pro of course, you'd plug Thunderbolt peripherals into the free ports. Apple's limit of 3 displays could be down to the GPU performance. There's a test here of 3x 4K displays and the performance suffers on a single 7970:
http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/extremewindows/archive/2013/07/25/pushing-the-12k-pc-gaming-boundary-at-1-5-billion-pixels-per-second.aspx
To get 60Hz, they had to split the display in half and run each stream at a higher refresh rate. This still worked over a single connection and might have worked with a single GPU but they used 2x 7970s anyway and tested a single 4K display. They ran into trouble going up to 3x 4K displays because it required 6 video streams so they eventually had to get a custom driver from AMD and they got 8fps while gaming with 2 GPUs. They had to add a 3rd 7970 GPU and adjust settings in order to get the performance up above 60fps.
Dell is coming out with a 32" 3840x2160 IGZO display and Asus has the same on preorder for $3500 (spec says it supports 10-bit):
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/asus-4k-resolution-monitor-available-for-pre-order/
[VIDEO]
Dell hasn't released their pricing yet but their displays right now only go up to $1250. Apple managed to undercut Dell when they first launched their 27" Cinema Display. Apple can't catch a break though even when they're cheaper:
http://reviews.cnet.com/apple-led-cinema-display-review
"$1,000 is a tough pill to swallow for a display with such a focused intended use, especially with the availability of other monitors like the Dell UltraSharp U2711, which has slightly better performance and is only $100 more."
Apple used to sell displays above $2,000 so perhaps they'll have a 32" 4K in addition to their current 27". It's really up to whoever they buy the panels from that determines the price.
I can't imagine a 32" IGZO screen being cheap. If Apple was smart they would throw in a few goodies to make the price a little easier to take. The current dock functionality is a good start but they really should ad in a TV tuner. Like it or not sometimes the local news is the right source for what's happening. As long as it does pip it would be a great feature to have.
The Dell U2711 has been replaced by the U2713H and HM, at $100 or so cheaper than the Apple 27" TB monitor. Regarding the Apple monitor, the reviews on Apple's site are pretty mixed. The Dells also comes with a 3 year warranty.
Regarding the new Mac Pro, I'm not familiar with PCI Express memory and how much it costs. I did a Google search and the results were all over the place. Any guess on how much memory the entry level MP might come with? From the picture on Apple's site does anybody have an idea if it's user replaceable?
RAM yes, PCIE SSD, I don't think so, even if you could nobody makes them, yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I would think that if Apple wants to deliver a panel to the professional AV market they would go beyond 4k. The goal being to support a 4 K movie with room for a mix of editing controls on screen.
They could devote 1 4K monitor to playback. Some of the stuff in the video insinuates it for a cad workflow, which I expected. Who wouldn't want to view at both high tessellation and resolution in cad software as long as the underlying hardware can handle it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73
The Dell U2711 has been replaced by the U2713H and HM, at $100 or so cheaper than the Apple 27" TB monitor. Regarding the Apple monitor, the reviews on Apple's site are pretty mixed. The Dells also comes with a 3 year warranty.
Regarding the new Mac Pro, I'm not familiar with PCI Express memory and how much it costs. I did a Google search and the results were all over the place. Any guess on how much memory the entry level MP might come with? From the picture on Apple's site does anybody have an idea if it's user replaceable?
My guess would be 8GB. When you say PCI express memory, it sounds like you mean ram. Ram doesn't exist that way. It requires specific placement to minimize read time on a cache miss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The bandwidth to run a 4K display at 60Hz is 3840 x 2160 x 60Hz x 24-bits-per-pixel = 11.9Gbps (10-bit panels would be 14.9Gbps) so more than the 10Gbps of Cactus Ridge and Redwood Ridge. Redwood Ridge supports Displayport 1.2 passthrough though so it supports 4K displays but Apple is skipping Redwood Ridge (the recent Macbook Air still only says up to 2560x1600) and going right to Falcon Ridge (Thunderbolt 2).
It could be a driver update thing.
Quote:
http://reviews.cnet.com/apple-led-cinema-display-review
"$1,000 is a tough pill to swallow for a display with such a focused intended use, especially with the availability of other monitors like the Dell UltraSharp U2711, which has slightly better performance and is only $100 more."
Apple used to sell displays above $2,000 so perhaps they'll have a 32" 4K in addition to their current 27". It's really up to whoever they buy the panels from that determines the price.
What they really said was
Quote:
The bottom line: As a desktop display and USB extender, the 27-inch Apple LED Cinema Display works wonderfully; however, for $1,000, there are better monitors that offer more options, including PC and Mac compatibility.
I kind of view Apple's displays as notebook peripherals. The cord and features seem to be structured with that in mind. Most displays over $1000 in general tend to be aimed at a somewhat narrow market, but a few really good ones do exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The funny thing here was a thread I visited maybe over a year ago where somebody claimed that the evolution of GPUs was done, that they didn't need to become more powerful. My how quickly that has been proven wrong.
I'm glad I never came across that thread. It probably would have resulted in another ad hominem infraction.
