Do i really need dual Firepro 2gbs? Wouldn't it be better for the base model to have one and a bigger SDD or better processor instead? Or is the graphics card used a lot in osx ?
I'm looking for a home machine to be used for Photoshop and Logic X.
I'm curious as to the UK price.
I believe the second GPU is used for opencl computations to offload the CPU. This thing is a screamer. With those dual GPUs I am surprised at the price.
If you’ve any common sense or decency, prove me wrong. I’ll wait.
Just another case-in-point for the comment I made in the other thread: Apple could never make a product to satisfy the parental basement dwellers who are willing to spend the infinite amounts of free time they have sourcing parts and building their own workstation to be a "pro" gamer. Though I hear that profession pays pretty well in Asia (if you're willing to train 20 hours a day at it).
it looks like Apple does not want to really make many of these. If they had an entry level model many of my clients would be interested. As it is most of my film and video clients have moved to iMacs. this unit is fine if your making a nuclear bomb or want to crunch some serious 3D. too much for a still photographer or people just doing graphics.
From what i read on a few blogs several weeks ago the bench test speeds were not impressive. 10% faster than the fastest i7 chip set. Might as well buy a macMini w i7 chips and get more bang for your buck. I know I'll be selling these 3k Pros to my clients who make up the 1%, As for the 99% of us no more Mac Pros.
``The base model of Apple's next-generation desktop features a 3.7-gigzhertz Intel Xeon E5 processor, 12 gigabytes of RAM, dual FirePro D300 GPUs with 2 gigabytes of video RAM each, and a 256 gigabyte solid state drive. ''
In short, the first usable workstation will be > $5k as you will need an external NAS system for storage [sure we can slap on a single External TBolt/USB3 drive but you won't].
Handicapped: GPGPUs.
The AMD FirePro D300 are entry level FirePro GPGPUs. Instead of up to 4GB each we get dual 2GB GPGPUs.
Apple builds a new design forcing people to go all external on storage and knee caps the workstation with 4GB max GPGPUs which are no where need what you want for performance.
Apple would have been better off starting at $4999 with Dual FirePro D600 [if that exists with a combined 8GB DDR5].
These machines are for real professionals who work in fields doing real-time modeling far beyond the already demanding fields of Computer Animation, Motional Picture industry, etc.
Apple has no answer for working in any field that requires applied physics on a level you need real-time analysis for CFD, FEA, Power Systems, etc.
Waste of money, I could go on new egg and buy parts at half the price and build something more powerful.
2X as fast for the same money, NO WAY, a little cheaper for the same machine sure, but then it's a computer you built and isn't an Apple! A Xeon E5-2637 X4 3.5GHz is a little over a grand(the closest I could find to the 3.7GHZ Mac Pro), the graphic cards, probably 400 - 500 a piece, no reference yet but I'm thinking ATI W5000 pricing and speed, 256GB SSD 250.00, 12GB EEC 150.00, decent Xeon motherboard 250.00 - 300.00, case and power supply 250.00 and your pretty close to the mark. So I would be very curious to see your 2X faster machine at half the price, especially with NewEgg pricing.
I wonder how much faster the 3.7 GHz 4-core will be over the 2.7 GHz 12-core in applications which don't use more than 4 cores. The addition of on-board cache to processors with more cores adds some speed, but I'd like to see that comparison chart between the CPUs. Then people can better fit the right processor for their needs between 4 and 12, like fitting the right furnace to your size house, bigger can become less efficient, and thus not better.
He makes a perfect valid comment just as one can grow their vegetables for less than half the price as it costs to buy a salad at a restaurant.
I wonder why he thinks everyone wants to build their PCs and want to only consider superficial specs that Newegg displays. Sure he can make some aspects faster but he's not seeing the big picture. He can't get same performance in all areas. But, hey, can get a cool clear case with neon in it from Newegg.
