POLL: New Mac Pro or updated 2012 Mac Pro

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014


What would you rather have?   An updated 2012 Mac Pro with dual CPUs, card slots, drive bays, updated to current tech, or the newly announced 2013 Mac Pro?

«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 47
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member


    Mac Pro 2012 over the new MBP which is coming out.

     

  • Reply 2 of 47
    mccrabmccrab Posts: 201member


    also, depends a bit on the extra hardware that's available at the time MP '13 is released.  if there's a decent raid disk array and functional/aesthetically well designed display/keyboard etc and the price point makes sense, the new model will work for me. 


     


    i bought a MP back in early '08 - top of line spec at the time.  haven't upgraded anything inside the box since. i see the same thing happening with the next purchase - which is why i ask myself "why have the expansion options in the first place?"

  • Reply 3 of 47
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post


    What would you rather have?   An updated 2012 Mac Pro with dual CPUs, card slots, drive bays, updated to current tech, or the newly announced 2013 Mac Pro?



     


    People should buy the solution that fits their own needs. This is true whether their needs are best satisfied by a 2013 Mac Pro, a 2003 Power Mac G4, a 1993 Macintosh Quadra, or a 1983 Apple Lisa. That said, your question has a glaring contradiction. The technology in a 2012 Mac Pro is yesterday's technology by definition. The technology in a 2013 Mac Pro is today's technology leaving yesterday's technology behind. This is not to say that you don't require yesterday's technology. Just don't kid yourself into believing that the technology that you require is today's technology just because you require it.

  • Reply 4 of 47
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    mike fix wrote: »
    What would you rather have?   An updated 2012 Mac Pro with dual CPUs, card slots, drive bays, updated to current tech, or the newly announced 2013 Mac Pro?

    The 2013 MacPro or by the time I get around to it a 2014 model. It is simple, the 2013 model is an all around better solution and a platform for the future. Nothing about the old Mac appealed to me, high prices for low performance just doesn't float my boat.
  • Reply 5 of 47
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    The 2013 MacPro or by the time I get around to it a 2014 model. It is simple, the 2013 model is an all around better solution and a platform for the future. Nothing about the old Mac appealed to me, high prices for low performance just doesn't float my boat.




    I think you'll have to wait until at least 2015 for a real update. Looking at the last couple cycles, Westmere came out mid to late Q1 2010 with some parts drifting into Q2. I'm going by official launch dates. Shipping dates may have been later. Sandy Bridge EP didn't ship in volume until late Q2 2012. Ivy is looking like late Q3 2013. A 15 month refresh like Sandy to Ivy seems feasible. Haswell had some bugs, and there's no way of knowing if we will see reverberations push back Haswell as they did with Sandy. I don't think they'll update gpus only. Workstation gpus tend to trickle out later. AMD won't have workstation variants out on a new architecture anytime soon. I can't find their exact roadmap at the moment. I think there was something significant pegged for 2014. Even if there is gaming gpus usually come out first.

  • Reply 6 of 47


    I voted for the new fireplug Mac Pro. The old one is a non-starter. If the new Mac Pro comes in above my price point, then I'll go with a 27" i7 iMac to replace my 2006 Mac Pro.

  • Reply 7 of 47
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    hmm wrote: »

