Review: Apple's redesigned late 2013 Mac Pro

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 119

    Not to sound picky with this review, but how on Earth has NO ONE checked the nMP's gaming potential alongside pro apps?

  • Reply 22 of 119
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    The original title for this article was "Review: Apple's redesigned late 2013 Mac Pro, as Android marketshare surges"

    image



    Waiting for the usual suspects to post their idolatry of future Intel codenames. "Just you wait! I can build an overclocked Windows PC that'll beat this on Call of Duty."

     

    Oh yeah, it's always great to see people drooling for those stupid Intel codenames - "but Yonah will be much better than Josaphat" or "didn't you see the latest roadmap for 2056 with the powerful Mathusalem chips?"

  • Reply 23 of 119
    kpluckkpluck Posts: 500member

    I know it won't happen, but I really wish at some point in the near future Apple would provide build to order options for standard desktop i5/i7 processors with a single consumer GPU board. Maybe even using the vacant GPU slot to hold a 2.5" HD, or two. It would still be a powerful machine but the cost savings would make it a possibility for many more consumers.

     

    -kpluck

  • Reply 24 of 119
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,460member
    adrayven wrote: »
    I laugh at those asking how it plays games. BHAHAHA!

    I can tell you it plays games REALLY well! I have never before been able to set every setting to Max, Ultra, Extreme and Crazy before. :smokey:
  • Reply 25 of 119
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,460member
    brlawyer wrote: »
    Not to sound picky with this review, but how on Earth has NO ONE checked the nMP's gaming potential alongside pro apps?

    It is f#$%^&g amazing with anything I've tried. Even Windows games running in Wineskins. Just for a laugh I logged onto Second Life (with 75 Mb/s FiOS) and set all graphics and rendering to Ultra and distance to Max. I could fly around and see for ever 'as smooth as silk'. OK, got to get back to organizing my Aperture libraries ....
  • Reply 26 of 119
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,460member
    emoeller wrote: »
    Nice review. Folks seem fixated on the price, but my last (early 2013) MBP was over $3k and it wasn't "that" long ago that you couldn't purchase a laptop at all for much under $2k.

    The issue for me as a scientist is the lack of tuned software. I haven't yet read a review that delved into the Mac Pro running virtualized software (Windows still controls the high end program market - Desault, Systat, Tableau...).

    Apple needs to take a few billion and create a Mac Pro software team dedicated to assisting companies tune their software for Mac hardware and operating systems. Without the software the Mac Pro hardware is just a nice 11 lb paperweight.

    Alternatively/concurrently Apple should re-envision its Filemaker software company to more tightly integrate database, visualization (Tableau style), and its iWork suite to kick it from a consumer base to a professional productive base (sorry but Numbers is a long, long way from Excel in terms of productivity).

    I agree, the price thing has been blown out of all proportion. In fact this is the least I have ever spent on a high end Mac ... ever. OK I only got the 6 Core but a buddy spent more on a high end iMac, silly billy.
  • Reply 27 of 119
    conrailconrail Posts: 489member

    Adobe will get their apps updated for this in due time.  It's one machine on one platform that is only starting to find it's way into user's hands.  Yes, it would be nice if they had full support for it at launch, but it's not going to languish forever.

     

    it's a lot easier for Apple to have FCP ready.  I have a feeling that FCP X was written from the ground up with this machine in mind.  

  • Reply 28 of 119
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    "That's no moon, it's a space workstation."

    The circle is now complete

  • Reply 29 of 119
    yojimbo007yojimbo007 Posts: 1,002member
    Magnificent machine!
    I hope apple or some after market company comes up with a clear shell for it.
    The thing looks awesome inside !
  • Reply 30 of 119
    How spoiled by cheese-box commoditized PCs we've become. I spent $5000 for a Mac years ago ($10,000 in today's dollars) that my iPhone could beat today. This machine is a steal.
  • Reply 31 of 119
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member

    If only I could afford such a beast.

     

    If only more software supported hyper threading.

  • Reply 32 of 119
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

     

     

    Hardly.


  • Reply 33 of 119
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,232moderator
    brlawyer wrote: »
    Not to sound picky with this review, but how on Earth has NO ONE checked the nMP's gaming potential alongside pro apps?