No he does not. He's a one-post troll just being an idiot. Sure I can grow my own vegetables at 1/2 the cost. Oh wait, I got to factor in water, fertilizer, good weather, several weeks to grow it, and let's not forget my time I have to allocate to tend to the crop. Oh, last night was freezing temperatures... I lost my crop. Bug infestation? Damn...
How's that "1/2 the cost" looking to ya? Or maybe I just continue working, earning more income, and go to the supermarket/costco instead and be done with it?
That argument gets so old. Thank you, but I'm done building rigs, with components from multiple vendors, hoping all the drivers for those pieces behave nicely, and of course NOT running OSX.
No... stupid comments from idiots like him are usually reserved for people that have way too much time on their hands, probably have dinner being served to them by mommy, don't pay rent, and do not have a social life outside of WoW parties.
What cost $2638 in 1978 would cost $9,462.69 in 2012.
I agree. My first Mac was in 1985 and I've had several since then. I tend to buy as well-configured as I can, initially, hoping that it will last me longer. And luckily that has been the case to date, with a replacement part or two.
But I figure, allowing for inflation, that I've spent $5 grand, current money, or more, for every Mac I've ever owned, including the monitor.
So $3 grand for a powerhouse, plus a grand for good Apple monitor, and another grand for a big Thunderbolt RAID drive, sounds like a deal to me.
I like it. I never had a Xeon before, but I'm looking for a powerful Mac desktop without display, so for me is either the Mac Pro or a Hackintosh. I like this Mac Pro, the only thing I dislike is the entry model being quad core. If I enter Xeon, I'd like to have at least 6 cores, so that my investment lasts more years. But the jump to 6 cores is $1000 more, and that pricing becomes too hard for me.
Also, as others said, I also prefer NVIDIA, but I understand Apple got a very good deal with AMD, maybe even getting two GPUs for the price of one.
Ah, and I don't care about not getting a display (I already have a 32 inch monitor), not getting a keyboard (have one of those great white ones from my defunct G5 iMac) nor mouse (have a Magic Trackpad). So I'm fine with the package as it is.
I suspect there is now some serious incentive to rectify the lack of proper OpenCL support in MATLAB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Both MATLAB and Cadence support OpenCL but CUDA is a lot more mature. Give it time, if these new Mac's take off so will OpenCL. I still prefer CUDA though, as a programmer, there are a whole lot more code examples out there for CUDA over OpenCL.
True. I think lack of proper OpenCL is a major shortcoming. Although CUDA is more mature and you can get lots of things done with it... I still wish there was CUDA option for the MAC PRO. I would have bought it for my work...
I wonder how much faster the 3.7 GHz 4-core will be over the 2.7 GHz 12-core in applications which don't use more than 4 cores. The addition of on-board cache to processors with more cores adds some speed, but I'd like to see that comparison chart between the CPUs. Then people can better fit the right processor for their needs between 4 and 12, like fitting the right furnace to your size house, bigger can become less efficient, and thus not better.
Here is a list of XEON CPU's, I don't see the 3.7Ghz one, the performance should be fairly close to the Xeon E5-2637 v2 though. Anyway, here is a performance chart to go with them. It will give you some idea. The CPU that most interests me is the Xeon E5-2650 v2, price, performance, power ration is off the charts.
But the jump to 6 cores is $1000 more, and that pricing becomes too hard for me.
One of the biggest set backs the MacPro's has for me is the lack of a multi-CPU system. I suspect, if the MacPro's do well and with an entry price of 3,000 I don't see why they shouldn't, Apple will probably introduce a multi-CPU version in the next update. So your situation of not being able to justify the price for the faster system would become mute as you would be able to update it later with an additional CPU. Now though, you have to buy the fastest you can afford as there is no upgrade path.
One of the biggest set backs the MacPro's has for me is the lack of a multi-CPU system. I suspect, if the MacPro's do well and with an entry price of 3,000 I don't see why they shouldn't, Apple will probably introduce a multi-CPU version in the next update. So your situation of not being able to justify the price for the faster system would become mute as you would be able to update it later with an additional CPU. Now though, you have to buy the fastest you can afford as there is no upgrade path.