    I think you'll have to wait until at least 2015 for a real update.
    It isn't so much waiting for an update as it is a budget issues. That and trying to avoid rev 1 anything.
    Looking at the last couple cycles, Westmere came out mid to late Q1 2010 with some parts drifting into Q2. I'm going by official launch dates. Shipping dates may have been later. Sandy Bridge EP didn't ship in volume until late Q2 2012. Ivy is looking like late Q3 2013. A 15 month refresh like Sandy to Ivy seems feasible.
    That is probably realistic. It should be noted that I will only consider the New Mac Pro if it is available in an affordable base model. Right now it is speculative at best if I go the Mac Pro route.
    Haswell had some bugs, and there's no way of knowing if we will see reverberations push back Haswell as they did with Sandy.
    I was under the impression that Haswell was having a smoother transition. The E3 Haswell Xeons have been launched which I see as a good sign for the more robust Xeons.
    I don't think they'll update gpus only. Workstation gpus tend to trickle out later. AMD won't have workstation variants out on a new architecture anytime soon. I can't find their exact roadmap at the moment. I think there was something significant pegged for 2014. Even if there is gaming gpus usually come out first.
    GPUs will be interesting, even in the desktop market it takes more than two years to get real improved GPUs out the door. Of course a lot of people don't grasp the rebranding mentality where every other year a new label is pasted on last years GPUs. For software developers it is probably better to have the same GPUs in the machine for a couple if years or more. On the other hand I was under the impression that AMD had a new generation coming later this year - could be wrong there.
  • Reply 8 of 47
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    It should be noted that I voted for the 2013 Mac Pro but there is an assumption there about pricing. I would never consider the entry level Mac Pro of prior years because I consider them to be terrible values. Mind you terrible not just bad but basically a rip off. To consider a 2013 Mac Pro requires a machine that doesn't feel like a rip off at the entry level point.

    Frankly I'm not sure if Apple will hit the right price point. This is one reason why the XMac idea refuses to die in my mind.
  • Reply 9 of 47
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    It isn't so much waiting for an update as it is a budget issues. That and trying to avoid rev 1 anything.

     


    I typically avoid rev 1s, but I could make an exception here if I end up needing it. That is another story. I certainly wouldn't suggest anyone touch the current ones. With aging hardware, eventually some part will lose vendor support. That isn't such a big deal if you plan to keep it in semi stasis with accompanying hardware and software. That would be unrealistic for me.


    Quote:


     


    That is probably realistic. It should be noted that I will only consider the New Mac Pro if it is available in an affordable base model. Right now it is speculative at best if I go the Mac Pro route.




    I don't think it's a huge deal if they aren't on a 12 month cycle, but if it is 2015, Apple might push the mac pro out past the other machines. Typically they refresh notebooks first. You never know though.


     


    Quote:


    I was under the impression that Haswell was having a smoother transition. The E3 Haswell Xeons have been launched which I see as a good sign for the more robust Xeons.



     


    I would have to find the article. I didn't read about anything severe, and certainly nothing on the level of the Sandy Bridge recall. I am simply of the opinion that a 12 month refresh may not be a reasonable expectation here. If AMD was really close in that segment, they would probably skip a generation somewhere. For what they cost, the opterons do seem like a good value.


     


    Quote:


    GPUs will be interesting, even in the desktop market it takes more than two years to get real improved GPUs out the door. Of course a lot of people don't grasp the rebranding mentality where every other year a new label is pasted on last years GPUs. For software developers it is probably better to have the same GPUs in the machine for a couple if years or more. On the other hand I was under the impression that AMD had a new generation coming later this year - could be wrong there



     


    I'm aware of that. In workstation gpus you typically don't have rebranding. You have longer cycles with the same hardware, same clock rates. I don't mind that. Some of them can be way smoother in certain applications. It can be very subtle with OpenGL driven 3d apps. Just small things like selecting vertices on a heavy model can be snappier. Workstation gpus often hold up really well in navigating heavy scenes. Others vary a lot more. With lighter stuff there's very little difference. In some cases their drivers are also further tuned for double precision floating point math.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    It should be noted that I voted for the 2013 Mac Pro but there is an assumption there about pricing. I would never consider the entry level Mac Pro of prior years because I consider them to be terrible values. Mind you terrible not just bad but basically a rip off. To consider a 2013 Mac Pro requires a machine that doesn't feel like a rip off at the entry level point.



    Frankly I'm not sure if Apple will hit the right price point. This is one reason why the XMac idea refuses to die in my mind.


    If the line is suffering on volume, that is probably one of the causes. Entry level machines should not be a bad value, especially if you're setting the cost of entry that high. Look at how long they took just to make the W3565 the default option. I think at $2500, they could have done better. I'll leave it at that. I'm skeptical that anyone really knows what the net effect will be of the new one. I know I dislike losing internal storage, but I reserve final judgement for now. Apple often bundles changes.

  • Reply 10 of 47
    bergermeisterbergermeister Posts: 6,784member


    Though not a scientific poll, it looks like Apple was right to change the machine as they have more potential customers.

