It is Christmas time you could give her a new Mac Pro instead!8-)
It might take more than a year to get a substantial upgrade over the current Xeons. I haven't hear mention of any thing major coming and frankly Intel is under the same pressure to reduce thermal power in these chips as they are in their consumer lines.
As for GPU's well I believe you are right in that 2014 should bring a new family of chips. Even then the question really is how much of an improvement is possible.
Well a bit more performance anyways. Right now I don't see a path in that direction unless Apple and Intel are working on a solution using Intels many core technology.
At this point you do have to have the personality of an adventure seeker. Not that I believe there is any problem with the tech going into the new Mac Pro but rather when basically the entire platform is new technology you can have issues.
I expect to see, overall, a possible 20% increase in effective computing power with next year's models. While it's true that Xeon's tend to be a year or so behind their more consumer oriented "I" lines, it's also much more performance oriented. I keep thinking that 2013 was a rather fallow year in performance for Intel's chips. This coming year should be more performance oriented.
With OpenCL depending on what's in the GPU, I expect to see a good boost there next year.
Next time I'll be sure to write my text in between <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags so your feeble mind can know the difference between statements of fact and when someone is making fun of you.
My arguments were perfectly sound, you just don't seem smart or open enough to understand them.
To clarify a few things, although I'm sure you'll completely miss the point yet again, I wasn't calling you girls for liking the Mac Pro. I've said on numerous occasions that this new machine is generally awesome. I was calling you girls because you got all emotional on me for making a perfectly valid point against the machine's lack of internal storage capacity options which are:
a) Not nearly enough storage
b) Not nearly enough storage for 300$ more
and
c) Still not enough storage for your first born child. (800$ more)
As for "salient" arguments, and nice use of your thesaurus by the way, I mentioned on multiple occasions that the sedentary nature of the Mac Pro is no excuse for "small and light" being more important than storage capacity, which is a real world usability issue for the kind of people who need the graphics power built into the device.
I am a huge proponent of Apple products, which are generally far superior to the competition's, but you type of "Apple can do no harm" people make us all look bad. How about you stop posting for a while, or do you enjoy embarrassing yourself?
It's OK to be objective every now and then.
It's a perfectly valid point that the new Mac Pro has much less internal storage than the old Mac Pro. But that's it!
Your posts are downhill after that.
If you said, that for YOU, this doesn't have enough internal storage, everyone would have said that this isn't for you then, and if you were willing to let it go at that, or just agree, none of this would be happening. But when you make a statement that patently false, which is to generalize your wants/needs to everyone else, then you set yourself up for all of this criticism.
The problem seems to be that you aren't really familiar with the way much production use of machines like this are most of the time. Internal mass storage is not done in most places these days. That's pure and simple.
When I first saw this at the dev conf. In June, I was both upset and frustrated. I'm retired (no I'm not that old). So my needs are not what they were when I had my company. But still, I want performance. I also have five drives inside my Mac Pro, and five drives in a tower outside for backup. So this threw me!
But as I thought about it for MY needs, I realized that it was fine. With a pro quality 6 drive raid running raid 10 or preferably 20, I can have all my stuff there instead of all those drives inside and out.
With the dual pro graphics cards Apple is selling so cheaply as part of this, it isn't so bad. The only thing that's an annoyance is no internal card accommodation. A couple of extra USB3 sockets would be nice, but not a major problem.
Overall, for most REAL pro usage, it's just dandy. Don't let your own likes and dislikes get in the way of the general usage model.
But insulting people will never get your point across. Don't do it again!
I develop databases, I need fast drive access, CPU both as a workstation and a database server...and that's why I don't need the extra video card. It's not about bragging, it's about having a machine that's capable and fast. Mac Mini is good enough for now, but I would have upgraded if the price was right...
Apparently, the second video card is mostly for OpenCL usage, which could help database operations. This needs further investigating after these things are in the wild.
And there's nothing faster than a Thunderbolt 2 SSD raid.
It's pretty crazy how people are up in arms with not being able to install things inside a workstation. They have yet to embrace THE POINT and the new paradigm.