Where would they put a second CPU, heat sink, fan, and associated interconnects in that chassis? That's it! You get one powerful CPU that is 4, 6, 12, and possibly 8 or 10-cores depending on configuration options.
Here is a list of XEON CPU's, I don't see the 3.7Ghz one, the performance should be fairly close to the Xeon E5-2637 v2 though. Anyway, here is a performance chart to go with them. It will give you some idea. The CPU that most interests me is the Xeon E5-2650 v2, price, performance, power ration is off the charts.
Model
Cores
Frequency
L3 cache
TDP
Pre-order price
Xeon E5-2603 v2
4
1.8 GHz
10 MB
80 Watt
$231.62
Xeon E5-2609 v2
4
2.5 GHz
10 MB
80 Watt
$337.03
Xeon E5-2620 v2
6
2.1 GHz
15 MB
80 Watt
$464.48
Xeon E5-2630 v2
6
2.6 GHz
15 MB
80 Watt
Xeon E5-2630L v2
6
2.4 GHz
15 MB
$701.01
Xeon E5-2637 v2
4
3.5 GHz
15 MB
$1140.99
Xeon E5-2640 v2
8
2 GHz
20 MB
95 Watt
$1013.54
Xeon E5-2643 v2
6
3.5 GHz
25 MB
130 Watt
Xeon E5-2650 v2
8
2.6 GHz
20 MB
95 Watt
$1335.85
Xeon E5-2650L v2
10
1.7 GHz
25 MB
70 Watt
$1395.91
Xeon E5-2660 v2
10
2.2 GHz
25 MB
95 Watt
$1590.78
Xeon E5-2667 v2
8
3.3 GHz
25 MB
130 Watt
$2320.64
Xeon E5-2670 v2
10
2.5 GHz
25 MB
115 Watt
Xeon E5-2680 v2
10
2.8 GHz
25 MB
115 Watt
$1943.93
Xeon E5-2687W v2
8
3.4 GHz
20 MB
150 Watt
$2414.35
Xeon E5-2690 v2
10
3 GHz
25 MB
130 Watt
$2355.52
Xeon E5-2695 v2
12
2.4 GHz
30 MB
115 Watt
$2675.39
Xeon E5-2697 v2
12
2.7 GHz
30 MB
130 Watt
$2949.69
But that chart shows all cores running when comparing the 4 core to the 12 core. I'd like to see a comparison of the 4 cores at 3.7 GHz (or 3.5 GHz) being compared to only 4 of 12 cores running on the 12-core processor at 2.7 GHz. Not all software can use 12 cores. For some software, the cheaper 4 core or 6 core is likely faster than the expensive 12 core. I want the Mac Pro for the super fast Drives, Ram, BUS, etc., not because I can use 12 cores. My SSD and Ram is my current bottleneck in the Macbook Pro, the 4 core i7 waits for them. I plan to max out the MacPro drives at 1 TB and then put them in RAID 10 for speed, (depending on how many separate modules they give you to make 1 TB.)
Comments
Do i really need dual Firepro 2gbs? Wouldn't it be better for the base model to have one and a bigger SDD or better processor instead? Or is the graphics card used a lot in osx ?
I'm looking for a home machine to be used for Photoshop and Logic X.
I'm curious as to the UK price.
I believe the second GPU is used for opencl computations to offload the CPU. This thing is a screamer. With those dual GPUs I am surprised at the price.
No, you can’t, you worthless, pathetic imbecile.
If you’ve any common sense or decency, prove me wrong. I’ll wait.