  • Reply 11 of 47
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Though not a scientific poll, it looks like Apple was right to change the machine as they have more potential customers.

    Even though I'm a proponent of of the new design polls of this sort are of limited use. More so in my case my opinion could change dramatically if Apple goes off program and grossly overpriced the machine. In the end it is all about decent value.
  • Reply 12 of 47
    messmess Posts: 32member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Though not a scientific poll, it looks like Apple was right to change the machine as they have more potential customers.



    Unless I'm reading something wrong, how can this mean anything with only 20 votes -- at least that is what it says when I just looked.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    The 2013 MacPro or by the time I get around to it a 2014 model. It is simple, the 2013 model is an all around better solution and a platform for the future. Nothing about the old Mac appealed to me, high prices for low performance just doesn't float my boat.


    I don't get it -- how do you know this the better solution for the future?  Don't get me wrong, I LIKE THIS DESIGN, but there is still a lot to be learned and too many unknowns right now.  Is Thunderbolt the wave of the future?  Seems to me that it is still being shaken out -- even throwing the cost factor out, I don't think of it as "proven" technology.  Does everyone really need 2 GPUs? I don't unless I have software that uses them for things other than graphics!  Are 1 CPU machines the wave of the future.  Seems to me people are moving to more and more cores to get more processing power.


     


    But more to the point, from what I read around the forums I watch, there are still a lot of people who DON'T think this is in their best interest.  I read a post the other day where a fellow said something that made an awful lot of sense to me.  Wish I could quote chapter and verse, but I don't remember exactly where I was. Basically, he claimed to be an Apple vendor, and he personally did not believe Apple had the PRO users at heart at all.  That it really is just a gimmick to create more disposable gear and Apple doesn't genuinely want or need to sell a PRO machine anymore.  Moreover, that those that he knows thought the whole thing to be something less than honest on Apples part…???…  Again, I don't take this with anything more than a gain of salt, but do you really think Apple cares about or needs this portion of the market anymore?  From what I read, the workstation market is shrinking.  Does Apple really care about a shrinking market?  What do they stand to gain?


     


    Would this be the next PRO machine that Steve Jobs would have released given what he said himself about what PRO users want? At Macworld in 2009, Steve Jobs said, “Our pro customers want accessibility: […] to add memory, to add cards, to add drives.”  Now that was a few years ago, and a visionary like him might change his mind, but this does not seem to jive with this machine -- at least as things stand right now…

  • Reply 13 of 47

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mess View Post


    Unless I'm reading something wrong, how can this mean anything with only 20 votes -- at least that is what it says when I just looked.


     



     


     


    I hope you read the part where I said it wasn't scientific...   or are you worried that this machine actually might be desired?  


     


    Apple surely has asked people what they wanted and done other marketing tests.  They decided it was a go.  If you don't like it, or it doesn't meet your needs or budget, don't buy it.  


     


    I for one WANT it, but whether I end up buying it depends on several factors.

  • Reply 14 of 47
    messmess Posts: 32member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


     


     


    I hope you read the part where I said it wasn't scientific...   or are you worried that this machine actually might be desired?  


     


    Apple surely has asked people what they wanted and done other marketing tests.  They decided it was a go.  If you don't like it, or it doesn't meet your needs or budget, don't buy it.  


     


    I for one WANT it, but whether I end up buying it depends on several factors.



    Yes -- read that -- just seems THIS poll doesn't prove anything (yet).  Oh and maybe you didn't read my post.  There are those who think Apple did their homework and in the end they decided that they really don't care whether people who earn their living using their products buy it or not.  I personally like the "concept" of the design.  Just think there a lot of holes yet to be filled.  Guess they could have just dropped the whole PRO line (and some believe that would have been more honest on their part).  Hope you like yours if the factors you see as important work out for you.

  • Reply 15 of 47
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member


    Price is number one I would imagine.

     

  • Reply 16 of 47
    messmess Posts: 32member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by marvfox View Post


    Price is number one I would imagine.