If you are an ACTUAL PRO -- that being someone who couldn't do all this with an iMac which is nearly as fast as that large aluminum workstation (for most things), then you would be using ThunderBolt.
The dual memory Flash memory is > than anything you can set up for drive access, and then you have Thunderbolt peripherals which 4K streams are not going to saturate yet. Anything else, use USB 3 or FireWire 800.
But with all the power of the main computer -- you WANT IT SMALL and not burdened with more heat. You do not need to add anything else to it once it is configured. All video and storage gear is plugged in via Thunderbolt, or in the case of it being non 4K in speed, using the prior standards.
Adding the hard drive into the computer doesn't get you anything with this setup -- so to indulge something with up to 72 teraflops of graphics power and a few terraflops (forget the exact number) of CPU -- well, treat it like the super computer it is.
I'm thinking the compromises here with the new form factor, were based on not competing with systems that were indistinguishable from standard desktop computers and creating the fastest thing they could possibly create.
It's like people want to put a uhaul on the back of a Formula 1 racer -- you'd save money getting a pickup truck.
Apparently, the second video card is mostly for OpenCL usage, which could help database operations. This needs further investigating after these things are in the wild.
And there's nothing faster than a Thunderbolt 2 SSD raid.
I'm thinking that the next gen Databases are going to start plugging into Graphics Cards. I hope Apple makes a standard for this as they did with their Grid Computing efforts. It only makes sense at this point to create the standard.
As soon as one database company does it, it's going to be a stampede NOT TO BE the database company still using CPU only.
It's a perfectly valid point that the new Mac Pro has much less internal storage than the old Mac Pro. But that's it!
Your posts are downhill after that.
If you said, that for YOU, this doesn't have enough internal storage, everyone would have said that this isn't for you then, and if you were willing to let it go at that, or just agree, none of this would be happening. But when you make a statement that patently false, which is to generalize your wants/needs to everyone else, then you set yourself up for all of this criticism.
The problem seems to be that you aren't really familiar with the way much production use of machines like this are most of the time. Internal mass storage is not done in most places these days. That's pure and simple.
When I first saw this at the dev conf. In June, I was both upset and frustrated. I'm retired (no I'm not that old). So my needs are not what they were when I had my company. But still, I want performance. I also have five drives inside my Mac Pro, and five drives in a tower outside for backup. So this threw me!
But as I thought about it for MY needs, I realized that it was fine. With a pro quality 6 drive raid running raid 10 or preferably 20, I can have all my stuff there instead of all those drives inside and out.
With the dual pro graphics cards Apple is selling so cheaply as part of this, it isn't so bad. The only thing that's an annoyance is no internal card accommodation. A couple of extra USB3 sockets would be nice, but not a major problem.
Overall, for most REAL pro usage, it's just dandy. Don't let your own likes and dislikes get in the way of the general usage model.
But insulting people will never get your point across. Don't do it again!
I couldn't agree more.
PineWood studios is going to be creating a massive studio just South of the city in Atlanta Georgia. They'll have something like 400 3D rendering and graphics workstations. I'd have to bet that they will have some kind of SAN system set up, and that nothing will be stored on the computer but the OS and the applications.
If someone is editing 2K video -- are they going to send that over ethernet to someone else? Or will it be on a very fast network? Any shop that doesn't have a super fast SAN, is going to just take an external drive around.
If I'm all by myself, I might have extra drives in a machine -- but it's a bad practice. It means you aren't backing that up. You buy bare hard drives and you put them in an external cradle, or if they aren't projects, you put them in an external case. I'm not doing video editing professionally any more, but I can't imagine that anyone doesn't have many bare 1TB drives in stacks ready to plug in.
The work process is not one where people are going to opening up the computer every week to swap a drive bay.
If they had a "new" monitor, you'd have complained they were forcing you to upgrade.
Nope. I bailed on the Pro line when it stagnated and went to an iMac (the first Mac I owned that always felt restricted.)
So I will need a new monitor if I trade up. But there's no reason people with an existing TB Display could keep using them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Sadly I think it is the end of the line for the current Mini design. The question is; does Apple drop it completely or offer up something new.
