Sorry, too silly for my taste. Doesn't matter, was only €4. I did give it a try, even though I knew from the traffic jam this movie was going nowhere. I did think the secretary with that high, fast-paced voice was funny. Then came that woman from Friends, so I gave up. Thanks though.
Sorry you didn't like it, and that's one of the few movies where I considered her to be tolerable. I have an extremely silly sense of humor.
I don't understand his method of disambiguation. There are chips used in micro-servers that that are virtually identical to those in the imac. They are branded E3. Both E5-1600 and E5-2600 show up in servers. There are i7 versions of the E5-1600 variants. They are branded i7 Ivy Bridge E, yet use the same LGA2011 socket. It's a strange place to draw a line.
It has to do with what chipsets they can use, so memory configs are different, etc. workstations are more balanced to do one major program task at a time, whereas servers use virtualization to run a number of instances at a time. That's for "real" servers, that is, not repurposed consumer machines.
For $2,999, the base price of the Mac Pro, you get a quad-core 3.7GHz Intel Xeon E5 processor, 12GB of RAM, two AMD FirePro D300 graphics processors, and a 256GB solid-state drive. But that’s only the beginning: our review unit has an eight-core, 3GHz processor, along with 64GB of RAM, a 1TB drive, and FirePro D700 GPUs. That’s $8,099 of Mac Pro kit, and a couple of other small upgrades will run you right up near $10,000. Throw in the 32-inch Sharp 4K monitor that Apple recommends, and spending $12,000 or more isn’t hard to do. Our review unit, screen included, costs $11,812.
JL: I worked on the Mac Pro as an editor. We shot some test footage on a RED Epic at 4096 x 2160, copied the contents of the card to the Mac Pro's local storage, and imported that directly into both Final Cut Pro 10.1 and Premiere Pro CC without transcoding.
The Verge is a Premiere house. (Once Final Cut Pro 7 was discontinued, FCP X didn't look like it was going to satisfy our needs.) However, since FCP X was specifically optimized for the new Mac Pro, we tested our RED footage with the app and it handled native footage from the Epic shockingly well. For this test, I turned off auto-render and set the playback quality to "better performance." I was able to layer four streams, resized and composed on top of each other with color correction on each clip, and FCP X played the composite back without stuttering or dropping frames.
Final Cut may have been adjusting the quality of the playback to something less than native 4K, but the frame rate stayed solid, and in the resized preview window I wasn't distracted by any downscaling. I saw the same smooth performance on other clips with more intensive filtering and transitions. If you enjoy using FCP X (which I truly, truly don't), the Mac Pro is a fantastically responsive machine to edit on.
I thought the video showing it running 18 effects on RAW 4K video summed it up.
As that test shows, if developers will put the effort in to their apps to have them utilize the machine, the results are amazing. I have already written to two developers to request this. Whether they do it or not is another story, but I am sure Apple would be very happy indeed to help them show this baby off.
You could wait a little longer and see how more "ordinary" folks find the machine once it starts reaching them. There are some people here who will be getting them soon and they will probably provide pretty good feedback.
But would you consider them to be pro enough to trust their opinions?
show the top-end i7 iMac with 61 seconds and the 8-core Mac Pro at 37 seconds.
The top-end iMac with 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, 780M costs $2749.
The base 8-core MP with 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, dual D300 costs $5099.
The Mac Pro costs 85% more and is 65% faster with the CPU (the benefit depends on the CPU task). The dual D300 should still be faster for compute than the 780M.
The CPU isn't great value but that's Intel's fault for skipping a generation. Next year though, Intel will hold back the desktop generation to a Haswell refresh and the server chips will move from Ivy Bridge to Haswell.
Haswell EP goes up to 14 cores and DDR4 RAM, Broadwell goes to 18-cores in 2015:
It looks like they are aiming for 30% Xeon performance increase next year. Haswell desktop refresh might get another boost of 10-15%, they might allocate most of the power increase to the integrated graphics but it should bring them closer together. What happened in the past is that the top Mac Pro was 3x the performance for 3x the price.
If the next MP goes up 1.3x, it'll be 1.65x1.3 = 2.15x this year's iMac and if the iMac goes up 10%, that'll drop to 1.95x the 2014 iMac but basically back into the same routine - twice the price, twice the speed.
As I am not a tech guy, perhaps someone here can chime in on this.
I have read elsewhere that the two CPUs (i7 and Xeon) handle differently under heavy load. The i7, found in the iMac, will eventually throttle down on the virtual cores in order to not overheat. The Xeon can maintain higher rates on main and virtual cores for far longer. For some tasks the quad-core i7 is about 25% faster than a dual-core Xeon, especially in bursts followed by a rest. The Xeon is better for multi-core applications over longer time.