Just another case-in-point for the comment I made in the other thread: Apple could never make a product to satisfy the parental basement dwellers who are willing to spend the infinite amounts of free time they have sourcing parts and building their own workstation to be a "pro" gamer. Though I hear that profession pays pretty well in Asia (if you're willing to train 20 hours a day at it).
it looks like Apple does not want to really make many of these. If they had an entry level model many of my clients would be interested. As it is most of my film and video clients have moved to iMacs. this unit is fine if your making a nuclear bomb or want to crunch some serious 3D. too much for a still photographer or people just doing graphics.
From what i read on a few blogs several weeks ago the bench test speeds were not impressive. 10% faster than the fastest i7 chip set. Might as well buy a macMini w i7 chips and get more bang for your buck. I know I'll be selling these 3k Pros to my clients who make up the 1%, As for the 99% of us no more Mac Pros.
I am really sad that its out of my range. I have been waiting for it... but now with a heavy heart I am looking at the iMac and the new 15" MBP/r.
In short, the first usable workstation will be > $5k as you will need an external NAS system for storage [sure we can slap on a single External TBolt/USB3 drive but you won't].
Handicapped: GPGPUs.
The AMD FirePro D300 are entry level FirePro GPGPUs. Instead of up to 4GB each we get dual 2GB GPGPUs.
Apple builds a new design forcing people to go all external on storage and knee caps the workstation with 4GB max GPGPUs which are no where need what you want for performance.
Apple would have been better off starting at $4999 with Dual FirePro D600 [if that exists with a combined 8GB DDR5].
These machines are for real professionals who work in fields doing real-time modeling far beyond the already demanding fields of Computer Animation, Motional Picture industry, etc.
Apple has no answer for working in any field that requires applied physics on a level you need real-time analysis for CFD, FEA, Power Systems, etc.
Pretty can for the Home Pro.
I'm curious as to the UK price.
According to UK Apple Store , Base Quad Core is £2499 and six-core is £3299 - available December
Both MATLAB and Cadence support OpenCL
MATLAB only supports CUDA natively. There's third-party OpenCL support but it doesn't work with the built in toolboxes, so it's basically worthless.
I suspect there is now some serious incentive to rectify the lack of proper OpenCL support in MATLAB.
Waste of money, I could go on new egg and buy parts at half the price and build something more powerful.
2X as fast for the same money, NO WAY, a little cheaper for the same machine sure, but then it's a computer you built and isn't an Apple! A Xeon E5-2637 X4 3.5GHz is a little over a grand(the closest I could find to the 3.7GHZ Mac Pro), the graphic cards, probably 400 - 500 a piece, no reference yet but I'm thinking ATI W5000 pricing and speed, 256GB SSD 250.00, 12GB EEC 150.00, decent Xeon motherboard 250.00 - 300.00, case and power supply 250.00 and your pretty close to the mark. So I would be very curious to see your 2X faster machine at half the price, especially with NewEgg pricing.
He makes a perfect valid comment just as one can grow their vegetables for less than half the price as it costs to buy a salad at a restaurant.
I wonder why he thinks everyone wants to build their PCs and want to only consider superficial specs that Newegg displays. Sure he can make some aspects faster but he's not seeing the big picture. He can't get same performance in all areas. But, hey, can get a cool clear case with neon in it from Newegg.
No he does not. He's a one-post troll just being an idiot. Sure I can grow my own vegetables at 1/2 the cost. Oh wait, I got to factor in water, fertilizer, good weather, several weeks to grow it, and let's not forget my time I have to allocate to tend to the crop. Oh, last night was freezing temperatures... I lost my crop. Bug infestation? Damn...
How's that "1/2 the cost" looking to ya? Or maybe I just continue working, earning more income, and go to the supermarket/costco instead and be done with it?
That argument gets so old. Thank you, but I'm done building rigs, with components from multiple vendors, hoping all the drivers for those pieces behave nicely, and of course NOT running OSX.
No... stupid comments from idiots like him are usually reserved for people that have way too much time on their hands, probably have dinner being served to them by mommy, don't pay rent, and do not have a social life outside of WoW parties.