Knowing Apple, they're hardwiring the RAM and hard drive to match the graphics card.
They'll probably make it smaller and hit the $499. price tag again. If it's disposable, $399 would be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed
Wanting more than 1TB from a pro machine who's last iteration (release 2 years ago!!!) used to be able to house over 10TB isn't that unreasonable. And we all know that thunderbolt enclosures are still real pricey, nor are they warranted given that even SSD read/write at like 500mb/s, muchless HDD read/write speeds that don't even really need Firewire 400.
The Mac Pro looks great, but it's target market seems extremely small to me, because it is simply crippled in so many ways... and I was finally ready to move up from the iMac....
It's a pricey rethink to be sure, but people complaining about no internal storage don't seem to realize that Apple designed the Pro to sit on top of something, underneath a desk. That's why the ports light up when moved, which is an unnecessary feature for a machine on top of a desk.
Whether Apple is making a complementary TB chassis or (much more likely) leaving this to third parties, the fact remains that someone's going to do this, and it will happen soon. Yes, it'll be more expensive than the previous Pro solution, but that's more because of the current price of the SSD's and dual graphics cards than anything else.
PineWood studios is going to be creating a massive studio just South of the city in Atlanta Georgia. They'll have something like 400 3D rendering and graphics workstations. I'd have to bet that they will have some kind of SAN system set up, and that nothing will be stored on the computer but the OS and the applications.
If someone is editing 2K video -- are they going to send that over ethernet to someone else? Or will it be on a very fast network? Any shop that doesn't have a super fast SAN, is going to just take an external drive around.
If I'm all by myself, I might have extra drives in a machine -- but it's a bad practice. It means you aren't backing that up. You buy bare hard drives and you put them in an external cradle, or if they aren't projects, you put them in an external case. I'm not doing video editing professionally any more, but I can't imagine that anyone doesn't have many bare 1TB drives in stacks ready to plug in.
The work process is not one where people are going to opening up the computer every week to swap a drive bay.
These companies with big arrays use fast networking for them . There are a number of ways to do that. It isn't something to go into in detail here, it's far too technical a subject.
The only real problem for people who want this machine, but who don't really need it, is cost. Apple went for high end components all the way this time, and the pricing shows it.
I know a lot of people who are finding a high end iMac to be sufficient for what they were using a Mac Pro for previously, and I suspect that Apple knows that, and encourages it. As a result, they're abandoning any pretense of serving anyone other that higher end use with these things. This allows them to design something more suited for that use, rather than a compromise with a large case and a lower starting price.
If we put a W9000 card into a top line 2012 Mac Pro, we would be hitting the same $10,000 price. Add one more, and it's hitting $15,000, where's the better high end value, even with a high end Thunderbolt 2 raid? I think it's clear.
If the Mac Pro were a server that comment might make some sense.
Unfortunately its not, but it does run OS X server. A proper server would be the Xserve (hence the old signature with the petition).
Apple could have made the Mac Pro a server and workstation to target both markets, but the cylindrical design would need to be thrown out first. On the other hand they decided to target the prosumer with the new Mac Pro and not real Pro's.
If the Mac Pro were a server that comment might make some sense.
Unfortunately its not, but it does run OS X server. A proper server would be the Xserve (hence the old signature with the petition).
Apple could have made the Mac Pro a server and workstation to target both markets, but the cylindrical design would need to be thrown out first. On the other hand they decided to target the prosumer with the new Mac Pro and not real Pro's.
Desktop workstations and servers are different animals. To argue that the new Mac Pro (a desktop) is not really pro because it is not a server is a non sequitur. Adding the assertion that it targets the prosumer demographic doesn't change that, and doesn't seem likely anyway - what kind of prosumer needs the performance or expense of the Mac Pro? This is clearly targeted at high-end video work, although we will probably buy a number of them for 2 and 3D simulation and modeling as well.
Interesting setup. I wonder if it was testing so ti can be placed like that and not have the top end of the Mac Pro get too much heat. or have the Mac Pros at the top of the rack get too much heat since heat rises. And how does get to the cables in that rack? Does it slide out or is that mockup much tighter than it will be in real life?