Thus, while the iMac may seem similar to the MacPro, in long term applications, such as 3D animation rendering, the Xeon will blow the i7 out of the water. Benchmark tests usually conclude after just a minute or two, not long enough to stress the cores.
As I am not a tech guy, perhaps someone here can chime in on this.
I have read elsewhere that the two CPUs (i7 and Xeon) handle differently under heavy load. The i7, found in the iMac, will eventually throttle down on the virtual cores in order to not overheat. The Xeon can maintain higher rates on main and virtual cores for far longer. For some tasks the quad-core i7 is about 25% faster than a dual-core Xeon, especially in bursts followed by a rest. The Xeon is better for multi-core applications over longer time.
Thus, while the iMac may seem similar to the MacPro, in long term applications, such as 3D animation rendering, the Xeon will blow the i7 out of the water. Benchmark tests usually conclude after just a minute or two, not long enough to stress the cores.
That's quite overstated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It has to do with what chipsets they can use, so memory configs are different, etc. workstations are more balanced to do one major program task at a time, whereas servers use virtualization to run a number of instances at a time. That's for "real" servers, that is, not repurposed consumer machines.
I think you may have missed my point. Regardless of the available chipset, servers use a number of the same cpus.
As I said, I am no tech guy so I didn't know what to make of it. But it was there and the guy seemed to know what he was talking about.
I will wait for decent testing that can be repeated over several machines by many people.
For my machines, I have used Cheetah3D to quickly compare their render speeds. Cheetah3D comes with a few sample files, one of which takes my iMac 811 seconds (13.5 minutes) to render. I know that Cheetah3D has a demo version, but I'll have to check to see if the sample files are included (I've owned the app for a year now). If people could run that render, then we could have a base which people could compare with their current machines. [edit: checked the demo and the samples are included]
File: Rigid Body Spiral
iMac (quad-core 3.4GHz i7, 3TB Fusion, 16GB RAM, GTX 680MX) = 811.11 seconds (time is noted by the app)
Mac mini (quad-core 2.6GHz i7, 3TB Fusion, 16GB RAM) = 904.95 seconds
Edit:
I visited the Cheetah3D forums and noted that the developer is himself buying a 6-core MacPro with the D700 GPU. He says he wants to make Cheetah harness the GPU. Hopefully, lots of developers will share his enthusiasm and these machines will start really running fast.
Probably not for iMacs. Those things are not designed for constant heavy load. Presumably the Mac Pro is.
I didn't mean relative to imacs specifically. I meant i7 vs Xeon. they might be tested for a higher duty cycle, but Xeon E5s have to be appropriate for 24/7 use. There's no reason to believe that a standard i7 couldn't be run on max load for several hours at a time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister
File: Rigid Body Spiral
iMac (quad-core 3.4GHz i7, 3TB Fusion, 16GB RAM, GTX 680MX) = 811.11 seconds (time is noted by the app)
Mac mini (quad-core 2.6GHz i7, 3TB Fusion, 16GB RAM) = 904.95 seconds
Edit:
I visited the Cheetah3D forums and noted that the developer is himself buying a 6-core MacPro with the D700 GPU. He says he wants to make Cheetah harness the GPU. Hopefully, lots of developers will share his enthusiasm and these machines will start really running fast.
PS I am in no way associated with C3D.
That is a difference. It's not massive. The imac knocks 10% off the time. As for Cheetah 3d I've never used it. I could talk to you about maya or somewhat about houdini. I know nothing about Cheetah.
That is a difference. It's not massive. The imac knocks 10% off the time. As for Cheetah 3d I've never used it. I could talk to you about maya or somewhat about houdini. I know nothing about Cheetah.
The difference is to be expected with the different CPU ratings. But, the mini does do pretty well, especially for the cost. Sadly, the mini will also get hot fast when really push for a while. The C3D test actually doesn't max out the CPUs. I guess it is calculating the motion and then rendering the image which gives it enough pause to not truly tac the system and turn it into a frying pan.
Cheetah is the 3D app (outside of SketchUp) that got me in to 3D animation. At the moment I don't use it that often (Daz and Carrara are the winners now), but I will always appreciate it for opening the door for me. As I am only after fairly basic stuff, I have not delved too deeply into the true power of the app (or the others I use for that matter). But I do have a couple of complicated projects I would like to try, either in C3D, Carrara, or other app, but that is a discussion for another thread.
I am hoping that somebody who gets a nMP will run this same render test (with C3D) so that there is a way for all of us to compare the nMP to existing machines. It doesn't take any knowledge of the app or 3D so anybody can do it.
