I don't know the maximum RAM of the previous Mac Pros.
Before Mavericks, you could install 8*16=128GB but OSX only saw 96GB. Windows in BootCamp saw all 128GB.
OWC has confirmed what follows: Mavericks properly supports 128GB in 8/12 core 2010 Mac Pro.
**Mac OS X versions prior to 10.9 Mavericks are unable to utilize more then 96GB RAM due to an operating system limitation. 128GB can be fully utilized by a 2009-2010 Mac Pro if running 10.9 Mavericks or later, Bootcamp with 64-bit versions of Windows XP and later as well as with 64-bit versions of Linux.
And the current modell will not accept DDR4 DIMMs but it may accept registered DDR3 DIMMs.
Right but next year's model should do so people who would like that option can wait until next year or struggle by with 64GB this year and upgrade as soon as 128GB becomes available:
OWC probably cracked open champagne when they found this out.
iFixit will still give it a 2/10.
I don't think it should have been a surprise. There's no specification for soldering Xeons, and that makes repairs or changes too expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
I think some, if not most, would be better served by a user-upgradable SSD, but alas.
I wonder how much of a cheaper upgrade this CPU option will turn out to be.
Wait until servers hit retirement age. It could be several years. The first really cheap one, assuming it works, would be a Sandy Bridge 8 core. That might show up on ebay cheap within a couple years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I thought of the "2/10 would not bang" meme when I read that. You want to make a graphic?
I can kind of picture how that would go.
Computer has electronic anorexia nervosa.
Missing 4th dimm WTF!!11
Designed to look like a designer trash can.
Where is the matte version?!
2/10 would not upgrade.
Something like that? It's late. I could probably do better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
They lowered the prices instead so the performance per dollar wouldn't have been significantly different.
Impressive! Apple needs to add many USB ports and make more parts removable in order to stop the attack from Microsoft. Surface Pro is much cheaper than Mac Pro. Microsoft products are all over the web. http://t.co/Sze2jvjprI
Now, the HDMI version 1.4 of the Mac Pro overhear standards apply. But 4K TV manufacturers are equipped with HDMI 2.0 standard base. This is somewhat unfortunate Mac Pro specifications. Terminals are replacing the CPU, but I think the structure will be replaced should not. More to come in the future hardware upgrades, right?
Are they using Macs for that kind of scientific work?
I don't know the maximum RAM of the previous Mac Pros.
Not as much as they would like to (given that everyone carries Apple laptops/iDevices), and obviously if OS X does not support that much memory, that's pretty much a deal breaker. Cost is not really an issue, so Apple is missing out on a pretty good market.
So someone who is looking for a workstation that has 256GB of RAM wouldn't be looking at a Mac anyway.
That's what I was trying to figure out
They would look until they figured out the memory limitation (the natural assumption would be that since OS X is a unix variant, it would have the same memory limitations as Linux, that is, none)
Are they using Macs for that kind of scientific work?
I don't know the maximum RAM of the previous Mac Pros.
Not as much as they would like to (given that everyone carries Apple laptops/iDevices), and obviously if OS X does not support that much memory, that's pretty much a deal breaker. Cost is not really an issue, so Apple is missing out on a pretty good market.
I'm confused - what kind of computing are you doing? From the memory requirements that you are quoting it sounds like large 3D numerical simulation, but that field has not been dominated by workstations for many years. We use clusters of Mac Pros for small problems to avoid the hassle of getting on the big machines, but not for anything serious. What kind of workstation setups are you referring to with 256 GB?
I'm confused - what kind of computing are you doing? From the memory requirements that you are quoting it sounds like large 3D numerical simulation, but that field has not been dominated by workstations for many years. We use clusters of Mac Pros for small problems to avoid the hassle of getting on the big machines, but not for anything serious. What kind of workstation setups are you referring to with 256 GB?
No, not 3D numerical simulations primarily. A lot of symbolic stuff (Mathematica/Maple), mostly, and this tends to be VERY memory hungry. The machines are 100% linux boxes. Now mathematica does have "grid" technology (so you can have your iMac as a front end box, and do most of the computation on the herd of linux boxen hooked up to it, but this works less well in practice than in theory. The new Mac Pro (except for memory constraint) looks like a pretty good machine for this sort of thing, but of course, I don't know how good the AMD GPUs are for computing (compared to the nVidia Keplers). My guess is that Apple's much ballyhooed "thermal core" design does not have all the bugs worked out, and can only handle so much heat dissipation, so they are seriously constrained on what the parts they can throw at it.
My guess is that Apple's much ballyhooed "thermal core" design does not have all the bugs worked out, and can only handle so much heat dissipation, so they are seriously constrained on what the parts they can throw at it.