To argue that the new Mac Pro (a desktop) is not really pro because it is not a server is a non sequitur.
I'm not arguing that its not pro because its not a server. The previous generation wasn't a server either. I was just stating that Apple could have targeted both markets with one expandable design but didn't.
For example, if Apple would have designed the new Mac Pro in a way that it could be easily rack mounted and had an option to add dual redundant PSUs along with lights out management (LOM) etc... then it would have broader appeal. This way if you wanted a server you could add the additional PSU, LOM, additional PCIX expansion slots (multiple ethernet cards, 10gbe, fibre channel, raid card etc...) and a rack mount kit.
As for the current design of the Mac Pro, I would argue that its not 'Pro' in that sense that expansion is all external, you loose throughput with Thunderbolt 2 versus a slot straight on the logic board (not to mention the cable clutter) and by going with a smaller footprint versus the previous generation you loose out on the possibility of having more CPU cores, GPUs, storage and RAM which equates to more performance.
Comments
I expect to see, overall, a possible 20% increase in effective computing power with next year's models. While it's true that Xeon's tend to be a year or so behind their more consumer oriented "I" lines, it's also much more performance oriented. I keep thinking that 2013 was a rather fallow year in performance for Intel's chips. This coming year should be more performance oriented.
With OpenCL depending on what's in the GPU, I expect to see a good boost there next year.
I miss those.
Really? Did AI fire all its editors?
A few years ago.
…you are.
Never mind the thousands of expansion options available.
YAWN
That’s what I had to say about your signature.
Are you worried about squirrels? I don't think they'll fit.
It's a perfectly valid point that the new Mac Pro has much less internal storage than the old Mac Pro. But that's it!
Your posts are downhill after that.
If you said, that for YOU, this doesn't have enough internal storage, everyone would have said that this isn't for you then, and if you were willing to let it go at that, or just agree, none of this would be happening. But when you make a statement that patently false, which is to generalize your wants/needs to everyone else, then you set yourself up for all of this criticism.
The problem seems to be that you aren't really familiar with the way much production use of machines like this are most of the time. Internal mass storage is not done in most places these days. That's pure and simple.
When I first saw this at the dev conf. In June, I was both upset and frustrated. I'm retired (no I'm not that old). So my needs are not what they were when I had my company. But still, I want performance. I also have five drives inside my Mac Pro, and five drives in a tower outside for backup. So this threw me!
But as I thought about it for MY needs, I realized that it was fine. With a pro quality 6 drive raid running raid 10 or preferably 20, I can have all my stuff there instead of all those drives inside and out.
With the dual pro graphics cards Apple is selling so cheaply as part of this, it isn't so bad. The only thing that's an annoyance is no internal card accommodation. A couple of extra USB3 sockets would be nice, but not a major problem.
Overall, for most REAL pro usage, it's just dandy. Don't let your own likes and dislikes get in the way of the general usage model.
But insulting people will never get your point across. Don't do it again!
Apparently, the second video card is mostly for OpenCL usage, which could help database operations. This needs further investigating after these things are in the wild.
And there's nothing faster than a Thunderbolt 2 SSD raid.
It's pretty crazy how people are up in arms with not being able to install things inside a workstation. They have yet to embrace THE POINT and the new paradigm.
If you are an ACTUAL PRO -- that being someone who couldn't do all this with an iMac which is nearly as fast as that large aluminum workstation (for most things), then you would be using ThunderBolt.
The dual memory Flash memory is > than anything you can set up for drive access, and then you have Thunderbolt peripherals which 4K streams are not going to saturate yet. Anything else, use USB 3 or FireWire 800.
But with all the power of the main computer -- you WANT IT SMALL and not burdened with more heat. You do not need to add anything else to it once it is configured. All video and storage gear is plugged in via Thunderbolt, or in the case of it being non 4K in speed, using the prior standards.
Adding the hard drive into the computer doesn't get you anything with this setup -- so to indulge something with up to 72 teraflops of graphics power and a few terraflops (forget the exact number) of CPU -- well, treat it like the super computer it is.
