You paid $2800, sold it for $2800 and wasted a LOT of time, energy and lost opportunity to do something productive to do what? to go off topic. That system STILL doesn't have Thunderbolt, can't legally run OSX and run Final Cut Pro. WHAT A FREAKING waste of time.
Relic, you really need to go to another site and waste someone else's time.
SERIOUSLY. It's too bad I don't operate this site, as you would have been booted off YEARS ago.
Having technical knowledge to do this isn't that big of deal, but what is a little more difficult is using common sense and business sense, for which you have NONE.
I didn't miss any point. She went off topic with her PC BS. I'm sick of it. She should just discuss the MacPro if she's interested and not post 15 gillion photos of her HP system. She should post those on a HP/PC related site.
Your analogy is dumb. No relevance. The only thing I would say is you'd be stupid to bring a Nascar racing vehicle to the LeMans, which is what she did.
She's talking about server software on a HP PC she hobbled together USED from eBay and I doubt she even got HP's blessing that her configuration actually would pass HP's configuration to be able to be considered for a support contract.
It's some dumb USED last generation HP PC she hobbled together to install SERVER software that's unrelated to Apple. The whole thing is a waste of my time and now YOU are wasting my time. I should charge both of you for my time just dealing with this.
But she's comparing a USED PC that was LAST year's model.
In the mean time, KISS MY ASS.
She went off topic. and now YOU are wasting even MORE of my time.
Where does Apple compare their MacPro system to a PC workstation. All of their benchmark tests were being compared to earlier versions of MacPros. They didn't have any comparisons against PCs on their own web site. In fact, Apple RARELY shows benchmarks comparing their systems to others, they usually compare against a previous generation Apple product. That's what they've been doing for many years now.
Seriously, GROW UP. If I want to discuss used HP Workstations off of eBay, then I'll find a site that discusses those, which I'm sure there aren't too many of.
fixmdude wrote: »
The Mac Pro is conceptualized, designed, and built, to compete with PC Workstations. Comparing the two, good or bad, is the point of those discussing it. You should charge yourself for wasting your time reading this forum. Just stick to the CNN Tech page for the news.
Originally Posted by drblank
In fact, Apple RARELY shows benchmarks comparing their systems to others, they usually compare against a previous generation Apple product. That's what they've been doing for many years now.
You may be a little disappointed in that regard if you're comparing similar price points on the basis of X86 performance. The old mac pro used a 6 core in the $3000 model. Sure it started higher, but that was when the cpu retailed for $1000. That is not the case with the new one, but the price rose to $4000, presumably to preserve the set margins with the other adjustments. On X86 specs alone, you are going to see a little dip from $3000 machine to $3000 machine, as the difference in architecture isn't enough to overcome the loss of 2 cores. It seems pretty obvious that the HP with added teslas is a hobby, and breaking even just makes it a less expensive hobby.
I'm not just going to compare just the difference in JUST the CPU core performance. The new models have the high speed SSD, which the old ones didn't. Add another X to the price of the older computer, which by the way, is going bye bye. That's going to improve performance in a lot of ways. Plus, you have TWO GPU cards instead of only one. Plus you have 6 Thunderbolt 2 ports, which the old model doesn't have. Plus you have HDMI port, which the old model didn't have. Plus, you have 2 Gigabit ethernet which the older model didn't have, plus you don't have to have a big box if you don't need to add additional PCI cards. Some specs are a LOT faster. So far, we can only compare benchmarks on those that have been released.
I'm sure there will be more benchmarks provided by plenty of people when they ship in December.
I did mention the restrictions in my comparison. It would interest me to see the performance improvements across comparable price tiers with something that is well tuned to make use of its performance. It's still all about OSX for me, until the day I switch everything to Linux and grow a beard. Do keep in mind that while you get more, 2 gpus was always an optional configuration. It actually still came out a bit less. The standard drives weren't that small, so the difference shouldn't be as much. Thunderbolt chips themselves don't add much to the cost, but implementation might. They no longer ship with a keyboard or mouse, and thunderbolt with lack of PCIe may mean additional costs in extra DAS or other peripheral items. If I had to configure the base model, I would be at least at $4-5k for a working configuration. I'm all for benchmarks, even if limited to Apple published applications as long as they don't just focus on the absolute top configuration.
Talk to Apple Marketing's Phil Schiller about the benchmarks. Most companies post the top of the line benchmarks and not the bottom of the line. That's typical of MOST companies that I've run into, because it's how they market the product and it's potential.
Of course, but a relative comparison is still valid. The top spec might hit $8-10k. That is a different market than the $3k and $4k models. All you indicate is that they do not provide enough information because it might not look as nice on paper.
You're so smart, too bad Chevy never thought of that. All Chevy had to do is never mention Ford in any of their ads or comparisons, and *Poof* their competition magically doesn't exist anymore in imaginary la la land. If you don't mention them in your ad, (or your chat forums), then they are no longer your competition. Ingenious!