Quote:
Apple is commonly raked over by the PC crowd. I'm actually surprised at the acceptance of the AIR by PC users. I guess when superiority is so obvious you realize you would look rather silly trying to dis it.
It's one of their better defined products. Even if it's not for them, they aren't likely to claim it's identical to the majority of the PC market.
Yes both main memory and secondary memory are upgradable. As to the SSD nobody really knows (publicly at least) what the interface is for Apples PCI Express based SSDs. By interface I mean the virtual or command set and corresponding protocols. There is more than one way to do secondary store over PCI Express. In any event how fast third party solutions arrive is an open question, it is possible but then again there has to be demand. So I don't expect viable upgrades to happen real fast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
RAM yes, PCIE SSD, I don't think so, even if you could nobody makes them, yet.
Whoops, senior moment here. Meant to write PCI Express storage, not memory. Sorry for the confusion.
Solid advise, thanks. Indeed, a Mini could be enough if Aperture doesn't get 'bloated' in a next version. And no, I certainly wouldn't go by (blog) posts to decide if it' 'ok to run Aperture on a Mini'. I'll test that by taking my Vault with me to an Apple Store and get hands on experience.
And maxing a Mini out (SSD, 16GB, 2.6) still is $1,499 nothing to sneeze at, especially when compared to the MP (Quad 3.2, 6GB, HDD, $2,499) though one cannot really compare the two...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Solid advise, thanks. Indeed, a Mini could be enough if Aperture doesn't get 'bloated' in a next version. And no, I certainly wouldn't go by (blog) posts to decide if it' 'ok to run Aperture on a Mini'. I'll test that by taking my Vault with me to an Apple Store and get hands on experience.
And maxing a Mini out (SSD, 16GB, 2.6) still is $1,499 nothing to sneeze at, especially when compared to the MP (Quad 3.2, 6GB, HDD, $2,499) though one cannot really compare the two...
Blah. There's not a lot of need to max it. Take 2.3 quad as the other is the same thing clocked higher, buy your own ram for $100 or so, buy a Samsung 840 as long as you're comfortable installing it. Before sales tax maybe $1200. It would be more desirable if they used an iris pro type. It would not tank imac sales either. That's a nonsense argument. The cpu is more expensive than any setup they have used up to this point, so that could affect such a decision.
Of course the flip side here is vastly improved AVX instructions which could mean that OpenCL on the GPU isn't as important. Haswell will be very interesting in this regard. Testing in store is good but reading isn't bad if you get a variety of opinions. I'm really hoping that Apple restructures the price on the Mac Pro. The intro really needs to come in at a far more reasonable price point if Apple every expects to see long term success with the Mac Pro. That MP you describe is a terrible value and one of the MP biggest problems.
That being said the Mini would be one hell of a machine with a few tweaks. Haswell of course but they could vastly improve the platform with the PCI Express blades used in the AIRs. Maybe add more RAM expansion capability too. Finally migrate to TB2. If Apple did most of this the Mini wouldn't be a bad machine for your needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Solid advise, thanks. Indeed, a Mini could be enough if Aperture doesn't get 'bloated' in a next version. And no, I certainly wouldn't go by (blog) posts to decide if it' 'ok to run Aperture on a Mini'. I'll test that by taking my Vault with me to an Apple Store and get hands on experience.
And maxing a Mini out (SSD, 16GB, 2.6) still is $1,499 nothing to sneeze at, especially when compared to the MP (Quad 3.2, 6GB, HDD, $2,499) though one cannot really compare the two...
I'd have thought a Mini with i7 and SSD would be all the photoshop/aperture machine you'd ever need.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I don't know if calling it a Mac Pro makes sense but people do want a reasonably priced desktop performance machine. At the entry point Mac Pros have traditionally been horrible values. This is what Apple should strive to address. Frankly it is the only way I see Apple getting enough volume to justify the Mac Pro line.
The only good thing here is that I see this chassis allowing Apple to restructure the Mac Pro line and associate price points to make the hardware profitable again.
Top post Wizard.
Apple have broadened the appeal of the Pro by emptying what 80% of Pro users didn't use (big empty box...) and allowing the '5%' to add what they want externally without forcing their wallet onto the 'impoverished' solo artist's budget.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
Sometime soon LBB is going to tell us what he really thinks about the MacPro.
All joking aside, I sympathise wrt the pricing. We get a touch from Apple Australia, here in NZ. Not much but sometimes it might be 100 or so depending on the exchange rate and the item being compared.
eg AirPort Extreme usd 199 That should be aud 215 and NZd 250
Of course there's freight to consider but Apple sells the item at Aud 249 which should make it nzd 289
But no sells here in nz at 319
:P
Rob, I'm an honoury Power Mac Clone owner or was. Back in '97. (*Grizzled vet voice...)
Starting price? £2000 then. With add ons and Monitor took me up to 4k...and that was before I got me an Adobe suite...
So...even though I have the flagship iMac...there's a tower owner that looks longingly at the new Mac Pro.