I'm thinking the compromises here with the new form factor, were based on not competing with systems that were indistinguishable from standard desktop computers and creating the fastest thing they could possibly create.
It's like people want to put a uhaul on the back of a Formula 1 racer -- you'd save money getting a pickup truck.
Apparently, the second video card is mostly for OpenCL usage, which could help database operations. This needs further investigating after these things are in the wild.
And there's nothing faster than a Thunderbolt 2 SSD raid.
I'm thinking that the next gen Databases are going to start plugging into Graphics Cards. I hope Apple makes a standard for this as they did with their Grid Computing efforts. It only makes sense at this point to create the standard.
As soon as one database company does it, it's going to be a stampede NOT TO BE the database company still using CPU only.
It's a perfectly valid point that the new Mac Pro has much less internal storage than the old Mac Pro. But that's it!
Your posts are downhill after that.
If you said, that for YOU, this doesn't have enough internal storage, everyone would have said that this isn't for you then, and if you were willing to let it go at that, or just agree, none of this would be happening. But when you make a statement that patently false, which is to generalize your wants/needs to everyone else, then you set yourself up for all of this criticism.
The problem seems to be that you aren't really familiar with the way much production use of machines like this are most of the time. Internal mass storage is not done in most places these days. That's pure and simple.
When I first saw this at the dev conf. In June, I was both upset and frustrated. I'm retired (no I'm not that old). So my needs are not what they were when I had my company. But still, I want performance. I also have five drives inside my Mac Pro, and five drives in a tower outside for backup. So this threw me!
But as I thought about it for MY needs, I realized that it was fine. With a pro quality 6 drive raid running raid 10 or preferably 20, I can have all my stuff there instead of all those drives inside and out.
With the dual pro graphics cards Apple is selling so cheaply as part of this, it isn't so bad. The only thing that's an annoyance is no internal card accommodation. A couple of extra USB3 sockets would be nice, but not a major problem.
Overall, for most REAL pro usage, it's just dandy. Don't let your own likes and dislikes get in the way of the general usage model.
But insulting people will never get your point across. Don't do it again!
I couldn't agree more.
PineWood studios is going to be creating a massive studio just South of the city in Atlanta Georgia. They'll have something like 400 3D rendering and graphics workstations. I'd have to bet that they will have some kind of SAN system set up, and that nothing will be stored on the computer but the OS and the applications.
If someone is editing 2K video -- are they going to send that over ethernet to someone else? Or will it be on a very fast network? Any shop that doesn't have a super fast SAN, is going to just take an external drive around.
If I'm all by myself, I might have extra drives in a machine -- but it's a bad practice. It means you aren't backing that up. You buy bare hard drives and you put them in an external cradle, or if they aren't projects, you put them in an external case. I'm not doing video editing professionally any more, but I can't imagine that anyone doesn't have many bare 1TB drives in stacks ready to plug in.
The work process is not one where people are going to opening up the computer every week to swap a drive bay.
If they had a "new" monitor, you'd have complained they were forcing you to upgrade.
Nope. I bailed on the Pro line when it stagnated and went to an iMac (the first Mac I owned that always felt restricted.)
So I will need a new monitor if I trade up. But there's no reason people with an existing TB Display could keep using them.
Sadly I think it is the end of the line for the current Mini design. The question is; does Apple drop it completely or offer up something new.
Knowing Apple, they're hardwiring the RAM and hard drive to match the graphics card.
They'll probably make it smaller and hit the $499. price tag again. If it's disposable, $399 would be better.
Wanting more than 1TB from a pro machine who's last iteration (release 2 years ago!!!) used to be able to house over 10TB isn't that unreasonable. And we all know that thunderbolt enclosures are still real pricey, nor are they warranted given that even SSD read/write at like 500mb/s, muchless HDD read/write speeds that don't even really need Firewire 400.
The Mac Pro looks great, but it's target market seems extremely small to me, because it is simply crippled in so many ways... and I was finally ready to move up from the iMac....