Comments
Sorry, too silly for my taste. Doesn't matter, was only €4. I did give it a try, even though I knew from the traffic jam this movie was going nowhere. I did think the secretary with that high, fast-paced voice was funny. Then came that woman from Friends, so I gave up. Thanks though.
Sorry you didn't like it, and that's one of the few movies where I considered her to be tolerable. I have an extremely silly sense of humor.
No, no, don't be sorry. I could've watched a trailer first but hit the rent button instead. Possibly due to my linking of many posters at this site.
And as far as the actress from Friends goes; I just didn't like the series, that's all.
It has to do with what chipsets they can use, so memory configs are different, etc. workstations are more balanced to do one major program task at a time, whereas servers use virtualization to run a number of instances at a time. That's for "real" servers, that is, not repurposed consumer machines.
http://news.yahoo.com/even-7-000-mac-pro-only-8-faster-180037014.html
This sums it up...
No it doesn't:
http://news.yahoo.com/even-7-000-mac-pro-only-8-faster-180037014.html
This sums it up...
I thought the video showing it running 18 effects on RAW 4K video summed it up.
As that test shows, if developers will put the effort in to their apps to have them utilize the machine, the results are amazing. I have already written to two developers to request this. Whether they do it or not is another story, but I am sure Apple would be very happy indeed to help them show this baby off.
These also:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/23/apple-mac-pro-review-2013/
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-mac-desktops/mac-pro-1191682/review
http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/23/5234574/apple-mac-pro-review-2013
You could wait a little longer and see how more "ordinary" folks find the machine once it starts reaching them. There are some people here who will be getting them soon and they will probably provide pretty good feedback.
But would you consider them to be pro enough to trust their opinions?
Your sig made me smile:
It reminds me of my late wife, Lucy was from Pittsburgh... A favorite local phrase is "You're ignorant!".
Though it was more like "Yer ignorant!"
When pronounced with that special Pittsburgh accent and emphasis, it sounds like: "yaRIGGnaRunt!"
The Cinebench scores here:
http://www.macworld.com/article/2082568/lab-tested-new-mac-pro-is-the-speedster-weve-been-waiting-for-finally.html?page=2
show the top-end i7 iMac with 61 seconds and the 8-core Mac Pro at 37 seconds.
The top-end iMac with 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, 780M costs $2749.
The base 8-core MP with 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, dual D300 costs $5099.
The Mac Pro costs 85% more and is 65% faster with the CPU (the benefit depends on the CPU task). The dual D300 should still be faster for compute than the 780M.
The CPU isn't great value but that's Intel's fault for skipping a generation. Next year though, Intel will hold back the desktop generation to a Haswell refresh and the server chips will move from Ivy Bridge to Haswell.
Haswell EP goes up to 14 cores and DDR4 RAM, Broadwell goes to 18-cores in 2015:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20131220211018_Intel_Readies_18_Core_Xeon_Broadwell_EP_Microprocessors_for_Launch_in_2015_Report.html
It looks like they are aiming for 30% Xeon performance increase next year. Haswell desktop refresh might get another boost of 10-15%, they might allocate most of the power increase to the integrated graphics but it should bring them closer together. What happened in the past is that the top Mac Pro was 3x the performance for 3x the price.
If the next MP goes up 1.3x, it'll be 1.65x1.3 = 2.15x this year's iMac and if the iMac goes up 10%, that'll drop to 1.95x the 2014 iMac but basically back into the same routine - twice the price, twice the speed.
As I am not a tech guy, perhaps someone here can chime in on this.
I have read elsewhere that the two CPUs (i7 and Xeon) handle differently under heavy load. The i7, found in the iMac, will eventually throttle down on the virtual cores in order to not overheat. The Xeon can maintain higher rates on main and virtual cores for far longer. For some tasks the quad-core i7 is about 25% faster than a dual-core Xeon, especially in bursts followed by a rest. The Xeon is better for multi-core applications over longer time.
Thus, while the iMac may seem similar to the MacPro, in long term applications, such as 3D animation rendering, the Xeon will blow the i7 out of the water. Benchmark tests usually conclude after just a minute or two, not long enough to stress the cores.
As I am not a tech guy, perhaps someone here can chime in on this.
I have read elsewhere that the two CPUs (i7 and Xeon) handle differently under heavy load. The i7, found in the iMac, will eventually throttle down on the virtual cores in order to not overheat. The Xeon can maintain higher rates on main and virtual cores for far longer. For some tasks the quad-core i7 is about 25% faster than a dual-core Xeon, especially in bursts followed by a rest. The Xeon is better for multi-core applications over longer time.
Thus, while the iMac may seem similar to the MacPro, in long term applications, such as 3D animation rendering, the Xeon will blow the i7 out of the water. Benchmark tests usually conclude after just a minute or two, not long enough to stress the cores.