     



    Seems to be the foremost thing most people are talking about. Not sure -- may be performance is next?  From my point of view, I would like for this to be the technology of the future, but I'm not convinced that it IS.  


     


    Apple has been pushing Thunderbolt for quite awhile; yet, doesn't seem to have caught on -- at least in the circles I travel.  I have yet to see someone (r organization) that owns a Thunderbolt product.  Price could be the issue there too.  Or, it could be that the technology is just being fleshed out … or both.  But I have seen Mac Pro 1,1s maxed out and upgraded in ways that Apple never intended.  Hmmm…  Just maybe that is their problem with the current design?

  • Reply 17 of 47
    bergermeisterbergermeister Posts: 6,784member


    The MP looks like an amazing machine.


     


    Will it make everybody happy?  No.


     


    Will some of those it doesn't make happy try to reduce others' happiness?  Count on it.

  • Reply 18 of 47
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,547moderator
    mess wrote: »
    Unless I'm reading something wrong, how can this mean anything with only 20 votes

    20 votes on a forum like this is representative of around 14 million people in the real world. With a margin of error of around 14 million.
    mess wrote: »
    Is Thunderbolt the wave of the future?  Seems to me that it is still being shaken out -- even throwing the cost factor out, I don't think of it as "proven" technology.

    Thunderbolt is probably in more computers by now than there are workstations. It's not tried and tested the way PCIe slots are but you can run PCIe slots from it and you just need approved drivers. Some people think it's a totally different thing from PCIe but it's developed by the same company that invented PCIe. It's specifically designed to make devices connected to it appear to an OS as though they are connected to a PCIe slot.

    PCI went through a few revisions before they settled into a standard but it's not like people held off buying machines because of it. People buy what they need to get a job done and Thunderbolt devices and peripherals are being used already. PCIe peripherals have problems too e.g kernel panics from GPUs and IO cards:

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1289908
    http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/277/9081

    Regardless of technology being time-tested, ultimately things just need to work properly and as long as they work properly, there's no problem. Electric cars are new too, if everybody decides not to adopt them, they won't get adopted but what is the achievement in doing that? The advantage in making peripherals accessible over Thunderbolt is that they become accessible to more people.
    mess wrote: »
    Does everyone really need 2 GPUs? I don't unless I have software that uses them for things other than graphics!  Are 1 CPU machines the wave of the future.  Seems to me people are moving to more and more cores to get more processing power.

    Multiple CPUs can be achieved using remote servers or multiple machines because CPU processing typically isn't for real-time feedback. The most intensive computational requirements are for image/video processing and scientific computation and GPUs speed these up more than a CPU does.
    mess wrote: »
    But more to the point, from what I read around the forums I watch, there are still a lot of people who DON'T think this is in their best interest.  I read a post the other day where a fellow said something that made an awful lot of sense to me.  Wish I could quote chapter and verse, but I don't remember exactly where I was. <span style="font-family:Arial;line-height:normal;">Basically</span>, he claimed to be an Apple vendor, and he personally did not believe Apple had the PRO users at heart at all. That it really is just a gimmick to create more disposable gear and Apple doesn't genuinely want or need to sell a PRO machine anymore.  Moreover, that those that he knows thought the whole thing to be something less than honest on Apples part…???…  Again, I don't take this with anything more than a gain of salt, but do you really think Apple cares about or needs this portion of the market anymore?  From what I read, the workstation market is shrinking.  Does Apple really care about a shrinking market?  What do they stand to gain?

    People have been using tower form factors for at least 20 years. When there are even the slightest suggestions about them going away, any new technology like Thunderbolt that would bring this about is resisted as much as possible. Now that the tower finally disappeared, some people are obviously going to say it's not what they want because what they want is what they've used for 20+ years. Then they try to figure out how it'll be possible to make it work like the old system as closely as possible.