It's a pricey rethink to be sure, but people complaining about no internal storage don't seem to realize that Apple designed the Pro to sit on top of something, underneath a desk. That's why the ports light up when moved, which is an unnecessary feature for a machine on top of a desk.
Whether Apple is making a complementary TB chassis or (much more likely) leaving this to third parties, the fact remains that someone's going to do this, and it will happen soon. Yes, it'll be more expensive than the previous Pro solution, but that's more because of the current price of the SSD's and dual graphics cards than anything else.
These companies with big arrays use fast networking for them . There are a number of ways to do that. It isn't something to go into in detail here, it's far too technical a subject.
The only real problem for people who want this machine, but who don't really need it, is cost. Apple went for high end components all the way this time, and the pricing shows it.
I know a lot of people who are finding a high end iMac to be sufficient for what they were using a Mac Pro for previously, and I suspect that Apple knows that, and encourages it. As a result, they're abandoning any pretense of serving anyone other that higher end use with these things. This allows them to design something more suited for that use, rather than a compromise with a large case and a lower starting price.
If we put a W9000 card into a top line 2012 Mac Pro, we would be hitting the same $10,000 price. Add one more, and it's hitting $15,000, where's the better high end value, even with a high end Thunderbolt 2 raid? I think it's clear.
So it's not for you. Big deal.
Lots of pros want and need this baby and will put it to great use.
Just because its contains "Pro" in the product name, does not mean its a pro grade product.
That’s what I had to say about your signature.
Thats because you sell fondue pots for a living and wouldn't know a thing about enterprise grade rack mount servers.
That’s what I had to say about your signature.
Thats because you sell fondue pots for a living and wouldn't know a thing about enterprise grade rack mount servers.
If the Mac Pro were a server that comment might make some sense.
If the Mac Pro were a server that comment might make some sense.
Unfortunately its not, but it does run OS X server. A proper server would be the Xserve (hence the old signature with the petition).
Apple could have made the Mac Pro a server and workstation to target both markets, but the cylindrical design would need to be thrown out first. On the other hand they decided to target the prosumer with the new Mac Pro and not real Pro's.
http://www.macstadium.com/blog/new-mac-pro-hosting-and-colocation-will-be-here-soon/
Desktop workstations and servers are different animals. To argue that the new Mac Pro (a desktop) is not really pro because it is not a server is a non sequitur. Adding the assertion that it targets the prosumer demographic doesn't change that, and doesn't seem likely anyway - what kind of prosumer needs the performance or expense of the Mac Pro? This is clearly targeted at high-end video work, although we will probably buy a number of them for 2 and 3D simulation and modeling as well.
[VIDEO]http://www.fcp.co/hardware-and-software/pro/1306-unboxing-the-new-mac-pro-video[/VIDEO]
Interesting setup. I wonder if it was testing so ti can be placed like that and not have the top end of the Mac Pro get too much heat. or have the Mac Pros at the top of the rack get too much heat since heat rises. And how does get to the cables in that rack? Does it slide out or is that mockup much tighter than it will be in real life?
To argue that the new Mac Pro (a desktop) is not really pro because it is not a server is a non sequitur.
I'm not arguing that its not pro because its not a server. The previous generation wasn't a server either. I was just stating that Apple could have targeted both markets with one expandable design but didn't.
For example, if Apple would have designed the new Mac Pro in a way that it could be easily rack mounted and had an option to add dual redundant PSUs along with lights out management (LOM) etc... then it would have broader appeal. This way if you wanted a server you could add the additional PSU, LOM, additional PCIX expansion slots (multiple ethernet cards, 10gbe, fibre channel, raid card etc...) and a rack mount kit.
As for the current design of the Mac Pro, I would argue that its not 'Pro' in that sense that expansion is all external, you loose throughput with Thunderbolt 2 versus a slot straight on the logic board (not to mention the cable clutter) and by going with a smaller footprint versus the previous generation you loose out on the possibility of having more CPU cores, GPUs, storage and RAM which equates to more performance.
Thats because you sell fondue pots for a living and wouldn't know a thing about enterprise grade rack mount servers.
Sort of wish you knew anything about what you’re talking about here.