What cost $2638 in 1978 would cost $9,462.69 in 2012.
I agree. My first Mac was in 1985 and I've had several since then. I tend to buy as well-configured as I can, initially, hoping that it will last me longer. And luckily that has been the case to date, with a replacement part or two.
But I figure, allowing for inflation, that I've spent $5 grand, current money, or more, for every Mac I've ever owned, including the monitor.
So $3 grand for a powerhouse, plus a grand for good Apple monitor, and another grand for a big Thunderbolt RAID drive, sounds like a deal to me.
Waste of money, I could go on new egg and buy parts at half the price and build something more powerful.
so not true. The 2 GPU's alone are over $1000
Also, as others said, I also prefer NVIDIA, but I understand Apple got a very good deal with AMD, maybe even getting two GPUs for the price of one.
Ah, and I don't care about not getting a display (I already have a 32 inch monitor), not getting a keyboard (have one of those great white ones from my defunct G5 iMac) nor mouse (have a Magic Trackpad). So I'm fine with the package as it is.
I suspect there is now some serious incentive to rectify the lack of proper OpenCL support in MATLAB.
Both MATLAB and Cadence support OpenCL but CUDA is a lot more mature. Give it time, if these new Mac's take off so will OpenCL. I still prefer CUDA though, as a programmer, there are a whole lot more code examples out there for CUDA over OpenCL.
True. I think lack of proper OpenCL is a major shortcoming. Although CUDA is more mature and you can get lots of things done with it... I still wish there was CUDA option for the MAC PRO. I would have bought it for my work...
I wonder how much faster the 3.7 GHz 4-core will be over the 2.7 GHz 12-core in applications which don't use more than 4 cores. The addition of on-board cache to processors with more cores adds some speed, but I'd like to see that comparison chart between the CPUs. Then people can better fit the right processor for their needs between 4 and 12, like fitting the right furnace to your size house, bigger can become less efficient, and thus not better.
Here is a list of XEON CPU's, I don't see the 3.7Ghz one, the performance should be fairly close to the Xeon E5-2637 v2 though. Anyway, here is a performance chart to go with them. It will give you some idea. The CPU that most interests me is the Xeon E5-2650 v2, price, performance, power ration is off the charts.
But the jump to 6 cores is $1000 more, and that pricing becomes too hard for me.
One of the biggest set backs the MacPro's has for me is the lack of a multi-CPU system. I suspect, if the MacPro's do well and with an entry price of 3,000 I don't see why they shouldn't, Apple will probably introduce a multi-CPU version in the next update. So your situation of not being able to justify the price for the faster system would become mute as you would be able to update it later with an additional CPU. Now though, you have to buy the fastest you can afford as there is no upgrade path.
OpenCL
Where would they put a second CPU, heat sink, fan, and associated interconnects in that chassis? That's it! You get one powerful CPU that is 4, 6, 12, and possibly 8 or 10-cores depending on configuration options.
Here is a list of XEON CPU's, I don't see the 3.7Ghz one, the performance should be fairly close to the Xeon E5-2637 v2 though. Anyway, here is a performance chart to go with them. It will give you some idea. The CPU that most interests me is the Xeon E5-2650 v2, price, performance, power ration is off the charts.
But that chart shows all cores running when comparing the 4 core to the 12 core. I'd like to see a comparison of the 4 cores at 3.7 GHz (or 3.5 GHz) being compared to only 4 of 12 cores running on the 12-core processor at 2.7 GHz. Not all software can use 12 cores. For some software, the cheaper 4 core or 6 core is likely faster than the expensive 12 core.I want the Mac Pro for the super fast Drives, Ram, BUS, etc., not because I can use 12 cores. My SSD and Ram is my current bottleneck in the Macbook Pro, the 4 core i7 waits for them. I plan to max out the MacPro drives at 1 TB and then put them in RAID 10 for speed, (depending on how many separate modules they give you to make 1 TB.)