I'm somewhat curious about this. The rumors have suggested that they use a fairly small power source for such a machine. I think we'll see quite a few tests in the near future. I don't personally like to pay for my beta - testing, but that's the only way to get unbiased results. Review sites tend to compete for available test units, because they know the resulting articles will draw large numbers of views.
Scientific compute servers (from Sun, HP and Dell) have supported 256 GB and more for over 10 years (albeit at a hefty price). In 2013, a fully redesigned Mac Pro handles only 64 GB--just double that of a 2006 Mac Pro. For professionals who don't need graphics computation, it would have been far better to include a second processor to reach 24 cores (48 hyperthreads) and more DIMM slots, while ditching the superfluous second graphics card. As indicated above, I for one am very disappointed in the new design. As for FCPX users, have fun. As for everyone else, meh.
Scientific compute servers (from Sun, HP and Dell) have supported 256 GB and more for over 10 years (albeit at a hefty price). In 2013, a fully redesigned Mac Pro handles only 64 GB--just double that of a 2006 Mac Pro. For professionals who don't need graphics computation, it would have been far better to include a second processor to reach 24 cores (48 hyperthreads) and more DIMM slots, while ditching the superfluous second graphics card. As indicated above, I for one am very disappointed in the new design. As for FCPX users, have fun. As for everyone else, meh.
1) I don't understand why the Mac Pro is all of a sudden being negatively compared against specialized computers that need a lot more RAM than its ever had. Why wasn't this "it sucks because it does't have 32 DIMM slots on 8 risers"-style argument not ever brought up before? Why now is there such a comparison when it's never been designed for the specialized tasks it's being compared to. It's like looking at a brand new Rolls Royce Phantom and complaining that it's a horrible cargo plane.
2) Apple knows who is buying what Mac Pros at a certain price point. With the cost of that 12-core CPU I would doubt there are enough consumers to warrant having an entirely new design to suit those buyers. I don't know if that's true but I would say Apple likely did their research in the years it took to bring the Mac Pro to market to make sure they were targeting their Mac Pro customers.
3) Same as with point 2, I think it's a poor argument to claim the 2nd GPU is superfluous. Why would any company do that? They have a deal with AMD? Tim Cook is trying to Brewster's Millions Apple? The new Mac Pro might ultimately end up being a bad move for Apple (but based on how quickly the time to delivery was pushed back that seems doubtful) but it's clear they researched this in ways we can't imagine so I don't know what additional evidence we would have that would show it need be de duel socket and only have 1 GPU for it to be a success.
Comments
Are they using Macs for that kind of scientific work?
I don't know the maximum RAM of the previous Mac Pros.
96GB, 128 in Windows.
Thanks!
So someone who is looking for a workstation that has 256GB of RAM wouldn't be looking at a Mac anyway.
That's what I was trying to figure out
This used to be true, until 10.9.
Before Mavericks, you could install 8*16=128GB but OSX only saw 96GB. Windows in BootCamp saw all 128GB.
OWC has confirmed what follows: Mavericks properly supports 128GB in 8/12 core 2010 Mac Pro.
**Mac OS X versions prior to 10.9 Mavericks are unable to utilize more then 96GB RAM due to an operating system limitation. 128GB can be fully utilized by a 2009-2010 Mac Pro if running 10.9 Mavericks or later, Bootcamp with 64-bit versions of Windows XP and later as well as with 64-bit versions of Linux.
source:
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1333-memory
Not anymore since 10.9, see post below. Or here: http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1333-memory
They lowered the prices instead so the performance per dollar wouldn't have been significantly different.
Right but next year's model should do so people who would like that option can wait until next year or struggle by with 64GB this year and upgrade as soon as 128GB becomes available:
http://techreport.com/news/25298/samsung-mass-producing-32gb-ddr4-modules-for-servers
OWC probably cracked open champagne when they found this out.
iFixit will still give it a 2/10.
I don't think it should have been a surprise. There's no specification for soldering Xeons, and that makes repairs or changes too expensive.
I think some, if not most, would be better served by a user-upgradable SSD, but alas.
I wonder how much of a cheaper upgrade this CPU option will turn out to be.
Wait until servers hit retirement age. It could be several years. The first really cheap one, assuming it works, would be a Sandy Bridge 8 core. That might show up on ebay cheap within a couple years.
I thought of the "2/10 would not bang" meme when I read that. You want to make a graphic?
I can kind of picture how that would go.
Computer has electronic anorexia nervosa.
Missing 4th dimm WTF!!11
Designed to look like a designer trash can.
Where is the matte version?!
2/10 would not upgrade.
Something like that? It's late. I could probably do better.
They lowered the prices instead so the performance per dollar wouldn't have been significantly different.
Do you mean intel?
Or just trying to get people to click on your link?
Nice FUD. Got any more for us?