    Apple has to plan for where things are going and make money from it. The workstation market is small and it's not growing because a lot of people have no need to spend more than $2k on a machine. The need for expansion will keep diminishing the more that processing becomes native and memory/storage gets cheaper.
    mess wrote: »
    Would this be the next PRO machine that Steve Jobs would have released given what he said himself about what PRO users want? At Macworld in 2009, Steve Jobs said, “Our pro customers want accessibility: […] to add memory, to add cards, to add drives.”  Now that was a few years ago, and a visionary like him might change his mind, but this does not seem to jive with this machine -- at least as things stand right now…

    That was 2 years before Thunderbolt so there was no alternative. Steve was around when they brought in Thunderbolt. I don't know why people assume that Steve was pro-workstation. He was all about post-pc towards the end and barely even mentioned the Mac Pro. Some other companies were against Thunderbolt when Apple announced it as they always are whenever Apple does something new:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/hp-well-stick-with-usb-30-and-skip-apples-fancy-thunderbolt-2011-5

    but they follow on eventually:

    http://www.slashgear.com/hp-spectrext-touchsmart-ultrabook-delivers-thunderbolt-and-win8-touchscreen-29244775/

    The new Mac Pro is accessible for adding memory. Adding drives and cards is more accessible than ever - you just plug them in and you don't have to shut your machine down any more:


    [VIDEO]


    The new setup may not work out for everyone but it doesn't have to because the old Mac Pro didn't work for everyone either. Everyone chooses their own set of compromises.
  • Reply 19 of 47
    messmess Posts: 32member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    20 votes on a forum like this is representative of around 14 million people in the real world. With a margin of error of around 14 million.

    Thunderbolt is probably in more computers by now than there are workstations. It's not tried and tested the way PCIe slots are but you can run PCIe slots from it and you just need approved drivers. Some people think it's a totally different thing from PCIe but it's developed by the same company that invented PCIe. It's specifically designed to make devices connected to it appear to an OS as though they are connected to a PCIe slot.



    The new setup may not work out for everyone but it doesn't have to because the old Mac Pro didn't work for everyone either. Everyone chooses their own set of compromises.


    Thunderbolt is probably in more computers by now than there are workstations. It's not tried and tested the way PCIe slots are but you can run PCIe slots from it and you just need approved drivers. Some people think it's a totally different thing from PCIe but it's developed by the same company that invented PCIe. It's specifically designed to make devices connected to it appear to an OS as though they are connected to a PCIe slot.


    It is clear you are VERY pro Apple.  When I went to college my statistics classes taught me that 20 votes was not "statistically significant" anywhere :-)


     


    With me it is not Apple love it or leave it -- I have to close on this best possible tools to get the job done.  I have fought changes in the PC market for years.  You can upgrade "this" component, but "that" is not compatible!  And I didn't say that he was "pro" workstation, I was merely regurgitating a quote by Steve -- some believe he did "get" the PRO users needs.  Lately, more and more people in MY circles seem to think that the current Apple people don't get it…


     


    I'm not convinced that Thunderbolt is going to be the solution to "out-of-the box" expansion.  Like all technology -- nothing is as perfect as one would lead you to believe it is.  There is misinformation everywhere.   If you believe that is what I'm dishing out, you have the right to your opinion.


     


    If thunderbolt is so ubiquitous now why don't I see it in any competing workstation.  Why don't I see pros that I deal with using it everyday.  And if it is so transparent why is it that there are so MANY PCIe adapters that won't work in a Thunderbolt PCIe adapter?

  • Reply 20 of 47
    messmess Posts: 32member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    The MP looks like an amazing machine.


     


    Will it make everybody happy?  No.


     


    Will some of those it doesn't make happy try to reduce others' happiness?  Count on it.



    Why would anyone want to "reduce anyone else's happiness"?  Are you that jaded?  Or is it that you think I'm an Apple competitor or have some other reason to "Apple bash".  Sorry -- no, I'm just another guy whole believes in the free market system, believes that 2 heads are better than 1, believes that 4 heads are better than 2…  I believe in a "free and open discussion" of the facts as presented to me.  Free from marketing hype!  It's difficult to sift the facts from the crappola on the internet.  I've been around for a while myself and I have eyes, ears, and a brain of my own.  I've put up with enough of that crappola to be entitled to my own opinion even if I'm NOT perfect and not alway right.


     


    I'm just trying to make a living and get through life choosing the best path through the options and obstacles before me…

Sign In or Register to comment.