Apple aint my friend when they ass rape my wallet on upsell...or f*ck me over with £2045 inc vat for a crappy quad core with lame gpu in a big empty box.
Even the air has fast SSD as standard... :P The Mini was 'just as fast' (or not that far behind the starter pro...) with an i7 and an SSD.
If Apple are going to use the value argument to justify their prices...then they've got to pony up with the specs.
The old Mac Pro entry was a disgrace and the update last year a ****ing cheek. A slap in the face to Pro owners...
*breathes.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Never said it wasn't which is why this is funny. In fact I've been saying all along that there is no need for a $2000 Mac Pro because that role is already very ably filled by the 27" iMac.
I guess this is the problem I have with your points. The roles as you say aren't in any way interchangeable. further a machines role is not determined by its price point.
Quote:
I'm not shouting it's just that some folks here apparently can't read.
Maybe they are reading what you are saying and then rejecting it completely?
Quote:
Except we were discussing a specific scenario of the base Mac Pro being this uber machine for $2K. Not generalities. The "we don't know how much blah blah blah" is again the result of folks who apparently can't read. For this specific scenario postulated by MacRonin to pick the 27" Core i5 iMac is just dumb. Which is why I said that such a machine would crater iMac sales and Bergermeister got his panties in a wad as if it were a general attack on the iMac or AIOs and ignoring the entire f**king thread where I've been saying otherwise.
Such a machine would have zero impact on the iMac. The fact is the Mac Pro would be an incomplete system at $2000 requiring a monitor at the very least.
Quote:
But I don't care how well you think iMacs currently sell because if Apple releases a $3000+ Mac Pro for $2000 that completely changes the value proposition of the entire Mac lineup. Something Apple has put tremendous thought into as opposed to someone like Dell with 6 gazillion possible machine combinations at every price point.
Your logic is beyond explanation here. If Apple releases the base model Mac Pro for $2000 then it is a $2000 machine and nothing more. Besides as mentioned above that is just for the computer, monitor and whatever is still extra.
Quote:
Yah, they sure would sell a lot of Mac Pros. And a lot less of the 27" iMacs. Who's IPS panel is the same LG IPS panel seen in $300 retail monitors on eBay and $450 from Monoprice.
You may believe that but I don't buy it. The markets for the two machines are so different that there is very little in the way of overlap.
Quote:
Just like if they put a 640M in the current Mac Mini. A $999 2.6 Ghz Quad i7 Mac Mini with a 512MB GT 640M would crater 21" iMac sales. Which is why no such machine exists even if it would sell well with decent margins. A machine I would dearly love to see appear but understand it simply ain't happening. There's a huge profit advantage in selling AIOs which is why Apple still protects the iMac line even today even with Jobs gone.
I don't even buy the argument that the iMac is all that profitable. Maybe after overpriced upgrades but certainly not in the base models.
Quote:
It's not whimsy or some kind of AIO fetish but why Apple makes money selling desktops and Dell not so much. That $500 cost delta between the base $1300 quad core i5 iMac and the $800 quad Core i7 Mac Mini is mostly profit on top of the profit inherent in the mini that you pay every time you refresh your iMac.
Are you trying to say the screen is free to Apple on the iMacs?
Quote:
So it ain't likely that Apple is going to introduce either a Mac Pro or Mini that's going to significantly impact iMac sales.
it really doesn't matter one bit what price point Apple introduces the Mac Pro at as the markets are entirely different. Nobody interested in a Mac Pro is going to be shopping for an iMac and vis versa. beyond that I would expect far better profits form a $2000 Mac Pro than I would any of the iMacs.
Some interesting arguments here.
iMac profitable? *look what happened when they didn't have any to sell and Apple missed projections. :P
*look at the entry specs of the iMac. 21 inch monitor (how much for Apple to buy in bulk?), cheap ass 1 TB HD? 640M in entry machine? No DVD? Entry price?
£1099 inc vat?
They don't make a profit on this i5 wonder? :P
3 times the cost of any entry PC...
Apple? Not make a profit on what they sell?
ROFLMAO.
Want a DVD player? Extra £60... (whether you think they're old hat or not...) AND they upped the entry price by £100 to boot.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Your logic is beyond explanation here. If Apple releases the base model Mac Pro for $2000 then it is a $2000 machine and nothing more. Besides as mentioned above that is just for the computer, monitor and whatever is still extra.
Exactly.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Back in the Blue and White G3 days you were still talking way in excess of the top end iMac if you added a monitor as well. That was when Apple tower machines were sane.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
I'm not convinced that many take the iMc for its display. it seems to me most avoid it because of its display.
It's better than the last display which was very decent. Damn fine display. Not bad for a display they're giving away for 'free' (*stifles a laugh....Apple 'give' stuff away...bwah..ahahahahahah....)
The only way to get a better display is a retina...for fork out big bucks. For a prosumer to Pro range machine...this display seems to be enjoyed by the best part of 1 million buyers. Are the displays in Apple laptops inferior as well?
Lemon Bon Bon.
A lot of designers, artists seem quite happy with the display...
Lemon Bon Bon.