That's quite overstated.
It has to do with what chipsets they can use, so memory configs are different, etc. workstations are more balanced to do one major program task at a time, whereas servers use virtualization to run a number of instances at a time. That's for "real" servers, that is, not repurposed consumer machines.
I think you may have missed my point. Regardless of the available chipset, servers use a number of the same cpus.
That's quite overstated.
Probably not for iMacs. Those things are not designed for constant heavy load. Presumably the Mac Pro is.
That's quite overstated.
As I said, I am no tech guy so I didn't know what to make of it. But it was there and the guy seemed to know what he was talking about.
I will wait for decent testing that can be repeated over several machines by many people.
For my machines, I have used Cheetah3D to quickly compare their render speeds. Cheetah3D comes with a few sample files, one of which takes my iMac 811 seconds (13.5 minutes) to render. I know that Cheetah3D has a demo version, but I'll have to check to see if the sample files are included (I've owned the app for a year now). If people could run that render, then we could have a base which people could compare with their current machines. [edit: checked the demo and the samples are included]
File: Rigid Body Spiral
iMac (quad-core 3.4GHz i7, 3TB Fusion, 16GB RAM, GTX 680MX) = 811.11 seconds (time is noted by the app)
Mac mini (quad-core 2.6GHz i7, 3TB Fusion, 16GB RAM) = 904.95 seconds
Edit:
I visited the Cheetah3D forums and noted that the developer is himself buying a 6-core MacPro with the D700 GPU. He says he wants to make Cheetah harness the GPU. Hopefully, lots of developers will share his enthusiasm and these machines will start really running fast.
PS I am in no way associated with C3D.
Probably not for iMacs. Those things are not designed for constant heavy load. Presumably the Mac Pro is.
I didn't mean relative to imacs specifically. I meant i7 vs Xeon. they might be tested for a higher duty cycle, but Xeon E5s have to be appropriate for 24/7 use. There's no reason to believe that a standard i7 couldn't be run on max load for several hours at a time.
File: Rigid Body Spiral
iMac (quad-core 3.4GHz i7, 3TB Fusion, 16GB RAM, GTX 680MX) = 811.11 seconds (time is noted by the app)
Mac mini (quad-core 2.6GHz i7, 3TB Fusion, 16GB RAM) = 904.95 seconds
Edit:
I visited the Cheetah3D forums and noted that the developer is himself buying a 6-core MacPro with the D700 GPU. He says he wants to make Cheetah harness the GPU. Hopefully, lots of developers will share his enthusiasm and these machines will start really running fast.
PS I am in no way associated with C3D.
That is a difference. It's not massive. The imac knocks 10% off the time. As for Cheetah 3d I've never used it. I could talk to you about maya or somewhat about houdini. I know nothing about Cheetah.
That is a difference. It's not massive. The imac knocks 10% off the time. As for Cheetah 3d I've never used it. I could talk to you about maya or somewhat about houdini. I know nothing about Cheetah.
The difference is to be expected with the different CPU ratings. But, the mini does do pretty well, especially for the cost. Sadly, the mini will also get hot fast when really push for a while. The C3D test actually doesn't max out the CPUs. I guess it is calculating the motion and then rendering the image which gives it enough pause to not truly tac the system and turn it into a frying pan.
Cheetah is the 3D app (outside of SketchUp) that got me in to 3D animation. At the moment I don't use it that often (Daz and Carrara are the winners now), but I will always appreciate it for opening the door for me. As I am only after fairly basic stuff, I have not delved too deeply into the true power of the app (or the others I use for that matter). But I do have a couple of complicated projects I would like to try, either in C3D, Carrara, or other app, but that is a discussion for another thread.
I am hoping that somebody who gets a nMP will run this same render test (with C3D) so that there is a way for all of us to compare the nMP to existing machines. It doesn't take any knowledge of the app or 3D so anybody can do it.
Test showing Handbrake on MacPro 8 core and compares it to an old iMac (2010).
quad-core i5 2.8GHz
2.5 hours averaging 6 frames per second
new MacPro
cores maxed
converting faster than real time: 40fps
Heaven benchmark
more
Test showing Handbrake on MacPro 8 core and compares it to an old iMac (2010).
quad-core i5 2.8GHz
2.5 hours averaging 6 frames per second
new MacPro
cores maxed
converting faster than real time: 40fps
Heaven benchmark
more
Well...the iMac IS 3 years old and an iMac vs the Mac Pro with tons more cores...how does it stack against the old Mac Pro?
For the Server of Dell PowerEdge, you can get the drivers from here: https://www.driverdr.com/dell-drivers/dell-poweredge-t620-drivers-free-download