No, they’re not.
Are they using Macs for that kind of scientific work?
I don't know the maximum RAM of the previous Mac Pros.
Not as much as they would like to (given that everyone carries Apple laptops/iDevices), and obviously if OS X does not support that much memory, that's pretty much a deal breaker. Cost is not really an issue, so Apple is missing out on a pretty good market.
Not anymore since 10.9, see post below. Or here: http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1333-memory
So, you/they are saying that 10.9 actually supports 128GB? Sad (not that it supports it, but that the Mac Pro does not).
Thanks!
So someone who is looking for a workstation that has 256GB of RAM wouldn't be looking at a Mac anyway.
That's what I was trying to figure out
They would look until they figured out the memory limitation (the natural assumption would be that since OS X is a unix variant, it would have the same memory limitations as Linux, that is, none)
So, you/they are saying that 10.9 actually supports 128GB?
Yep, that’s what those words say.
Mac Pro does.
Are they using Macs for that kind of scientific work?
I don't know the maximum RAM of the previous Mac Pros.
Not as much as they would like to (given that everyone carries Apple laptops/iDevices), and obviously if OS X does not support that much memory, that's pretty much a deal breaker. Cost is not really an issue, so Apple is missing out on a pretty good market.
I'm confused - what kind of computing are you doing? From the memory requirements that you are quoting it sounds like large 3D numerical simulation, but that field has not been dominated by workstations for many years. We use clusters of Mac Pros for small problems to avoid the hassle of getting on the big machines, but not for anything serious. What kind of workstation setups are you referring to with 256 GB?
I'm confused - what kind of computing are you doing? From the memory requirements that you are quoting it sounds like large 3D numerical simulation, but that field has not been dominated by workstations for many years. We use clusters of Mac Pros for small problems to avoid the hassle of getting on the big machines, but not for anything serious. What kind of workstation setups are you referring to with 256 GB?
No, not 3D numerical simulations primarily. A lot of symbolic stuff (Mathematica/Maple), mostly, and this tends to be VERY memory hungry. The machines are 100% linux boxes. Now mathematica does have "grid" technology (so you can have your iMac as a front end box, and do most of the computation on the herd of linux boxen hooked up to it, but this works less well in practice than in theory. The new Mac Pro (except for memory constraint) looks like a pretty good machine for this sort of thing, but of course, I don't know how good the AMD GPUs are for computing (compared to the nVidia Keplers). My guess is that Apple's much ballyhooed "thermal core" design does not have all the bugs worked out, and can only handle so much heat dissipation, so they are seriously constrained on what the parts they can throw at it.
My guess is that Apple's much ballyhooed "thermal core" design does not have all the bugs worked out, and can only handle so much heat dissipation, so they are seriously constrained on what the parts they can throw at it.
I'm somewhat curious about this. The rumors have suggested that they use a fairly small power source for such a machine. I think we'll see quite a few tests in the near future. I don't personally like to pay for my beta - testing, but that's the only way to get unbiased results. Review sites tend to compete for available test units, because they know the resulting articles will draw large numbers of views.
Scientific compute servers (from Sun, HP and Dell) have supported 256 GB and more for over 10 years (albeit at a hefty price). In 2013, a fully redesigned Mac Pro handles only 64 GB--just double that of a 2006 Mac Pro. For professionals who don't need graphics computation, it would have been far better to include a second processor to reach 24 cores (48 hyperthreads) and more DIMM slots, while ditching the superfluous second graphics card. As indicated above, I for one am very disappointed in the new design. As for FCPX users, have fun. As for everyone else, meh.
1) I don't understand why the Mac Pro is all of a sudden being negatively compared against specialized computers that need a lot more RAM than its ever had. Why wasn't this "it sucks because it does't have 32 DIMM slots on 8 risers"-style argument not ever brought up before? Why now is there such a comparison when it's never been designed for the specialized tasks it's being compared to. It's like looking at a brand new Rolls Royce Phantom and complaining that it's a horrible cargo plane.
2) Apple knows who is buying what Mac Pros at a certain price point. With the cost of that 12-core CPU I would doubt there are enough consumers to warrant having an entirely new design to suit those buyers. I don't know if that's true but I would say Apple likely did their research in the years it took to bring the Mac Pro to market to make sure they were targeting their Mac Pro customers.
3) Same as with point 2, I think it's a poor argument to claim the 2nd GPU is superfluous. Why would any company do that? They have a deal with AMD? Tim Cook is trying to Brewster's Millions Apple? The new Mac Pro might ultimately end up being a bad move for Apple (but based on how quickly the time to delivery was pushed back that seems doubtful) but it's clear they researched this in ways we can't imagine so I don't know what additional evidence we would have that would show it need be de duel socket and only have 1 GPU for it to be a success.