    Anandtech did:

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/10

    It supports CrossFire under Windows and dual-D700 performs almost the same as an NVidia 780 Ti when both cards are used fully, which is roughly the same as a Titan:

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/2061900/nvidias-700-gtx-780-ti-slays-titans-and-radeons-alike.html

    Under OS X, games only use one GPU so far so it's half the speed and not all games double performance with CrossFire but even one D700 GPU is powerful enough to run a lot of games at high quality above real-time framerates anyway. The 780 Ti is the fastest gaming GPU you can get just now, until the 790 (which uses two GPUs inside one card):

    http://wccftech.com/details-nvidia-geforce-gtx-790-finally-surface-4992-cuda-cores-10-gb-memory-5/

    So when both D700s work together fully, it will provide the fastest gaming performance currently available from a single GPU. When one GPU is running or not running well, all that would be required is to drop to 1080p from 1440p for at least a 50% boost.
  • Reply 34 of 119
    appexappex Posts: 687member
    Performance - how does it compare to previous model?
  • Reply 35 of 119

    All these upgrades could have been done to the old design, while maintaining a dual processor option.  For professionals like me, who need CPU power, this new machine isn't much of an upgrade over the old machines, which after 3 years of waiting is pathetic.  All the studios I've been freelancing at agree.  Hopefully Apple will fill the gap, but doubt it.

  • Reply 36 of 119
    Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post

    All these upgrades could have been done to the old design, while maintaining a dual processor option.

     

    And Apple could have offered a smartphone with a physical keyboard.

     

    For professionals like me, who need CPU power, this new machine isn't much of an upgrade over the old machines, which after 3 years of waiting is pathetic.  All the studios I've been freelancing at agree.  Hopefully Apple will fill the gap, but doubt it.


     

    Uh huh.

  • Reply 37 of 119
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppeX View Post



    Performance - how does it compare to previous model?

     

    This review today @ Macworld has a nice comparison for you...

     

    http://www.macworld.com/article/2084814/breathing-new-life-into-old-mac-pros.html

  • Reply 38 of 119

    I think Apple has done a masterful job with this design.

     

    This not a criticism, just an observation...I just don't like the need for additional cables for screens and to expand it.

     

    Fortunately, I'm not a power user, so I'm very happy with my iMac. It has only one cable (pwr supply) coming out of it.  

     

    I have the modern Apple BTKB and BT MagicPad and I rarely have to connect my iOS devices to the iMac. 

     

    I have a wireless MFC Brother printer plugged in in a closet. 

     

    No cables! :)

     

    Best.

  • Reply 39 of 119
    flaneur wrote: »
    We see here Apple, the marketing company that can't innovate, stealing ideas again.


    This is a 1950s Tatra V12 air-cooled Diesel which clearly is the inspiration for the thermal-vortex design:

    <img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="37121" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/37121/width/500/height/1000/flags/LL" style="; width: 500px; height: 412px">



    /s

    Hardly.


    An old saying -- going back to the halcyon days at General Motors, might apply here:

    "There's no substitute for cubic inches!"
  • Reply 40 of 119
    How spoiled by cheese-box commoditized PCs we've become. I spent $5000 for a Mac years ago ($10,000 in today's dollars) that my iPhone could beat today. This machine is a steal.


    And the prize for the most expensive Mac ever [for retail sale] goes to:


    700

    Apple Laserwriter II.jpg
    Apple Laserwriter II
    Introduced March 1, 1985
    Discontinued February 1, 1988
    Cost $6,995 -- 2013 dollars $15,151.65
    Processor Motorola 68000
    Frequency 12 MHz
    Minimum 1.5 MB
    Maximum 1.5 MB
    Slot 1
    ROM 512 kB
    Ports Serial, LocalTalk
    Type Laser
    Color 1
    DPI 300
    Speed 8 Pages Per Minute
    Language PostScript, Diablo 630
    Power 760 Watts
    Weight 77 lb
    Dimensions (H × W × D) 11.5 × 18.5 × 16.2 in

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaserWriter


    But, hey, it had PostScript!
Sign In or Register to comment.