The starting retail costs for the new XEON CPU is 460 dollars for the Quad core model, 300 if you buy it from eBay. It's a really fast chip though but so is the i7 at the same price range, actually faster. It's the mid level Mac Pro that I am interested in, I think that this is going to be the real sweet spot, the CPU for that starts at 750, about 500 on eBay, 300 if you buy the none v2 version which you only loose about 180 points on the CPU benchmarks test so really the same speed, both still crazy fast none the less. Actually the only CPU in this lineup that is really expensive is the 12 Core version which should fetch upwards of 1200 dollars. The problem with the MacPro is that it isn't a dual processor setup which is the only advantage of having a Xeon processor anymore nor are the chips they use any faster or more expensive then a top tier i7, actually there are quite a few i7 models above the Mac Pro Xeon's that are faster and much more expensive, like 400 dollars more expensive except for the 12 Core Variation of course which is nutty fast, insanely fast even, but who will be available to afford the price Apple charges for that monster. Check out how the first two CPU's stand out among the rest over at CPUbenchmarks.com, you'll see that they are a pretty standard affair and defiantly no where near the quickest in the bunch but that 12 core, holy crap!!!! It's like 100% percent faster, a score of 9,000 something for the quad core model vs. 21,000 for the 12 core model, &^%$ me that's insane!
Why are you so focused just on CPUs? That seems VERY narrow minded. What apps do you use max out the CPUs no matter how many you have? The bottle neck is typically NOT the CPUs. Depending on the app, sometimes it's the GPUs and sometimes is the storage HDD/SSD. So, it's much better if you look at the total speed of the SYSTEM on different apps than just focusing on the CPUs.
It's not going to be as BIG of a gain, but there is also a risk of inundating the customer with too much information. I've seen companies that flood people with information and it turns people off. When the computers ship, there will be a LOT of people comparing them with various benchmark tests and real world app tests to keep us busy.
I think people should just sit back and wait and not get so wrapped up over things that will be trivial.
And I plan to review all or most of that information once it becomes available. I won't be a day 1 buyer, but there may be a new mac pro in my future.
The problem with the MacPro is that it isn't a dual processor setup which is the only advantage of having a Xeon processor anymore nor are the chips they use any faster or more expensive then a top tier i7, actually there are quite a few i7 models above the Mac Pro Xeon's that are faster and much more expensive, like 400 dollars more expensive except for the 12 Core
The Xeon has twice the RAM bandwidth, twice the pipes, and can support much more RAM (as a single processor.) The i7 only supports 32GB RAM while a single XEON can support 128 GB each (though Apple is only advertising 64 GB in their first new model's launch. In the past people have been able to put in 128GB successfully.) Twice the PCIe pipes allows for the dual video cards and all of the Thunderbolt2 ports which take 2 pipes each. My current limiter is that my RAM is maxed out on the i7, so the Mac Pro fixes that with the single Xeon. Doubling the processor doesn't give you double the speed because the bus between them is slower than doubling the cores within the same processor. I think they got it right by waiting for the 12 core to come out and then dropping their dual-processor model to produce a unique small package that's faster than all previous dual-processor XEONs.
Thanks for the info that's very interesting. The newer i7's can now support and utilize 64GB installed on a motherboard that supports it. Socket must be a LGA2011, here is a list of motherboards that support 64GB. I recently helped one of my cyber friends acquire a Intel DX79SR board, their hard to find and kind of expensive but I know a dealer who got me a deal. I would have preferred an Asus Rampage IV Black Edition for the price but he's kind of a purist, Intel CPU, Intel branded motherboard, if it was possible for a motherboard to be sexy the Rampage would be it. Anyway he's a Photoshop guru that works for an add agency and wanted to see what 64GB would do for him, since memory isn't so outrageous anymore why not. I fully realize that doubling the CPU doesn't mean doubling the speed but it defiantly has it's advantages, here is the outrageously expensive Xeon E5-2687W when in a single configuration and here is it when paired with an additional CPU as you can see the advantages are quite clear, the speed isn't doubled but it's a huge bump none the less. Motherboard manufactures wouldn't build dual or quad CPU boards if there wan't a clear advantage. Plus you can always start with just one processor and then add an additional one when needed, thus future proofing your rig. I would have loved to seen a motherboard replacement kit for the current Mac Pro that would support multi CPU and multi CPU configurations, it's a shame that Sonnet no longer makes upgrade boards for macs.
Hope you get what you want eventually.
I really just want a few more years with my families. As far a computers are concern I like having just an iPad and a Thinkpad Lenovo 2 for the moment. The two tablets back each others weakness's and strengths very nicely. If I was to survive, I would continue this great chemistry but replace the Thinkpad Tablet 2 with a Surface 2 or similar spec's machine, the Atom in the Thinkpad is not the best CPU for using Photoshop and I would love to use Abelton Live on tablet. It runs everything else pretty quickly so I can just imagine what an i5 based model would be like. I wish Lenovo made a model with that CPU as I absolutly adore the design and feel of it, oh much as the my new iPad Air.
Lenovo is a good tech company and eventually they will start to make the CPU compared to Apple .Lenovo has excellent quality control to.